Marvel playing games

 

If you've been keeping up to date with the state of modern Superhero movies, you'll know that things are kind of past the hill. The novelty of seeing well-written and action packed heroes that live up to the image and emotional resonance of their comic counterparts has passed and right now the only entertainment from that world which seems to land differs wildly from that formula or straight up mocks it. Audiences have grown tired, Marvel have grown complacent and I'm increasingly growing more interested in seeing if James Gunn has what it takes to revive this thing over on the DC end of the industry rather than seeing where Marvel go next. Which means that for the big M they need another lucrative end to shore up the sustainability of their multimedia brand. Too bad they screwed up in the games department then, isn't it?

It really is a surprise how difficult it is for those not from the gaming world to establish themselves within it- I guess that goes to show how vastly different this medium is to those producers used to micromanaging movies and TV.  Disney famously threw up their hands after years of trying to break into games through movie license titles that never seemed to hit it off as big as their movies did despite the apparent record breaking potential profits within the gaming landscape- which I can only imagine set off the house of mouse. Star Wars was caught up in that gaming ban and although Marvel has been a bit more lenient lately- there's a distinct desire not to get too caught up in this world. They want to edge their toes in by picking effective partners, you're not going to see a 'Marvel Games Studio' pop up anytime soon. (Shame, that could be pretty cool.)

We've seen oodles of mobile Marvel games go belly up in recent years as none can quite find the purchase they need to make a splash. Marvel Snap pretty much only succeeded because they got the literal godfather of online card-battler games to whip it together for them- everything else had been shut down and forgotten about. Genuine quality titles like Marvel's Midnight Suns and Guardian's of the Galaxy got totally overlooked by the public and flopped- and their giant push down the misguided route to 'easy money' route in Avengers ended up failing so badly it's death became the knell to all Live Service titles. We hold up it's corpse as a warning to the others!

The thing is- Marvel really could have an easy route into the game's industry if only they were to put in just a little bit of effort and actually observed the industry around them. What is making the big bucks nowdays? Well we're seeing a lot of remakes and remasters, aren't we? Marvel has a huge backlog of quality games that they won't even front the money to have listed on storefronts anymore! Ultimate Alliance, all the old Spiderman games, X-Men Legends... all games that, with a little TLC, would stamp Marvel back on the map powered by nostalgia alone. Hell I would consume an X-Men Legends re-release working on modern systems! And wouldn't that be a 100% safe way for a newly formed Marvel Game Studios to establish themselves as an up and coming studio for the new age? Should I charge a consulting fee?

Right now the 'licencing' method really is scoring more flops than wins and without a reputation to build off even the great titles are going to keep getting poor adoption numbers. Sony's Spiderman doesn't ride off it's name at Marvel but the reputation of Sony single player titles coupled with the excellence of Insomniac Games- their continued success provides little more than a false sense of brand health for Marvel proper; which is why I am so very sceptical about the upcoming two single player titles that Marvel is throwing their everything behind. EA Motive have been working on an Iron Man game for so long now that I already thought the thing had dropped and bombed- their marketing has sunk like a stone with nothing to show for I and I sniffing the wafts of development troubles from this prolonged silence. And Black Panther versus Captain America- or whatever it's called... same problem- they refuse to show us an inch of gameplay- what am I supposed to make of that?

Now it should be said that the Iron Man team are exceedingly talented, Motive were the guys that helmed the excellent Dead Space remake so they really do know what they're doing. I think the game is going to be worth checking out at the very least- but is it going to draw the audience that it should? With the weight of Marvel's growing sense of dispassion among it's fans and the general distaste for Marvel branded products- I think the brand might end up being something of a detriment to the title's image at first. Motive are going to be in an uphill marketing struggle to get the game it's appreciation, which luckily they have the leverage to pull given that their last game is considered something of a masterpiece of a remake. But the Black Panther game? That's a different story.

Cliffhanger games are a brand new studio developed to create AAA titles, only theirs appears to be one of the only such studios that doesn't boast about the pedigree of it's staff on it's socials. Typically you'll see name drops of the various big companies that came together to form this new studio that will be around for a couple of games until their first flop and dissolution. Cliffhanger doesn't even have that to lean on. All they have are these high fidelity Unreal 5 trailers that get people going "ohh" and "ahh" but share nothing about the game we're supposed to be getting excited for. The bar is high and if this game doesn't play buttery smooth in it's gameplay reveal there will be cries of 'downgrade!' echoing across the industry for it's entire launch window. I'm not sure Black Panther is going to rise to it's occasion right now- but it's hard to make any predictions when we have diddly squat to go off.

These are both risky endeavours that take the control out of Marvel's hands because they, like Disney, consider the gaming world too complicated to get hands-on with- but it doesn't need to be! Remasters are a great way to build a small team of dedicated brand-loyal developers who understand how to play into the emotions that made gaming fun all those years ago- and their output is a decently low risk why to build a reputation and earn some success. If Marvel really are serious about getting into gaming like they suggest, then putting themselves in the ring a bit more, rather than waging these endless proxy titles, will go a long way to establishing that trust with the audience that earns goodwill. Black Myth Wukong didn't sell 10 million in it's first week out of nowhere- it built a respect the world over across the course of years. It won't take long for Marvel to do the same. Stop playing games, Feige- get serious!

Deadpool was good

 

I love to be fashionably late to events, it's like my biggest desire as a resident psychopath to be the guy strolling in after the party is over and tasting all the left-over snacks that nobody has even touched because this is a party and people don't eat at parties. (Seriously- no one ever touches the snacks! What's up with that?) Hence was one of the reasons why I waited several weeks before finally going to see Deadpool and Wolverine- second was my belief that Deadpool was an 18 because I heard it got an R Rating- but apparently in England 'R' translates to a 15 which... I'm only just learning now. Guess that says a little something about the way we and America view violence and the effect it has on growing minds, huh? But enough about me, what about the movie? It was good.

I'm sure by now you've experienced some vast exposé on all members of the cast given that in the information age the very second a movie comes out that spoiler embargo expires. Supercuts of the 'best moments' and 'best cameos' have flooded the Internet, memes have spawned, compilations are complied- all before the film has even officially released on home digital. (I wonder if those little scanner things they use in Theatres even work or if it's just a scare tactic at this point- seriously!) Which is why I'm not going to play it coy like I would if this were a brand new game. Plus who cares about spoiling a movie, seriously? They're meant to be spoiled- that's like the entire point! (Why? I don't know but I'm said that now so I guess I have to stick with it.)

I think the Deadpool franchise was on a bit of shaky grounds ever since the second movie didn't quite hit as acutely as the first. That original movie was scrappy to it's very core and that made it absolutely charming beyond belief. Ryan's Pool was a violent, irreverent, mass murderer with the ability to turn literally anything into a joke- making him like this minus-hero, not even an anti-hero, that drove a war of gloriously irreverent immorality that stood out so vastly admits the sea of increasingly homogenous and vapid superhero projects that all espoused the same virtues, portray the same journey and, crucially, had the same sense of humour. Deadpool was a movie that had to struggle to live and be made- which was represented perfectly on screen.

Deadpool 2, on the otherhand, is a strange case. It was visually much more ambitious, they clearly had an insanely bigger budget to work with and spent that building up a powerhouse of a cast. But maybe somewhere within that safety an edge was lost, at the heart of the film. I think it shows best in Deadpool's attitude which for the first time ever comes across at predominately altruistic, rather than begrudgingly or accidentally. He wants to save a kid from becoming a serial killing monster in the future because for some reason he connects with the aussie, whereas in any other instance Deadpool would definitely have just killed the kid. Whilst cracking a joke. There was a horrendously prototypical message about the importance of family that clung to every half second of the film and that just wasn't what Deadpool was about. Deadpool is more about what Deadpool 3 is about. 

Yeah, there's some slight hook about 'family' in order to light a fire under Deadpool's ass within the magic box- but the movie is very upfront from the get-go: this is about the excitement of Deadpool finally getting to join the real continuity of Marvel Movies wherein the things he does can actually 'matter'. In typical Deadpool fashion they are very up front about that- just like the ol' 'Pinky, Elmyria and the Brain' opening lyric "It's what the network wants- so why bother complain!" In that way Deadpool's choice to hang around in order to try and save his dysfunctional family is more allegorical of Ryan Reynold's attempts to try and get the FOX era of Marvel movies to be considered valuable and real and maybe even be tack-ons to that old MCU Machine we're all growing sick and tired of.

A common complaint of modern Marvel which makes no sense to me is people's fatigue with Multiverses, for which this movie relies on heavily. I am confused because no one seems able to voice a genuine critique as to why they are objectively bad as a storytelling framework. The go-to is 'well there's no stakes because you can do anything to someone from one universe and they'll come back as a different version of themselves." My challenge is this- literally when has that ever actually happened in a film? It's a common problem with the comics, but the only film that has attempted anything remotely close to that would be Guardians of the Galaxy 3 wherein the resurrection of Gomora is a chief talking point. The only real critique I've seen is that they are overdone to a poor degree- to which I find Deadpool to be rather decent salve to.

Getting to experience all the oodles of cameos tucked away in this movie fresh was a fantastic showcase of the potential of these kinds of stories done right. Of course, assisted somewhat by the meta-leaning of this movie that allowed a lot of leeway in exactly what they could pull and why there are doing it- which for me is really the crux of a Deadpool film. When you get stuck too staunchly on the meat of the movie and the grounded terrestrial stakes of film, those secondary aspects of the film, then you'd be forgiven in not having as good of a time- but that takes a wanton rejection of the very heart of the film in order to achieve. Judge the film for everything it isn't and all you'll see are the mistakes- the clumsy story, the hand-waving plot points, the bizarre interactions- let yourself go with the film and I'd consider this one of the best Marvel movies in their entire line-up.

So it's safe to say that I like Deadpool and Wolverine and as a cap-off for the franchise I think they did a mighty good job settling everything down in a way that I don't think the FOX universe was capable of or even deserved in a lot of respects.  But it's always nice to see someone who holds the utmost respect for something demonstrate the admiration even if you don't full comprehend it yourself. And that's what the movie was, a love letter to a long-departed ex who left your goldfish without food before going off on holiday. Which is to say that I thought the movie was downright marvellous. Such a shame about the next one being Venom 3. Thanks for that, Sony.

Marvel's Overwatch

 

If I worked at the Marvel company right about now- well I'd be loaded, wouldn't I? But I would also be incredibly hyper-conscious every waking hour about the razors-edge my place in pop culture is currently balancing upon. Insist though Kevin Fiege might, there's no denying the fact that Marvel is currently far past it's prime and rapidly approaching the realm of irrelevancy at such a depressing speed that I'm no longer surprised when a Marvel named project slides neatly under everyone's radar and goes on to underperform. As this point every failure has to feel like a stab in the back of a wounded animal, struggling to get back on it's feet and speed back into the race, which is probably why Marvel has all but retreated from this year in the hopes that Deadpool can prove the about face their franchise needs. Of course, Marvel can't control the whims of the mad scientist Sony, and as such another on of their half-aborted cross-bred abominations of life will slither onto screens this year too with 'Kraven the animal-loving all-vegan largely-respectful bad-guy hunter'.

In such straits, I can only imagine a slam dunk video game under the Marvel brand that will remind everyone why they love this franchise is exactly what the team are looking for- something to keep people distracted whilst the movie divisions figure out how to unscrew themselves from the absolute mess of everything they've made. (Not least of all changing course after having to fire their leading man for the next ten planned movies.) We've already gotten wind of that Black Panther meets Captain America game- which could currently be anything from a Souls-based action title to a choice-based narrative game to a Rhythm-based space shooter- we've got nothing to go on for that one. But one might say that for their other leading project we have quite a lot to go on. Perhaps even too much- considering that I'm pretty sure most of the gaming world is familiar enough with Overwatch at this point.

Yes, the team based hero shooter based around guarding payloads through the same rough feeling map that hasn't managed to significantly grow out of that base concept since it's inception. And the team have gaslit themselves into being proud of that, despite once having dreams of growing the brand into a powerhouse that caters to all kinds of players, not just forlorn soldiers of the old guard who stick around out of habit and Rule 34 artists who pop in to get a preview of who they'll be morally bankrupting over the next year. Having just recently shrunken to such a size in their development team that they can't even support the promised PVE functions that were meant to replace the promised extensive singleplayer content- one might say it's never been a better time to present a direct competitor copycat with the money and brand recognition to steal it's faded luster. In comes Marvel Rivals.

Despite sounding like on of those low-rent mobile store fluff pieces, Marvel Rivals looks like it might be a semi-competent hero shooter set in colourful cartoon-style maps that look near identical to Overwatch ones and featuring a cast of characters who have actually been properly fleshed out through canonical ancillary media- Blizzard! We'll see anime-ass looking Iron Man teaming up with K-pop idol Hulk, mobile-banner-ad Loki, Hanzo-in-cosplay Namor, Ultimate-design-reject Spider-Man, Grown-up D.VA stand-in Peni Parker- (Obviously piloting SP//dr) and this one girl called Luna Snow who looks like she exists only as a 2D ad-waifu for Korean mobile games. All these heroes are teaming up against Galacta- Galactus slightly more skimpy daughter who likely exists only to quench some lonely comic artist's desire for hot giant women. As a Lady D survivor, I have no grounds on which to judge that.

And you know what- the game looks... functioning. It doesn't promise a whole lot thus far, merely bringing us to a Marvel-based version of the Overwatch vision; but in that lies a simple and steadfast truth- they haven't overpromised yet. Overwatch was the home of overpromises, built on the foundations of a Blizzard that still had some slither of it's former dignity left in 2016. Some saw Overwatch, which had existed in some form in the company vaults for years beforehand, as the last hurrah new franchise from the player-first studio and expected it to be the exception in the slow dissolution of brand. Overwatch's promises then started to turn into broken promises which blossomed into ruptured trust. And when all trust is gone- that is when the lying started.

What Marvel Rivals offers is a clean slate- if a familiar one- peppered with an easily recognisable cast of distinctive silhouettes that already starts with a stronger base appeal than, say, Paladins. (Another Overwatch wannabe.) I genuinely think that this game's cleverly picked line-up of thin coded Tik-tok E-boy Marvel variants paired with the long-legged waifu companion cast has the potential to slip into the rotation of hero shooters provided everything goes to plan. Given that we're looking at a pure PC release right now, the most difficult platform to develop for recently, it would be really bad if they do a 'Modern gaming move' and screwed up the windows version. (And there's a not-0% chance that they do screw it up, knowing the landscape.)

Of course, any sparks of anticipation you might feel welling up at all this should be duly tempered by my next bit of news. This is a game by NetEase Games. Oh yeah, that Chinese tech company known for peddling free-to-play titles that lure in with functioning games and then trap you in their culture-typical pay-piggy hell. Starting up one of their games is like signing up to a Loanshark subscription service where they come around and knock on your window every morning when you're trying to relax to squeeze some blood of you. It's like trying to walk down the street and enjoy the view whilst beset by an gang of organised beggars who have strategized how best to squeeze into your wallet. It's like trying to be an an every day land-loving Chinese famer in the 1800s, whilst bad-boy-Britain keeps hitting up your local haunt peddling just wagon-loads of Opium for an insane mark-up. And you're already addicted at this point, so they're essentially just dependency enslaving you. You're picking up what I'm putting down, right?

Still, with how Overwatch currently sits- their waifu skin-suit badly stretched across a one-armed bandit- (I just remembered how that is actually a fetish, unfortunately.) maybe there's a space for even a NetEase disaster child to steal some of that thunder. I mean, it's not like Overwatch has some moral highground to stand on. They've thought impure thoughts about Lady D, just the same as the rest of us! (Wait, what were we talking about?) Of course, it will take a talented team of dedicated developers to retain such stolen thunder, and not do a 'Pokemon Unity' and fade from the limelight less than two weeks after launch. And to this I can say- wow, Overwatch 2 really wouldn't be in trouble of being outshone of they stuck to their guns and diversified the brand, now would they? Food for thought!

Marvel's next game

 

It's been a little sad watching the mainstream bigwigs of the entertainment industry dodge our platform like the plague- scared of some little things like 'not understanding the medium' and 'risking funding on a volatile investment'. I won't lie, those others tend to suck at making games. Disney, bless their black hearts, funnelled largely trash when they were publishing games- and Warner Bros. seems adamant on fighting the quality work of their world class studios to turn them into trash. Even Amazon, battling hard to win a piece of the MMO pie and investing practically everything they had to do so, only managed to pull off a decently successful title that stays alive but earns no relevancy currently. Google straight up couldn't even release a single game even after developing a whole unique console to potentially play the thing on. What I'm saying is- I know why Marvel is so standoffish.

Well, it's not just the reputation- I suppose. It might also be because as a whole the Marvel brand is undergoing something of an identity crisis right now, as the high quality story factory seems to have fallen into the passionless noise maker that legendary curmudgeon filmmakers were accusing it of being all this time. Every slip up by Marvel in these coming years will be like a dagger in the back of a dying Wyrm struggling to make itself stand up straight, and I don't want to see the Wyrm wiggle like that- it makes me feel bad. And I'm sure it makes Marvel feel worse. Given that they are the Wyrm in that scenario. Being stabbed would feel bad. I'd imagine. Haven't been stabbed. Currently. (Stepped on a upwards pin once though. Wasn't fun.)

Marvel going hog-wild supporting Square Enix's Avengers was a really big investment for them, and so it should be given it was hosting the company's biggest heroes in their first debut game. And Hawkeye. After Spider-Man it should have been a slam dunk! And it was. If one 'dunked' by launching themselves through the basket hoop and slamming face first onto the asphalt- which I've been told is actually not the way Basketball is played. (At least not if you're a coward.) Avengers was a dud and a low-scoring mess that sunk the companies chances of scoring big with their chosen player base- live service chuds. Of course, they still had the licenced Guardians of the Galaxy game with Square for the Single Player heads! And that was also a flop. Just a financial one, mind. Critically it was beloved- I'm playing through it slowly now and I think it rocks! But- well: my opinion doesn't sway investors. For some reason. (I have pretty cool opinions, guys; you should really listen to 'em.)

But that doesn't mean the big M is out for the count- oh no! Just like with their movie division which is handily skipping 2024 and leaving the playing field open for Ryan Reynolds and James Gunn- (Hmm? I'm hearing that Superman Legacy is a 2025 movie? Guess it's all for Ryan- go team!) Marvel was merely regrouping and making sure they come back with a bonafide hit. Whatever that looks like in this age where Marvel is a walking punchline. And rarely the funny kind. In terms of games- Marvel has turned to talent production company Skydance Media, of many hit movies, to make their next game. And if that sounds a bit iffy to you, Skydance were partners with Skybound (apparently that naming convention is a complete coincidence. Bet it still inspired the partnership though.) on 'Waking Dead: Saints and Sinners'- pretty much the best VR game you can play for under a grand. (Sorry 'Half Life: Alyx')

'Marvel 1943: Rise of Hydra' might be an objectively terrible title for a video game (Which is why it's already been stylised as just 'Rise of Hydra') but it does represent a very unique endeavour in the Marvel gaming universe that so far has not been attempted. You see- every single game so far has launched itself off the strength of an existing brand, utilising the strength of already laid marketing efforts even within the Marvel motherbrand. Avengers, Spider-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy- all supremely successful movies that call to audiences naturally, on the otherhand a game designed to not at all evoke the MCU but still was under that Marvel logo, Midnight Suns- went undersold. (Which is a shame, the game was half decent.) Rise of Hydra might bring us Captain America and a previous Black Panther we haven't yet met- but who knows what that is going to feel like in action?

Which is why it is oh-so important for reveal trailers on such projects to be explicit about the kind of game we should be expecting. And from this trailer I can derive that this is going to be... a CGI movie? A really high-quality one, those models look incredible in motion, but... like there's going to be gameplay in the final product, right? We hear a lot of guff about CGI reveal trailers, but curiously I don't think this was that. (Besides, we already got a CGI teaser announcement years ago.) Judging from the spoken dialogue, the scene selection and the cutting- these appear to be cutscenes from the finished game but... unless I'm missing something there was an active choice not to give us any gameplay. And sure, I know this was the story trailer and all that- but marketing usually does the story trailer after people know what the game is on a basic level. This could be a turn-based tactical game with virtual novel relationship cut-ins for all we know- which is currently nothing. They forgot to show us all the things.

Scrambling to read through the lines of scant materials provided, I assume we're looking at an action adventure game here designed to be a high-quality cinematic experience to the visual quality of The Last of Us. I doubt we'll get that degree of survival gameplay, but I get the impression the team are trying to call upon that same sort of feeling we get playing a game like that the moment we hold the controller. I'm thinking heavily directed and largely linear levels with supreme visual storytelling focuses intercut by- well let's be honest, this is a Superhero game so... a Batman Arkham light style combat. They're all Batman Arkham light, afterall- it's just the done thing in Superheroing. Only Guardians of the Galaxy managed to bring their own sort of feel being a shooter with AI teammates- and I guess the card-based gameplay of Midnight Suns- but then what did you expect?

You see what I'm forced to do when you give us nothing to work with, Marvel? It's not like I can get all excited about the prospect of exploring the origins of Hydra and how deep into the Nazi-backed war criminals we're going to get- because the trailer seems more interested showing off the Cap vs Black Panther drama as though we don't already know they're going to resolve their differences and fight together by the end of the first arc. That's Shonen anime one-oh-one guys, come on!  Overall- I'm a bit annoyed that we're still in the dark, but quite impressed by the cutscene quality. These guys should be in the movies! Oh wait...

Review: Spiderman: Miles Morales

 Imma do my own thing. 

Avengers Down! Avengers Down!

Do believe I told you so!

I'll admit, it lasted much longer than I expected. Although even with that being said I am totally going to milk the fact that I told you so. I told everyone so. From the exact moment it became clear that Marvel's Avengers was going to be a Live Service I predicted it's colossal fall like clockwork and I was wrong and right. The prophecy was delayed, but it came true eventually. Which isn't to say the game didn't ever have anything resembling a fighting chance in it's inception; rather that, I think, lo and behold, the decision-makers totally undervalued the amount of effort it would take to first launch a Live Service and to break it into the top 3 services that rule the industry. Just like in the age of the MMO where everyone and their mother was launching a WOW clone and trying to just wing the 'post launch support' as they went; amateurish plans have led to amateurish embarrassments for the Live Service crowd time and time again. Which I do believe marks the last of every single one of Square Enix's many Live Service endeavours going the way of the Dodo. And good riddance!

If you've a perceptive mind on you, perhaps you can deduce what my self-righteous bragging is about. Just recently the Marvel's Avengers team announced they were hanging up the shield and killing support on the game from this point onwards. Or rather, they would be killing support after an upcoming update that will make all the cosmetics free for everyone to play around with, which is actually fairly nice of them. Although at this point they might as well make the game itself free as well before the servers shut down and the thing becomes unplayable outside of the singular core story missions. Marking the end of a game that was slated for death pretty much the second it revealed it's true nature to fans in a 'tail between the legs' demonstration presentation that is sure to live on in infamy. Topped perhaps only by the legendary moment when Valve announced Artifact, only to be met with a stadium full of boos when it was revealed to be another online card game. (Incidentally, Artifact is also no longer with us.)

Right from it's first mewling mumbles fresh from the hatchery, Avengers was the lightning rod for all the frustrations of a gaming public sick and tired with strong properties and solid games being irreparably warped in order to fit more 'monetarily promising' models. Titles like Anthem who's back was broken on the knee of corporate monetisation mandates, for a game that could have very well been promising as a single player or limited multiplayer title being forced into a environment it doesn't belong and won't thrive in, because Destiny made a lot of money with their Live Service once. That frustration did, admittedly, result in Avengers perhaps receiving a harder time than it deserved out of the box. The gameplay was decently fun and the visual presentation was somewhat pretty in it's environments and decent character models. And the boss fights, what few they were, proved engaging enough. But even the supremely jumped-up didn't have to poke far to come across genuine faults with the Avengers package that they could crucify the game for.

The lack of gameplay variety was a serious issue, and a major contributing factor for people getting very sick of the combat very fast. Every somewhat interesting unlockable outfit was locked behind purchasable cosmetics, which felt like a crime for a full priced title which just happened to also be a super hero game. Outside of the main quest the team didn't really know what to do with the end game to make it even remotely interesting to play with. The team tried to subtly make the EXP grind heavier in order to pad out player playtime and hopefully also retention. It was just scandal after scandal with this game. Even their good PR moments seemed to be muted or shortlived. Hawkeye was quickly overshadowed by the arrival Kate Bishop, who literally just felt like his 'shadow fighter' and whittled away at player's patience. Black Panther dropped with any big fanfare outside of this game's specific community. No matter what happened, Avengers just couldn't get a break.

And you know what? It never could have gotten that break. Not even conceptually. And do you know why they couldn't have? Because Live Services just can't function as an industry within gaming. Think of what a Live Service is and what it entails. A consistently maintained and played product providing constant grinding and reward incentives to players that demands excessive time commitments and encourages a little bit of 'on the side' spending to keep the lights on. Hook a couple of whales, milk them for the lionshare of profits; bob's your uncle, you've created an ecosystem exploiting the financially irresponsible for your own end, great! But what's the one heavily spent resource which is essential for all players in order to get the most out of these sorts of games? It isn't money, most every Live Service provides a free path. It's time. The ultimate resource.

Time, as I'm sure you're just so very fond of hearing, is limited. Increadibly so. And if every Live Service you play begs and pleads with you to spend two to three hours each and every day with no end because the game is updated so regularly, then how many such games can a single player feasibly maintain in their daily routine? Two at most? Consider also that there are large swathes of the gaming community who scoff at dedicating that much time and effort to a single game, and you've got a decently niche subsector of gamers being squeezed between dozens of games they cannot possibly juggle with any deftness. Unless you get in on the ground floor and score your lifelong fans back when the idea was novel and the overwhelming negatives of a potential forced addiction wee widely known, you'd have to compete for a table scraps worth of an player base, all the while praying that the small net you can afford to cast netted you a Whale or two. And Avengers was not a spry chicken to this game genre.

Live Services are largely cynical and bankrupt, in a manner that is so very obvious to the public by now. Pursuing such a model in this day and age is tantamount to slapping your audience around the face and telling them how you know that they know the trap your setting but you expect them to tie themselves to it anyway under the vain hope that the enjoyment of the game outweighs the crushing expectation to play incessantly. And it rarely does. Marvel's Avengers was just one of Square Enix's many attempts to secure a cash cow in this drained-dry market and it performed about as well as they deserved. Which is why I cannot but stand baffled at the fact that Square threw away all of it's western companies claiming they don't know how to work a profit out of them, considering they paid literally no attention to the flagging trends of the market and flopped each one of it's franchises on it's face in front of everyone repeatedly. (You reap what you sow, I guess.)

The Avengers game should have been a co-op multiplayer game that followed a single strong main storyline and maybe pursued a traditional DLC structure for some additional adventures; the brand was certainly big enough to score a great swathe of sales with that model and that was all Avengers had the framework to be in the first place. Not every game can become an Online megahit just by throwing some rogue strings of Netcode in the software; just look at Fallout 76- that game has struggled to do anything significant since the Wastelanders Update raised expectations apparently way too high nearly three years ago. There's something to be said for playing to your strengths and not wadding too far from your obvious specialities; and there was a perfect gap in the market for a team-based co-op title just waiting to be filled. Or at least a single-player team-based super hero game. But no, Avengers snoozed and Guardians of the Galaxy took the crown. Alas, poor Avengers... I knew them well, Matsuda-San.

Even Paul Tassi has forsaken Square's Avengers

 Et tu, Brute?

I, like many out there in the world today, don't sit down and play Marvel's Avengers. Or maybe that should be 'Square Enix's Avengers' in order to appropriately differentiate itself from the movie franchise because apparently some people need that for their context deficient brains to properly process information. This is a game that has one of the biggest brands in entertainment riding on it's shoulders and even together they couldn't manage to clear the bar to ride with the big leagues. From the year of our lord 2022, Marvel's Avengers has broken more than 1,000 players only once in the past 6 months, and tends to keep a holding average of around 500 or less. That is... shocking. This is an avengers game! A title that takes advantage of the most cycled movie franchise in the world! And sure, the Superhero movies are getting a little long toothed around about now, but there's an undeniable market! It feels like 'Marvel Ultimate Alliance' had more staying power than Square's Avengers, and that game still isn't even purchasable thanks to an annoying licence dispute that no one can be bothered to clear up. And no, when it's bleeding and beaten, it's last prominent spokesperson just can't be bothered to cover the game for it's next significant update. What has the world come too?

I have actually played the game in the past too, and it was actually kind of fun! At least it was until the entire thing crashed on me. That was the Xbox version of the game too, so god forbid what the computer port is like. But before that unceremonious booting I did see a game that has some mindless potential as a beat em' up with the world's fanciest cosplayers; and some people who actually stuck with the game seem adamant that there's a real end-game to explore in Marvel's Avengers with actual challenge and everything! Now I don't exactly believe those people, but they insist really hard so I can only assume they think there's a endgame worth the average joe's time at this title's twilight! (I think there's a mass hallucination in the video gaming community that has convinced the majority of the gaming world that the mere existence of stuff to do at max level means the game has fleshed-out and meaningful activities to devote oneself to, even if the majority of those events and rewards are perfunctory.)

Perhaps what I've waiting for is that single clarion bell of 'Everything is awesome, now is the time to play' before I take the Avenger's plunge for real, because despite every waring siren indicating the exact opposite; some part of me thinks that potential is within this game. Some argue that this game should have been single player and the very multiplayer nature is what cost it it's integrity, and whilst I believe there might be some water there I've recently come around on the multiplayer structure. I think there was real potential here for a multiplayer co-operative title with a real challenging edge to it, something that really pushed players to work in a team in order to survive and threw interesting and varied missions at them. Of course, that is my dream of what this game could have been. The reality is, typically, disappointing and boorish.

Which isn't to say that the team have just given up on the game! Or at least... not all of them. Some vague skeleton crew have been stuck to the Avengers project and dropping updates here and there to keep the faithful fed. They've mostly been character drops that don't quite offer enough new content to justify the extended hiatus of static service they are meant to fill up, but there was one big event wrapped up in there for the Wakanda event. Oh, and I guess the Future Imperfect event was supposed to be similarly big but I don't hear people talking about that one for some reason, so I guess it must have been underwhelming. Or there's not enough people left in the community to talk about it anymore. There has also been the much belayed drop of the Playstation exclusive character Spider Man, who has the worst web slinging of any Spiderman video game to late, (And I'm counting Ultimate Alliance in that summation) and we are soon to get the first piece of content that lines up with the films.

To be clear, I think this was not only the big pitch behind launching the game to begin with, but the potential heart and soul behind an Avengers game had it worked. The potential to synch up movie releases with video game content so that fans could dive into the movies, come back wanting more and fulfil that longing bashing heads in Square's Universe. Perhaps it was the thirst for this symbiotic relationship which overtook the project director and utterly blinded him to the anaemic state of the launch product. Without that basic body of a game to keep a healthy number of returning players, there was no way they could justify a dedicated and prepared development team to create stuff like a Moon Knight DLC character to coincide with the show, or a Doctor Strange Multiverse Crossover event. There was the Red Room event which I think might of happened around about the time of the Black Widow movie, but small scale events don't hit as hard as character content drops! Still, after the years of struggling, now we're finally going to see Mighty Thor release alongside the drop of 'Thor 4: Love and Thunder'; and Paul Tassi isn't going to cover it.

Paul? Really? During my extended and pointed ignoring of this game, Paul has been the canary in the mines for me and many other prospective players to dive in update after update to tell us if the Avenger's content cave is safe to pillage. Only this time, for the first time since the game released as far as I can remember, our hero is stepping away. This is the same Paul Tassi, by the way, who is an actual game's journalist with sources and great articles behind him, so I can understand him perhaps being preoccupied with other stories for the moment of launch, but from what the man himself has said, he just doesn't believe the coming hero is worth a look over even by him. Although to be fair to the man, this isn't some Nostradamus-style fortune telling on his part peering into the theoretical state of this game, he did about as much research as any one of us can expect to do; he watched the Avengers roundtable. Which is where we can see exactly why an intelligent fellow like him might be turned off of Mighty Thor.

You see, the Avenger's development Team aren't exactly at full force, which means any substantive content is going to take months of forethought and development to be realised and I guess someone on the planning team forgot to schedule those months into what might be their biggest opportunity for cross promotion in the game's entire history. (oops) Yep, Mighty Thor is basically a shadow fighter for regular Thor, in that she shares some of the moves and special attacks of her male counterpart and isn't going to be heralded into the team with any dedicated content. There'll be no Asgard-themed tile-set to the mission rotation, no 'Gorr the God Butcher' boss, (despite how badly this game needs new boss fights) and no real justification for Jane Foster's appearance beyond a meagre introductory cutscene akin to what Spiderman got. So as heartbroken as I am, I can't really blame Paul Tassi, there's no real content to even cover there.

So I guess we have to ask ourselves a vaguely philosophical question here. If a Marvel's Avengers character is released, and Paul Tassi doesn't cover it, was there ever a new character drop at all? In my world, and that of many others who have their Avengers content distilled and regurgitated into their mouths by Paul, that answer is no. Which pretty much means the only outside means of marketing this game ever had just decided he has better things to do with his time, leaving that community to fade ever further into obscurity. So how much longer before the game is left to fry? I'd say give it at least one more year for these 400 players to properly move on with their lives, and then for the She Hulk update to come out alongside that simply atrocious looking TV show. I think it would be truly fitting for that crossover to kill The Avengers. 

Marvel's Spiderman 2

 Talk about getting busy

I'm swinging through the streets of New York, dangling nearly a thousand feet from the ground, swapping web for web  at speeds so rapid that the screen has that blurry effect on the character that we wouldn't all collective realise looks awful until several years from now. This is it, the greatest possible realisation of the webslinging dream, unbound by mission constraints, unafflicted with a non-existent street level, boasting webs that accurately pretend to stick to buildings- the only way this could feasibly be any better would be, oh wait: there it is! The voice of Bruce Campbell admonishing me for what I don't know, but gracing me with his presence all the same. See the many virtues that will forever make the 2004 Spiderman 2 game the greatest Peter Parker simulator known to man. (Although from everything I'm told I guess Marvel's Spiderman is a close second.)

And yet Insomniac games have the gall to try and dethrone my ageless king with their very own Spiderman 2! Such to the extent where, now if I type in 'Spiderman 2 game' into Google, theirs has already clogged up search results. (It won't even be done for another two years, guys, calm down!) I will not hide my utter repugnance at the very suggestion that Spiderman 2 can be bested, but perhaps that throne may be shared and if anyone could whittle away a comfy seat there, it would have to be Insomniac. (Unless they manage to finagle Bruce Campbell to show up in their game as well. Then I'd actually be having a crisis of faith) And they better live up the name they've built for themselves and put something out that's fantastic, because seeing two AAA Marvel games apparently be under development by them at the same time, I have to wonder if everyone knows what they're doing over there.

Marvel's Wolverine and Marvel Spiderman 2? So what- we talking simultaneous development here? My observations have always seen that companies who conflate their development schedules usually do so to the detriment of every single project that they're working on. Heck, look at Assassin's Creed back when they were still deadset on doing yearly releases, forcing them to overlap every game with the next one coming out. Every title started to become monotonous and samey, serious player feedback was so outdated that it became irrelevant when it was addressed and the heart of these games just felt absent, probably due to a lack of passion from overworking, alongside other big issues. Call of Duty slipped into the same pattern, although they were at least smart enough to try and rectify this with various different studios who would attack each game in rotation. But it only worked a little, the yearly schedule still did the series no wonders. So is that what we can expect from Insomniac in the near future?

I seriously hope not, because as I recently said in another blog about The Wolverine game; few companies have risen to the legendary status that Insomniac have managed over pretty much a single console generation. That's the sort of legacy that needs to be protected, the kind of legacy that demands everyone of their AAA games be treated like kings, and given the care, attention (and development space) they need to thrive as the best they can be. Spiderman Miles Morales was already a disappointment due to it's size and scope not really justifying the stupid full price on the tag. (Yes, I know Sony are deadset on convincing us that £70 is the new 'full price', but they can choke on that crap for all I care.) Insomniac have stated how that won't be the case again, but I look at this schedule and I worry. (What's the catch then? There's gotta be a catch!)

As for the game itself; sure I'm crazy excited for it. For all my jests, Marvel's Spiderman for the PS4 did the impossible and took a character who has enough games to choke a whale on and still managed to put out a definitive competitor to the entire subgenre. I mean sure, old hats like me will always rate the classics, Spiderman 2 (original), Web of Shadows and Ultimate Spiderman; but there's no denying the impact that Marvel's Spiderman had. The game looked beautiful, explored an original narrative, went in interesting directions with the character of Peter Parker and revitalised some old villains. And that was just the story stuff it did. The combat, which I actually do have experience with, is Batman Arkham levels of tight and the detail and design of the world is simply flawless. Although that final point would be a lot more impressive if New York wasn't one of those skylines that have been in more games than Nolan North.

Spiderman Miles Morales, on the otherhand, managed to dupe people into buying a half a game at full price, but also succeeded in bringing a hugely successful alternate Spiderman to life with his very own style and life to him. It also inspired a cringe game reviewer to utter a sentence commenting on how his unique animation quirks were "full of the exaggerated swagger of a black teen"; so this game granted us all kinds of entertainment. Spiderman 2 is going to bring both of these protagonists together in a confirmed co-op space which is, and I'm using effortless hyperboles here but I can't help myself, just incredible. Playing with the precision of Spiderman but stretched across two spidermen at the same time? Both with their different levelling trees and stuff? Man- Insomniac must have cancelled all of their holidays if they think they can got the time and space to meet their schedule. But heck, I'm rooting for them!

And none of what I've said so far is to even touch on the most exciting part of the game was saw teased. I mean sure, Kraven the Hunter was obviously narrating the thing; he's a character that a lot of fans simply love but I never really saw the appeal so that's 'whatever news' to me. No, I wanna talk about the big slobbery dude at the end, ducked in the shadows there; because Venom is my spiderman villain/sometimes Anti-hero of choice. He's literally just Spiderman reimagined as a monster with teeth, and who doesn't love an idea like that? He's miles better than ManSpider who- urgh, I hate that I had to google him to remind myself that was definitely his name. (Seriously, if you've never seen ManSpider before: he's a deformed human sized spider in a suit; there, now you don't need to look it up.) The Venom chapters were my favourite parts of Ultimate Spiderman, (both the proper version and the crappy gameboy advanced version which only I in the whole world played) now I get pumped for everyone of best-boi-symbiote's gaming appearances. (And doubly so when my man is being voiced by the legendary Tony Todd- Way to bring the talent, Insomniac!)

Spiderman has never been in better hands (in terms of videogames) than it is today, and given the number of hands that the franchise has gone through that really is a testament to it's current arbiters. Were this calibre of spiderman game coming out back when I was still a kid, I wouldn't have ever looked at another Superhero. However the concerns I have about the project, and Insomniac overworking themselves, still looms over the whole thing like a vulture, and I know just how easily everything can fall apart even from the height of near perfection, and so I can't just put those worries to the side. Still, Insomniac believe in themselves, and maybe that'll be enough to carry them through what's looking to be the most hectic two years of development in the company's history. (I'm excited for the results)

The tale of X-Men: Destiny

 It's not a tale the Jedi would tell you

I was a fiend for licenced games back in my youth, a fact I've shared here once or twice, which grants me a history with some of the niche games out there that time forgot. Maybe not the ultra deep cuts hidden and nursed under a rock in Tuvalu, but the sorts of games that had their day and then were deeply buried from the spotlight, most of the times in rank embarrassment. Thus when I watched the reveal event for Marvel's Midnight Suns and heard the claim, lip service though it may be, that this would be the very first time in the Marvel universe that players would get to make and be their very own OC hero, my canine ears perked up. My gut reaction was 'X-Men: Legends', in which you are introduced to the famous team of mutants through the eyes of a new initiate, but then I remembered that Magma was actually from the comics, she was just often overlooked. (God, X Men Legends was great...) So I struck out there, but I couldn't shake the 'X Men' hook from the back of my mind. No matter how hard I tossed and turned it around I couldn't make it fit. Until it came to me, the misbegotten entry, 'X Men Destiny'.

You see, there was a Marvel labelled game that gave players the time and chance to create and be their very own superpowered hero, it's just not a game that is legal to be sold anymore because of a court ruling which concluded that the software used to make the game was illegitimate. You see, this was a game made by Silicon Knights, the guys behind the ambitious flop known as 'Too Human'. (To this day I kick myself for never getting the chance to play that museum exhibit of-a-game) Now as I understand this, and I may be missing some of the finer points, Too Human was meant to be Activision and Silicon Knight's opus, having been worked on to some degree for 10 years and being announced on the original Playstation. It was meant to the first in a trilogy, and when it flopped that was a huge investment embarrassment for all parties involved, but in it's wake would follow a series of unfortunate events that would shake Silicon Knights and, pertinently, X Men Destiny.

A couple of years before the game would see the light of day, Silicon and Epic made a deal that all their future games for that generation would be developed using Unreal Engine 3. Fair enough. However, it would seem that Silicon hit some significant development woes in attempting to bring their vision to life, because they ended up suing Epic for breach of contract, citing the many shortcomings of UE3 in key areas that they needed. Epic, never ones to miss a chance for some litigation, shot back with a countersuit claiming that Silicon were well aware that the Engine was still in development when they signed the contract and, whatsmore, made an agreement not to modify the engine on their end. Now it's here where things get a little fuzzy, as I'm not sure if Silicon had modified their UE3 or created their own engine with Unreal code, but whatever happened sparked a legal battle that lasted long enough for Silicon Knights to develop a whole other game; X Men Legends.

But why bring this up? Because the ending of the tale is so wild. You see, Silicon Knights lost the case and thus were forced to round up all unsold copies of games baring their Engine, which at this point were 'Too Human' and 'X Men Destiny', and destroy them. Yeah, we're talking full 'E.T The Game' treatment, only this was a court ordered punishment. As such, physical copies of either games are exceedingly rare, but guess what someone got gifted for their birthday round about the time all this went down? That's right, I have a piece of gaming history tucked away in my collection, and whilst the actual software itself has become less rare since Microsoft rereleased Too Human a couple of years back, for the time being I think that 'X Men Legends' is still a rare item, let alone boxed, so I may have a real gem gathering dust somewhere in storage.

And is the game worth this heritage value? Err... From the get go the game offers you three archetype people and three choices of ability, Shadow Matter, Destiny Control and Energy Projection. In my imperfect recollection I seem to recall that you could match any of the three protagonists with any power, but they were obvious 'correct' combinations that were made clear in move tutorial videos and themed costumes. Ideally the three different power routes would integrate an innate path of replayability into this game's DNA, and to the developers credits the various powers did stand out from one another in the roles they forced the player to adopt. Unfortunately, the actual game part of the gameplay just didn't really standout enough to make this worthwhile.

What I remember is being swarmed with mostly same-ish enemies that were never really too taxing or interesting to fight for their ultimate similarities. Sure, I was learning all these cool abilities, but I had little reason to really dive into them all that much. Which I'm sure is fine for some people, certain folks like to take these sorts of games at their own pace, but I prefer having the heat under my collar some of the time. Certain set piece fights, however, do stand out to be even now for sheer spectacle, like the Magneto battle. Perhaps what the game needed was more of a 'villain of the week' structure to it, similar to 'X Men Legends', so we'd have more opportunities to fight actual named super villians that have different powers and abilities to them. Then again, that would require the studio to be invested in the game just a couple shades more than 'not at all', which, owning to the franchises looming purchase by Disney, was not the case.

Ultimately I didn't dislike my time with X Men Destiny, I just found it mediocre and a waste of potential. One of the big marketing stings would rave about the choice, not only of powers, but which side of the X-Men/Brotherhood conflict you landed on. In practise, this just changed the AI companion who would show up for a few fleeting scenes; the core path of the game didn't change. The story of Destiny is fraught with situations like that; where the path seems laid out but pointedly ignored, as though this game were never truly 'finished'. Even now, with the history around the game making it much more important than the software's quality deserves, my memory of the game is more holes than substance. I remember Gambit shows up, I thought Juggernaut's suit had too many unnecessary details and I don't think Professor X appeared once. I might be wrong about that last one- but I think old baldy had already died or something in that game's timeline, if I remember correctly.

If you're looking for a little bit of gaming history that is inexplicably hard to find, than morbid curiosity might just land you on X Men Destiny. If you're looking for a quality X Men game that really lets you settle in with Marvel's Mutant family, than it's X Men Legends to which I send you. Seriously though, Legends is the precursor to Marvel Ultimate Alliance and it earns every ounce of that legacy by being a truly solid experience with a fantastic roster to get familiar with and master. Destiny, on the otherhand, gives you one hero with alright powers who you'll forget the name of by the third act. Maybe if 'Destiny' was a little more prescient, Silicon Knights wouldn't have stirred the hornet's next and they'd still be around to throw my critique back in my face with the perfect sequel that felt like it was bubbling somewhere on the pitch of this game. Alas, that is a reality for another sector of the multiverse, we just get a mediocre game with a fascinating story.

Marvel's XCOM Suns

 Pick a card, any card

Woah boy, talk about a surprise gift out of nowhere! I full expected we'd rush by this Gamescon event with nothing but a reveal and limp speculation as to what Marvel's Midnight Suns would hold for us, but instead we've been gifted pretty much a total blowout topped with the sweet desert of a release date. Who could ask for more than that? It's really put some force behind the vague words that this is 'not like any Firaxis tactical game before it' whilst still leaving me utterly perplexed as to how this will actually play when push comes to shove. But come on, it's Firaxis. I literally preordered Chimera Squad and I never do that. I'm going to buy this game one way or another, getting to know my purchase before the fact is just a bonus. So I guess now I have a chance to totally disseminate the project standing between me and XCOM 3: Terror from the Deep. (It better be good!)

First I'd like to touch upon an expansion of something we already knew was coming to the game; the Character customisation. By the very nature of the story, the Marvel heroes will be digging up and reviving the wayward child of this game's big bad; Lilith. But if you got worried about that default-npc looking character who was leading the trailer, don't be; she's totally customisable. Option wise things seem mostly the same as any XCOM game, with four basic faces, but I'll imagine the slack will be made up through all the hair, helmet, armour and accessories that make these games typically shine in the imaginative character department. (As well as prove a hotbed for modding potential) Unfortunately we're only looking at one customisable character. (heroes will get outfits too, but I'm expecting that'll be more similar to 'Ultimate alliance' unlockable costumes rather than a modular affair.) Everyone else in the game will be another Iconic hero. Which means yes, we're getting yet another Firaxis tactical game without permadeath. (Should we begin interpreting this as a bad sign?) 

But what about the core gameplay? You know, the stuff that matters. Much ado was made about the fact that this would play nothing like XCOM before it, but considering they'd made slight variations to that formula over their three game tenure, that didn't really mean all that much. That being said, there does appear to be some vast new additions to the formula to change things up, with the biggest one to me being; randomness. Or, should that be more randomness? (Wait, what?) You see, combat isn't going to be throwing us into arenas with nothing but our strict toolset and our wits to out-chess the enemy and there doesn't even seem to be hit percentages at all. (What blasphemy is this?) Rather, players will be granted random cards to be chosen from that then dictate their actions, presumably picked from a pre-assigned deck that the player builds throughout the game, meaning that you'll never quite know what's in your handbag of tricks today. It's- different, that's for sure.

Something like this makes the game look much more like Slay the Spire or Guild of Dungeoneering; as they both utilised random card based deck-building strategy to great effect in their own ways. However both of those titles are rougelites, wherein having a terrible fight due to the random hand of luck isn't the greatest feeling in the world, but it's the nature of the game to fail and start from scratch the next time around. I'm not sure how that'll feel in a tactical campaign similar to XCOM, and this is what I mean about us being told a great deal about the system, but knowing nothing about how it'll play out until we get our hands on the thing. A huge positive I won't forget to commend, however, is that the level design appears to be leaning much more into environmental interactions. (such as explode-able barrels and precarious ledges) That's something I've literally begged out of all turn based tactical games, and I'm giddy to see it getting a due here.

Outside of combat, the way we wind down has also been fundamentally changed through the addition of the Abbey, a real-time break spot for the player and the various Marvel heroes of the team to partake in good-old-fashioned simulated social gameplay. (Start playing "Persona 4 'Specialist'") Yes, that means hanging out, building relationships and getting stronger with the likes of Wolverine, Magik, Doctor Strange, Tony Stark, Blade and others I've forgotten about already. But no romances! There's no way in hell Marvel would ever entertain a character in their licence being part of a romance sub-plot; so don't get your hopes up! These will be entirely platonic super-powered training sessions where you and Tony Stark spend all morning working out in the Gym right next to each other, becoming so humid and sweaty that his gym wear seems to stick to his strapping, pounding chest. That is, until he slowly peels the material off... That'll be the extent of it, you perverts! No Smooches for you!

Of course, the relationships you build will grant benefits in battle and I somewhat suspect it might be linked to those cool dual-moves we've seen advertised in the gameplay. Let's hope that these moves come in handy for the missions; speaking of which, why didn't we hear about the missions? XCom have always gone back and forth on whether or not they want to get creative with mission objectives (2) or simplify things down to very basic 'kill everyone' jobs. (1) I think that a company self-styling themselves as "Gaming's greatest strategy and tactics experts" should definitely branch into more styles of mission for this new venture of theirs. Wait sorry, what was that they called themselves again? I couldn't make it out through all the smacking-slurping sounds of the autofellatio. (I just watched 'Helluva Boss' and 'Hazbin Hotel' through for the first time, if you're wondering why I'm so crude through this blog)

If I can make one sleight plea, which at this point in development it's more like a hopeful prediction, it's that the actions of the player will have some bearing on the narrative. Just a little! We already know that the Hunter (that's the player character) will have access to Dark and Light powers, the former of which is said to 'take a toll' on the team, whatever that means. It's just that, Firaxis games of the past have always been about supplying the tools for players to craft their own storylines for themselves, and this game seems to be moving away from that; so just a little bit of narrative interaction like a good and evil meter would go a little way towards putting that control back in the player's hands. I'd still prefer telling my own journey fraught with the potential for superheroes to perish on the journey to stop the mother of demons, but I'll take that prototypical 'your actions will have consequences' tag at this point. Just feed me a bone!

So what are my thoughts on the game I'm going to own? I'll still buy it, although I'm not so blindly in love to preorder it, and I think we'll need an actual livestreamed playthrough of a level to show us how the moving parts fit together sometime between now and launch. (Which isn't actually out of the realms of possibility for Firaxis, so I hope they do) Pretty much none of the choices made for this game, save the social simulation elements, match what I would have chosen, and that's left me puzzled but not utterly repulsed too yet. I'm familiar with this team's work. They're talented. And if they tell me this game has every bit the care and love which is usually in a Firaxis game, I'll stick around long enough to hear them justify it. Consider my expectations firmly tempered, and the hype train slowed, but still moving. (I still kinda hope they knock it out the park again) Oh, the game comes March by-the-way. Which sucks.

Marvel Midnight Suns

 Or is it 'Sons'?

Sometimes the best treats are those you don't expect, or to be more accurate, the ones you knew of but forgot about for some backwards reason, such as the fact that Firaxis have been working on a game up until now. Whilst we've all been waiting around and drumming our fingers impatiently for the next entry in the XCOM saga, they've been doing every little thing they can to subvert our expectations and throw up road blocks. But because it's Firaxis, those road blocks are turning into worthy distractions anyway. Chimera Squad was a ton of fun and remain my goto for recommending anyone who wants in on this franchise, and their next game sounded incredible, what with their partnership with Marvel comics. Well seems I totally forgot about that because I sat through that entire reveal trailer wondering how Marvel's Avengers was possibly going to transition to all this metal insanity before the studio logo dropped. ("Oh wait, this is a game to actually get excited about!") 

If only we actually saw some gameplay. I don't what it is about this Gamescon, maybe I've just turned into more a grump or maybe we're just encountering an age allergic to gameplay. And I am a lover of cool CG, I am, but when I desperately want to see the game in action and can only rely on vague non-specific buzzwords tossed out in interviews to inform my expectations, I just get a mite frustrated. However, that being said I at least had fun with this trailer, and who wouldn't; it follows a crossover Marvel event where the vibe is all metal rock, Lilith mother of demons shows up and they play a cover of Enter Sandman. (Kinda sad they couldn't get the Metallica version, we are talking about Disney money here, but I understand.) Also, I absolutely adore the redesigns of the cast to fit the mystical, metal, soldiers-of-the-damned aesthetic, great costuming job there.

But what exactly is 'Midnight Suns' and why are so many press outlets screwing up the name in their articles? Well, that might be because this game is based on a 90's Marvel comic run which just happens to be a favourite of Firaxis' creative director, Jake Solomon; a series known as Midnight Sons. So why the change of name? Well my first guess was because the original had all male members and this adaption has introduced more female characters, hence the switch from 'Sons' to 'Suns', but according to Wikipedia the original lineup actually featured one woman named Victoria, so I have no earthly clue why the mix-up is there. In fact, it almost feels like it exists just to confuse us all and spark debates about what the right title is. (I don't know why, but I desperately need an Interview where Solomon explains the name change, it's bugging me much more than anything like this rightly should.)

As for the actual context: The Midnight Suns are described as a group of characters that all have 'a touch of the damned' to them, hence Ghost Rider, Blade, Doctor Strange, Wolverine and- Iron man? Captain Marvel? (To be fair, I don't think those last two were in the original comic) They've delved heavily into the supernatural in their stories, as they duel the eldritch and arcane, and essentially do Marvel's version of a John Constantine. For this story the team have tapped into their original purpose, of coming together to stop Lilith, a character I had no idea was even in the Marvel universe at all, but am glad because a super-cool final boss only makes the journey more exciting. (Also, her design looks like a first draft of something from Diablo III. Thus is unfortunately completely outshined by Lilith from Diablo IV's appearance. Not their fault, I just found the comparison interesting.)

Now I'm sure you're thinking, as I still am, what does Firaxis bring to the table in order to make this a game worthy of their time? And I, again, have no idea. (it sucks having to say this so much about a game I'm dying to learn more about) They've come out and confirmed that this is a strategy game, so we can rest assured that the talents over there are going to get to shine like they should, but they've also said that the gameplay will be "nothing like" XCOM. Okay... so what does that mean? Telling me what the game isn't takes me no closer to knowing what it is; come on, marketing team! All we've been told for certain is that the main focus of the game isn't going to be any of the heroes themselves, but a brand new player created character known as The Hunter who will be the child of Lilith. (Baalspawn again, is it? >sigh<)

From gut reaction I'll admit I wasn't too happy about that. I don't really want to play a nobody surrounded by cool heroes, especially when this 'Hunter's power are going to be split between angelic and demonic extremes; and we're all just supposed to pretend that isn't exactly Dante's whole deal from DMC. But the team managed to hit the right notes when they revealed that this new perspective will serve as a perfect way to integrate something I never thought I'd see, but have literally just been asking for... (in a blog which hasn't come out just yet) Social simulation elements. That's right, slap on the radio, we're going Persona, baby! Solomon spoke about how this Abbey space you retreat to within missions serves as a Hub from which you can socialise with these various heroes and strike up friendships, thus fuelling your battle bonds within mission. That is exactly what Persona does! Good golly, social simulation is taking over the world and I'm here for it!

Unfortunately, this yet again highlights the fact that we know more about the inbetween parts that make up non-active gameplay than we do the meat and potatoes themselves! And of course downtime is important in the makeup of a game, I've argued for such myself endlessly, but when I'm still in the wide-eyed 'love at first sight' stage I need the real stuff in order to keep me attracted. The only reason I didn't cover this game first was because I was convinced it would come with gameplay, because why wouldn't you? How hard could it feasibly be to cut off a single level and show us just the bare minimum? Is this game still even turn based? I want to lose myself in rabid excitement but I just don't have enough rope to wrap around myself yet and that's deeply frustrating. (Don't toy with me, Firaxis-san!)

Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy

 Who?

The Square Enix conference might have ended off with a surprising dud to the face, (that I've already covered in another Chaos strewn blog) but it started with a big and surprising reveal which I certainly didn't anticipate. Well... I mean it was actually leaked before the conference, but I tend not to pay attention to that sort of stuff so it was new to me. However, the surprise perhaps shouldn't be too great because as we've already seen the Marvel folks have been wanting to get into the multibillion dollar gaming pie for a while now, so it was only a matter of time before they shot down their list of marketable heroes. First the Avengers were pimped out to Square Enix for a game so bad that recently the development team patched in a bug that temporary showed player IP addresses on the screen (basically doxxing any streamers of the game) but it didn't even make front page news because hardly anyone streams or watches it nowadays. Well this time the guys over at Marvel are committed to get their brand's money worth now that they've trusted their value IP to... oh, Square Enix again? Huh... feels like there was a lesson to learn here that was a little ignored...

But you know, I love a few choice Square Enix games out there, so I'm sure the unfortunate case of Avengers was just a one off. Maybe they can really nail that great Marvel game we're all looking for now that they've got Marvel's second most beloved family under their wing; The Guardians of the Galaxy. Yeah, do you remember how popular those guys were? James Gunn took this relative unknown super hero team and turned them into household names with enduring character writing, near perfect casting choices and some solid action scenes. The first movie was great, I think the second movie was better and I'm sure the third is going to be special too. But can that heart and soul successfully carry over to the video gaming world? It certainly didn't save the Telltale Guardians of the Galaxy game which, despite gaining good reviews, didn't manage to set the world on fire like previous Telltale games had. (God rest their soul. And give praise in the name of the resurrection. I really can't figure out what's going on with Telltale nowadays.)

This is a completely different approach to Guardians of the Galaxy, however, not an interactive narrative choice based game but rather a single player action game, which is exactly the sort of dumb stimulation my dumb monkey brain is looking for. Honestly, that was one of the things that Avengers was actually good at, throwing you in an arena and letting you feel like a badass for a little while, and something that unabashedly caters to feeding the power fantasies of gamers is somewhat missing in today's market when you really think about it. It's all mostly given to looter shooters which are more preoccupied with making players obsess over stat values by gradually turning up some arbitrary difficulty valve, when was the last time an action game just focused on making you the hero and nothing else? Okay, there's probably at least one huge example I'm missing- Ghost of Tsushima! Duh...Well, that was an exclusive, this game is for everyone, thus it'll be great, no?

Well, it looks pretty interesting at least. Being based on a superhero team, fans might be expecting the chance to shoot big guns as Rocket Racoon, pick up and chuck folks around as Groot or get all medieval as Drax, but instead we're stuck with playing only Peter Quill. Which is fine. Quill is the leader of the group and his human story is meant to be the audience's window into the world of wonder of bemusement, thus he was going to play a centrale part of the game anyway. It just sort of feels like a missed opportunity is all, something that Avengers didn't even miss out on. I mean, there's something detached about playing a brawler game where all you do is fly around the battlefield and fire blasters at people whilst your team do the heavy lifting. I mean sure, that's the exact role I try to play in every MMO I've ever played ever, but I like when it's my choice to play the hands off coward, getting forced into it feels restrictive.

That being said I will say that there's something interesting about playing the group leader in an active combat sceanrio, I just hope that comes off a lot more involved then pressing attacks prompts when meters fill because otherwise I wonder about the thesis behind this combat set-up. It's strange, from the gameplay we saw, and there was some extended gameplay here, you appear to be playing the least weighty role out of your entire team and are just have really floaty ranged attacks that lack any of the oomph of even some of the better third person shooters out there. I thought things would get better once the super flashy ultra mode was activated, but that just buffed the damage outputs whilst playing old copyrighted music (get it, because that's Quill's thing!); kind of making it one of the disappointing ultra modes I've seen in a while. I'm not saying that I want Dark Souls level of connection with every swing I throw, but if your entire gameplay loop is built around shooting maybe you'd at least make that shooting somewhat punchier? Am I being unreasonable here? Maybe I'm not giving it the dues.

Admittedly, my criticism is based on solely what I can see from pre-release demo footage and maybe that's one huge misnomer and the game feels crisp in the hand. (I doubt it, but maybe.) But that's secondary anyway when you consider that what a Guardians game really needs to conquer is the banter between the party members, as the Chris Pratt led ensemble movie really set a high bar to meet. This game tries to lean more on the comic influences than the film, but given that the recent versions of the comics are themselves inspired by the films, everything sort of wraps back around the James Gunn way. And thus we will come to the rather unfair comparison of dialogue writing between movie and game, a battle that's unwinnable. We actually saw a very extended chat with the team in this trailer demo and I can say this much; it didn't flow as well as the movie, but I still thought the team dynamic was there. I could tell how much they hated each other, which fits with the setting being hardly a year into their journeys together, and the rivalry seems like set up for some decent lategame camaraderie to offset it and show growth. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but servable.

The real problem with this game in my eyes, and the reason it stood out like a sore thumb on the E3 stage, was the look of the game; I mean what was going on there? The artistic intent behind the alien world in the gameplay was fine, and I appreciated the grandiose and fantastical sense of scale, but it was the raw graphical quality letting everything down. Why did this look like a last gen game in a conference season dedicated to the next gen? I mean one might say the same about Elden Ring, but that's a game looking to revolutionise that entire development company's approach to game design in their most ambitious project to date, this is just a single player brawler. I can't comprehend why the visuals looked so low resolution, it's bizarre to me. My only guess is that the team didn't prepare PS5/Series X footage for some reason, but then that just makes them lazy and silly. Of course, graphics never make a game, but they do form the first impression and this impression left a dour imprint.

With it being just around the corner, Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't really look like a game with the sort of polish that one is looking for to wash the taste of Avengers out of your mouth. In fact, Avengers kind of still looks more fun than this game. Which isn't to say I couldn't be totally wrong. The devs did a grand job of selling their dedication to bringing the Guardians to life, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that the raw prospect of more Marvel team games doesn't make me all giddy on the inside, but my gut just won't settle for me on this one. Call me a pessimist, but I'm just not falling for Square's sale pitch this time, I don't see this game being the smash hit that this licence deserves, and if my gut is right that'll be two strikes against Marvel in a row. We can't let Marvel be chased out of the industry again, I need more superhero games! So maybe from a stew of lukewarm ingredients this game can pull a Ratatouille style miracle under the chef's hat with a smash hit masterpiece. Fingers crossed for a game not nearly as mediocre as it looks.

 

Marvel's Avengers is spiralling

 It's 8:15; that's the time that it's always been.

Marvel really has been on something of a successful revival for it's brand lately, after their self-imposed hiatus following 'Endgame'. (Well, after 'Far From Home' to be fair, but we all pretend the cut-off was Endgame because that's just more neat) I remember noting it smart on their part to take such a break, before people grew too bored of the traditional Marvel formula, but coming back was always going to be an issue. How would they do it? Would it be a chance to edge their toes into new frontiers, put Marvel on new platforms? And then we got the Avengers video game, which lacked so much that the movies had in terms of continuity, charm, writing, and even actor's licenses that it might as well have been an rouge unlicensed title. And then Marvel just moved to try and conquer TV through Wandavision somewhat successfully, and I completely forgot that game ever happened. As did a lot of folk. So the Avengers game has no more draw to it as the 'grand return of Marvel'. (Quite liked Wandavision by-the-by. The last episode was pretty weak but the others were stellar) Yet I am forever interested in the gaming world, and so I do think back to that game with it's weak launch, weak content and weak playerbase in order to wonder; what's up with them?

Because as Todd Howard once famously said "Don't hate the player, baby, hate the ga-" wait a second... no, he actually said "It's not about how you launch it's about what you become." And what a concise and insightful thing ol' Todd uttered that fateful day, no really. I mean just look at Anthem. It launched as a premature mess with weak foundation propped on a decent, but ultimately lacking, combat system and just look where that game is now- dead because EA took the smart decision for once and absolutely refused to keep pursuing a pipe dream. But think of all the friends we made along the way! To be fair, Avengers might not be quite as precariously placed as Anthem right now, in fact some of the 12 active users are forever caught in a desperate loop of insisting to players that "it get's good eventually! Several hours after you've run out of content and grinded to max level, then the combat gets it's depth." Which, honestly, I've heard some informed sources actually back up, I just find it rather galling that a game literally needs to be beaten to death in order for it to become good. It makes me think: 'Or I could play another game that starts good'

Crystal Dynamics has taken this one victory of theirs, however, (in their supposedly anaemic yet solid endgame) and arguably gone to shoot themselves in the foot right before the conclusion of their first major new content update arc. For you see, the Two Hawkeye's event that feels like it has been going for the past 5 years is finally wrapping up with Clint Barton's return to the roster he should have started in. Avengers players will get this on the same day as it's next-gen release; signifying a brand new start for the game to really strut it's stuff now that it's hitting systems that might be able to actually play it at a consistent framerate. This is a genuine chance for Square Enix's Avengers to strike out at a new audience, softly reset the disaster drop-off from the launch, and maybe have a go at this 'maintaining a successful live service' thing that seems to be every single studio head's wet dream nowadays despite sounding like a total nightmare for even the top of the pack.

But they're determined, okay? They want that infinite stress with added pressure and are ready to change some fundamentals to achieve it; thus comes the reworking to the experience system which is coming to the game on that very same day. Now listen up and see if you can see why this changelog has come to be so vehemently reviled by the public, even a laymen like myself managed to spot the little oddity. So they're changing up the levelling system in order to 'fix' the amount of EXP it takes to level up. Before it was apparently a straight shot where every level required the same amount of experience in order to ding to the next level, which is usually offset by modifiers applied to enemies so that the experience they dole out is relative to your level, but I won't tell Crystal how to make their game. Instead, the team are looking to scale EXP requirements after a certain level so that it'll take longer to reach the top level. (Bare in mind, also, that in this game each character is levelled separately, including the new one which will be added by this update) Do you see the problem yet?

As they note in the blog, many RPGs have their levelling system set up in such a way that it elongates levels in late game, but this doesn't mean that they all have to subscribe to this. Square's Avengers, in particular, apparently hides most of it's impactful and playstyle defining levelling choices until the end of the road; so wouldn't it make sense to expedite that process in favour of elongating it? The general public seem to think so, and that might be why Avengers is currently getting roasted on it's own subreddit in their transparent attempt at trying to lock players into playing Hawkeye more so that they can turn around and tell their money-men about how successful their DLC has been. Folks have demanded explanations, retractions, subjugations; and through it all Biowa- I mean Activ- I mean Electroni- I mean Crystal Dynamic thought carefully and decided "Nah, you're all wrong. We're right."

In the typical way that these company's do, Avenger's team put out a note that essentially called the entire community morons for misunderstanding the simple premise they were explaining, and then proceeded to elaborate the exact same premise with easily refutable excuses. For one they did they 'Well other games have a curve' Argument which I already responded to. "Doesn't mean you have to have one". But the really funny excuse was where they claimed that people might sometimes level up twice during one mission, and all those extra level-up points might be overwhelming for their little tiny peabrains. So let's play devil's advocate and assume this is the case; some people might look at the level-up points and become overwhelmed as though they're playing 'Pillars of Eternity' or something. New players might be like that, I understand the assumption; but then why are you implementing this system which only comes into effect at later levels? That's right, an adaptive curve won't effect new players at all, which not only makes this excuse highly presumptive but just fundamentally wrong. Either the balancing team is so incompetent that they've conjured the wrong solution to the problem or they've lied and assume their audience to be so dense as to not see through it. Pick your poison.

Whatsmore, even if this does in some way benefit the newcomers to the game, it's at the cost of alienating those that have stuck out the game. The non-casual hardcore players already know where the value in the game lies, and may have gone through upto 5 consecutive levelling chains in order to scry what little enjoyment they can out of the combat. Now they're being told they've got to do that even more, for even longer, in order to play some of the new characters? It reminds me of Genshin Impact's world level issue, only that's something which MiHoYo have acknowledged as an issue and are brainstorming towards fixing. Crystal, on the otherhand, have dug their hooves into the ground and raised their horns; they wanna fight. I just cannot comprehend what for, why are these Devs so insistent on playing to their own game's weaknesses?

Of course, this is all coming from second hand accounts of those who play these games and those who make them; so maybe the general public is wrong and this game actually has a great early levelling experience and everyone's wrong. I want to try and see this from Crystal Dynamics angle, because I genuinely do love their games but here's the plain facts; we're currently in a year where two big games have been killed off for trying to launch bare-bones and fix everything later, that should be a wake-up call to this game that it needs to start thinking harder about it's decisions going forward. I actually do want Marvel's Avengers to become a good game at some point, and as unlikely as that seems; stranger things have happened. But those steps will only come if the player base and the development team can reach an accord on what these game needs to be in order to lure in new comers, otherwise it just leads to endless friction that prospective buyers see and go. "Ew, don't want none of that." Believe that, because right now I'm literally one of those bystanders scrunching his nose and turning away.