The Great lightsaber debate

 Cut or Run

Am I Ludonarrative dissonance?

 No, Brother. We are Ludonarrative- and dissonant!

Never teach a big word to a community of pseudo-intellectuals, you'll just be feeding fuel to their narcissism-engine. Just like with any term or concept, the very second that the term starts to float around the snotty-nosed of the industry it melts into the vernacular of the common tongue, thrown about with as much pretentious gusto as a Latin major loves to regurgitate pithy witticism in a dead tongue. The very term of 'Ludonarrative dissonance' itself is a 2007 coined phrase that just squeezes down a lengthy concept that every one who plays games is already decently familiar with; but of course with simplifications eventually comes the dissolution of the original meaning, tainting the original purpose. Suddenly if you want to critique anything that slightly relates to the idea, you're throwing the shiny word about like a club, killing any potential dialogue with a rambunctious play at intellectual superiority.

So in terms of a laymen, like myself; what the heck is Ludonarrative dissonance? Well it's fairly simple if you break it down. Ludus, Latin for 'Play'- Hideo Kojima traced the same etymology on his 'Ludens' mascot for Kojima Productions. Narrative- relation to the story. And 'Dissonance'; indicating a conflict which prevents the two sides from meeting. 'Ludonarrative dissonance' thus refers to inconsistencies between the gameplay and storytelling of a video game which creates an environment where one aspect doesn't quite compliment or shake hands with the other. The example which is always used is a game wherein you play a snappy wise-cracking happy-go-lucky hero man, like 'Uncharted', only to end up driven to acts of mass murder and gunfights throughout the gameplay which should, if we're being real here, probably have some sort of psychological effect on the witty man. Or at the very least prelude to some sort of latent psychopathy that the game has yet to explore. Hence the dissonance.

It is a common 'problem', if you choose to perceive it as such, but in practise the very ideal of ludonarrative dissonance only drives a wedge into total story immersion in truly egregious circumstances. The cast of Grand Theft Auto V, for example, may be largely level-headed and non-psychotic before the player gets ahold of them; (or rather, 2/3 of them are non-psychotic) but the game itself doesn't force players to act like crazy people, those are choices made by the player in their own free time. This could still be seen as an example of ludonarrative dissonance, of course, but in a more minor fashion and only on a very surface level if you choose not to really examine the characters you play as. Because in general Rockstar are actually very proficient at writing their characters smothered in so many flaws and hypocritical moral compunctions that there's very few of them you can picture accidentally running over a whole side walk and not managing to twist the incident in their heads into not making them the worst person in the world through tortured perspectives. I think John Marston from Red Dead Redemption 1 is perhaps the only character lacking in the hypocritical shield that protects him from potential 'dissonance', because his whole story is designed to be his redemption journey from the thug he was into a reformed avenging angel literally killing his past to make up for it. Yet still the player could go nuts and murder a whole covenant of nuns. (Not that I ever did that. My dad on the otherhand...)

Most of the examples that I do see bought up as poster-children for this concept quite often rub me the wrong way too. The new Tomb Raider games are apparently a beacon for 'Ludonarrative Dissonance' accusations, despite the fact that these games are specifically written to address this side of the storytelling. Lara is put up against hardships that we follow her with throughout the first act, from being shipwrecked on an island, pulling jagged rocks out of her stomach and being forced to kill a deer for sustenance leading up to the first moment she has to actually kill someone in a desperate struggle for self defence. The game does as good of a job as it can, without sacrificing momentum of the plot, to portray the 'hardening' of Lara to justify the intense combat she is thrown up against later, and the writers even touch on the psychological scars of that entire game in the prelude to the next one, which is more than most any other game out there even thinks to do. But perhaps that's just not enough for some critics who waggle their fingers at the fact that Lara doesn't burst down into vomitus tears after every combat encounter, as she tries to weigh up the value of her own life against that of the murderous pirate rapists that she's killing. (Maybe that would be their ideal 'Ludonarrative synch up' game!)

Doing the best to balance the wants of the game and the wants of the narrative is how one deftly combats both sides of this ludonarrative issue; and yes, perhaps the equation does not always line up in a perfectly neat bow where we see a perfect psychological breakdown, medically vetted, detailing how Lara enters the mental state of being ready to kill her way to survival. But the groundwork is laid there, Crystal Dynamics did provide a narrative of the 'hardening' of Lara to justify the lives she takes, and it's a bit galling for one of the only games that really tries to be narratively aware get dragged down and disparaged as the poster child for wanton narrative dissonance. It's as if the attempt itself is what makes them a target of questionable dissemination from the types of people who only kinda get what the concept means and is looking for a example case they don't have to think too hard about. It's screwed up.

Another curiosity I saw, rather recently in fact, was the conflation of video-game scaled narrative accomplishment as itself a dinner bell for the 'ludonarrative dissonance' sharks. Specifically I saw the argument that Cal Kestis, protagonist of 'Jedi: Fallen Order', is a posterboy for this sort of dissonant story writing because of the fact that Cal refers to himself as a 'good guy Jedi' despite killing hundreds of Stormtroopers throughout the course of the game. Now, this one I really had to scratch my head at, because as far as I'm aware within the wider lore of every Star Wars film and comic I've ever read, it's never been considered morally dubious or questionable to kill a Stormtrooper. The fascistic military tyrants placing their boot on the throat of the Galaxy? No, they've happily and handily been slain by ordinary people, rebel outfits and Jedi Knights (do try and remember that Jedi serve as actual 'Knights' in the galaxy, not pacifistic 'Air Bender' monks) all the time without the question of if someone is still a 'good person' on the otherend.

Which means the only distinction between how the movies and books depict actions and how the game depicts them, is the scaling of just how many Stormtroopers Cal slays through the natural act of scaling that video games, as a much longer form of entertainment, are beholden to commit to. Cal has probably on-screen murdered more Stormtroopers than any other character in the films or TV aside from, perhaps, Luke Skywalker when he blew up the Death Star. So does that scale in itself invite in questions of moral cracking, enough to summon accusations of 'ludonarrative dissonance'? This speaks again to my prevailing theme of the disintegrating meaning of the term as it's passed from pseudointellectuals making bad examples to causal luddites extrapolating upon misnomers. As the commonly held general belief is that killing is wrong, the umbrella application of that general standard confers wrongdoing into all forms of fiction, regardless of context, twisting all killing into an equal unjustifiable 'murders'. Thus, through the inevitable scale of accomplishment in near all video games, this perspective should turn every video game protagonist into a mass murderer. Thus any game where you don't play as a mass murderer is ludonarratively dissonant, right?

I hope you can start to see the fallacy in this way of characterising what was original coined as a pithy summation of wanting narrative trends in evaluation of Bioshock, one of the most narratively confronting games that had existed in gaming up to that point. Bioshock, a game which went out of it's way to ask you, the player, why is it that you do the things you do. It's fitting then, that a opinion on the game should coin a term about the examination between gameplay and context, but sad that the meaning and relevance of that discussion would become watered down and meaningless over the years. Consider this my application in the 'stop using Ludonarrative Dissonance freely without understanding it's meaning' defence fund. And maybe, if you have a point that only sounds firm if you phrase it with big compound words that sound impressive on their own, maybe your point isn't so firm as you think. Maybe you should analyse the context a little harder- lest you start falling victim to Fabulanarrative Dissonance! 

Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order review

Trust only in the Force

Yea, I'd had the good fortune to have finally finished Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order on Jedi Master difficulty, the Respawn single player Star Wars game that was cited to be the new hope for EA single player titles everywhere. This was the game that felt designed specifically to counter EA's foolish mandate, from a few years prior, that 'single player is dead' and how the world needs to wake up and line EA's pockets quicker. Respawn, besides their quality multiplayer modes and titles, have always been unsung heroes of the single player genre, so their attempt to step up to the plate and make a single player title drew the attention of a few folk, and once these folk then learnt that the game would be a Star Wars game? Phew, anticipation flew off the damn roof. People were beside themselves as they learnt more and more about this game. "It was going to follow a Jedi in the wake of Order 66? Between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope? Sign me up!" Only the most cautious of the community, like myself, knew what it was liked to be burned by the big E and weren't exactly clamouring for this game with it's straightforward-looking combat, overuse of familiar universe locations and generic looking protago- oh wait, he's modelled after a real person who actually looks like that? I take that last point back. Now after picking up the game for Steam and going through a complete playthrough to put my theories of mediocrity to the test I can confidently say- I was absolutely wrong, this game slaps. 

And yet I must start with a compliant, because of course I must, but this one is aimed at neither the game itself nor Respawn. EA, I bought this game off of Steam using Steam money, so if that is the case, why in the 9 hells did I have to download and run Origin everytime I wanted to play the thing? I have to go through two launchers? Are you high? Is this your way of spiting at the community because no one could stand your ugly (and poorly coded) Origin Launcher and thus wouldn't buy your PC launcher exclusives until you bit the bullet and opened them up to other storefronts? Now everyone has to download your crap and try to be happy about it? Very classy. It even makes it so that everytime you earn an achievement you have to see two separate pop-ups celebrating your good fortune. One from Origin and one from Steam. Needless to say, I hate it and everyone who thought it was a good idea. You already got my money EA, why do you need my patience too?

Good, now that's out of the way let's start talking about the game that everyone calls the Dark Souls of Star Wars games. And whilst that may sound like lazy game journalist speak, it's actually rather apt this time around because Respawn were clearly, nakedly, inspired by Miyazaki's masterpiece series when they put this game together. The raw gameplay, whilst linear, features our Jedi Hero travelling from pre-placed 'meditation spots', whereupon they can spend skillpoints amassed from combat and from which they respawn upon death. Speaking of death- when you die all the progress you made toward the next skillpoint is lost and can be reclaimed from hurting the monster who felled you. (Or by touching a Force Cloud left behind if you died by non-creature means) It's a clear and obvious attempt to do some light Dark Souls parody mechanics and benefit from that style of game design. Once the level design starts to open up into a semi free-roam affair with Metroid-Vania style stopgaps, you really start to feel the heart of the Dark Soul laid upon this game and it really fits well.

But Dark Souls was by no means the only Miyazaki inspiration, because when we go to the raw combat, which looked deceptively straightforward in the previews; there's undoubtedly some Sekiro tucked away there. Born out of a desire to make the Lightsaber feel as deadly as it should, Respawn had it so that most grunt enemies either go down instantly or with little effort at all, making the player feel strong, but with little shades of skill behind the act so that players feel like they're achieving something too. Parrying is the name of the game here, and most every fight will, at-some-point, expect you to wait for the last possible second before tapping the block button and changing the tide of the battle. (They only have you press block, unlike Dark Souls which makes you perform a parrying move that, should you miss, leaves you completely open to attack. Again- Dark Souls lite) Sure, you can just block that laser bolt heading for you, but if you parry then that bolt will head right back to the sender; you can see the appeal of playing just that tiny-bit more dangerously.

Also familiar to Sekiro fans would be the stagger system which operates much as it sounds. Evert time someone blocks a blow, a bar fills up below their health bar which, once full, staggers the opponent and leaves them open to attack. (Such is the same with protagonist Cal Kestis too) This comes into effect in a small way with Stun-baton wielding Stormtroopers in the early game and expands with the talented Purge Troopers as you get further in. By the actual boss fights you might find yourself relying on the Stagger system as a primary source of getting in that damage opportunity, which is where the game can sort of remind you of that Sekiro aggression. However, as is becoming the theme, the system is nowhere near as hardcore and it's pretty plausible to take out most enemies without worrying about stagger-bars for them or yourself, same with the parrying. They're more just flavour mechanics to make the combat more interesting, instead of more complex and challenging. Which is certainly appealing to some players, but for others they might see it as a loss in potential for what we might have seen where the team allowed to go all out.

Another huge part of any Star Wars game is going to be the way they handle Force powers, and Jedi Fallen Order does a fantastic job of giving players access to the iconic abilities we all love (Force push, Force Pull, Force double jump) and makes them usual in both utility situations and combat ones. You may use Force pull during the exploration sections to pull a rope towards you that would otherwise be just out of your reach, and you might use it to yank an enemy from the ranks and into your waiting Saber. It demonstrates a distinct understanding of the Metroidvania inspirations and promises those that are looking for that sort of progression in their games the 3D AAA equivalent. I still find myself disquiet with the system for one key reason; the way they turn it into a resource. When exploring, the font of your Force abilities is bottomless and you can use them to your heart's content; as it should be, but when in combat, suddenly your Force hits a limited pool. (Fair enough, they wanted the Force to be powerful and so they cut you off; basic balancing) 

What gets me is that the resource pool can only be replenished by doing damage and actually drains from getting damaged, making it feel like special move heat-points rather than a integral part of the combat. (Dishonored had a similar problem with it's powers and switched to a semi-refill system in Dishonored 2) Consequently, you'll often be conserving force abilities more than you should need to even when they're designed to be played around with. Making your Force regenerate would require a full rebalancing of the game, no doubt, but it would also make players more inclined to experiment during combat and see just how robust and dynamic some of these powers can make things. (The first time I realised that I could force push a commando's grenade right back in his face I had a field day doing it; no one should miss out on those moments because they aren't encouraged to experiment.)

Of course, all of these combat mechanics and special powers are only really worth a damn if you have the enemies there to try them out on; and they should preferably be a mixed bag of fellows that encourage tactile actions and switching up of approach. Luckily the enemy composition of Jedi Fallen Order is actually quite solid. Between the Fauna of the planets you'll be exploring and the various ranks of Stormtroopers you'll be cutting down there's a great pool of variety which nudges the player to change things up without throwing up a wall and demanding they attack this enemy in this specific way. Most everyone dies by being stabbed enough, and there's no real right way to go about that, but some might require clever dodging on your part in order to get to that vulnerable moment, or maybe you'll be hit with a squad of enemies such that finagling that perfect opportunity takes a little active planning. It's still casual at it's heart, but intuitive and engaging in a way that will easily keep the invested and dedicated on their toes if they want to start getting flashy with their fights. By the end of the game, they'll be some actually challenging hordes thrown your way that might just have you expending all of your clever tactics and techniques to depletion.

Progression is handled much as you'd expect from a RPG-lite Star Wars game with Souls-like aspirations, Skill points are spent on a skill tree to get new powers or buff up the health bar and force meter. None, save for perhaps 2 choices, significantly changes up the standard flow of combat, and so most of these skills are extra little abilities to spice things up. I might have preferred skills that alter gameplay a little more, such as one that might regenerate health from doing damage, thus encouraging more aggressive play, although it's clear these skills aren't designed to encourage 'builds' as much as they're meant to visually represent Cal's journey to becoming a proper and powerful Jedi. A new lightsaber technique is added throughout the game, which adds some scant variety to how you handle situations, but with the casual-nature of enemy compositions you'll still find yourself picking your favourite style and just sticking to it. Oh and on a specific, and slightly spoilery note, the split blade technique you learn in the final third of the game absolutely ruined me. Firstly, it's a special move instead of a style and thus uses up Force power, for some reason. Secondly, the key binding activates whenever you try to attack with your guard up. Did no one on the team posit the theory that people might accidently activate that given how for the entire rest of the game doing that combination of buttons would merely cancel the guard and go into a standard, non force-depleting, attack? The amount of misclicks I did with that style damn near drove me insane.

Puzzles are another big part of this game for some reason, borrowing the environment-manipulation style of puzzle design from the Tomb Raider games. These make for breakups between levels that really lend purpose to your Metroidvania force powers, but rarely are they all that interesting or challenging to solve. None that I saw appeared to be optional, meaning that the team were limited by their requirement not to make the critical path too taxing (cause you know, games journalists have to beat it afterall) and that resulted in a slew of somewhat uninteresting puzzles. And yet I will say that only a couple were actively frustrating, and those were because of my personal misunderstanding of what the game was asking me to do. (and the hint system being effectively worthless) So a bit of miss on the puzzle system.

But now we go onto the big one, the bosses; that which gives a Souls-like game it's chest hair, and the offering for this title is- honestly disappointingly lacking. Each world has a world boss which is just a slightly stronger version of the mini-boss enemies you'll have fought throughout the game anyway, and the critical path only has three complete boss fights in it. (There are a few mini-boss fights that end prematurely; but for complete fight-to-the-death boss duels there are only three) Of those three, however, I will say that the three were all of my favourite Souls kind (Humanoid duels) and were well designed and conceived. (Even if they all commit the carnal sin of giving their bosses an unblockable ground pound AOE move. The final boss even pulls off said move in literal intimate proximity to you; just the cheapest of moves possible.) 

Oddly, the best boss fight isn't even the finale, but rather the first proper Boss fight about midway through the game. The final encounter is really static with only two stages to it that are similar enough that you don't really need to change any winning tactic you made for the start of the fight. The first boss fight, however, has three distinct stages, changes itself up significantly as you go, and feels both dynamic and taxing the whole way through. I remember beating that fight after around my 40th attempt and feeling just buzzing about the potential for the rest of the game. "If the first total boss fight was that good; what else am I in for?" Only for the other two fights to be either on par or lesser. (I actually think the finale was the weakest) It's not like I was expecting some sort of 'Soul of Cinder' style finale, drenched in significance and personally charged, as I literally fight my own various move sets in match-up to the death; but a little more dynamism to the fights would have worked wonders. Still all decent quality duels, though, don't get me wrong.

And last I come to narrative, a rather odd order of things for my blog, but I feel it reflects the intention of the game itself. They want to get people through the doors based on the gameplay, not the story; heck, that's how I ended up interested in the game myself. The story was bound to play second fiddle, but does that mean the narrative itself was half-assed? No, actually, I think that Respawn did a decent job. Cal Kestis' journey aboard the Mantis were very engaging and fun, and filled with a lot more personal drive than I expected. That being said, I still found the characters and their motivations to be a little cookie cutter and a bit bland. Cal is a survivor Padawan from the Purges, and acts exactly as you'd expect one in that position to: inexperienced, hope-driven and usually stoically amiable. Cere is the failed Jedi Master who lost her Padawan, so she's cynical, (but not too cynical. Honestly, she's a bit of dreamer as well) darker, a little beaten. (She's said to be 'broken', but the story makes no effort to really show that) and Greez is- well he's comic relief. (And pretty average comic relief at that)

They're not bad, by any stretch of the imagination, and they all fit neatly into the roles they were designed to play. They just lack that special little something which makes them real breathing characters that you want to route for and remember. They're about on par with the recent Disney Star Wars characters, if a little more fleshed out; and that means the emotional moments, which they all have, fail to really break the skin. (Kudos for trying, though) There is a huge highlight, however, and those are the flashback/forward scenes that Cal undergoes as he reconnects with the force, telling you the story of Order 66 from his point of view. These were great, and if the characters themselves had a little more meat to their bones I could see myself being genuinely effected by the grittiness of experiencing these people being brutally hunted down. (it was much more visceral than I'd ever imagined it being before; genuine congrats on whoever directed these scenes.) The ending is obvious sequel bait and I can see some out there feeling that the story sort of invalidated itself in the final moments, but I feel that (through the strength of those aforementioned flash scenes) the narrative just about justifies and redeems itself, and sets the characters up for what I can only imagine will be a kickass sequel. With everyone properly set up like they have been, the only place for them to go in the next title will be into real character-trial heights, and I think this cast both have the potential to pull that off and the willingness to go there. (This is just the beginning, and it shows.)

Ultimately, I started off acutely aware that Jedi Fallen Order was a good game, but around about the halfway mark I came to realisation that I was underselling it; this really is a great title. Great combat, wrapped around solid exploration, peppered with the odd truly gorgeous setpiece and strung along by a decent narrative. However, I feel that a lot of it's shortcoming just come from not committing enough in a few key areas. (which is why I hold a lot of hope for a sequel being an absolute showstopper) The bosses were either too few or lacklustre, the characters were just interesting enough to exist, but not unique enough to be memorable, and the overall story doesn't really achieve anything for the world of Star Wars. It's a game that proves Single Player EA games can exist, and that they need more room to take chances. With that said, I feel pretty comfortable giving Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order a Grade of B+, indicating a title just a hair's breadth away from true brilliance. Respawn are no slouches, and I just know that the oodles of potential this game lays out will not go to waste in the next title; it's just a shame we have to wait until then for the game this one could have been. Still, an absolute recommend for anyone out there who loves Star Wars or is simply into Soul-likes, because this is easily close enough to a Souls game to scratch that itch. Dear EA; commission more games like this one, please.

Game Awards and ethics: the super-amazing discussion of a lifetime! Woo-wee!

If you promise not to fall asleep immediately after reading the title, I'll promise not to pass out writing it.

The Video Game Awards are almost upon us, rejoice all ye faithful! Once again I found myself a little in awe at what Geoff Keighley has managed to put together with this event and honestly a little bit jealous. Through tenacity and years of building connections, (I'm really bad at one of those things) Geoff managed to assemble a coalition of trusted gaming critics all over the world to recognize his gaming awards as the one true official Game Award event; his baby managed to overcome rampant ridicule and meme-age in order to become a truly respected yearly spectacle; and some Devs have even agreed to forgo other gaming events in order to debut their projects here. (Makes sense. This is probably the second most viewed gaming event of the year behind E3) I think it's fair to say that Keighley's game awards are, at this point, our version of the Oscars; only, you know, without as much pageantry, history and general respect. Ah who am I kidding, no one outside of Hollywood respects the Oscars. We're on equal footing there.

Last year we saw a brilliant showing from the inhouse orchestra, (although the previous year's medley will forever hold a special place in this gamer's heart) surprising big game announcements, (Mortal Kombat 11, really!) and guest presenting by truly respectable individuals from outside the gaming spheres. (Still can't believe the Russo brothers showed up.) The awards also didn't neglect to secure their, oh so coveted, sound bits; you know, to ensure that the event would remain in the hearts of memers for the next few months. (Although, despite my snide, I will admit that I yelped a little bit when Christopher Judge said "read it, boi!" Which is especially weird, in hindsight, seeing as how I've never played 'God of War'.) I have no doubt that Keighley will attempt to surpass all that with next month's awards, (December 13th. save the date.) which may be more then possible if rumors are to believed. I mean, Capcom are still sitting on that 'Resident Evil 3 Remake' announcement that we know is coming and I'd be shocked if CD Projekt Red don't take advantage of the last big gaming show before the release of 'Cyperpunk 2077'.

Full disclaimer, I'm in full geek mode right now. I just finished watching the third episode of 'The Mandalorian' (If you haven't: You Need To Change That Immediately!) and right now I would love nothing more then to go on a fandom jaunt down all the prospective award winners and make my predictions on who should win and why. (Maybe I will, closer to the event.) But as you can tell from my title, I have a much more sobering topic to discuss today as I delve into some of the rising controversy surrounding the Awards as well a general discussion about ethics. (Sigh.) A discussion which targets two men that I hold in incredibly high regard as individuals, one of which is an inspiration and the other is a man to whom I owe by passion for storytelling. (So this is going to be a bitter blog for me to pen. Type. Whatever.)

Let me precede the critiques and tough-talk with a little disclaimer, which should be obvious but there's never any harm in stating things in obvious terms. Firstly, yes, I am bias. Incredibly so. I am a life-long loner who has failed to establish a sense of community and belonging with anything outside of gaming. (Does that come across as sad? It's not supposed to be.) I positively adore this medium of storytelling and that puppy-eyed, rose-tinted, obsessiveness often gets in my way to be objective about matters which demand such, like ethics. So as much as I'll attempt to be level headed and sensible, don't just take me view on this matter, read up and form your own opinions. (Plus 'level headiness' doesn't exactly make for an entertaining writing or, I'd imagine, reading experience. So screw that noise, am I right?)

One of the budding complaints that I've seen drifting around the community is one that actually transcends the Gaming Awards and actually travels around to all award shows; the being the irregular cut-off date. As with most all Awards ceremonies, the Gaming Awards is a annual event, meaning that the award titles often feature the suffix 'of the year'. This can shape up as a bit of a misnomer, however, when events transpire to ensure that the award in question is being presented to a game that is not, in fact, of that year but of the previous year. This is, of course, due to the 'cut-off date' issue that results in products that are released too close to the gaming awards being discluded from the proceedings. This is, of course, meant to ensure that each game is given it's due to shine (and not devolve into a microtransaction-strewn mess) and prevent any title from being overlooked due to rushed coverage. However this situation is not perfect.

Due to the timing of the Game Awards, (being a December show) you'd think that they would be perfectly situated to succinctly round up all the games of the year, however, due to the quirks of the games market, that is not always the case. Anyone who works in sales knows that the holiday season is the time to push units, however, for gaming a rule has emerged regarding when is the best time to capitalize on that season. Given the cycle of reviewing, punditry and, most importantly, financial book keeping, October is the target month for all high-profile system seller games to hit in order to rake in that Christmas dough and still look neat on the balance sheets. But that's still okay, right? October is within the acceptable release window for Game Awards entry, so no harm no foul. Except that there is another dimension to this matter to consider.

You see, whilst it is true that October is the ideal month to push out your game, that very fact ensures that month is absolutely packed with high profile competition every year. This October alone saw the release of 'The Outer Worlds', 'Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Breakpoint', 'Destiny 2: Shadowkeep', 'WWE 2K20', 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare' (Mk. 2) and 'Grid'. All massive titles in their own right, regardless what you think of their quality. (Oh, and the new 'Yooka-Laylee' game came out this October, for anyone who cares. Only me? Okay.) Hollywood has been taught the lesson time and time again that when you overcrowd your releases you are doomed to financial failure, so sensible publishers who know that when their game doesn't pack the weight to go toe to toe against the big leagues, it's alright to push their game to the fallback month of November. Maybe not so clean within the books but at least you get there in time for the Christmas shelves. Problem solved, right? Except, November is the cutoff month for featuring in the Games Awards. (Whoops.)

This is a topic that has been inflamed particularly this year with the release of the critically lauded, 'Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order'. This is a game that has been discounted from the running for titles that many believe it could win such as 'Action Game of the Year'. All this is made particularly frustrating with fans, as one game which has been nominated for every category under the sun is 'Super Smash Bros. Ultimate' which released in December last year. Heck, that game is even in the running to win 'Ultimate game of the year'. (no pun intended.) Now, don't get me wrong, Smash Bros. Ultimate is a brilliant game which I've personally sunk at least 100 hours into; but if that game ends up winning 'Game of the Year 2019' then someone's going to be left scratching their head.

Okay, so 'Jedi Fallen Order' gets pushed back to next year, so what? Well, 2020 is lining up to be one of the most juggernaut, overblown years of gaming in a very long time. We're getting 'Doom Eternal', 'Final Fantasy 7 Remake', 'Halo: Infinite', 'Sqaure Enix's Avengers','Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodline 2','Oddworld Soulstorm', the new 'Destroy All Humans', 'Wasteland 3', 'No More Heroes 3', probably 'Resident Evil 3 Remake', 'Half-Life: Alyx', 'The Last of Us: Part II', 'Bayonetta 3' and, of course, 'Cyberpunk 2077'. (Ouch to my future wallet.) Bearing all those unbelievably exciting upcoming releases in mind, it's probably safe to assume that little old 'Jedi Fallen Order' will get lost in the crowd. Which is such a shame considering that this was EA's first dedicated single player game since their leadership made the asinine comment that "Single player games are dead." (Maybe they planned this release strategically to ensure the snub. Big if true!) So how do we solve this issue? Well the event could be pushed back into next year, but that often has the effect of making the proceedings feel irrelevant. (Just look at the BAFTAs or the Oscars.) Plus, that 'end of year' hype is what advertisers pay through the nose in order to capitalize on, Geoff would be putting that in peril by moving the air date of the show. So, I guess, there is no solution to this issue. The industry will just have to learn to strategize their releases better if they want that... what's our version of 'Oscar gold'? Video game silver? (Geoff should probably workshop that.)

This next issue is a bit of a silly one but definitely still worth bringing up. Geoff Keighley spent so much time trying to establish these Game Awards as a serious endeavour, firstly to the myriad of publications that he ended up pulling under it's banner, and secondly to the fickle gaming public who's initial reaction was to simply point and laugh. This was achieved by ensuring that the process and games in question were respectable and based upon games that reviewed well and received positive reception fan-wide, rather than just sales figures. (Although one could equate the two.) However that can be put in jeopardy due to the show's bizarre instance of requiring a certain number of applicants for each category. Because trust me, that is the only possible excuse for 'Jump Force' getting a spot in the show.

Part of me does feel for the show runners here, including Geoff. Fighting games aren't exactly as 'dime a dozen' as they once were and it must have been difficult to find games to bounce off of the likes of 'Dead or Alive 6', 'Mortal Kombat 11', and 'Super Smash Bros. Ultimate', but is the solution 'Jump Force'? Seriously? Can't they throw in 'Samurai Shodown' or something? (Wait, that's already there.) Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot? (Ugh, that's next January.) Wait, wasn't there a 'Blazblue' this year? (Darn, it was a re-release.) Then just have four contenders. Honestly, any other course of action is preferable to including a game as functionally, narratively, and visually terrible as 'Jump Force.'

It sends an absolutely awful message across the industry that it doesn't matter how terrible you game is, as long you have limited competition we'll let you slap 'Game Awards nominee' in you 'Accolaides' trailer. Additionally, it reflects badly on the whole show by making every other game there look like an absolute joke for sharing a stage with that oil-spill of a product. Does this mean that their organizers are going to spend money and working hours on putting together a highlight reel for that game's introduction? (Ah, the whole thing just makes me sick to think about.) Yes, I know that there is absolutely no way in heck that this game will win, 'Smash Bros.' practically has it in the bag (which is still a 2018 game getting a 2019 award.) but the damage has already been done to everyone's respectability by this title's mere presence. (I've got to move on. This subject is seriously giving me a migraine.)

This last one is going to be a bit more dull, but a lot more important. (This is the reason why I tagged 'Ethics' in the title.) Allow me steal from the 'lazy-speech-writing handbook' by starting with; Merriam-Webster defines 'A conflict of Interest' as; "A conflict between private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust". Contextualized quite simply, this means that when someone is given the role to provide an objective stance on a subject, it is imperative that they do not, themselves, have a vested interest on the resulting outcome. It is the same code-of-conduct rules that applies to traditional journalism, which is part of a set of rules and standards that we call 'Ethics'. News reporters and journalists are expected to take a neutral stance in their gathering of the news as they are in a position of power, as distributors of knowledge, and their personal slant could influence the readers. (Which is the reason why Journalists do not "make the news"; as Editor Perry White insisted in the 1978's 'Superman')  The same is true with Police investigations and Jury duty. It is a standard law of ethics that is carried across all different mediums and situations for it's succinct nature and adherence to values that we consider: responsible.

With that firmly established: The Game Awards has a conflict of interest on it's hands regarding the latest product from visionary game director: Hideo Kojima. (A man to whom I literally owe my direction as an artist. So this isn't easy for me to talk about.) 'Death Stranding' is a game that is incredibly divisive in it's bold, art-house break from the norms of video game design. (A topic I could, and likely will, write an entire blog upon.) This has led to a bevy of mixed responses from all over the industry as some hate it, some love and hate it, and others have no idea what to think about the title whatsoever. Ultimately, this has led to the game receiving a 83% on Metacritic amongst respected critics and around about 60% with the audience. Not terrible numbers by any means, but not a general consensus of being 'great' that one would expect from a game that was nominated for... oh, I don't know- how about 'Ultimate game of the Year'? That's right, alongside powerhouses like 'Resident Evil 2' (89-93% on Metacritic) and 'Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice' (88-91% on Metacritic) stands a game that people are still struggling to decide whether they like or not. Am I doubting that the game will end up becoming a cult classic that is beloved in the years to come? Of course not. But this sort of off-kilter, arguably unearned, recognition, reeks of the kind of 'back door' politics that makes the Oscars such a laughable event in this day and age.

Hideo Kojima is, for those of you who didn't know, a huge fan of Geoff Keighley and that love is, very much, reciprocated. We all remember the shade that Geoff threw at Konami when they refused to let Hideo come to receive his reward, (which, even now, was kind of unprofessional from a host who prided himself on bridging the gap across gaming communities.) and memes have been made about the emotional highlight-tape that Keighley put together once Kojima did get the chance to attended. (Truly, their love was written in the stars!) Now, of course, their friendship is entirely ancillary to this issue. The whole point of Keighley assembling the Game Awards was to bring together various gaming outlets and important industry figures to pick out the nominees to ensure that personal bias was minimized. Geoff doesn't have some overarching ability to shoe-horn in his own candidate, that would completely undermine the whole show. What this relationship has done, however, is drawn the eyes of the people to look closer as the odd nomination of a game that feels (forgive me, Kojima.) undeserving.

As it just so happens, Kojima himself is one of those 'industry professional icons' who is on the board for the Game Awards. He helped to start this whole affair alongside Keighley, which explains the reason why those two are so enamoured with each other. (Not to downplay the founding of the Awards show. Good on them, and I can only wish that I get the chance to contribute so substantially to the gaming industry one day.) Kojima is also a legendary figure in the industry who's mere name commands respect from many of the other outlets on the official board, and just as I am biased on this subject matter, so too are the board bias for a person to whom they all hold respect and reverence. (Once again, deservingly so.) However, if we allow such, frankly, irrelevant factors to influence the decision process, then we risk marring the integrity of the entire institution that Keighley worked so hard to build. No one wants the Game Award's committee to become a mirror to the out-of-touch squabbling and insider politics that makes the Oscars look like a joke, but that seems like what is happening with Death Stranding's nomination.

I am not, and would never, doubt the quality of Death Stranding or any single one of Kojima's games, (Although 1986's 'Penguin Adventure' does look a tad ropey) but nominees for the Games Awards should be based on objective quality as much as humanely possible. (As much as that very concept borders on being an oxymoron.) The clearest possible way we have of quantifying that, inherently qualitative, value is through aggregate reviews, and Metacritic shows us that there existed games which were better received then 'Death Stranding' this year. 'Devil May Cry 5', for example, scored 87-89% on Metacritic, the new 'The Legend of Zelda: Links Awakening' scored 87%, and even indie-darling 'The Outer Wilds' scoured 82-85%. Every one of these games were lauded for their quality and have just as legitimate a claim to the coveted 'Game of the Year' nominee slot. What they don't have is a legendary and respected director who just so happens to be an industry superstar and on the board. We could argue about the specifics of eligibility for each game all day, but at the end of the matter we are left with a nominee that is a clear violation of the 'Conflict of Interest' subsection of common award show ethics. I love Kojima and, once I get a chance to play it, I'll probably love Death Stranding too; but for the good of the Game Awards as a show, process and institution, it is best for Death Stranding to be withdrawn from the 'Game of the Year' nominee slot. It just didn't receive the required universal objective praise for someone like me to overlook the potential for personal bias, and I'm sure that you can see it too.

Phew, that last point really sucked to make but it did have to be said. Out of all the weird and ugly sides of the gaming industry, (a few of which have become grotesquely apparent in the past couple of years) The Gaming Awards is one that I have genuinely grown to respect and am fiercely protective of. It is one of the few bright spots that separates the gaming culture from the festering pettiness that infects other entertainment mediums and I would hate to see that sundered for something a silly as personal biases, or any of the other issues that I mentioned today. I love having this one part of the gaming world that I can point to and say "look at that. We did a good thing there." Whenever the media scapegoats gaming again for another ludicrously unsubstantiated accusation, we can proudly ignore that noise in the knowledge that gaming is respectable, and that is emblematic in us having one of the greatest Award shows of the year. If I were Mister Keighley, (and some nights I wish I were) I wouldn't risk that kind of legacy for anyone or anything.

Order Fallen Jedi

My titles are just so creative, I know.

I don't know what it is about this title that keeps pulling me back. Okay that's not true, I know it's the impending hype for the Mandalorian that has sling shot this game into my eyeline. Perhaps I should just make an exception and decide to take an in-depth look at The Mandalorian instead, but that would open myself up to the world of TV blog content and I'm just not ready to open the floodgate right now. (Or ever.) So instead of taking an extensive gander at the incredibly exciting-looking Dave Filoni live action Star Wars series, I'm settling for a generic-looking action game from a publisher I hate and a studio that's getting there. (Is this masochism?)

With that being said, I will admit that even in their heyday, a majority of Star Wars games were hum drum outings who's only selling point was providing players a 'in' to the 'galaxy far far away'. Heck, some of these games were even plain bad and I still harbour found memories of them. Star Wars Republic Commando was a simple 'tactical' FPS, 'Star Wars: The Clone Wars- Republic Heroes' was... a chore, 'Star Wars: Super Bombad Racing' was a dull kart racer clone with the 'big heads' cheat permanently enabled. All of these titles would have crashed and burned if it wasn't for that 'Star Wars' connection, so could the same happen for 'Jedi: Fallen Order'? Likely, I'd say. Almost certainly. But that doesn't mean the necessarily game deserves it.

Today I will be looking through the launch trailer for this title and taking a look at what there is to be excited for in this game from a story perspective, if not a gameplay one. Oh and just a head's up, I'm actually not all that up-to-date on Dave Filoni's contribution to the Star Wars lore (Which this game seems to be drawing heavily from) so I may miss a few things that would be obvious to the casual superfan. (It's been a LONG time since I've considered myself a Star Wars superfan.) Also, this trailer appears to have fashioned itself as an 'accolades trailer', which I find slightly hilarious given that I don't believe review copies have even been shipped yet. (Gotta play that game as soon as you can, I guess.)

The trailer opens with a shot of another main villain who will be hunting the protagonist, Cal Kestis, throughout the majority of his story. We have another Sith inquisitor (That is, a Sith-trained force user who has attained the rank of Imperial inquisitor rather than those who have the rank of Sith Inquisitor. Because those are two completely different things. Star Wars lore, everybody!) although this is one who's name I can't quite pin down. All we know for now is that is he will be joining the Seventh Sister in the hunt, and this has lead me to develop a new speculation regarding how I expect this game to play out. We have been introduced to the existence of two main saber-wielding villains to hunt the protagonist, and that seems rather odd to my observing eye. Afterall, in storytelling isn't the magic number 3? Now of course, I have no concrete information to back up my hunch here, but the fact that we have been extensively shown off two badguys for this game could be indicative of the fact that there is a bigger threat behind the shadows. This is further backed up by a fact that I totally forgot in my last blog, when I commended the team for reintroducing the Seventh Sister because she was a threat that Cal could theoretically defeat. Namely, that the Seventh Sister is actually (spoilers) killed by Darth Maul in 'Star Wars: Rebels'.

Does that mean Respawn intend to pit us against a main villain who the protagonist will merely reach a stalemate with instead of killing? No, I can't imagine that being the case, it just wouldn't match the 'becoming a knight' angle that the team appear to be heading for with this story. Judging from the presented footage from these last two trailers, it is clear that they want to set up Cal's seclusive hideaway being interrupted by a Sith house call; one made by the Seventh Sister herself. Cal then goes to learn the arts and ways of the force and probably ends up joining the Rebellion in some small capacity, but how will the adventure be capped off by the end? I can't see EA going out of their way to fund a sequel before this first game is out, this game is very much an experiment on their part to see if traditional games can still be profitable, so the Respawn writers will be constructing a self contained story with this game. With that in mind, there must be foe for Cal to best in order to symbolize his reaching of mastery over the force. If it cannot be the Seventh Sister, and this other Inquisitor looks to be more of a throwaway lackey, then who could the big bad be? I dunno.

From there the trailer goes into the usual spiel, with narration setting up the world in which this game is set. For those who forgot, this game takes place after Order 66 has wiped out the majority of the Jedi and sent the rest into hiding. Cal Kestis was still just a Padawan when all this went into effect, and so he was able to stay under the radar and escape to a small outer rim planet in the middle of no where. Seeing as how this game takes place in the 'dark period' of time between the Prequel trilogy and the original trilogy, Respawn practically have free reign to say whatever they want about the state of the universe as long as it flies with Disney. However, instead of using this freedom to show as a spate of new and interesting worlds that we've never seen before, instead we run the gambit of familiar Star Wars locales. You have the middle-of-nowhere world which looks like a scrap heap (Just like Tatooine and Jakku), The icy planet with snow everywhere (Just like Hoth), and a jungle world full of hulking furry monsters (Just like... wait, no. This one is actually just Kashyyyk).

Now the trailer gives us a good look of Cal's journey as his ex-Jedi mentor, Cere, guides him through some old abandoned Jedi Temples. (You know, at this point I'm starting to wonder if the Jedi temples were ever actually manned. I mean, the only one's we've ever seen operational have been the ones on Coursant and Dantooine. Maybe the Jedi were just huge architectural nuts who kept building more bases then they could feasibly fill.) The stand out moment here for me was when Cal came face to face with a Mirialan. (Which was a hologram, I presume.) It stuck out as the Seventh Sister is famously also a Mirialan, which implies to me that Cal may end up digging into the past of his enemy and finding out that she used to be a Jedi. (Such a practise was common in The Old Republic, hence why they used the term Sith and Dark Jedi almost interchangeably back then.) Perhaps Vader saw fit to enlist traitor Jedi to hunt down their former compatriots. It would certainly support the real-world parallels that the Empire already draws to a certain movement whom I'm sure I don't need to explicitly introduce to the reader.

The last thing that I want to bring up in this trailer is something that is showcased throughout and which genuinely does excite me; the exploration. Previously we have seen a worldmap that the player can access within their ship that seems to allow for you to take-off and fly anywhere you want to. (Not sure if such an ability might rob some situations of their urgency, but I like the freedom nonetheless.) This subtle suggestion implies to me that we may be getting a game with a decently sized play spaces (maybe akin to the hub areas in the Crystal Dynamic Tomb Raider games) or even just a steady spate of side quests. If my hunch is true then this could be an interesting path that Respawn intend to walk by creating an action adventure game with areas that one is intended to plough thoroughly for secrets. Such a model would place them up against the likes of the Arkham Series. (A comparison that is given even more weight when considering the similarities in combat.) Could Respawn learn from these other games when forming their world to ensure that it is just as explorable? Sure. Will they? Once again, I haven't the foggiest.

When I say that this game doesn't excite me, it's not with the same trepidation that I claimed the same about 'The Outer Worlds'. (Still enjoying that game, by the by.) I'm not torn about whether or not the game will be quality, in fact I'm fairly convinced that this be a solidly average game, I'm more disappointed with a story that appears to be very 'paint by numbers'. Visually, the product looks great, audio-wise, it sounds like Star Wars, but everything else about the game screams 'one and done', and I feel like a Star Wars game could be much more. Admittedly, these concerns are more of a gut feeling, but I don't think that the first single player Star Wars game of the late 2010's is going to 'wow' the gaming world, when it really should and needs to. I suppose at the end of the day my biggest take away is; The Mandalorian sure looks fantastic, huh!

Fallen Jedi Order

Whaddya mean they blew up the Death Star?

Much in the vein of my Avengers revisit, I'm going to get a chance to reassess my opinion 'Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order' due to a final trailer put out recently. (I won't change my opinion on the name however. It's plain awful.) True, there has been another trailer between my first blog and now, but it was mostly uneventful and full of footage we were already familiar with. What we have now is more of a story based affair and gives us a clue of what we can expect when from the narrative side of things. (So I'll put my combat concerns aside for now.)

The trailer actually starts off with a shot that perfectly sums up the driving force for the story. The pursed Padawan; Cal Kestis, willingly puts his life in the hands of former Jedi: Cere, and comic relief mini alien Greez. All in an effort to escape the claws of the intimidating Sith Inquisitor known as the Seventh Sister. It's an interesting mash-up of things we've seen done a million times over, with the party set-up, and cool lore bits that were introduced in the only Star Wars properties that aren't crap nowadays, The Dave Filoni series'.

I am encouraged that the story appears to be setting Cal up against this fellow force user. In the days following order 66, which just happens to be when this game is set, it is difficult to find worthy foils to a Jedi-lead due to the apparent lack of other significant former Jedi, with the obvious exception of ol' Darth himself. Previous games that have tried to pull of setting a story in this time, like the game that gets a lot of hate nowadays for some reason 'Star Wars: The Force Unleashed', had to create a whole new storyline that was haphazardly jammed into the events of the canon. I mean, I understand the desire to insert your story into the main canon, but literally having Starkiller sacrifice his life to jump start the Rebellion is a little bit self-aggrandizing. (This is why Disney erased the timeline, guys.)

By pitting the protagonist against one of the, newly introduced, Sith inquisitors, you pit him against a foe he can theoretically beat which immediately lends some agency and tension to your key story moments. (Somehow I didn't feel too invested in 'Force Unleashed' when Starkiller went toe-to-toe with the Emperor. Something told me that the old guy would be fine.) Whether that means that the Mirialan will make a good foe for Cal, is another issue entirely. That all comes down to the strength of the writing and characterization; something that Star Wars has been pretty trash at for the past few years. Personally, I won't be expecting anything great. I'm not saying that there can't be any brilliant stories in the Star Wars universe, just that one would need to take risks in order to achieve them, and this game doesn't exactly scream 'risky' to me. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The trailer than moves on to show Cere introducing Cal to an old rundown Jedi temple and walking him through the ways of the force through some kinetic platforming that just screams 'Frostbite engine' for me. (Don't be fooled by how fluid the movement is, guys, it only looks that good in 4K.) There is one bit of this trailer that both intrigues and confuses me here. Cere remarks "I know you don't trust me", to establish some degree of offish-ness between her and Cal, and I just can't put my finger on why. This isn't the first time that this idea has been broached either, interviewee's have implied a similarly rocky relationship between the student and his teacher, and something just isn't clicking for me.

Why have the Padawan mistrust the Master who is going to guide him along his path to becoming competent? Isn't this just going to make the moment of her death all that more emotionless when you spend the whole time being reminded how you don't trust her. (And if you don't think that she is going to die then you clearly haven't seen the track record for black people in the Star Wars Universe...) I'm not sure if this is their attempt to 'subvert expectations' and deliver an a-typical 'becoming who you're meant to be' story, but I doubt in the writers' ability to make the most out of it. Plus, we've already had an 'untrustworthy tutor' example in the Star Wars universe.

Who remembers Kreia for 'Knights of the Old Republic 2'. Say what you will about the repressively linear structure of that game, the writing was absolutely top notch. There we got a master who, it is revealed very early on, has heavy ties to the Sith presence, and it clear that her teaming with you is more out of necessity than any desire to help raise you. The writers have mentioned how they did this in order to play on the 'wise mentor' stereotype that we saw in characters like Yoda and Obi-Wan, and to provide a twist upon the story that was as good as the moment in Knights of the Old Republic 1 when it is revealed that >redacted for being one of the greatest twists in Video game history<. I think that Respawn believe that they're treading new ground with this story device but in truth they're just follow in the wake of giants and trying to fill-in their treads. I know that there are some competent storytellers over at Respawn, they've proven themselves a couple of times, but I can't see Respawn's guys comparing to Bioware from their distant heyday.

From here the trailer starts to do the classic "You can't save them" line that is read infinitely better in the Doom Eternal trailer. (Okay, in that trailer the line was more along the lines of "They are no longer your people to save." But that honestly just makes it even more badass.) This is all accompanied with a highlight reels of Cal pulling off various heroic feats (If you consider murder heroic) and little snippets of his foes for good measure. We see some more inquisitors, Trico from the Last Guardian and- wait are those... They are! Deathtroopers once again!

Out of all the new bits of Star Wars lore that has been added on in these recent movies (The origin of Han Solo's name being by far the worst) the one snippet that I can't get enough of, is the Deathtroopers. They look so cool, they're mysterious and huge and you never hear their voice. They first showed up in 'Rogue One' as Director Krennic's personal guard but have since gone on to show up in 'Star Wars: Battlefront 2' as a special unit, but are even due to make an appearance in 'The Mandalorian' later this month. Them being here makes me giddy in ways I cannot accurately express through words, but rest assured I'm currently frothing at the mouth like a schoolgirl. (Schoolgirls do that, right?)

Overall, consider me agnostic towards 'Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order'. I will most definitely play it, but it won't be at launch and it will be second hand. (When I vowed that Respawn would never see my money, I meant it.) The game looks like it could be something interesting for the content-starved Star Wars gaming fans out there, but I doubt it'll hold a candle to the classics that we know and love so dear. Perhaps if the game were given a more unique premise or a character creation system, there would be something to get excited about, but as it is I'm little more than mildly intrigued. I guess I'll find out if I'm wrong on this title and it's an instant classic, but somehow I doubt that'll be the case.

Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Franchise.

Oh right, there was a Star Wars game wasn't there?

There was a time, not so long ago, where Star Wars was the height of pop culture for me. I read the comics, watched the shows and, most relevantly, I played the heck out of the games. And in that time there was no shortage of middling to great Star Wars video games for me to play. Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, Empire at War and Pandemic's Battlefront; all allowed us to visit the galaxy not so far away and live the life of a Star Wars hero.

Back then there was a Star Wars game out every year, like a genre unto itself, and Lucasarts managed to get some of the most talented companies in the industry working on their property. This was due, of course, to the lure of Star Wars brand the the availability of the licence. Anyone with the funding and the skills could try their hand at bringing everyone's favourite characters to life in pixelated glory. It's how we got such gems like the Lego Star Wars series, The Star Wars Galaxies MMO and, my third favourite game of all time, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. So it's safe to say that I am a fan. Or rather was.

As with all things good in the world, the golden age of Star Wars would come to an end. Now, I'm not going to attribute that all to the 2012 acquisition by Disney, 'cause this ain't no movie blog, but I won't put my head in the sand and pretend that the purchase had no affect. At the time that Disney took control of the Star Wars license they, as a company, were on their way out of the Video Game market. As developers Disney had never seen huge success in gaming outside of their Disney Infinity hybrid project that was already beginning to lose steam. Therefore it wasn't a huge surprise when, not long after Disney bought out Lucas, the Lucasarts team was essentially shut down and now exists only as a licenser.

Of course, Disney would be insane to just abandon the video game market entirely; they'd be turning their backs on a billion dollar industry. Disney needed to take advantage of their newly acquired licensee company, but they were no longer making big games themselves and Disney's famously oppressive quality assurance would mean many of the companies that used to make use of the Star Wars brand would now be ineligible. Disney needed a company big enough to handle the production of Star Wars games and with enough resources to ensure they are made to exacting standards. Disney needed EA.

Now, I'm not going to rag on Electronic Arts for the rest of this blog. I look at the founding of this blog as a new start in my relationship with that company; I will now approach them as though nothing they have done previously has had any affect on me. With an exception made to what they did to Star Wars. Remember when I said how there used to be a Star Wars game every year? Not any more. Remember how I mentioned Pandemic's Battlefront as an example of a great Star Wars game? Well now we have DICE's Battlefront with it's undercooked first entry and morally corrupt sequel. And I don't use the label 'Morally corrupt' lightly. Heck, I don't think I've ever used it before.
That being said, it's all water under the bridge. EA have made dozen of platitudes about having learnt from their mistakes and moved on and whilst I don't believe them in the slightest I believe everybody deserves at least one second chance. So I approach Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order with a blank state and a fresh mind.

Straight away we have an palatable prospect; A single player, linear, Star Wars adventure that will follow the story of a Jedi surviving the aftermath of Order 66. It's no 'Star Wars: 1313' (the bounty hunter origin story that was scuppered by Disney when they downsized Lucasarts) or 'Project Ragtag' (The Amy Hennig lead Acton adventure that was killed by EA in favour of an Open World title... that was then killed by EA) but what the heck, I'll eat up your scraps, EA; not like us Star Wars fans have any choice at this point.
Cal Kestis is of the Padiwans who managed to survive the, increasingly ineffectual, Order 66. (Seriously we got Yoda, Obiwan, Kanan, Kota, Paradus, Ashoka, Shaak Ti, Luminara and now Cal? I know what they say about Stormtrooper aim but this is bloody egregious!) Now Kestis, carrying the likeness of voice actor Cameron Monaghan, must struggle to persist in a galaxy ruled by the Empire. It's hardly the most inspired story to come out of the Star Wars lore but in this new cannon I suppose it still has some room to explore.The game itself will center around Cal's journey, allowing you to play as him through his adventure to becoming a true Jedi and likely dying at the end. Hey, there's got to be some excuse why this guy wasn't in the rebellion.

EA opened up it's conference, and indeed all of E3, with an extended gameplay look at Jedi: Fallen Order and after watching the footage ten or twenty times I can conclude that the game looks... fine. Visually it looks pretty, I guess. The gameplay sort of reminds me of the Batman Arkham franchise only leagues easier and the world we got to explore in the E3 demo was Kashyyyk. (Whoopee.) You know, for such a rare and secluded species the Wookies and their homeworld tends to be at the centre of so many different plots. The Sith went there to enslave the population; the separatists tried to invade there for... some reason; two Jedi masters, completely independently from each other, hid there after Order 66 and now the Empire have moved in with the goal of... enslaving the population. Are the bad guys starting to copy each other's notes?

Overall, Respawn's Star Wars looks very safe. They chose the safe option of setting the game during the free-for-all period of Star Wars lore. They made the safe decision to make it about a Jedi, banking off of peoples lust to satiate their power fantasies. They based the story about a young man discovering his Jedi destiny, with friends to help him along the way. They had the protagonist look like he just escaped a cloning facility for stock white guys. Okay, that's a little mean. He's based around Cameron Monaghan; but I can't shake the feeling that somehow, somewhere down the line the design artists made a conscious effort to make him look particularly generic.

Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order is a peace offering from EA. They let Respawn go to town with, what appears to be, very stringent confines to make a Star Wars game that will be as appealing to as many people as possible. This is what you Star Wars fans who miss the golden age get. An action game with a vaguely interesting premise and the honour of being the first video game to feature the Sith inquisitors. (An aspect of the new lore that I am coolly agnostic towards.) All those tactics fans, flight simulator fans and RPG fans that made up the old Star Wars gaming community will have to make do with this compromise of a game.

I know I'm being harsh. I know it's unfair. I'm certain Respawn, creators of the underrated Titanfall franchise, are trying as hard as the can to create the best possible product that they possibly can. But this game has inspired little more than mild interest for my part, as a game that I may pick up two years down the line for a heavy discount. Maybe I'm still just stuck in my nostalgic memories of the age when Star Wars games were plentiful and diverse. Maybe I'm still too darn stubborn to move on and accept that the gaming landscape has moved past the days of high-budget projects that don't reek of corporate conformism. But then I look toward Rockstar or CD Projekt Red and remember you just have to look in the right places, at the right companies.

Darn it, I said I wouldn't rag on EA. I don't want to. I really do want EA and Respawn to prove me wrong about this game. I want it to be something special that will really reverberate with fans of the Star Wars mythos and invite in a whole slate of new fans. Uhh, I'm getting cynical in my old age. Make a good Jedi, I would not. Faith inspires optimism and I haven't had faith in the Star Wars franchise since 2012. Please change my mind EA, I want to love my favourite franchise again.