Neil Druckmanm: the punching bag

 

It's hard to make friends as an adult. Everyone already has their lives, their preferences, their own baggage they carry with them- it can almost feel like you're trying to forcibly borough into someone else's life just by asking for a phone number to keep in touch. It would be especially difficult if you just so happened to be, oh I don't know, a messy lad with a habit of turning all the world against you with incendiary articles written about everything wrong under the sun. If you absolutely live to kick over chairs and scream your name out to a world that see's you less and less as the auteur it once did. Think of it like the 'reverse Kojima effect', where the more people see of him the more convinced they are that the man's farts are made out of solid gold? The more we see Neil try his hardest to prove his intellect, the more of an idiot he appears to be.

This all began with the lead up to The Last of Us Part II, the long awaited follow-up to the much beloved original game that many expected to push the brand foreword to even greater heights. And it it's credit, The Last of Us Part 2 seems to have been every bit the technological marvel that people were pining for! But it also came with some narrative and tonal shifts that some people found to be deeply incongruent with the charm that made the original so beloved. What was a story about hope, even at it's most twisted and self destructive, was disseminated into a cynical and mean-spirited diatribe on 'The cycle of violence', which fails to really 'speak' in any manner more substantive or coherent than shock. Honestly, the game feels like emotionally mature than it's original.

Neil, of course, has defended his baby as best as he can, but just as the director of the game received all the applaud of the original, he has endured the brunt of the askew brows and quizzical glances of it's follow-up. People who want to know exactly what he thinks he's touching on by sneaking in out-of-place reference to conflicting wars in communism and the like. Kind of feel like he had several dozen ideas that he wanted to enact all in the exact same moment and that sloppy feeling conflux of half-digested concepts was the result. At least the game played good. If only people came to The Last of Us games purely and solely for the gameplay. If only.

He was even threatened with the worst fate a studio like his could possibly endure, being strung out on a live service gravy train for the rest of Naughty Dog's natural life through 'The Last of Us Factions' which bounced around the studio for far too long until it was cancelled. They were talking about that game for years before the obvious question of support, which everyone was asking about from day one, reared up and killed the project dead. I can't rightly say what took them so long to come out and scrap the thing, but I won't pretend I don't hold a little bit of appreciation for the way that Naughty Dog handled themselves in that cancellation message which smacked back at the wide spread mandate for these wastes of time as a question of working to your strengths versus working to a vapid bottom line. Rare W for the Druckmann.

But then you have to bring up the biggest hot button issue of the year and what do you get? Well, you get Neil talking about the revolutionary possibilities of AI within game development which just... man, it totally boggles the mind. A man from a studio of some of the most talented artists in history, extolling the virtues of a technology fostered and primed to put those very artists out of a job. What could possibly have been going through the man's head? Not only is it a marble-mouthed condemnation at his own team's area of speciality, but it's also horrifically untrue in the manner which AI is currently being spoken of.

Basic learning models that flood any and everywhere desperately lack the reasoning and deduction to be put to creative tasks. At the very best they can fiddle about with provided tools and assets and throw them about to the vague tune of a model you explicitly lay out for them. Which is just generation software, that has been used in popular gaming since before the days of Minecraft, but arguably most popularly in Minecraft. This is the breed of tool that Neil is praising and calling potentially revolutionary to development. And sure, perhaps he's looking forward to the potential of what might happen with generalised AI in the future. We know he isn't, but let's pretend for a bit- eh?

Now of course, we would be remiss to omit context from this. Neil was pulled up under Sony, not Playstation, to ramble in front of technological luddites about matters they clearly know nothing about. So maybe he used simple words to keep their tiny minds chugging along for the ride and it was his misfortune that such a figurative sound-byte was captured and waved under his nose to make him look bad. But seriously- even in such straits the man has to know the effect of what quotes like that can do when waved around the industry, spoken by one of it's supposed creative leaders, the AI truthers at Ubisoft have been salivating for anyone with an ounce of credibility to endorse these tools. (as obviously no-such creative exists within their walls.) 

I stand by my title, Neil Druckmann is a punching bag for certain chunks of the industry and that likely is only going to ramp up the more successful the man becomes. He's no moron, just a bit full of himself, which is why gaffes like this puzzle me so. I detect a bit of the Ken Levine from him, a tint of the 'out of touch'- and placing himself firmly on the wrong side of history in this conversation is a shining beacon to that sullen truth. Whatever the circumstance, whoever the audience, this conversation is really exposing those who think first about the people, those who thinks first about the art and those who think first about the product. Not the 'art'. The 'product'.

The Last of Us Part 2 Remaster

 There's a LOT of Last of Us...

"Last of us Remake isn't cash grab" says the cash grabbers

 Do I detect a conflict of interests?

Hardly a week ago the Last of Us Part 1 Remake went gold which means that we can all sit back and enjoy the fruits of what so far looks to be one of the most pointless remakes of recent memory. A touch-up of a game that is hardly a decade old looking only slightly more worked on than the Dishonoured Remaster, and sporting a shiny spanking new price tag in order to suck some fresh schmeckles out of an audience of fans who really don't need to be nickle and dimed right now, of all times. Oh but hark! Old lady Naughty Dog has crawled off her porch to shout obscenities our way for the crime of looking upon the fresh cane mark on our cheeks and questioning whether or not it's fair. "Don't call this a cash grab, I'll take no such insolence from you" she spits, chewing on her gums and something sticky and black between them. "You'll open up and swallow your Remast-, I mean Remake, and you'll like it! After you've handed over your credit card details, of course. These expensive projects that no one asked us to embark on won't pay off themselves, you know? Oh and don't forget the digits on the back, I might need to fleece you for the next Remake our the boys are cooking up."

Now yadda yadda, you're going to want to defend something you're working on, yadda. But have some humility while you're at it, eh? A developer, not the lead but a mind from the process, declared how this game couldn't be a cash grab because of the care they're putting into the project. Which, in all fairness, is a definite boon. As much as I poke, I'll bet there's some increadibly impressive work being done on the Remake in order to make it accurately represents the original in new shiny glory; but good lord if that doesn't totally miss the point of why people are incensed I don't know what does. I wasn't concerned it was going to be a low effort port, and if this is some kind of strange attempt to equate this situation to the GTA Definitive Edition then let's put the kibosh on that right now. You'll earn no merits by comparing yourself next to an absolute horror-show disaster. Just because that crap is crappier than your crap, it doesn't mean your crap is any less crappy. Savvy?

This game is going to be realised in "The way the developer intended", we are being told. Which means that ol' Neil Druckmann, in between sessions of concentrated fart sniffing, dreamt of the exact game they were currently making only with higher resolution models and ray tracing! Get out of here with that 'George Lucas' bull, will you? The Last of Us Part 1 came out in 2013 and was the belle of the ball in that year and for many years following; there hasn't been so much of a seismic shift in technology that a total remake is going to utterly change the face of the product and shoot it into the vastly improved future. This isn't as much of a revolution as the Demon Souls Remake, honestly. And don't even get me started with Final Fantasy 7 Remake comparisons! That whole "The way they intended" garbage is such 'empty marketing drivel', sheesh... 

Oh, but here's a good actual point I've seen bought up in defence of the Remake. And it's a doozy, listen here: "No one's forcing you to buy this." Ah yes, we're taught to call this one the 'EA defence', in sleazy video game scheme school. But in the context there could be half of a warped point to be made here, because he is right; Neil Druckmann has yet to lose his last grip on reality and go door-to-door forcing his products on people at gunpoint. That is accurate. And in fact it's so liberating to know that I can, at any point, abstain from this Remake and hop along to the original version of Last of Us on Steam and buy it at a reasonable price po- oh wait, I can't? The only way for a PC player to play this game is through this upcoming Remake? No exceptions? So if that's the case... then I guess... if we really put this together... I'm kinda, sorta, maybe, actually, being forced to buy this grossly expensive remake if I want to play the Last of Us... aren't I?

 

Ah but I already know the next argument and it's another doozy. (We're doozing it up today!) This is when the grey matter starts leaking out their ears as defenders rush up to regurgitate the half-digested faeces fed to them buy their marketing heads. "Oh the game is £70 at retail? Um, that's actually to take into account the expenses of game development and catch up with inflation, which the games industry is immune to." Okay so number one; that isn't how finance works you absolute Neanderthal. Secondly, yeah games were £60 since the 90's and before; that's because they were all egregiously overpriced! We've coexisted with the sixty pound price tag so long because it's slowly grown into being equitable, but that by no means implies that games have only been £60 for the past two decades. Or are we to just ignore the rise of DLC, seasons passes, microtransactions and all the other ways that companies have carved off small pieces of their game to sell them for extra's on the side? Like Horizon Forbidden West is doing despite having sold at a £70 premium price point. Are we going to willfully ignore the $15,000 average price to complete a single character in Diablo Immortal within a normal human's lifespan? Because I ain't ready to just ignore all that.

And then there's the real kicker. Games have decided that despite being one of the most profitable industries in entertainment, that they deserve this random price hike right on the cusp of a cost of living crisis. Yeah, this hits hard over here in England and in the United States right now, but the current state of the world means hardly anyone out there isn't struggling to meet their daily living standards without shelling out something extra. And games want to take advantage of people who are having difficulties trying to meet their essentials, and then they turn around and wonder why people are buying less games on average than they were last year. That kind of sounds like scum-sucking self sabotage, or at the least a 'money grab', wouldn't you concur?

So by all means, go ahead and publish your Last of Us Remake and dazzle the world with it's impressive graphics and the like but stay off your soap box to start moralising to the rest of the world how far away from a cash grab this game is. As long as it's price gouging it's customers it's going to be a cash grab in some shape, it just so happens that with the fact this is literally a 10 year old game remade faithfully on a slightly prettier engine, this whole project reeks of being particularly schemey. But I shouldn't worry, people will still flock to pick this up and another big game is going to loose out on a potential purchase as the trend of people buying less games with the rising costs starts to dig into the gaming industries bottom line as they continue to callously believe that the general public have an infinite pool of money for luxury expenses.

What surprises me is this defensive nature of treating discourse like this as an 'us versus them' situation, and it does spur from both sides. But at it's core all we really want is an equitable and fair industry that is beneficial to both sides, because once the pendulum starts to swing one way more than it should, it starts to form cracks which, when untreated, break apart the very fabric of the industry. If you're too immature to recognise that, on either side, then perhaps this is a debate you should really sit out just in case you end up doing more harm than good; because this, and the precedent it will set, is a very hotbutton and consequential issue. I just hope that all the companies around Sony and Square Enix are levelheaded enough to be able to see that. (Although knowing EA; I'm betting their next game will launch at a £75 retail mark-up.)

The Last of Us: Highway robbery edition

 Your money or your Remakes

Ah, another day another exciting remake the likes of which  will completely reimagine a game that we hold so dearly to our hearts, not just bringing it up to snuff with those rose-tinted recollections from the backs of our minds, but surpassing even our wildest dreams of what that game once looked like! Who could forget that incredible Resident Evil 2 Remake, or the genre bending Final Fantasy 7 Remake? Even the Demon Souls Remaster-style Remake truly pushed the boundaries of fidelity past their resting point! Truly we're in the age of the increadibly transformative remake! So what's up next? The Last of Us? The Last of Us Part 1? That's... not even an exciting sounding new suffix, it's actually almost insulting in how basic it is. And it's going to... what? Remake a game that was already remastered for the last gen? Why? What can you possibly bring to the game that wasn't already there? Is this another 'technical remake' where everything is functionally the same but they had to create it from scratch on a new engine? I'm feeling like it is.

Not to pour water on the people out there who are obviously going to be excited about this, but this feels kind of lack lustre. I know there will be fans, people would give their first born child to save The Last of Us 1, afterall The Last of Us Part 2 has people who sing it's praises to this day even with the numerous garish and whole-hog-fisted thematic choices that stink of 'look how clever and artistic I'm being!' (Yes Neil, you had a boss fight against two people wielding a Hammer and Sickle, truly your intellectual ingenuity knows no bounds.) Of all the games that really need a remake around about this time in the industry cycle of trends with Resident 4 and Knights of the Old Republic on the docket, does The Last of Us really deserve a place on that list? Is it going to earn a spot? I doubt it, somehow.

And it's not the only piece of Last of Us news which fell a bit flat. There's the show which, again, looks like actors in dress-up rather than anything with a heart and soul of it's own. And maybe that's the taint of having endured the abysmal Halo TV series which is making me see things that way; that show could convince me that the Godfather movies were on the same level as The Room which it's mind-addling awfulness; but I'm just completely not sold on this show and why it has to exist at this point. Then again, I have admitted to feeling that way about pretty much every videogame adaptation in production. Metal Gear, why? Mario- okay that casting still makes me chuckle so that might be entertainingly weird at least. Yakuza- wait is that real? Damn it's just talks about prospective production studios right now- that would be amazing, that's the only adaptation I approve of!

At least there's the The Last of Us factions game coming out which is, thank god, new content. It is ancillary universe stuff for a world which I don't necessarily think warrants genuine building beyond the trails of its title characters, but maybe I'm looking too critically at things. (I have a tendency to do that from time to time.) To be fair, The Last of Us was one of those games with a surprisingly decent multiplayer mode, and whilst we'll never get a full game adaptation of Max Payne 3's excellent multiplayer, this makes a decent enough consolation prize. Oh but here's a special bit of news; that Last of Us remake is coming to PC! Hark? Well that's such great news I can overlook the unnecessariness of it's existence. In fact, heck I can even justify it! Yeah, the original game was probably too tightly wound for a decent port, this remake was the only way the rest of the world would see a decent build of the game. Yes, this had completely turned the news around and there's nothing which could now put a damper on- wait, it's how much?

Okay. We need to have a chat about the utter SHENANIGANS that Sony Entertainment Studios is grinding on these days, because it has to stop. You too, Square Enix, don't think you can slink away with your head down and get out of this, you both have some explaining to do! What, in the stinking cursed depths of Merlin's soggiest posing pouch, do you think gives you the right to try and force the gaming industry to up the standard price of new games up an extra $10? Tell me true, because I don't wanna hear any of the lies again. I'm done and tired with the cow waste, now I wanna hear the facts! Because let me tell you, one and all, that there is quite literally no publicly presented excuse for this pathetic attempt at a price hike that can withstand against the slightest scrutiny of a critical eye, and I'm about done with stuffy suited saps telling me otherwise.

What's that they like to tell us? "Oh the price of video games hasn't risen with inflation for decades, it's just about time!" That's bull, plain and simple. If the price of games hasn't gone up in all that time then what the heck are special editions? $100 Collectors Editions? DLC? Microtransactions, subscriptions, lootboxes and all the other litany of extra revenue sources that can make a single game drain three figures worth of income out of some players? Whatsmore, how about a game that just came out, Diablo Immortal, that skewers itself on the pay-to-win spike so far that it turned the acquisition of power into a paid chances game where speculators have estimated it could cost around $100,000 to max out a single character. Don't turn around and tell me there were $100,000 games back in the 90's because there wasn't and you'd be arguing completely in bad faith.

And then there's the big one; oh games are so expensive, woe is us! That sounds a little bit like a *you* problem, not a consumer one. The trend of AAA development is to sink itself into this constant game of one-up-manship that just doesn't work with a qualitative metric such as art. Just take a look at modern movies and the stalemate they've met where pure spectacle films are reaping diminishing returns; this journey isn't sustainable. These games companies build themselves into a money sinking model and then try and punish the consumer for their own problems by charging extra for the games. No- this solution starts at you. As the market becomes more saturated with competition that is not the time to start upping your prices under the delusion that it makes you seem more valuable; it makes you look like an opportunistic arse, which may be truer to the point than we know.

$70 for a game is just too much, plain and simple. This industry makes literal billions and it sure doesn't sink all of those funds into development, not even close; so Sony and Square can get out of here with their silly excuses and justifications. And to try this on a remake- again! I can't believe I'm saying this, but these companies have somehow overtaken NINTENDO for the company that exploits it's legacy properties the most, because at least the big N only charges normal full price for twenty year old games. If you let them have this, give up and slap down a purchase, make no mistake that they will take a mile. What they want to establish is a sliding scale where games become steadily more expensive and we have the opportunity to buy less of them. I don't even want to get into the general world economy and wage stagnancy because I'm no economical professional and clearly neither are these games companies with the utter nonsense they're spewing! Nice try, Sony; but I think I'll look elsewhere for my fix. 

This whole 'The Last of Us 2' situation is a dumpster fire

This is fine

I know this isn't the sort of thing that I usually write about on my blog, but with it taking up so much of gaming culture right now I have to at least bring up this nuts situation revolving 'The Last of Us Part 2', presently. It is quite impressive to consider the amount of absolute sky-raining faeces that fell down up this 'too-big-to-fail' title in the months surrounding it's release alone, to the extent that I cannot help but stare and ponder. As someone who was never that huge a fan of the first title, I pretty much had no expectations of what this sequel might lead too and even then I feel it's safe to say that none of the crap that has happened was even in my prospective peripheral for this title. Perhaps if the kickback had been more damaging I'd be more reluctant to cover this, but then that is also one of the most impressive factors of his whole affair as nothing seems capable of dulling this game's blade, and I find that as impressive as I do bewildering. But enough pandering, I wanna talk about the trails and tribulations that TLOU 2 had to drag itself through to get where it's at.

It's not exactly the most ground-shattering claim in the world to say that everything was looking up for 'The Last of Us Part 2' until the leaks earlier this year which rocked the fanbase. As a reminder, these weren't no small snippets of info, the literal two biggest twists of the game were dropped during this impromptu expo and that gave the entire gaming world the worst possible view at two horrendously pivotal moments in the plot. Many theories have sparked in the months since about who made these leaks, with the official blame still being levied at hackers, I do believe, but the underground consensus leaning more towards an in-studio power struggle. Apparently there were those that didn't like the direction the story had taken and took it upon themselves to 'Warn the fans' or something. Whatever the truth of the matter this pretty much eviscerated the veil of secrecy around a game which thrived on it for so long and ruined a narrative which literally laid it's weight on surprise. (Although, one might say that a narrative which leans too heavily on surprise is a poorly built one, but each to their own.)

Stemming from those leaks, came a discussion about just exactly what the strengths of 'TLOU 2's story could be in order to better contextualise it's moments. (As the Devs begged fans to hang on claiming that the context would make everything better.) When it came down to it, however, pretty much anyone who wasn't potentially at risk of straining their employer's relationship with Sony concluded that the plot was serviceable at best, and terrible at worst. (Those who were in such positions tended to give the game a perfect score and dance around singing it's praises. Funny how that works out, huh?) It seems that in every regard TLOU Part 2 failed to match the level of emotion, character and pathos which earned the first title it's many accolades, which wouldn't have been too big of an issue if the Dev's had gone the sensible route and not called it 'Part 2'. (Implying this was the second part of the story they started, instead of a brand new story with the same characters like it actually was.) It's far too earlier to say if this has hurt the reputation of 'Naughty Dog' as peerless storytellers, but it sure hurt fans of 'The Last of Us'.

After the game's release there came an online dogpile against the game for some of the most petty and moronic things. Perhaps the one which garnered the biggest attention, and I'll admit that shear embarrassment has limited my own study into this matter, is the apparent death threats that have been levied against eclectic VG Actress Laura Bailey for her work as the character 'Abby' in the game. Now I don't know what the deal is with 'Abby', I haven't played the game and don't care to, (Not a fan of the first title, remember) but I think I heard somewhere that she's transgender, which has stirred that vocal minority of morons on the Internet to mount a brigade. Again, I don't know how bad the issue is, but the very fact this is an issue in the first place is just a testament to the braincell-deficient folk you find on the Internet nowadays. If you wonder why it was maintained for so long that video games and action movies caused violence, then look no further than these gibbering apes that can't tell the difference between an Actress and the fictional character she plays. Just pathetic.

And on the other side of the Berlin wall we have the mindless automatons that guard the sacred gates of fandom to any who dare have a negative thing to say about 'The Last of Us'. It's truly surreal to see the extremes of fandom go head to- except they're not going head-to-head, are they? That's not how the Internet works. These folk are just spinning around themselves spouting their adoration or hatred for a game which, by most sensible accounts, is just alright; consequently these two-bit Seneschals of sycophancy have been riling themselves up over nothing and attacking any inbetweeners. I've heard stories of a certain forum which I shall not name, handing out bans to anyone who didn't salivate out the mouth for the game and it's a little surreal to see honestly. (Although, in fairness, Internet forums are hardly the place you go in order to interact with high-functioning individuals. They are mostly formed from torrents of obsequience wherever you go.)

Thus 'The Last of Us Part 2' got stuck right in the middle of this stupid war of philosophies that just has the worst reflection on the game itself. I know that as an outsider to this whole affair, if I were ever to put in a position to try again at getting into TLOU I will remember all this nonsense and opt against it, and I wonder how many other people feel the same. In a way this actually reminds me of the bevy of mudslinging which took over the internet once 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' came out, and the delirium was present on both sides of the fence. The fans, the director and movie bloggers all retreated to Twitter to have childish screaming matches against each other and even to this day you can just smell the immature loathing each side maintains for the other whenever the franchise is bought up. Yet through it all there is me, once a die-hard Star Wars fan, who just didn't want a part of any of it and thus hasn't seen 'The Last Jedi' or 'Rise of the Skywalker'; this is the effect that these aimless riots can have.

Yet with all that working against it, 'The Last of Us Part 2' has still been said to be the biggest launch of the Playstation 4's life-cycle and thus has made all the money in the world. A testament to the old adage 'it's too big to fail'. I'm being serious, this game was hit with a nuclear bomb's worth of hurdles and it still managed to wrack up a small fortune, pretty much proving once again that if you reach a certain level of fame and showmanship the actual details don't really matter anymore, you'll win regardless of little things like quality, heart and the ability to keep a secret. Right now, TLOU 2 is on track to win Game of the Year (because Cyberpunk 2077 has, I believe, successfully delayed itself out of the running for 2020) and I think the coming months and years will elicit a lot of conversations and raised eyebrows about whether it was all worth it.

There's not really much to say in conclusion to all this, no real way to neatly wrap everything up in a tidy bow and summarise the whirlwind of thoughts I have on the matter. All I can really say is that I'm fascinated with all of this chaos and wonder if this is going to become the new normal for all those future big titles. Will it be impossible to establish oneself a high-profile game anymore without initiating pissing matches across the Internet and making huge, headline grabbing, blunders? I certainly hope not, that's not the sort of behaviour which endeared me to the gaming fandom afterall. I miss the smart consumers who didn't take the follies and machinations of big business and put their efforts behind helping creators reach their dreams, can we get back to that? I hope so.

The Leaks of Us Part 2

Turn away all ye who fear light spoilers

So we've had quite a few updates into this little Last of Us leak situation, now haven't we? You could say that this whole debacle has practically ballooned out of control. So much has come out and the worst of it? Because we're all stuck inside on the Internet all day it's practically impossible to avoid any of these spoilers for oneself. But aside from the spoilers there is one key aspect of this story that is widely different from the original tale that was told, that same story which did the rounds across the Internet; that of the origin of the original leak. Back a mere week ago I was foolish enough to believe the mass consensus that this was a striking out from a former employee over a pay dispute,(despite the logic not really adding up) but there was one world-changing detail that we all had just callously brushed over; that this leak had come from 4-Chan.

Well, dang, if I had known that I'd have questioned the validity of everything. Heck, I would have expected even the leaked footage to be home-brew, because literally every little whisper of information that even passingly brushes by those boards gets perverted in a matter of nanoseconds. Point in case, this debacle right here, as we now know that no Naughty Dog employee, current or former, was involved in this scandal (at least not knowingly) and that this leak was acquired by an unaffiliated person through means of 'hacking'. Which probably just meant someone called up their offices and impersonated an employee. (Maybe he just got really into the role, forgot he was really a nobody.)

So there's that cleared up. Naughty Dog still isn't entirely clean of it's sins, mind you, but they don't quite have themselves to blame for one of the worst leaks in modern gaming. (I mean, maybe their security measures are at partial blame) So that's the end of this matter and we can all get back to looking excited for TLOU 2, right? This should be extra easy seeing as how Sony dropped the release date for this game the second that the leaks dropped, almost as though this was a calculated way to draw attention. (Which definitely didn't work.) But people aren't getting excited like they should be, in fact, wherever I go I see little more than pessimism and anger. And I mean everywhere. Even completely unrelated Reddit boards have seen such disgruntled pessimism, (What the heck is Last of Us hate doing on my Pokemon Reddit?) and I was left kind of taken aback. Apparently people found themselves really affronted by whatever was in these leaks to the point where they had to let the world know just how bad they were. Heck, I even saw one fellow revive the long dead 'Twilight' meme format just to dis this game's leaks. (Are things really that bad?)

Neil Druckmann was the one of the firsts to publicly talk about the leaks 'mentioning how heartbroken he was' as well as take a somewhat defensive approach to the critiques. (That's never really a good sign) In fact, all of these 'you'll get it when the game comes out' Tweets was what alerted me to this backlash in the first place, else I would have remained completely unaware as I am to most Internet chatter. (Streisand effect much?) Cries rallied about how TLOU part 2's story was shaping up like "bad fanfic" and was reasonable enough grounds not to buy the game. And I've never been the biggest fan of The Last of Us but even then I had to stop and go: "Really? How freakin' bad were these leaks?" I mean, short of pulling the 'it was all just a dream' card out of their sleeves I couldn't imagine what the issue could possible be. Then I got spoiled.

To be straight-up, I am no fan of spoiler culture, like I've said before. For that reason I will not convey any of the secrets that were leaked unto me, because you can find them with a quick Google search if you care that much. Instead I want to cathartically convey my thoughts, as if I don't I feel like I'll burn a hole in my chest thinking about it. So with that out if the way i have to say it; in light of all the resounding backlash and bruised excitement due to this leaks, I don't get it. That is to say, I understand where some of the complaining comes from, but I don't understand why folk are rallying against this as the worst possible direction for the story ever. Let me explain a little why.

When I first got through The Last of Us Part 1 my prevailing thought was how it was a powerful story that wasn't quite matched by the gameplay, but still great nonetheless. It was also a self contained one-and-done. I mean, Naughty Dog could have never done anything in this universe with these characters ever again and no one would be sitting there going "I don't quite feel satisfied yet." Now that doesn't mean that they automatically weren't allowed to make any more stories with that material, but that they had to be careful and clever with anything they did in order to make sure that it wasn't just milking, this would be a story that moved forth the characters and felt like it deserved to be told. Coming away from the leaks I will admit one thing, it doesn't feel like this story needed to be told. I'm getting serious 'Godfather Part 3' vibes of a sequel that exists merely to be a sequel. Events do move forward, to be fair, characters do evolve, but at the end of the day none of it enriches the first game's narrative at all.

When it's all added up there are perhaps three big 'twists' that these leaks focused on, two story twists and one gameplay one, although the first 'twist' is admittedly the most predictable thing in the world. It was so predictable, in fact, that I'm unsure why they bothered to even put in this game and didn't leave it for the in-between, (Just feels like it draws the pace down) but then, out of context it's hard to fully come to terms with just how effective this story moment would be. The second twist is where the real meat lies, because it's going to test every ounce of the writing staff's ability to pull it off properly. It's actually rather funny to see them attempt such a story point, you know, considering how only last year we saw another huge property completely fall on it's arse attempting something similar, but I will say that TLOU's writing team does seem pretty darn talented so if anyone can pull it off, it's them.

The only twist which sort of makes sense for all the backlash is the gameplay twist, and forgive a little bit of spoilers here as I mention how this game intends to pull the ol' bait'n'switch on players. Okay guys, seriously, who thought this was a good idea? Just look around at literally every other game who's ever tried this to get an idea of how a bait'n'switch usually plays out. It didn't work out for Metal Gear Solid when they tried it. Both times. It didn't work out for Halo when they did it. Both time again. Why would you think it would work here? Even worse, for such a significant part of the game to be dedicated to the control of someone who'll have such a deep... first bad impression, let's say, is truly bizarre from my point of view. It's the gaming equivalent of framing a movie from the perspective of a truly unlikable character, only for this game they'll be stuck with them for several hours as opposed to just two. What will be player's draw to keep coming back to this game? It's a brave move, undoubtedly, but also a head-scratching one.

At the end of the day, however, it must be stressed that right now all of these leaks are presented in the worst possible light and severely out of context. I don't think that anything here, besides the bait'n'switch, is inherently flawed to the point where it will be trash, so I'm not sure why these leaks have garnered such universal hatred. I'll be worried to see if this will have an effect on the game sales when it actually launches, which was revealed to be only a month later than the original date. (Wait, so what was all that 'indefinitely' business about? Is this game going to drop unfinished?) I've never been the best supporter of The Last of Us, exclusivity-culture really rubs me the wrong way, but I hope this doesn't sink a title which so many people worked their butts off for, no one deserves that just because of some poxy leaks. Either way, this has really put the pressure on the team to get things absolutely pitch perfectly right. Fingers crossed.

Hell hath no fury like a worker unpaid

The Internet just became a minefield once more

There are few human emotions that burn so vividly distinct as that of of injustice; take my word on that. Just ask me anything about my school-life, literally any part of it, and I'd likely have trouble sharing even the most remote of details; such as classes I took, names of folk I knew or even teachers that tolerated me. However, I can still recall with specific clarity that moment during my tenure at nursery when I patted someone on the back and got in trouble when he ratted on for 'hitting him'. (I also remember that he grew up into one of those kids you wore earrings in one ear, so I guess he proved to be his own worse enemy in the long run.) the moment of feeling as though you've been dealt a sour hand is the sort of emotion that writhes in your gut like a pit of worms, and it will set there if you let, and maybe even lead to an... irrational response.

Now by this time this will hardly be any news to you, but here it goes; The Last of Us Part 2 has undergone a huge leak and folk who've looked it up seem pretty certain that this was an inside job from a developer. Now personally I haven't seen this footage, not because I particularly care about experiencing TLOU, the franchise never grabbed me, but because I disagree vehemently with 'leak' culture and thus wanted nothing to do with these materials. But there are those who don't share my thoughts on that matter and they say the case of where this leak came from is pretty cut and dry; there are developer messages littered over all of it and it's pretty clear to see that this all comes from a March build. Now the entire story hasn't been leaked, I'm told, but there were key story junctions dropped, alongside some cutscenes and maybe even a twist or two, I'm not too clear on the specifics in that case. Either way the prevailing question that we come away from after this dump is the usual; why?

In order to answer that question we have to delve into the world of speculation, as unfortunately our leaker didn't leave a manifesto with the materials. (Certainly would have helped clean things up, keep that in mind, future leakers.) As far as I am aware it is speculation that is accompanying this news, however the original leak did occur on a forum somewhere (before being promptly deleted) so it's possible that the poster could have elucidated some folk before his inevitable ban. Either way the narrative is going like this; all of this headache that Naughty Dog, Sony and the fans are having to deal with is due to a payment dispute. (So that's fun.) Whether there is any truth to that, or if it's just folk extrapolating upon stories that are already known regarding Naughty Dog and their practices, I think it's a topic worth looking into.

I say that because; surprise, surprise, this isn't the first time that our favourite action game developer has been in the crosshairs for the way that they treat their workers. (Or 'mistreat' to be more accurate.) As seems to be the case with practically every triple A company working in the world today, (even those who specifically say that they don't/won't) Naughty Dog are known perpetrators of hard employee crunch for months on end. Basically time in which the staff are subjected to day after day of elongated work days and overtime in the hopes of squeezing all the possible development hours out of them. It's a brutal practice in any creative field and obviously leads to burn-out and disgruntled folk across the board, thus sowing the seeds for disgruntled retribution, however Naughty Dogs reputation does go one step further even then that.

There is a story revolving around one fellow who was an animator for Naughty Dog who left the company over the worrying mandates that were falling upon his office. Eventually this led to him being hit with a really insulting foul ultimatum from the team; his last paycheck would be withheld if he didn't sign a contract promising not to reveal 'production practices'. (Which seems like overkill in order to stop what exactly? Are they worried about a bad PR moment? Because their 'solution' just created a worse one.) Now, of course, this animator was quick to point out that none of this was the will of Naughty Dog itself but rather a reflection of practises that Sony were imparting on all their partner studios; but that doesn't exactly put ND in the clear as it does betray an inability to keep their own staff safe from gross corporate machinations.

Now could the same thing have happened with this whole 'Last of Us Part 2' situation? Maybe, but it's hard to know for sure now that the raging ocean of Internet speculation has picked up the story. Either way, I think it's safe to assume that our mysterious leaker did hail from the animation team as that would explain the sort of materials that got dropped, but then this opens a curious question: what was the end goal for this move? If I've deduced the probable origin of this leak without any inside knowledge of the company, then you'll bet it'll hardly take ND more than a few moments to see who within the animation department threw up fuss about payment, (And likely immediately quit) so that leaves me wondering; what was so abhorrent to this fellow as to warrant them torpedoing their entire career in the gaming world (heck, maybe even the entire corporate world) whilst opening themselves up to a significant 'breach of contract' lawsuit? The hell was this guy/girl going through?

Whatever the incentive, I do wonder if this was in any way the correct way to go about things given how this splashes back against unintended (I assume) victims. Sure, in a payment dispute the leaking of classified documents is going to hurt the money men significantly, but that's not even nearly the extent of the damage. This hurts ever single developer who has worked tirelessly on this game for years, every voice actor and writer who put their hearts into bringing this story to life and every animator who put up with the same nonsense that this fellow did. (Assuming they are who the Internet assumes them to be.) And at the end of the day it also hurts the fans who have been patiently waiting to experience the story of TLOU the way it was meant to be experienced; so who wins out of this messy affair? (I sure don't know.)

But I suppose that brings me back around to the head of this blog, because folk don't tend to be rational when struck with an emotion as passionate as injustice. Perhaps there's no point searching for the logic behind this retaliation as there was none, someone was just hurt and wanted to hurt back. (Also, is suppose it's hard to think about long term prospects in a climate such as our own.) With that in mind, and assuming that the Internet's assumptions are accurate, I find it hard to either laud or condemn anyone's actions here. No one's a winner and everyone's a loser. What I do know is this; of you're a TLOU fan than this quarantine just got a whole lot harder to bear.

Delayed indefinitely

Initiate panic mode

It's brown-trousers time ladies and gentlemen. During the unfolding pandemic that has swept the nation, those of my particular gaming disposition have rest assured on one key assumption: setbacks and delays may have swept the wider world of organised events but the largely sedentary nature of gaming makes as immune. Right? Unfortunately, such an assumption fails to accommodate for the very real fact that games are not conjured from a vacuum. Nay, they are the result of hard work from dedicated teams and several years of iteration and reiteration right up until the last second; all performed by folk who need to be in close proximity for communication and synergistic reasons. As such, when a big change to the way we live our lives forces these companies to start separating and distancing their workers, why wouldn't that have an impact on the state of games in development?

Over twitter not too long ago we learnt that was exactly the case as the much anticipated 'Last of Us Part 2' was hit with the delay hammer to the tune of 'indefinitely'. More chilling words can never be uttered from a studio on such a matter, like a strike to the face and a kick to the gut at the same time. Not only would this game not meet it's already staggered release date, there was no telling when things would be back on track. That means no adjusting calendars, no tampering of expectations, just a churning void in the expectations of fans as they try to figure out what to do with their free time now. And it's not as though you can blame Naughty Dog, they're doing what they need to in order to both keep their talent safe and ensure that the final product is as high quality as they can possibly produce. (I mean they even want to make the combat fun this time, they need time to pull that miracle off.) But that does little to nothing to alleviate the despair which is sure to be spreading around the gaming enthusiast world.

As for me, I'm not really a fan of TLOU so I can pretty much take it or leave it. From a narrative perspective I recognise that the first game was nigh on brilliant, but the gameplay let me down so I couldn't award that title any more than an 8. ('Gameplay' is pretty important to a 'Game', afterall.) So that isn't why I'm freaking out right now. That's due to something else entirely. (Can you figure out what?) For a AAA studio with many years to put together their opus like Naughty Dog to throw in the towel and announce that the Coronavirus has temporarily beaten them, it makes one wonder about other companies in similar situations with their upcoming releases; like how about CD Projekt Red, for example? They've already had to delay Cyberpunk 2077 once this year over fears of failing to meet quality standards, so can we be certain that those issues will be adequately met come this September? These leading months up to the game dropping were due to be night in and out of crunch time, so if these people are now working from home and presumably under more sensible hours, why would Cyperpunk be done by the time predicted before any of this nonsense dropped? (Or are CDPR going to try to work their staff to death before the Covid can get them?)

This sort of rising fear is a stark contrast to a handful of weeks back when we were shaking our heads at physical media and counting our lucky stars for the digital landscape in which we now reside. Whereas DOOM Eternal, Resident Evil 3, Ori and the Will of the Wisp and Final Fantasy 7, will likely make out like bandits during these months due to folk having literally no other option than to stay in and play these games; every other game that isn't pretty much done already is likely to find itself in serious trouble in the months to come. Anthem's promised overhaul is probably entirely halted, Ghost of Tsushima could be in trouble and this might mark year 3 that Bethesda decide to knowingly suppress their announcement for the upcoming Starfield; because that sucker could very well be delayed until 2022 at this rate.

As an apathetic shrew of a man I could hardly care less when the active sports seasons were all collectively cancelled, I yawned when the Olympics were officially delayed, I even chuckled a bit when the summer movie blockbuster season was killed off, when every TV show was delayed- (Well okay, that one kinda sucks.) but it wasn't until the gaming schedule was threatened that I officially joined in with the fearful masses. What I am I supposed to do without new games to keep me interested? What am I supposed to play? The back catalogue of games that I own, yet have never turned on once? (I swear that I will play 'Jade Empire' at least once this April.) But just as with everyone else, I and every gamer have literally no recourse to affect this potentially coming storm.

To inject a slight lampshade of positivity into this story, there is a very real possibility that what happened with TLOU is a one off and most upcoming big titles won't be delayed, at least not as badly. Whilst one might argue that the ideal environment for a development team to work in is inside of a room where everyone can communicate at a second's notice, it's not as though there's no way for such teams to still do what they do over the Internet. That's one of the really cool things about the digital age we've all been lumped into. More than a lot of jobs out there, working from home is a very real possibility for a lot of developers out there provided they've got the equipment with which to do so. (Taking a company computer home wouldn't be too frowned on in this age, would it?) To address one game which has me particularly concerned; not too long ago the CDPR team officially teased how progress on Cyberpunk was going well even during this epidemic, which certainly goes a long way to alleviate some budding fears in that department. (Of course, these might be the same folk who were confidant in Cyberpunk's original April release date, so share around those salt grains if you have them.)

But let's get away from worrying about the present for a moment, because I want to speculate about how today has the potential to change tomorrow. (God, I sound like a Jehovah's witness.) With all this shifting towards moving the workforce to working from their homes there lies the potential for a precedent to be set so that once this pandemic starts clearing up. People can start asking serious questions about how many jobs really require their staff to rock up in one place in order for standards to be met. Within the gaming world in particular there might be raised the question of if all their teams need to be in for every task such as, for example; the bug fixing team. (FYI; I've never worked as part of a development team so as far as I know that could be the standard anyway, I'm just using it as a comprehensive example.) Of course, then there is the flipside of downsizing that's already happening on a mass scale, but I said I'll talk about positives so let's callously ignore that for the time being.

In the weeks to come I'd imagine that we'll hear for certain whether or not serious delays will be hitting out most anticipated titles, but the worrying part of that equation is thus; we're not likely to hear if a game doesn't require delays. Therefore a lot of folk like me are going to spending the next 6 months biting their fingernails in hope that tomorrow doesn't bring foul news, and that's no way to live now is it? As a gamer I'd have to encourage you, dear reader, to go out and experience as many games that are out now and today, and worry less about what's coming in a few months or so for they may not be as close as you originally thought. Soften that potential blow before it hits by finding a new favourite game for you to kill time with. (I've already got RE3, so I'm set.)

In defence of: linearity

Down the only road I've ever been down.

Every now and then there develops a trend in the world of gaming. Usually it spawns from something good and imaginative, just like any cliche, only to become repetitive and overused in no-time flat. In the early 2010's this was the fabled 'Multiple ending'. For a good few years it was genuinely considered lazy not to shoehorn some sort of branching ending into your game, even when such was completely superfluous to the main story. If you don't believe me on that, do you remember how Call of Duty Black Ops 2 had multiple endings? That's right even the big boy in the playground, Mr "Too big to fail", succumbed to the trend of passionless multiple endings for fear of looking silly amongst his peers.

It was all pretty ridiculous when you think about it, as imbuing a story with multiple endings doesn't automatically give that story depth. (Just look at Black Ops 2.) Usually, all this amounted to was the player having a slight choice thrown towards them near the end that'll slightly changed the ending cinematic. (Ohhh, how branching!) It never should have caught on in the first place, but there were so many big games successfully pulling it off that creatively bankrupt publishers felt it their civic duty to conscript developers into manning low effort rip offs. Games like GTA V, 'Deus Ex: Human Revolutions' and Dishonored, all featured multi-choice endings and all enjoyed some sort of critical and/or commercial success. However, in my opinion the one which really sold the concept to the world was Mass Effect 3. Say what you will about that ending, the main game was nothing short of a gaming cultural phenomenon. Everybody knew that Mass Effect was wrapping up in a grand way and people were just buzzing about the 'every choice matters' promise that many convinced themselves had been made. Replicating that would take effort, most publishers realized, but multiple endings could achieve the same effect simply and with gusto.

During this whirlwind of a fad, there was one obvious casualty amidst the gaming archetypes of the age. Namely, those games that choose to go for a single ending. This was the age in which such a direction in design was considered a crime towards creativity, and all those that were guilty of such would be labelled with that most damning of brands; 'Linear!' I'm being serious, look back on games of the early 2010's and check reviews from all the trusted critics. Almost all of them would bring up the phrase 'Linear' and use it as a pejorative to throw at the game. Afterall, games are all about empowering the player, so if you don't account for that one time they punched a jellyfish in the face and bring it up in the ending, you're stifling the player's freedoms! (Or at least, that's what I assume the logic was.)

The thing which always got to me was the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with being 'Linear' with your story. In fact, usually that isn't a sign that you lack the creativity to expand out your story, but more that you posses the focus to fully realize your intended story. Many great games from around this time were all out attacked for their linearity despite handling it incredibly deftly. Sure, there's some overly noir moments in 'Max Payne 3', but the linear story was a blast. (I still maintain that game was the closet we ever came to a good Die Hard game). Assassin's Creed Brotherhood met with some grumblings in this regard despite being arguably the best written (and in-arguably the best paced) entry in the series. And even 'Bioshock: Infinite' only managed to get people to say that the story was 'good, for a linear title'.

Everytime I saw a review like that I would just grimace and bear it, confused by this mass hysteria that I fundamentally didn't understand. Even back then I could see how multiple endings for video games rarely lived up to the promise they made, if not now then in the future. Who remembers the GTA V ending? (Spoilers) That ended with Franklin being given the choice to off Trevor or Micheal in order to save himself. (And, of course, there was the option to rally against the man handing this ultimatum and risk everyone. Guess which ending everyone choose.) Whilst this initially looked interesting, in hindsight it was really rather shallow as the only ending which makes any remote sense is the one in which they kill off Trevor. You know, the guy who's insane antics got them in this position to begin with. The other two endings felt nigh-on nonsensical (Like the one in which Micheal opts to kill himself rather than be saved by Franklin.) or a bit too cleanly wrapped for a tale about 3 murderous bankrobbers. (It's a setup.)

That isn't even the worst of it. Just look at those games that were praised for offering those genuinely distinct endings which inexplicably granted real power behind the player's decision; Like 'Deus Ex: Human Revolution'. That was a game which placed itself in a precarious situation by being a prequel, in that it came from a franchise renowned for it's branching endings and yet would have to adhere to the state of the world in the original Deus Ex. To solve this, the writers ended up focusing on a supremely important but underexplored portion of the original game's lore, The Illuminati, and focused that final decision around them. This allowed for a final choice that gave the player the power to change the world in significant ways without retconning anything. (Supremely clever!) So what was the problem? Well, 'Human Revolution' was a huge success and warranted a sequel. So what did Square Enix do? Simple, they invalidated their own endings and choose one for the player in order to facilitate a franchise. (One which they then bundled with the narratively underwhelming 'Mankind Divided') So that shows you how much those 'multiple choice endings' are worth when it comes up against making money.

At the height of all this nonsense, there was one legendary linear narrative driven game that proved how one could follow a single storyline and still be caught up in the moment. (Something that shouldn't have needed to be proven, but here we are.) This of course being the story of Neil Druckmann's The Last of Us and way it used the setting of a post apocalypse to tell... well, the kind of story that the post apocalyptic genre was created to tell. (It's actually surprising how many zombie stories mistakenly make it about the zombies.) This absolutely shot through the gaming award shows of the age and won award after award for storytelling, all without giving us a red, green, blue scenario at the end. In fact, the game even has the guts to have the protagonist enact a highly controversial action at the end of the story that players have no recourse to prevent. Allowing for a powerful moment to remain powerful instead of doing what Rockstar did with GTA V. (That finale would have actually been somewhat poignant without the choices.

Obviously I disagree with the labelling of 'Linear' as a pejorative and feel that more modern games shouldn't be afraid to tell one story that they know how to tell. Nowadays the problem isn't quite as widespread as it used to be, it's almost a novelty to get multiple endings in a triple A game today; but Horror games are still very much beholden to it. (Even 'Fnaf: Help Wanted' had multiple endings. That was just a VR game, for god's sake!) I'll always maintain that it is stupid and contrived to artificial force any storytelling element into a narrative that doesn't require it, and the sooner that lesson takes hold in the industry the sooner we can start improving the net quality of video game storytelling.