To believe or not

It is said that one of the most imperative tools of any storytelling is the suspension of disbelief. The ability for the Storyteller to present an idea or situation and the listener to sit back, nod along and go with the flow. And it all comes down to the very tepid and ill-shaped thing known as 'believability'. "Can I buy this", "Does the story do enough to suspend by perception of what is real and what isn't." Without that there is always a distance between us and the story, a film behind which we observe ourselves more than we observe the story- and when you're in that state it's near impossible to be driven emotionally, feel the adventure, react to the stakes. It is the death of immersion.

But how does the act of 'believability' translate into gaming? That's actually something more of a nuanced question, because the very nature of a game does not engender itself to 'true to life depictions'. You create a game where the character needs to eat and sleep and go to the toilet in order to function in their day to day and 9 times out of ten you've made a boring gameplay loop that people don't want to engage with. One bullet deaths? An unfun overly brutal game. But there is still a balance to be struck, as evidenced by the philistine spread of that mostly misunderstood concept coined as 'Ludonarrative Dissonance' that bevies of half-educated luddites cite as though proof reading their own dissertations. People can sense when something doesn't feel right, even if they can't quite verbalise why that is. 

The very nature of how most modern games play out means that we can never really create a one-to-one parity. When a gameplay loop is built around shooting bad guys- it makes sense to throw dozens of enemies at the player even though a sensible mind will tell you that one guy in a fight against several bigger dudes is never going to work out for them. At moments like that what is 'believable' shifts in perspective to how we are presented with these scenarios- what little branches are offered to the audience that they can sell themselves into this world. A world were one men armies exist and bullets sting like a wasp poke.

Given that I've been playing through them recently, the Mafia games come to mind when I consider this. Games with their fare share of ridiculous explosive set pieces- but set against fairly comprehensives crime narratives about the nature of organised crime and how the desire to always get more eats away at yourself, those around you and very nature to enjoy the life you thought you wanted. Mafia tempers it's more explosive moments with a relatively sedate pacing for a video game, where the evolving and devolving life of these mafiosos are placed in contrast to the bursts of violence and death. It's a great sobering device to keep us in the frame of mind to 'believe' in this world and the consequence of our brutality. Then Mafia 3 kind of spat on all that, but we're focusing on the positives today.

Tomb Raider, the remakes, are one such game that gets brought up often- largely because of half-heads who can't comprehend what stakes in a narrative are. I always found that new Lara to be very well attuned to realism in the manner of 'consequence'. They went as hard as they could into the explosive set-pieces and insane magical insanity- as long as they could back everything up with grounding consequence on the otherend- and it really worked out! Lara had to kill so many to survive that original island, and watch all her friends die or drift away after the fact- landing her in therapy. She saw supernatural happenings before her very eyes, making her an intellectual outcast after the fact. She learned of a great secret society praying on the hidden world, making her a paranoid recluse. Living in a world where A equals B is a great tool for having that world feel like it matters.

And on the more extreme example side we have the likes of Borderlands. Yes, I know- "Borderlands? How is that a game that can sell a believability to it?" And to that I would like to reiterate- we're talking about the player's ability to buy into this world of belief. It's all about being believable within the space you've created. If there's a wacky world in the ass-end of the universe were bullets are more common than water- then I want to believe in everything that comes with that sort of setting. A dusty and rustic world were civilisation are all but tiny rare pockets against a land gone mad- that sense of prevailing isolation amidst the crazed wackiness of the local power players. When you start softening the edges of a world like that- you lose that carefully crafted image. Suddenly Borderlands no longer feels like Borderlands anymore now that it's just a bad-joke factory. 

Of course this works best with a game like Grand Theft Auto. One that bills itself around capturing, and then mocking, the state of modern life. Rockstar do this immensely well, bringing entire cities to life and extracting just the right slices of culture for mockery- but if we take this to the other degree and talk about immersion than it would probably be the Red Dead Games that take the cake from the catalogue. Lean slices of the mid-to-south west brought to a interactive playspace that feels weighty. Where you track and hunt, pick up bounties, get drunk and start bar fights: Red Dead delights in spicing up the mundane to be just exciting enough- striking this careful balance between the realistic and the playable. A masterclass, some might say.

At the end of the day all this talk about what is and isn't believable amounts to little more than a studying of tools- tools with which artists create entertainment that grabs and moves us. Breaking through the tough skin of the fictional becomes harder as we move into an age of more all consuming entertainment but as artists it will forever be our duty to stay ahead of all of that and sink our teeth into the real next level ways our work can snake into the hearts of the public. Immersion is just another one of those tools that can cut through so much of the doubt and dissention when used right, to the right audience and create the truly unforgettable.  

Oh right, we got Borderlands 4 now...

 

Marketing majors must be turning over in their seats at the way the cross-market games industry is flubbing this years' biggest events. On one hand you've got Bethesda putting out the widely enjoyed Fallout show and totally failing to capitalise on that momentum with anything substantive- rather just enjoying the backwards spike in previous games that success warranted. And now you've got Borderlands which absolutely did have a big announcement coming up, unfortunately it followed the tie-in release of what some are calling the single worst movie of the year. In a year that debuted Madame Web. And that, well that is certainly going to rub off on the way that people see the announcement- particularly considering how Borderlands is currently being viewed.

Borderlands has pretty much always had a market, even back when they had to create it for the original title. People just immediately connected with the collect-athon prospect of gun piling and the environment of the original game was fun enough to bunny hop around whilst blasting cell-shaded bad guys to meaty giblets within. Borderlands 2 was really where the franchise hit it's hump though- dialling up the humour and the colours and the gameplay loop so far that few could consider that game anything less than a bonafide classic. Some still consider the title one of the wittiest around, even if some of the modes of humour have dated somewhat across the years- good writing remains good writing through tastes, it would seem. And in B2's case- that witty writing elevated Gearbox's largely weak narrative composition skills.

Tales from the Borderlands, however, offered us the very same world through the lens of competent storytellers at the now-defunct Telltale- who delivered a set of ordinary non-super characters to this world that wormed into everyone's hearts for their distinctiveness as well as their heartfelt ethos- something that Gearbox couldn't pull off themselves if their lives depended on it. Rhys and Vaughn's journey really set the stage for how expansive this franchise could become if the creator's allowed it- crawling out from under the gameplay into becoming a competent vehicle of stories all of it's own. Which might be what made the Borderlands movie sting even more. We know it can be done well- so why can't they do it well?

Borderlands 3 is a well documented sag- and you don't need me to tell you that. Crappy villains, a total disconnect between design and performance, questionable design philosophies- they've essentially gone the way of Bethesda- losing touch with what their fans actually want and bizarrely struggling to reclaim that basic connection title after title. (I'm still utterly stunned that Bethesda can't figure out what kind of Legendary Weapons we want to discover- good lord!) More stunningly, in Borderlands' case, is the distinct loss of identity the franchise suffered. None of the charm, wit or atmosphere of the original two games survived into the third to the point where outside of the raw gameplay loop which was actually half decent- not incredible but good enough- the game felt like a bad parody of what Borderlands was supposed to be.

With Borderlands 4 what one would really hope for is a bit of a reset button hit on what these games are even supposed to be. Bring us back to the routes of the franchise to start with and then carry that spirit forward to paint a universe better in line with desolate and weird frontier of anarchy that 'Borderlands' defined. Bring back 'weird' instead of the vapid and commercial cousin of weird: "Quirky". But in order to improve yourself, first one needs to acknowledge that there is a problem to begin with- and nothing with the way that Borderlands has trended, the products it's put outs or the statements spluttered out by Gearbox director Randy Pitchford- has indicated any self awareness in this manner.

Which it was makes it so sad that Borderlands 4 was announced just a few days out from the terrible movie that encapsulated what everyone thought the current creatives of the franchise were edging towards. Vapid, unamusing and dull- crap. The movie captured nothing of what Borderlands was and nothing of what the fans want it to be. And of course you have Randy Pitchford going on and on about how much he loved the movie, and you have to wonder if any lessons even could be learned. This is a man who raved about the success of Tiny Tina's Wonderland even despite the all around aura of "don't care" that game received. Why? Because the profit margins were favourable. Is this really a head we can trust to... you know... improve the brand?

At the very least we can trust Randy and his team in one important regard- they know how to make a fun game. When the controller is in your hands and you are between story beats Borderland 3 plays like an absolute dream and that is the one of the most important aspects of a video game- if that was tripping we'd really have a problem. Of course, gameplay alone isn't going to help the culture around the game from spreading and really keeping this franchise as evergreen as it was in the days of 2- but at the very least it'll keep reviews favourable and early sales high. It's a shame that we're in a situation where we apparently have to choose between one or the other but what are you gonna do when the company head is delusional?

So with Borderlands 4 on the horizon all we can really do is prepare for the next assault on the senses whilst wondering if we can finagle a 'mute all jokes' option into the settings and call it an 'accessibility feature'. There is absolutely no grounds to believe that Gearbox is going to getting any more in touch anytime soon and as long as Randy is leading them they'll likely continue to learn the wrong lessons in everything but gameplay. I guess Randy is so very lucky that this is the creative field that he works in because boy-howdy would be up a creek if he were literally anywhere else. Also, no more movies on Borderlands, please- it was a terrible idea to begin with.

Regrettably, the Borderlands movie is real

 

Some part of me just filed away the Borderlands movie into 'cancelled' territory without a lick of evidence to back up that assumption. I just subconsciously breathed a sigh of relief that such a bizarre and seemingly doomed concept was never going to seriously make it to film and went about my day a free-er feeling man. And a fool of a man. (Fool of a Took!) Because the game obviously hadn't been canned in the days since Randy Pitchford invaded the set with a handcam and giddy schoolboy's temperament. That wasn't even really part of the marketing cycle, just Randy being a wierdo, so I can't even be upset we've had to wait this long to hear anything and feel vindicated in my writing it off. I just straight gaslighted myself and the unpleasant grimace of realising that impending asteroid I thought we dodged is actually still headed in a collision course has been plastered across my face since watching the trailer.

It started with seeing the poster for the movie doing the rounds online getting a straight flashbang about the aesthetic the movie is going for. So it's official- no post processing whatsoever- what we see it what we get. Which is kind of a bummer if I'm being honest. Without a doubt one of the most memorable aspects of the Borderlands franchise is it's visual identity hinged on the heavy-line cell shaded dynamic, perhaps one of the two only examples wherein such a processing trick has been sought-out not just to mimic an 80's pulp comic aesthetic. I did wonder for a while how such a technique would work running in an ostensibly live action movie, but judging from that poster look of the cast posing like a crew of high budget cosplayers- they're playing it straight with this one.

I'm not personally sure whether or not this alone has deprived the project of something, or if that would have just been a crutch in lieu of a popping visual eye if they had kept in the cell-shaded approach. Because either way, the movie does not seem to capture the same primary starkness of Borderlands, in matching tone and environment. Upon realising that the trailer had released at the same time as the poster, I subjected myself to the full thing to see if the team had made it work without and... I'm not blown away. I'm not entirely repulsed either- but sometimes being caught between the middle of two extremes is the worse way to feel. I mean it's great for the movie makers, who can use this as a chance to either blow me away or let me down horrendously- but I feel absolutely no innate confidence that makes me trust in the project. 

Borderlands over the past few years has been undergoing something of an identity crisis as the games lost that spark of wittiness that populated the franchises' most celebrated age. That perception of Borderlands as 'the funny shooter' game doesn't seem to have survived through Borderlands 3's life cycle of products as fans have been treated to the core game itself- which often mistook 'annoying' for 'quirky' and 'sex reference' for 'wit'- Tiny Tina's Wonderlands which felt undersupplied with content for many out there and is often overlook consequentially, and 'New Tales from the Borderlands' which inherited the legacy of Telltale's funniest game and perhaps Borderland's as a whole's funniest outing, and missed the mark completely. They missed out on the character writing, the emotional heart of the themes, the knowledge of what makes a joke and situation funny and just the general layout of what would be an interesting and engaging narrative. It feels like a lame sitcom about crazy weed-fuelled lunatics written by a team that have never touched a bong in their lives. The 'hello fellow losers' energy is wild.

All this has left a certain vibe off the Borderlands franchise, the stale waft of faded glories clogging up the franchise like salary men who still show up at their fraternity house warming parties expecting not to get tackled to the dirt by campus security. (Was that appropriately American enough of an analogy for you?) And to be completely honest with you- I don't actually detect an abhorrent amount of that on this trailer. Don't get me wrong, it looks like a rough facsimile of what the games represent, and the 'humour' hasn't even coaxed so much as a wry smile out of me from the trailer highlights, but I wouldn't call it terrible- which is a shock and a half to me!

Oh, and please don't misconstrue my lack of disregard as positivity- I am certain this movie is going to suck. It presents absolutely nothing interesting in a world defined by interesting characters doing interesting things. If Borderlands was just about shooting and blowing things up all day, the games would not have lasted as long as they have, Borderlands is about the way you shoot things up- the crazy creatures you're fighting, the creative guns your shooting, the flashy powers you're popping- of which this trailer bizarrely displayed none. I mean, we didn't even get to Roland drop a turret, let alone see Lilith use any of those Siren powers she's supposed to have! Speaking of- I didn't happen to see any of Lilith's siren tattoo's... are we... are we not doing a reimagination? Or have they reimagined the game so much as to reconstruct what Siren's even are? Lilith is already a bit of a boring character, she'll be especially dull without her defining powers.

And aside from that, there are the little things that don't quite line-up tonally. For one, I think the trailer is being narrated by Patricia Tanis, but it's hard to tell considering their choice of actress of Lilith, Cate Blanchet, sounds a lot like Jamie Lee Curtis in her delivery. But assuming it is Tanis, there's very little character in the lines she's been fed. Tanis from the games is a once promising scientist driven past her breaking point to a state of airy apathy after being exposed to the rigors of Pandora and it's unhinged residents. The narration sounded just like an older woman reading a trailer script- it was uninspired. And another little thing- their 'funny' line of "We have something they don't, baby girl- major issues." Irks me in a couple ways. Firstly- you're on Pandora- a planet defined by a population of 100% psycho lunatics. Everyone has issues in that scenario, the line is incorrect. Secondly, and I know this is being mean, her delivery of 'Baby girl' is so damned weak. I know it's unfair comparing the acting prowess of an actual actor like Ashley Burch with a... wait, no this girl is an actor too... would it kill her to try and act like Tina? Just a bit?

I know there are going to be people who love this film when it launches. It has that campy vibe which will resonate with the kind of fans of Borderlands who still find the tired joke format and delivery of 'loud guy is loud', 'corrupt guy is corrupt' etc- funny. But personally, I smell a movie that is going to be totally lacking in value behind it's referential content. Deprive this movie of it's Borderlands connection and it'd be called another boring shooting movie with a few cool design decisions but an ultimately uninspired delivery. And yes, that was me pre-reviewing the film before it's even made it to cinemas- and we'll get to see how well that sentiment ages when it drops! (I'm pretty foresightful on these kinds of 'adaptation' films. I think I've got a decent shot!) 

Borderlands and the amazing vanishing movie!

 Randy's magician talents are truly improving!

Volition's punishment.

Almost

Consequences for one's actions are rarely a concept we see explored and highlighted outside of school life, wherein it's the be-all end-all of life discussions. Because in the real world that's not entirely true, or only part of the truth, or a straight up lie altogether. Actions can sometimes never be traced to a direct causal link and who can honestly say whether or not their downturn in life is a direct result of their own negligence or a general slippery slope maybe somewhat helped along by their own actions. It's a murky and misty mire to try and tread across where there's no real right route. Except if you happen to be a company called Volition. Because in their case; Saints Row absolutely was the reason that their company is soon having the reigns around it's independence tightened.

 

This news comes from the lips of horrible Lovecraftian amalgamation monster 'Embracer Group' as they recently turned around and cut Volition's independence. Which is quite stark because I didn't even know Embracer Group owned them. Who else does Embracer Group own? Do they own me, and I just don't know it? If so, I'd really like to start getting some cheques in the mail any day now, Embracer Senpai; maybe then I'd stop laying dirt on your companies name! Embracer has decreed that Volition to be rolled under the wing of the producer Gearbox- wait, Embracer own Gearbox as well? I thought that was Epic Games! (Wait- actually now I come to think of it I just collate those two company founders as the same person because they're both equally childish. Now I remember...)

And how can we be sure that this is the victim of the recently released Saints Row Reboot game? I mean, what if this is simply because of the terrible losses of- let me check... The last game they made before that was 2017's Agents of Mayhem? Hmm... yeah I can't really see a scapegoat for them on this one. But the punishment doesn't seem to quite fit the crime, at least; not how Deep Silver seemed to describe the reception of Saints Row.  Listen to the word of 'corporate' and all you would hear, time and time again, was how the game is absolute not a failure. They said that, whilst the game was 'divisive' critically, the commercial sales proved more than enough to break even- oh wait, now I can see the subtle hints that this game didn't perform well... huh, funny I didn't notice that until this very moment...

Still, it's a little bit screwed up for your boss to ensure you that everything is going totally fine only for your entire department to be kicked out from their purview and under the eyes of another wobbly supposedly comedic video game company within the space of a few months. (Does this mean that the several chunks of menu options in the remake that were locked away for DLC will remain forever greyed out? No, apparently Deep Silver get to handle that stuff by themselves) Heck, there were members of the Volition team that themselves felt the need to bitterly stand up to the criticism of their work as self-appointed Twitter warriors. I can understand the passion, which makes sense when your very competence is challenged on a public forum; but perhaps those individuals would have ended up feeling a bit less worthless if they hadn't fought against perceptions of their game for month only for the bosses boss to agree with the haters and strip away all autonomy your studio had for the crime of delivering a truly atrocious game.

Which is not to say that I think Saints Row Reboot wasn't bad enough to destroy the franchise. If anything, the reboot's desperate attempts to strip away the identity of Saints Row to appeal to some imaginary mass market of Saints fans that were only waiting for the game to become less crude before they could really fall in love with the franchise, just highlighted how much the series was played out and empty. Honestly, Saints Row struggled to find itself years before the Reboot came around, this was just the shuddering final nail in that coffin. And since Volition's only other franchise has been itself awol for the past eleven years; I guess that made it a nail in Volition's coffin at the same time. As twisted as it sounds, this was probably a long time coming.

But does this mean the death of Saints Row and Volition? Not necessarily. The company still exists under the producing management of Gearbox, so there might be a chance for a surprise resurgence some years down the line if Gearbox can be tricked into financing such a thing. Although the scant Saints Row Reboot fans may have to come to terms with the sobering reality that it might be with yet another reboot to the brand. Afterall, pissing off the fanbase with a low quality game is one thing, but doing that and just about making a profit at the same time is pretty much a carnal sin of commercial work. The next time Saints Row sees the light of day we'll be in a different age and it'll carry the Gearbox badge and probably their cringe as well. The real question is whether or not that Gearbox logo will mean the game will be better or worse... after New Tales from the Borderlands, that's anyone's guess... (At least it might play better.)

Until that magical day, however, I suppose all we can do is look back on the demented life of the Saints Row franchise and try to remember the good in what it was. This was supposed to be the bold new face of the franchise and it was just awful. Unfortunately it was too awful to be continued, which is a bit of a shame because I was kind of hoping they'd go crazy and make this a bi-yearly series of hilariously bad cringe games. But apparently the 'I know it's abjectly terrible but I'm a hipster so I'm going to play it anyway' crowd isn't nearly as big as it likes to pretend it is on Twitter. And considering Twitter is soon to be the way of the dodo; I guess it's not really tenable for Volition to hide behind those loud accounts as proof of their apparently broad market appeal.

Of course I feel bad for Volition. I don't particularly love any one of their recent games, and have even fallen hard out of love with Saints Row 2 in recent years, but any developer stuck making one single game franchise for over a decade is unethical in my opinion. No artist wants to reiterate on the same themes they did before again and again, they want to change it up and keep things feeling fresh and interesting. Saints Row didn't even start as something unique and everytime it's tried to make itself into anything new the end product has veered closer to 'clueless' with every step. I know shifts of the status quo like this tend to lead to lay-offs; and that is one instance where I feel unabashedly bad. It is surprising I must say, the sheer stopping power of rank mediocrity. 

The state of the Borderlands

Never mess with accountants- you can always count on us, out numbering you.

Hey there kiddo, are you still up? I just wanted to touch base for a bit about this whole 'Borderlands' thing that's going on. Do you think you're good to talk about it? Why don't we start with how the series is right now, then we can go onto where it's going. How's that sound? Have I sufficiently made you uncomfortable enough with that intro yet? Good, because we're going to be talking about a series that is increasingly making me more comfortable for the direction that's it's going, the attention that it's receiving and the company who is making it. Okay, I don't really care about the company, but it's CEO, Randy, is sufficiently creepy enough to set off anyone's alarm bells by my estimation. And the reason I pick this up is because I'm confused about Borderlands. Where it is, where it's going, and most importantly of all how I feel about all of it, so let us explore.

Borderlands 3 was the last game out of the series and it was by most metrics a resounding success, improving on every aspect of the last game aside from the character writing (but that was an impossible task anyway, lets be fair) Borderlands 3 scored well and sold better, proving to the many doubtful that Borderlands is indeed back. And that's the point I want to harp on because it really does seem like Gearbox are doubling down to ensure this series never goes quiet again, and as much as I love being smothered in more of what I love; I think we're all well aware of the dangers of oversaturation and too much of a good thing. Sometimes it helps to have a series cool down for a bit before we pick things back up when they're steel burning red-hot. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, as they say. 

For it's time, Borderlands 2 was pretty much a landmark release dominating the gaming cultural zeitgeist of 2012. And that was a packed year, let me tell you; Far Cry 3, ACIII, Mass Effect 3, Diablo... 3, (What's with all the 3's) Max Payne 3, (Okay seriously, what the heck?) Halo 4 (Oh thank god.) and Dishonoured. But even with that competition Borderlands 2 practically soared with a dedicated community, unending hype and chatter, and a fanbase so hungry for more that they went out and willing bought 'The Pre-Sequel' two years later. (That takes some serious brain washing.) But after that considerably less fun half-sequel, and the incredible TellTale game, Tales from the Borderlands, the series went utterly quite for nearly half a decade! For a series that now seems such an integral part of Gearbox's identity, it seems nigh on unbelievable that they went so long without chirping about it, but think about what that silence allowed for.

Speculations built on rumors, built on hopes, for years on end as aspiring Vault Hunters waxed and waned for years guessing and second guessing when their favourite cell-shaded looter was going to come soaring over that sand dune in one of Scooters beat-up buggies again. (All the while hoping that very pointed final line of Borderlands 2's main story wasn't alluding to an upcoming MMO, as that's what it really sounded like.) Time away gave the creators space to settle down and evaluate exactly the gameplay mechanics which made Borderlands 2 so successful and work at expanding or even subverting them for something superior. And that was time they really needed, because we know that when you rush the team they end up spewing out headscratchingly dumb ideas like "Let's take away the gravity, add in an oxygen gauge and make traversal a needless obtuse nightmare". (Sorry, Pre-Sequel: I just... really don't like you.)

But we're not getting that space this time around, and right on cue it's leading to just terrible ideas. The Borderlands Movie; why? I'm not saying that a comedic action-fuelled romp starring lovable and silly character's can't be fun, but why does it have to be Borderlands? A series who's identity, aside from jokes, is great gunplay, addictive looting spirals, superbosses and a whole bunch more interactive elements. Now I'll be the first to admit that Tales from the Borderlands was fantastic, but then Tales from the Borderlands was allowed to be it's own thing with it's own characters who could be built for the very purpose of being weedy quip-firing non-combatants in a world owned by violence. Their being out of place in a savage world was the crux of the premise. But this movie? I don't know if it understands that. We're getting the Borderlands 1 crew as the stars, and already the casting feels... off. Okay, I'm signalling in on Kevin Hart as the Lovable, even tempered leader, Roland. Aside from being Black, which at least they remembered to nail that, how does any of Kevin Hart's acting prowess line up with the Roland we know? And if this is 'a different take on the character', then why does it feel like he's going to be so 'different' that he'll essentially be a whole new character? The whole project just feels off to me.

And then there's the Tiny Tina swords and sorcery spin-off title which is coming out at some point, I can't remember. It seems like they've been teasing the thing for years at this point, and it's only been about 10 or so months. This one I find interesting, because unlike the movie I think it's a really cool idea. Tiny Tina's DnD themed DLC for Borderlands 2 was a fan favourite and it almost seemed like a given she'd get another go for Borderlands 3. But expanding that into a full blow spin-off game with Fantasy elements, new characters and apparently there's a whole new class of Melee weapon too. I say 'apparently' because in a stupid amount of publicity since the announcement I haven't seen a single clip of a melee weapon in extended use. Thus I can assume that it's an incredibly rudimentary Oblivion-style chop-stick melee system that the team are too embarrassed to tout.

With all this I have to wonder, where exactly are we going with Borderlands? Because it's no longer a fun little romp we visit every now and then to see what's up in the world of these silly desert outlaws, now there's a movie in the works and more games and probably even more stuff beyond that we haven't even heard about yet, this is feeling like a syndicated series. Now I know that Gearbox are much bigger than they once were, so taking on more frequent and/or bigger projects is all part of the territory which comes with this sort of expansion, but I wonder about what it would be like if Borderlands eventually became a series as overproliferated as, say, Assassin's Creed. With it's books, it's awful move, it's secret TV-show in the works, and endless copy-paste games. Will the special spark of this Looter that shows other looters how it's done be lost? Will, most importantly, the spark of ingenuity that feeds the creatives grow dim from exhaustion? Will future Borderlands slip from exception into average?

It's seems like more the job of soothsayers to judge the changing of the seasons on innocuous winds, but I never think it's premature or unfair to stop and take stock of where we are and where it seems to be heading. It's clear that Gearbox wants to become a bigger company, and it if it does that Borderlands will become it's flagship series, (or rather, it will continue to be) and I think it's only right we prepare for the consequences of that. I love Borderlands and the base monkey-instinct inme  makes me hungry for as much of the series as I can shove down my throat, but the cautious Ape-instinct side of me knows that overfeeding makes the pastures run dry. I'm glad to see the series looking healthy, I just hope it continues to play out in a healthy fashion for the series in the transitory years to come.

So about that Gearbox conference...

And at the tenth circle of hell...

At the start of it's life, E3 was a trade show made for huge video game publishers to flaunt their upcoming projects for the health of their company. Simple as that. It was just an opportunity to say "hey everybody, this is what we're working on and I think you better start squirrelling away some disposal income for our day one sales, what do ya say?" As the years went by and the industry shifted, the event has largely retained that purpose whilst slowly adopting a bit of 'celebrating the artform' thrown in there for good measure. Still, in it's current iteration E3 is the flagship event of the year for gamers as it marks the time when we can sit down and cross our fingers as all the biggest games of the year are going to be announced here first and foremost. Well, that is unless they are booked for the VGAs. Or if they wind up as part of the independent showcases that all the console developers are doing now, such as 'Nintendo Direct', Sony's 'State of Play', and Microsoft's 'Everybody shut up and look out of live stream with the games and everything'. Or they just decide to have reveal whenever the heck they want to because we live in an open digital age now. Okay, so E3 doesn't hold the monopoly over the gaming industries news that it once did, in fact a lot of the time the rigidity and archaic practises of the event are widely, and rightly, mocked. But the expectations are still there each and every year; because we gamers just want a time of the year to come together and see the games.

They could have at least thrown in some new screenshots...

This event for showcasing games has gone through drastic evolutions throughout the years as the art of game marketing has shifted and changed to meet consumer demand. Once upon a time we'd see swathes of CGI trailers that ooh and wow, but didn't really show anything about the game in question. That's a practise now mostly frowned upon, especially as it's seen as a waste of resources that could have gone to the game itself. We used to see unbelievably grandiose composite gameplay that oversold what the final product would play like, but that's been stamped out for the large part by annoyed gamers who were burned one time too many by one devotee of this practise in particular. (Here's looking at you, Ubisoft.) And announcements would come out for projects years down the line, until enough cancellations and broken promises made companies realise that it's better to wait until the thing is at least likely to be out before the next E3, else you get stuck with another 'The Last Guardian' on your hands. 

These are just some of the many rules that go towards hosting a successful E3 conference, and as the industry event has begun to open up and allow many more companies to hold their conferences in this space, these expectations have bled onto them. We don't cotton to the pathetic 'Epic Store excuse' of "Oh, well it took those guys decades to get their ducks in a row so we should be allowed some decades of our own!", no we expect developers entering the position of being able to host their very own conference to hold themselves to the high standards we set upon everyone. That doesn't mean they always do, and right now the problem of "Showcasing when you only really had a single game to show off" is starting to permeate the practise and its becoming a struggle to insist to these companies that taking a year off is completely fine if this conference is going to a dry wasteland. Because at the end of the day we're not here for your quirky little comedy bits, or your 'personality'; we want games. Plain and simple.

As long as you stick to those rules, there's not really many ways you can go wrong. Which is why when you go out of your way to systematically break all of them, you'll do far more than just disappoint your audience; you'll utterly confuddle them. Thus was the case with this year's Gearbox E3, which I believe was the very first solely Gearbox headed conference that they've ever done. (I know they did their own event thing for the Borderlands 3 announcement, but I think that was actually independent of E3 as I remember.) Personally I heard about the existence of this conference and was struck with some immediate pause as I never really considered Gearbox as a studio large enough to warrant an E3 conference of their own, but then I thought about all the games they had under their belt, Borderlands, BOA, Duke Nukem, Homeworld, etc. And I figured this might not be a total waste of time. I can now saw that I was very wrong about that assessment.

How about we start with the big one, the thing that everyone wanted to see. In the leadup to this event, Gearbox had come out of nowhere to announce the very first standalone spin-off game to Borderlands called Tiny Tina's Wonderlands. A fullblown fantasy spin-off title in the vein of her Dungeons and Dragon's themed DLC for Borderlands 2, but expanded into a fully fleshed out and realised world space. Of course, that's fantasy with guns as well as magic, because Borderlands has a brand to maintain and swords ain't gonna cut it. What we'd seen for that announcement was a single CGI trailer and we wanted some actual gameplay come E3 time, and you know what we got? We got the same trailer... and then they talked about the game. Or rather, a single developer answered two surface level question atop gameplay of the aforementioned Borderlands 2 DLC... Huh...

That was perhaps the biggest letdown of this event, seeing as how a reveal of Wonderlands gameplay would have made for a perfect showstopper event, (If they didn't have any gameplay ready, then why did they even announce the thing?) but Gearbox don't do things in half measures apparently. Why upset us just a little bit when they can go all the way? Homeworld 3 was spoken of during this event, but to a degree even more insignificant then Wonderlands was. We got little vignettes between panels of developers proving they still knew what Homeworld was, all in the brief 20 seconds they had before the 'important' parts of the conference rolled through. Okay, so what was it that Gearbox wanted us to see more than the sequel to that beloved classic RTS game?

Godfall. God, I forgot Gearbox published that. How bizarre that someone could just excrete something as rank as Godfall out for Christmas and then drag it infront of audiences to show them how proud you are of it for E3. Whatsmore, they invited a developer for the thing to talk about it on zoom call, which is essentially just providing a target for all of those disillusioned fans and saying "This here, this is one of the guys responsible for taking your money to pay for this mess!" Godfall is a bad game, and the fact that it got the second most amount of screen time in this conference is an absolute crime. Whatsmore, it was the only game of this conference that got new footage! At least I think it was new. (This game's architecture and design intent is so bland that it's hard to differentiate the new from the old.) The only amount of entertainment I managed to get out of this panel was at the game's expense, given how aside from some DLC announcements, the big reveal for Godfall was the upcoming PS4 port. A port you say? For the game you personally advertised as only possible on Next gen? That's quite some crow to eat there, Gearbox my lads.

And of course it gets worse. How could it possibly? With the pinnacle of cringe, of course. You see, one of the most interesting tidbits that has been floating around Gearbox of late was the feature length movie adaptation of Borderlands. It's coming up, it has an allstar cast, and I think it's pretty sensible to be excited about that prospect. And if you're the CEO of Gearbox, Randy Pitchford, you're clearly a little too excited about it. Due to what I can only assume were explicit demands from the man himself, half of the time for this conference was taken up by panels of Randy on the set of the film and plodding around a soundstage like a wonderstruck child. Clearly this has been a childhood fantasy for him, and I'm starting to think the only reason Gearbox had a conference at all was so that Randy had an excuse to broadcast all of this. (For bragging rights, I guess?)

If you came to E3 looking for games then I'm sorry to disappoint you, this conference here became the Randy show with regularly scheduled interval updates featuring nothing more than his gormless face desperately trying to snake around this soundstage whilst showing of literally nothing cool whatsoever. (because he clearly hadn't bothered to ask the movie studio for some sort of exclusive tease that would make all of this tedium at least somewhat worthwhile) But where does the cringe come in? Well aside from watching a grown man waste our time for his own selfish amusement in the middle of a ludicrously expensive advertising slot, there were the 'interviews'. (see 'ambushes' in your textbooks.) I know for a fact that all of this footage was all off-the-cuff, and that's not from the couple of times they had to literally cut away for fear of something actually interesting (and under NDAs) coming into frame. I know because he dragged several key members of the crew in front of the camera to ask breathy, uninspired questions that one might expect a teenager to devise when put before a film crew. These poor victims always looked surprised and unprepared for these encounters and thus provided whatever answer would get Randy away from them as soon as possible. This was crowned, of course, by the one celebrity he managed to get into the shot: 'Kevin Hart', a man who sounded genuinely annoyed when Randy went knocking on his trailer for another adlib interview. For unintentional cringe comedy gold, I'd actually recommend watching a supercut of these clips because they seriously give 'The Office' a run for it's money at times.

So that, in a nutshell, was the Gearbox conference, and can I just say; why did you hold that, Gearbox? I mean, I know why you held it; Randy Pitchford was giddy as heck about his visit to a soundstage and wanted an excuse to show off his terrible footage to the world; but why did you humour him? Where are the investors to clap Randy around the ear and tell him to leave well enough alone? Without them, we've now got a contender for worst conference of E3 2021, and I personally believe it wins the gauntlet. There was another event which showed off just one, already announced, game, (Bandi Namco) but that one wins points for being short, Gearbox's was utterly excruciating. Let this be a reminder and prime evidence that no one company needs to hold an E3 conference if they don't have something to show. Else you wind up so caught in asking whether you could that you never stop to think about whether or not you should. (Thank you for another timely and timeless summary, Jeff Goldblum.)

Gearbox Bought out

 Egads, it's raining acquisition money out here!

I find it hard to formulate my thoughts on Gearbox, or at least in any manner that's consistent and reaches an actual conclusion. On one hand they are the creators of the spectacular Borderlands games, which I love, and on the otherhand they're propagators of some of the shadiest deals I've heard from the industry outside of Activision and EA. Their talent as creators is nigh on inspirational to a no-life like me, but their owner seems like a lunatic who's exploits are more volatile than anyone is his position has any right to facilitate. I want to get behind them and say that I consider Gearbox to be one of the good ones, but I can't quite cross that threshold and it irks me. All of this is to say that I honestly do not know whether it bodes well or ill that they've recently been acquired by THQ.

But first the good; THQ is one heck of a storied name in the industry and it's good to see them making big moves again! I for one, remember them back to some of my earliest gaming memories with the old WWE gamesand of course the classic Saints Row games, but it sort of feels like they've gotten a little lost under the waves in recent years. Don't get me wrong, the publisher still gets out some good games, I loved Desperados 3 and Kingdoms of Amalur ain't half bad, but there hasn't really been that flagship franchise which keeps their logo forever on my startup screen. Not really since Volition took their Saints Row franchise to the dark place. (Has it really been almost 8 years since Saints Row 4? Good god, I'm feeling the existential dread starting to creep up on me again!) Now that THQ has managed to secure Gearbox, a frankly huge studio in their own right, I can only imagine big things coming out of them. Or rather, they want to start making big things in the months to come because 1.3 billion in acquisition dollars demands to be recouped.

Which is why I find myself curious, just what is it that Gearbox have up their sleeve? I'd say that this is pretty much cold confirmation that there's some brand new franchise cooking up in Gearbox's oven, due to the fact that this deal is said to apply for the publishing of future brands and how 'Borderlands' will remain the provision of 2K games. Something big must be stirring for them, and considering how much money went into this deal I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't the start of many big changes. Right now Gearbox is in a pretty blessed position, with a new partner studio in tow and, incredulously, a blockbluster movie about their flagship franchise in the work with a frankly embarrassing amount of talent attached, I'd say this could be the dawn of a new age for Gearbox.

Gearbox hasn't really been a small developer, by anyone's estimation of what constitutes 'small', for a very long time, but they've never really been massive either. According to linkedin Gearbox Software boasts around 500-1000 employees, and whilst I'd say that's plenty for a few studios to operate, I'd wonder if sights aren't set a little higher. Bare in mind that everything I'm saying here is speculation, but I've always felt that Gearbox is one of those names that I expected to be as diverse and sprawling as Blizzard around about now, but they've stayed rather centralised. I always felt like there should be a whole bevy of profitable franchises practically oozing out of Gearbox's offices, but instead we've had but one and a few failed attempts at diversification. Duke Nukem, dud. Aliens, dud. Battleborn, unfortunately a dud. (I liked that game) Maybe now is the day that things start changing, and with THQ backing them perhaps there's the security in place for a bit more experimentation? (Well, lets be honest. More money typically means less experimentation. But at least some more unique AAA series' out of Gearbox, I think we'd all be happy for that.)

My only errant thoughts on the matter is "How is Randy Pitchford gonna mess this up?", because you know Randy is going to try something. The man is like an almost lovable clown who goofs up in all the right ways to make you laugh, but then you remember that he's a important man in charge of the livelihoods of hundreds of talented developers and then suddenly his gaffes don't seem as fun anymore. Let us not forget, for example, the accusations of mismanagement, the loss of sensitive company files (which he lost alongside his porn stash) and the alleged misappropriation of development fund which is legally not proven but it really does make sense given the state of the game which apparently suffered because of it. (Hint: rumours are it was Aliens Colonial Marines) Oh, and then there's just his unprofessional conduct which borders on childish at times. And then there's the fact that he's a magician. Never trust a magician. It's literally their hobby to fool you.

Provided that everything goes to plan, however, THQ could be be on the verge of quite the resurgence on the gaming scene. I mean just these past few years have been crazy for the amount of old IPs that THQ Nordic specifically has been snatching up, we've just been waiting for the studio to actually do something about them. Maybe now they'll have that manpower. They've recently acquired the IPs for Alone in the Dark, Gothic, Risen, Carmageddon (really?), Remnant: From Ashes, Biomutant, Darksiders, Destroy all Humans and, most importantly of all, Timesplitters! Oh god, imagine a Timesplitters from Gearbox! Imagine how absolutely brilliant that would be! Talk about the dream developer to revive one of my favourite franchises of all- oh they sold that IP to Deep Silver. Bummer.

Still, I would love to see Gearbox tackle any one of those former dead series', because we know what that team can do with FPS' but I personally would love to see their takes elsewhere. How would they bring their unique eye and charm to a horror setting like Alone in the Dark, or maybe a new Destroy All Humans game to bank off of the recent trend started by the remake. Am I playing around with my imagination a little here? Yes, but can you blame me?; there's a playground worth of toys now available to Gearbox through THQ and I'm itching to see them go nuts with it. Hell, even a cheap remake of Carmageddon run through the Gearbox studio is sure to have something wild and crazy done to it, I just want to see Gearbox branch out a bit. (Unless THQ decide to buy back Timesplitters and Gearbox want a go at that; that marks the one exception I would jump over the moon for.)

At the end of the day, however, this is really just another billion dollar acquisition that marks the industry getting just the little bit smaller. I'm sure it's everybody's dream to get snapped up by a big publisher with unlimited pockets (Seriously, 1.3 billion! What the heck?) but I wonder if it's good for the creative spirit of the AAA world. Maybe Gearbox isn't the greatest example of creative excellence, the last brand new game out of them which wasn't an FPS was 2011's 'Aliens: Infestation', but it's still indicative of a culture of market consolidation. But I've gotten to the point where I'm waxing lyrical about market trends, which means this little diatribe is getting seriously off-track. Overall, Congrats to Randy on his impending third mansion, I'm sure he needs it.

Bonus, Bonus; Read all about it!

 How much to get the 'basic human decency' package?

Here's a really sad story from a long while back, one which I only recently became aware of due to a  Lego podcast that did the rounds through the news stratosphere. (Although the event itself is actually further than 20 years ago and the story broke around 8 years ago, so nothing was explicitly new.) Do you know why publishers are so sought after? I mean besides from the cold obvious fact that they can pay for the thing you want to make, I'm talking about the all encompassing reason. It's all about security, having some one behind you that can cover you in the various issues that may arise, whether that be funding, marketing or, if you're really unluckily, the odd managerial dispute. However, back in 1997 when Lego Island was released after two years of work, game development was a lot less established and a lot more 'wild west', if you catch my meaning. I'd like to think that's the only reason why Mindscape's old managers managed to get away with what they did.

You see, by some good grace of the heavens the Mindscape staff managed to get ahold of the Lego brand and were working on bringing out Lego Island; a game which might be seen as a progenitor to TT's incredible crossbrand Lego series. Development appeared to have gone rather well as the team spoke about being certain of the success of the title, something they predicted well because the game was indeed a hit. I even know someone who used to play it as a kid, it really did rock those ever-important day one sales. So where does the 'sad' come into it? Well simple; you see the team were due royalties and bonuses for reaching certain milestones, but rather than cough up what was due, the managerial staff took the nuclear option and fired everyone before collapsing the company. Truly despicable and, might I say, pretty darn indefensible. You'd wonder how they ever got away with not being sued into oblivion, but I suppose it's hard to say what really went down without having been there ourselves.

But what this story did independently grant me was a touch of insight into the fact that there's a lot talk of developers and having sales incentives withdrawn in disproportionate punishment. I mean, ideally I think one would expect that bonuses upon completion would be a standard across the industry, but in retrospect it's hardly a secret that people tend to get squirrelly whenever money is involved, so shenanigans and 'technically's is an inevitability. Of course I have an example in mind, you know I do. (Heck, if you know me well enough you already know exactly what my example is.) Because you see, this brings me back to the time when 'Fallout: New Vegas' was turned around by Obsidian in a, frankly, unbelievably quick amount of time with a level of quality that easily outshone anything that the Fallout series had done before and has done since. (Of course, the toss-up for that rush was a pretty buggy release) The bugs managed to drag down the average critic score to 1 point below the threshold that Obsidian needed to secure their bonus from Bethesda. And although Obsidian will, to this day, claim that there's no ill-will harboured over the situation; I still harbour ill-will. New Vegas was the best darn Fallout game ever made and it deserves the respect that it never gets!

Another high-profile bonus dispute was with Borderlands and Gearbox, although that story does seem a little more nuanced due to the way that the sides actually actively refute each other, as opposed to the others wherein everyone is oddly upfront about the situation. What I know is that Gearbox had a system in place wherein the success of the games/company would result in higher bonuses, implying that this wasn't a fixed rate. For Borderlands 2 the game was such a success that some recounted tails of employees buying second houses and the like. (Which as a rule I find distasteful, but hey it's your money; screw the local housing market with it as you please.) Borderlands 3 however, didn't do as well with sales? I question because- well, that seems questionable. To be clear, I'll talking about proportionate success, so whereas Borderlands 3 sold more than Borderlands 2, apparently the development/marketing costs weren't surpassed to as great an extent as Gearbox had hoped.

As I said, there's inherently a 'he said, my data said' slant to that story which makes it a tad unpalatable, but the lo-down is thus; Borderlands 3 Devs didn't get the bonuses they were hoping for. Which isn't to say that they didn't get paid at all, but that things weren't apparently nearly as good as when Borderlands 2 released, which doesn't really make sense when you consider the exponential growth of the gaming market and the way that Borderlands 3 sold 50% more than 2 did, and just the natural rule about how sequels tend to mean bigger and better. You've got to wonder just how much Gearbox sunk into their cringey marketing campaigns (because we all know how the big parts of the budget always goes to the misguided marketing attempts) in order to hobble the company profits so hardily. Or is something a tad more nefarious going on? I couldn't say. Or rather, I wouldn't. Ol' mister Randy Pitchford is like to throw a hissy fit whenever challenged. 

Then there was another conversation about bonuses just a few months back, although this time around it seemed like a concerted effort to get ahead of the news. Of course, I'm talking about CDPR and the whole situation with them bungling the launch of Cyberpunk 2077 so badly that rumours are it'll take around 6 months of patches until it begins to actually resemble their development vision. (Though that is by their estimation, so it could be closer to a year) Following the launch it was soon revealed that the developers who has worked themselves silly just to have management undermine everything with lies and an underbaked launch, we're told that they would be getting their promised bonuses. (How magnanimous) It's never really a good sign when you have to be implicitly told that what should be the minimum will, in fact, occur. I mean are we supposed to clap CD for not being scumbags? I guess so...

Creating video games, movies and long form entertainment in general is a daunting proposition that demands a lot out of the folk involved, at every level. Yet, more often than not, it's the backbone holding everything together that find themselves the most in danger in situations like these when money takes precedent over basic morals. Now, of course, by their very nature a 'bonus' shouldn't be a sole source of income to depend upon, (trust me, I've tried living on that sort of life. Isn't worth the stress) but nor should it be a matter of contention once earned. Give people the rewards that they deserve, is there anything wrong with saying that? Nintendo have been said to operate their employee's with a ethos that 'happy and secure people make better games, because you need to be happy to make people happy', and darn it; maybe we all need to take a leaf out of their book every once and a while.

But, look at me, talking about things far above my ken; such as actually having money. Is should probably wrap out before I step out of my knowledge base. But before I do I should reiterate that this is a matter of respect over artists and the value proposition they bring to a project. Whether we're talking about artists wielding brushes or keyboards, these are the people who do everything that those men and their monies couldn't with all the capital in the world, so it makes sense to respect them. Future Lego Island sequels with other contractors never could live up to what that original team produced, and that should be a cautionary tale in it's own. But now I'm literally weighing into drama that's literally almost as old as I am, so that's about it. I'm done.

Uh oh, Godfall sucks

 Allegedly...

The PS5 is finally among us, which means that the age of the launch titles has now officially begun, and these are always interesting times as we see the deluge of games that touch upon what gimmicks the next console can do and see if it's interesting enough for future developers to capitalize upon. (Basically the difference between PS' Six-axis and Xbox Kinect's voice commands.) And right away I can say that from what I've seen, Bluepoint's Demon Souls' remake looks absolutely gorgeous. That seems slightly weird to say about a game set in an intentionally dreary and depressing world, but the developers have done such a great job sprucing things up to the point where Demon Souls looks positively delectable. Those moments in the firey world pop so well it gives me shivers. Of course, this is coming from someone who just recently started a playthrough of the entire DS franchise (I'm reaching the DLC portion of 2) so I'm definitely a little biased. As for the other big launch title (Excluding Spiderman, Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty... and Bugsnax, I guess.) Godfall appears to be everything I thought it would be.

Now to be clear with you all, I have not played Godfall. Nor, judging from what I'm seeing and hearing, will I ever, because it appears to be the sort of game built specifically to piss me off. (I'm sorry that I still haven't finished 'Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel', Gearbox, but I hardly find this as an appropriate recourse) As I recap, from the very first trailer I saw of Godfall I remarked on how unremarkable it looked. I don't know why, but literally everything about this game looked out-of-focus and without purpose to me. The shiny textures looked far too clean, thus losing that sense of realism, the visually impressive armours looked overdesigned, to the point where a visual that could have been cool just looks cluttered and impractical, and the dialogue from the trailer was just a single step better than faux gamer talk. (That doesn't make it good, just better than the absolute worst thing imaginable. Not a high bar.)

But that was the past me, the present me can look at the game as it stands and see... I was mostly right. The textures aren't as bad as I remembered, but everything else pretty much stands. Visually, it must be said, the game looks super pretty in that 'it's the next gen so lets bump everything up' sort of way, but graphical fidelity is only half the battle with me, I'm afraid, I need some solid artistic intent too, and I just don't feel it's there. It's strange to say, because all the essential ingredients are there, from the colourful shrubbery to the large glittering courtyards to the epic sprawling dungeons, but all of it just feels so heartless and barren, and worst of all lacking in identity. If you were to take a screenshot of this game and take out the enemies and the player character it would be impossible to tell what game it was, (aside from through the cool next gen resolution) and even the genre would be a little murky. It would look sort of sci-fi fantasy maybe? (Actually, I guess that does sort of describe the game, doesn't it?)

In fact, this game sort of reminds me off titles like 'Killzone: Shadow Fall' or 'Ryse: Son of Rome'; they're these big polished up extravaganzas of visuals and effects which eclipse what the last generation was capable of in a way which makes the audience "ooh" and "ahh", but the substance isn't there to make the game itself stand out. Not to say that either of those games are terrible (they certainly aren't good) but I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that they stood out as particularly memorable games. Killzone had some gameplay issues and story failing whilst Ryse suffered from- well, mostly the same except the gameplay issues were arguably slightly worse and the story was at least enjoyably corny. So does Godfall improve upon either of those game's track records? Apparently not, if the reviewing public is to be believed.

Now before I go any further it's important that I clear up one thing, this game is a live service. (I honestly don't know why I never made a 'live service' tag given the frequency at which I mention them. It feels a bit 'too little, too late' now.) Now if you're a regular game consumer or just spend your time paying way too much attention to every game which comes out because you have literally nothing better to do, then you'll know two things about this game immediately from that fact alone. Firstly you'll know that there's an inherent lack of content at launch which the developers are already promising to start supplementing as time goes on, and secondly that the gameplay has a good chance of being really rudimentary to the point where it's starting to feel like people forgot that Destiny did so well because it's gunplay was literally impeccable. (Why does it feel like these Live Service games are getting worse with practice?) Oh, and both those points you assumed are true by the way, good job, 5 points to Ravenclaw.

This title is built around a hack-n-slash model which has a distinct and troubling lack of ranged combat. (Don't get me wrong, I usually prefer to be up close and personal in games like these but even I understand the importance of combat variety) As for the hacking and slashing, it's perfectly serviceable for a mid-range title from about 5 years back, but when this is a game advertised alongside Demon Souls, you can't stop me from laughing my butt off. Once again the ingredients are all undeniably there, there's a heavy attack, a light attack and some combo potential, but it all just doesn't come together in any manner you'd be able to get behind. I've been looking around and most all the criticism is the same, combat feels repetitive, enemy variety is lacking and... I'm sorry why do all these Live Service games end up all with the same issues as each other? How is that even possible? Maybe life is just a sick play written by George Lucas and his obsession with 'rhyming'. (I hear it's like poetry)

As for the heart of the game, maybe it's the Dark Souls in me speaking but I like to think we see that best reflected in story. I think that the right story has the potential to unite all the fragments of lore into a sweeping great chain through context given the right conditions, maybe not working as a solve all for every problem, but at least providing the glue that holds it all together. And yes, I know that not every story can be this intricately crafted thematic suite which covers the breadth and morality of the tale whilst simultaneously also touching on the gameplay; those are standards a little too high. But even admitting that, gosh does this goes storyline bore me, I mean seriously. I can barely read a synopsis without falling asleep, let alone watching it myself. It's just about a man who wants to 'become a god' with you (their sibling, I think) working to stop them, it's so barren it really feels as though literally no-one cared enough to devote their creative soul to the project. Apart from the concept artists, I think they really tried, they were just a little lacking in direction.

So is it fair to say Godfall sucks? Well somehow it's turned into one of those games that folk out there have really latched onto, so I suppose not. I've even seen reviews that have gifted it in the mid-range tier whilst admitting that the only thing which makes it so is the graphical fidelity, which doesn't quite compute to this guy over here. We are talking about a game here, right? Shouldn't the gameplay, be a priority? (Oh wait, is this secret game reviewer speak! Like how '7/10' means "This game sucks but we're too scared of being denied our access rights to rate this any lower"? Big if true.) I dunno, but if there's one thing I'm taking from this it's that my gut is better at reading things then I initially thought, so I'm just gonna go ahead and do some back patting, don't mind me.

Godfall

Daedalus & Son

If you cast your memory all the way back to the very first hints of the next generation of console gaming, during the VGAs and long before the 2020 blowouts, you might remember 'Godfall' as being one of the games that won a lot of coverage at that event. Now for my part, I can't exactly imagine why such attention was paid toward 'Godfall' given how, as I described in my blog on the topic, I found the trailer to be utterly devoid of anything resembling unique creativity or technological complexity. The game looked too clean in it's textures, too messy in it's designs and too vague in it's trailer, for me to muster anything more than a half-hearted sniff in it's direction. I was unwilling to give the title more than my precursory time of day until such a time where we heard anything more concrete about how the game played. Well, I guess today is the day for judgement as 'Godfall' hit the PS5 event with some honest-to-goodness gameplay; so let's see how Gearbox's new franchise is shaping up.

Before I get into it, however, allow me to share the description on this game on the off-chance that it rings a bell with you as it did with me. Godfall takes place in the world of "Aperion - a world on the precipice of ruin." The player stands up for this world in the form of "the last of the Valorian knights", ('Valorian'... really? That made it to the final script?) "god-like warriors able to equip 'valorplates', legendary armour sets that transform wielders into unstoppable masters of melee" blah blah. So let's asses; We have a fantastical, yet ruined, world with 'god-like' influences being involved and the player being put into the shoes of 'fantastic warriors' who need to hide inside of metal suits in order to defend their country. (Also, the game is a looter-slasher) Isn't this just 'Anthem' with weaker Javlin design? I can't be the only one who sees the parallels, right? Did Gearbox seriously just yank Bioware's blueprint for their failure-of-a-game under the assumption that they could do it better? Probably not, it's likely just coincidence, but I'll throw some healthy scepticism on this fire.

My first takeaway from this game as of the new trailer is that this title suffers from a little bit of an identity crisis that stems from a 'like me' syndrome. By that I mean, in the 2019 reveal trailer the game seemed set on establishing itself as some grand 'David v Goliath' type game with the typical accoutrements one would expect from that sort of world. You had cinematic action, dynamic camera angles and a dramatic soundtrack; all of these elements came together to put up a rather mediocre looking game. (In my opinion.) But now we have gameplay everything looks a lot more vast paced, a lot less intense and dramatic and the footage is accompanied by this completely out-of-pace rap track that just oozes this sense of "Kids like rap, right? Let's thrown in as much rap as we can!" Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with rap or it's potential use in advertising; but I find that more often than not whenever rap finds itself in an advert for something  that product is entirely unrelated to the song in question. (With every other type of music, people expect some sort of connection.) It's a nitpick, to be sure, but it highlights the laziness which is going into the marketing of 'Godfall', and that doesn't exactly reflect well on the potential of the full game. What is this game supposed to be- dramatic or laid-back; a hair-raising cinematic event or a pick-up-and-play time sink? Pick a lane!

In terms of the actual gameplay itself it's here where I do actually have some positive things to say about Gearbox's new beau. Godfall looks to be fast paced and exciting in it's third person melee combat to the point where I see shades of the hack-and-slash genre in there, which is certainly a good example to follow. Strikes look swift, powerful and the actually illicit feedback from the enemy, which sounds like it should be a given but you'd be surprised the amount of games where NPCs shake off taking a warhammer to the face. (>cough< Skyrim >cough<) These are the sorts of core systems that games like this need to nail, especially if they have eyes on becoming a live service like 'Godfall' definitely does. As someone who was always a fan of this type of game (DMC fan since a young age) I do admit that I'll slightly swooned at the prospect of a quality hack-and-slash title with significant replay potential; but I fail to see the 'breakthrough personality' that games of this genre usually covet to it's audience. 'Devil May Cry' has it's versatile juggling system which allows for weapons and forms to change on a dime, 'Bayonetta' and 'God of War' have their trademark epic encounters and set pieces and 'Metal Gear Rising: Revengence' has it's vividly gory swordplay. What makes 'Godfall' unique amidst those titans? It's rap?

And have you noticed anything missing from this latest gameplay demo? A promise, made all the way back from that first trailer, that went unfulfilled throughout all of this footage? How about the mildly promising setpiece of a large swirling tower in the sky with a deadly Hydra atop it, what ever became of that? If anyone came away with any impression of what it was that 'Godfall' represented after that reveal trailer, it would have been of a co-op based slasher that revolved around 'Monster-hunter'-style showdowns against impressive huge beasts. Now would that be an assumption on the part of the viewer? Certainly. But assumptions don't spawn from nowhere as this was the expectation that original trailer established. Yet here we have some gameplay showing no co-op play, no boss encounters and practically no real 'blow my socks off' moments to talk about over the water cooler. Now I'm not really a fan of the term 'water cooler moments' but it's a real phenomenon that Gearbox haven't catered to in the slightest with this trailer and that is saddening.

Now as it happens 'Godfall' does have an official website, as every game does nowadays, however it merely redirects to the epic store page so we divert there for more in-depth details. Here we can read the Devs bragging about the diversity of their environments from "the above-ground reefs of the Water Realm to the subterranean crimson forests of the Earth Realm." (Feel like the world designer got a bit confused there.) It's here where I find one of my biggest issues with this game somewhat confirmed, this entire gameworld feels excessively flimsy and undercooked. What, we have elemental based realms? Warriors called 'Valorain Knights'? Valorplate armor? It's all surface-level drivel that lacks any real depth, and perhaps that was the intent on the world builder's side but personally, as someone who like to get lost in the immersion of the worlds they explore, this doesn't feel like it was constructed with heart and a vision. There's also some information about 'mastering weapon classes' which makes me think this game will have some 'Monster Hunter' DNA in it, a RPG system which is sure to be rudimentary and, as of so far, only one revealed endgame activity in 'The Tower of Trials'. Which are essentially just 'Strikes' from Destiny. (Does this game have an original bone in it's body?)

Of course, the question I must always ask in these trailer reveals remains the same; does this title deserve to be a Playstation 5 exclusive. And on that I'm strangely undecided. (Strange, as we've seen a decent amount of visuals and gameplay by now) Whilst there are certainly framerate limitations on current gen consoles that couldn't run the footage we're seeing; textures, resolution and pure technical capabilities still seem somewhat lackluster. I haven't seen any degree of the weather effects that last year's cinematic played up, nor the scale of battle, so I'm left wondering if this title has any right showcasing the capabilities of the next gen. But by that same merit I can't help but feel like this title is the victim of horrendously bad marketing, and that there's several sides to this game that we haven't seen yet. So I'm choosing to be agnostic on this particular topic for now. (We'll see if that lasts.)

In conclusion, 'Godfall' still has failed to impress me for many of the same reasons as last time and a few smattering of new ones. I think it may be time to come to the conclusion that this firmly isn't my kind of game and pass it off to you; does anything you've heard, seen or read on this game seem any bit interesting to you? Because where I'm sitting, all I can see is a game that looks cynical in almost every respect and find it hard to deduce if there was ever some soul or vision which spawned this project. Of course, this is all just my impression from the marketing and, as always, I hope I'm wrong and this game launches like a cannonball aimed at the stratosphere, but as of right now I'm getting serious 'Anthem'-vibes from everything 'Godfall' has shown, and it's starting to feel like Gearbox might have drifted too close to the sun. (Urg, that was a terrible reference. I hate myself for that.)