Look what they've done to my KOTOR...

 I don't believe it

Kojima and Sony

False alarm?

Not so very long ago there was something of a false alarm bell ringing across the industry as the ever trolling head of Kojima Productions, the man himself, decided to have a bit of fun with Twitter. He posted a picture of the Sony Games logo with a bunch of games behind it, totally without context, and just sat back as the denizens of his Twitter followers, well documented to pick apart an analyse anything he'll post from blurry pictures of legos to a list of western books he's currently reading, drove themselves wild coming to the, apparently obvious, conclusion. Clearly KP were preparing their audience for the announcement of the upcoming merger between Kojima Productions and Sony! How presumptuous to- oh wait. The actual tweet was of the PlayStation logo with a collection of PlayStation exclusive titles behind it, and Death Stranding stuck into the corner. Okay, I can see where the confusion is coming from.

Now to be fair, Death Stranding was a PlayStation exclusive title, but it came to PC later. And when I squint at some of the other titles behind this logo, sure most of them are from Sony owned studios (Sony is very cautious about sharing their toys) but there's a couple there that I either can't identify or don't appear to be exclusives at all. There's a sports game I can't exactly pinpoint because ya-know: sports games, am I right? And then there's a medieval looking game which I have no clue abo- oh wait, that's Demon Souls, isn't it? Yep, that's another exclusive from an exclusive studio. So pretty much Death Stranding, and maybe that sports game, are the only two pictures here not from a company in bed with Sony, conclusions were pretty inevitable to draw.

But Kojima is adamant, their studio is independent and will continue to be so for the future; although I have to wonder why that's even a point to belabour. I mean sure, Kojima Productions is independent today; but why are they independent? What is the reason for not signing up to the Sony wagon and becoming their exclusivity pumping machine? This is a genuine question, by the way, I'm not an expert on this particular facet of the industry, and my observations here can be only surface level. On one hand, independence allows Kojima Productions to have full control over what they make, although Kojima has claimed that Sony were hands-off during the development of Death Stranding anyway. The company would be pressured to make their games exclusive to PlayStation, but then Kojima tends to lean that way anyway, as he did with Death Stranding and has done with Metal Gear Solid titles whenever possible. And independence gives Kojima freedom of schedule; which is the only point I can't possibly refute, I suppose.

The relationship between Kojima and Sony reaches back far, to the point where their love affair has made identifying the distinction between them difficult. Who remembers back in Metal Gear Solid 4 (a game still exclusive only to PlayStation, which has not even been ported to PC yet) in which Snake uses a PlayStation controller in order to control an UMG drone? Or the scenes both in that game and MGS 1 where Psycho Mantis speaks specifically about PlayStation hardware and how he can manipulate it with his mind? (Which leads to some very cheesy, but iconic, fourth-wall breaking moments.) Death Stranding was even made with the express help of Sony studios, and was the headliner for their Direct showcase for a couple of years. All this time it's been hard not to see Kojima and his production studio as something of unpaid interns at their offices.

So what this incendiary tweet was likely referring to, if we use the ol' 'extrapolation' parts of our noggins', was probably some sort of upcoming collaboration between the two companies come the next PlayStation showcase, which of course means another round of watching the two lead acts of the romcom frolic around in the montage trying to pretend there's any legitimate 'will they won't they' in this paint-by-numbers script. Once there was a time where the prospect of these two powers joining up would have worried me, but since Sony has started to chill out on the whole 'porting to PC' thing I've lost my personal compunctions. By all means, let the Kojima heads into your web, Sony, I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram of active and excited Kojima fans and PlayStation owners are a circle at this point, the only weirdo outliers are people like me, so I say let the two elope and be done with it.

But of course, Kojima doesn't want to make that official step, because that would threaten to endanger that enigmatic anonymity that he enjoys so. I've never met the man, but from the distance of the internet, he feels like the type to not really appreciate having a boss. He'd rather be the mad scientist on the fringe of the industry, tinkering away on his little passion projects and playing the Wizard behind the TV screen when he wants to. There's a performance to the man that seems integral to his every choice and decision. I mean just look at the whole Bluebox thing with their game Abandoned. For months they were sized up as secret Kojima sleeper agents thanks to their difficulties with communicating to the Internet, and all it would have taken would be for Kojima to tweet out once that he was in no way involved with them, and that suspicion would have had a credible cradle to put the conspiracy to rest in.

I've played Devil's advocate before: 'he's known to lie to his audience here and there and thus his word would only inflame the issue', or 'he didn't want to draw more attention to the issue through addressing it himself and potentially cause more flaming Bluebox's way', but nothing I can conjure holds water. Whenever Kojima has lied he has done it in a comical and see-through way, such that it doesn't seem vindictive, but humorous in hindsight. (Except for the Raiden in MGS2 thing. That was cruel.) And as for drawing attention: this story was the talk of every game's journalist site for half a month, there's no signal boosting that any worse! Which says to me that he just loves the story, he loves the drama, and he won't sacrifice that for his smoke and mirrors stage presence. Even when a single statement could have done a world of good for a studio with terminal foot-in-mouth syndrome. 

Hideo Kojima is the phantom of the opera, a virtuoso recluse who wants the attention yet shuns the spotlight, at least until the stage is set to his exact specification. And there's just something so darn entertaining about a story with no straight answers, now isn't there? I love the show as much as the next fan, I'd be a fool to pretend otherwise; but in that same vein it can be oh so frustrating trying to pin down the man-who-refuses-to-be-categorised. Is he a loyalist or a loner? A showman or a no show? Yet at the end of the day does any of that even matter when he puts out great games? I suppose not. Unless Bluebox ends up getting themselves actually crucified with their genuine inability to convey a straight message; he could have really helped with that one.

Insomniac Wolverine

 I'm the best at what I do, but what I do best isn't very nice

There's something to be said about cultivating a reputation for quality. It's pretty much all that Sony have troubled themselves with for the last few console generations, and when you take a look at the returns it has granted them you can absolutely understand their reasoning. Countless units moved, top of console race for over half a decade now, fans beating themselves silly trying to get their hands on the new console; Sony is in a great place. And it all comes back to the way that they've secured exclusives so fine you could slice a leaf along a river bed with them. And it hasn't been this garish monopolisation move of running around and buying pretty looking games for their store, (like the bores over at Epic seem to think it's about) Sony have invested in studios, cultivated talent and homebrewed a generation's worth of classic games from loyalist studios. In doing so they've turned household name studios into absolute legends of the Industry. (Shame they refuse to do so for any indie studio out there, but I guess Sony it a bit 'elitist' in that regard.)

Now Insomniac games were by no means nobodies before the great Playstation renaissance, they has some absolute Classic Playstation franchises under their belt for years beforehand. Ratchet and Clank, Spyro, Resistance, those are the sorts of games that inspire armies of adoration from their darling fans. But even then they were just a teeny bit 'cult' in their following. Don't get me wrong, all of those series' have met with huge successes and spawned sprawling legacies to back up those success', but they weren't hitting the mainstream quite as hard as those flagships that everyone thinks of first when they think 'gaming'. Which was completely fine, of course, because back then that spot was only really reserved for the stupidly successful like Mario, Call of Duty and later Minecraft. But one Insomniac Games has always been is loyalist, and that has served them incredibly well these last few years.

Having not owned a PlayStation since the PS2, my last interaction with Insomniac's work wasn't really all that transformative for my opinion on them, considering it was 'Sunset Overdrive'. (One of only three games that Insomniac have allowed to be released on Xbox) Now I know that Sunset Overdrive has its fans out there, and I'll be the first to say that the game is beautiful and stands up even today for that regard alone, but my-oh-my I couldn't stand listening to that game for a second longer. The creator's tired to imbue the spirit of the game with the irreverent carefree unconventional chaos of inspirations like Tank Girl and... 'The Young Ones'? (I love that show) But it just never felt natural for me, more like a synthetic wannabe. I mean, how can you base the heart of your art piece around 'Counter culture' influences when your game is being paraded around by Xbox bigwigs and is flying from ever banner and advertising slot that Microsoft can afford. It spoke to a spiritual imbalance that really affected my time trying to get into the game. Still, the actual game itself was quality.

Around the time of Overdrive something was really siding into place over at Insomniac, that game alone had earned them a bigger spotlight then I remember them every really having, (which I think was simply because Microsoft was chuffed to have their talents) but they would never release another AAA game without a comparable or greater level of fanfare. Their next big console game would be the PS4's Rachet and Clank, a game which Sony rode as a system seller, followed in the next year by Marvel's Spiderman, which was a huge system seller! As they currently stand, Insomniac have reached that level of fame that I was talking about, where their games are now synonymous with the concept of  'gaming' for their sheer quality and cultural proliferation alone. (Although the millions in Sony-funded marketing did it's part to signal boost, I'll bet.)

Now, in the wake of what looks like a concerted effort to start a video game universe in order to compliment their cinematic one, Marvel and Sony seem to have definitively looked to Insomniac to be their trailblazer. (Not exclusively to Insomniac, mind. But it's pretty clear that the first-pick opportunities are arriving on their doorstep) Just think about how much of a responsibility that is, one of the world's largest and most successful entertainment franchises are putting their efforts on your door; it just goes to show you the absolute transformation which Insomniac has undergone from an already great studio into a truly legendary one. They are now the arbiters of Sony's oh-so-important Spiderman brand, and as was revealed during the last Sony event, they've just taken Wolverine under their wing too. (So comic's breakout star alongside X-men's breakout star. They sure know how to bag the best characters, huh?)

And even with that practically empty reveal trailer, which doesn't even do so much as tell us whether we'll be seeing classic short wolverine or Hugh-Jackman-inspired tall wolverine, there's not a single person out there worried about Insomniac's ability to nail this. (They've earned that trust over the years.) Wolverine has only ever seen one other game totally dedicated to him, and that was the movie tie in to that awful 'Origins' movie. At the very least that last game managed to bring the gore one would hope for from a Wolverine project. (or at least, I would hope for) Insomniac have been tight-lipped so far on the 'gore' front, although they have claimed this is going to be a mature rated game, and one that will be something closer to full length than their 'Spiderman Miles Morales' title. (So maybe gore-strewn hope abounds?)

What I hope for in this entry would be for Insomniac to do something similar to what they did with Spiderman, in that it was a story they didn't tell from the beginning. Although Wolverine's character origins aren't nearly as plundered poor as Spiderman's origins, I just think that telling the start of a heroes journey in general is overdone and devoid of opportunities for originality and pushing new storylines that take our favourite characters and put them in different lights. (Besides, which origin would they even tell? Would we go James Howlett and Alpha Flight? Does anyone other than me still remember that origin story?) That doesn't mean I'm demanding that Insomniac sit down and adapt Old Logan to their game, but that I'd prefer a Wolverine story closer to that side of the character than towards his boringly inconsistent origins. Let the lone wolf shine on his own being the unstrained murder machine that others try to stop him from being, do that and I have real optimism for what this new title can achieve.

So another notch is added to the Insomniac broach of excellence, as that once-little company swells to take on bigger and bigger challenges. They grow any more ambitious than this and we'll have to start worrying about the inevitable fall-off when greed takes over the desire to create quality. (It happens to everyone in time.) But until then we will all just marvel (hah) at a team forever redefining what it is to make a triple A game, and in some instance proving to be the great hope for lovers of single player experiences. All I wish now is that I could get genuinely excited about one day playing the game, but given the fact that the next generation consoles are about as mythical as planet Nibiru down in this sorry swamp of a county, I can't really get my hopes up. (Oh well, as least I can be excited to watch some cool second hand gameplay once the thing releases...)

More Horizon! Whoop!

 Alexander best be weeping right now.

The Sony of today is a very different beast to the one that lumbered up to the Industry back in the days of the Nintendo 64, and indeed a very different beast to most other console manufactures in history. I say that not just because of their success in the face of all the competition of today, but because of their aura of exclusivity they've successfully managed to establish for themselves and their rule through the supremacy of the software on offer even when their hardware falls just that hair's breadth behind. They've proven that at the end of the day games make a platform, a lesson that has rubbed off poorly on pretenders like EA (who ended up having to sell their games on Steam after they realised no one wanted to use their god awful launcher) and Ubisoft (same deal). And though it's not entirely accurate if we start cutting precisely into dates and what launched when, in my mind the very first serious move in this direction of funding solid exclusive games starts with the title 'Horizon: Zero Dawn'.

In many ways Horizon sounds like the sort of game that would be summoned up for a tech demo; given enough of a life to justify the eye-popping visuals on screen, and then dumped into the forgotten pile despite how interesting it might have looked. Because I mean just think about it; a post human world ruled by robotic dinosaurs that you have to fight with a futuristic mechanised recurve bow and can ride!? That's some next level crazy stuff that feels like it was invented just to survive a pitch meeting rather than to make it all the way to retail and survive a ribbing from the public. And yet whoever came up with this idea was serious enough about it to get it realised into an actual game that, whilst looking very much like a tech demo, is an honest-to-goodness complete game! I know that sounds weird- gushing over the fact that Horizon Zero Dawn is actually playable- but it's just not how I've been programmed to expect new games to work. 

Typically you start off with an interesting sounding idea that gets delineated down into "what we can do", until the idea itself begins withering away and your left with a sanitised product. I have no doubt that Horizon went through that exact same process, but amazingly on the otherend I believe it must have kept it's wild soul. And it was more for the better the game remained as much of a spectacle as it did, because Zero Dawn ended up reinforcing the values that would go on to define Sony, or at least their game studio branch, for the better part of the next decade. Cinematic-level storytelling, top tier fidelity, fun gameplay loops and never going for the easy path. Although that last one is perhaps a little bit of lip-service because nearly all of Sony's first party extravaganza games have been third person action adventures. (Why not make a blockbuster rhythm action sidescroller Sony? What are ya- scared?) The only negative in my eyes regarding Horizon, beside the terrible human AI that always accompanies games in which humans are a 'side enemy', would be the fact that Sony really didn't do a good job keeping the spirit of this game alive when the developers had no more content to put out.

When Horizon was coming out you would see it advertised everywhere, Sony was singing it from the rooftops, but then it launched and Sony immediately moved onto promoting the next thing. Zero Dawn had a life in the hands of those that bought it, but you wouldn't know it if you weren't a playstation player. (Especially not since you'd have to wait until the new decade to play it on PC. Geez, Sony, we get your 5 year old games now? How gracious of you...) They did the same 'promote then dump' for Horizon's big story DLC, and if I wasn't sure that Sony was just incompetent with how to market back then I'd assume they were actively trying to sabotage the game's success. What's the harm of keeping the ad campaign's going just a little bit past launch for those who didn't rock up day 1? Or are week one sales literally all that Sony cares about? (I say that facetiously in knowledge of the 'Days Gone' exec's assertions to that very truth.)

I can only assume that all my complaints will get completely laid to rest in the wake of the brand new Horizon entry; Forbidden West, which recently got an extensive gameplay demo during a Playstation Now event that I defiantly knew was coming and didn't rock up to as it was ending. (How the hell do people keep up with all these events? Do I need to get on some sort of mailing list or something?) So how does the new title shape up to the picturesque original now that we're on the verge of a new console generation and are pushing the old consoles part their limits? Unreal. Simply unbelievable what the team have managed to bring to life here. I'm being honest when I say that from a purely graphical level, I'm not sure I expected graphics to get this stupidly realistic. LOOK AT THE WATER! I know, I'm sounding like a madman again but you don't understand, digital water is impossible to get right. Not just to make it move realistically but even to be stationary. (Which makes sense, water is by nature never still.) That's simply because our minds can instantly point out the fakeness from something we see so often- but this game has waves. Waves! Water physics that dynamically react to environmental input too. No one needed to do that (and I'll bet it's largely absent for the inexplicable last gen versions of the game) but they did it anyway. Because they could. Another reason why I'll always consider Horizon 'the little Tech Demo series could'.

Of course, this game isn't all about graphical fidelity, (I mean that's a lot of it though) there's actual gameplay here to. The demo acts as a handy tour through what you can expect out of the game and, providing the final product plays as this footage shows which we know is absolutely not a given, then we'll probably have another game-changer entering the Sony Game Studios Pantheon. One thing I've noticed, and I'm unsure how genuine this is, is that there's a lot of crossover between story and dynamic gameplay moments. For example, early on we see Aloy being chased by several robotic enemies whom she seems to react to even as she's escaping despite the fact that the player could feasibly stop and kill them. Is this going to be a scripted moment where you literally can't beat them and have to run, or is the game going to be littered with these little moments going above and beyond where the game, and specifically the voice acting, reacts to your actions? (I'm leaning towards the latter as The Last of Us Part 2 and the Spiderman games already established that design philosophy heavily.) There's also a moment later where the player tames a creature in gameplay and then rides it into a cutscene in which it is shown.

Then there's the bossfight to end the demo, because of course Sony and Guerrilla games wanted to end with the showstopper that would make my computer weep to even think about rendering. After losing points to some serviceable but ultimately mediocre cutscene cinematography which is, at this point, unworthy of the game around it; Horizon demonstrates how it looks and flows it's best in action: a stark contrast to the state of games when I was teenager, that's for sure... The fight against the tusked elephant beast is simply epic, like something out of a sci-fi retelling of Lord of the Rings. (Although these beasts are nowhere near as large as the Mûmakil, in fairness.) I adore the way that parts of the robot are stripped off in the ruckus, the way that Aloy fires a sticky arrow that genuinely appears to gum up the thing's mechanics dynamically and I even love the way the thing attacks. Shooting the ground in front of you with a sustained beam and then raking across the land at you- it's just that little bit individualistic and atypical, using lasers to simulate the actions of tasks scrapping the ground. And if this is just what they want to tease in the first gameplay showcase, I shudder to think what the full game might hold.

I speak so adoringly of Horizon despite the fact, as veterans might have picked up on my terminology faux pas' here and there, never having actually played the original. That's right, never owned a PS3 or 4 and thus didn't have the opportunity to enjoy this game to the fullest. (I've still played it, just briefly and not as much as I wished to) I celebrate anyway because, as the saying goes, a rising tide raises all ships; and a game willing to up-the-bar like this is going to touch the rest of the industry. It might not prostate itself all over the new technological horizons like some of the next-gen exclusives do, but it regardless teases a level of developing excellence in most areas that can be translated to all projects, big and small. Next gen blockbusters or small time indie projects. It's games like this that remind us how the details matter in making something truly, grossly, incandescent, and several years down the line I hope to finally get a chance to see what all the fuss is about first hand rather than just standing longingly at the gate.

Days Gone 2: Killed by gamers

 We are gathered here today

Are you a gamer? Do you enjoy spending some of that free-time currency with the ever creative medium of gaming? Well then you just make me sick, you depraved degenerate! Because that just means you, alongside all others of your kind, are responsible for the death of Days Gone 2. Or rather, we as a people are responsible for the termination of Days Gone 2 in utero, because although the game was cancelled before it was even made, we are the culprit at the end of it all. We are the one's found above the dining room with a bloody candlestick and a wanting alibi. (I assume those references made sense. I've never actually played Cluedo) So I guess the question is; Why'd you do it? Or why did we do it? Are we just a sick twisted people drunk on the sensation of crushing dreams? Maybe it's because we hate all artists and developers and want them to suffer and starve. Yeah, I'm thinking we're getting close to the root of the cancer. Maybe then we can finally validate to the former Bend director of Days Gone that we're all just as much degenerate scumbags as he knows we are.

Did I lay it on a bit thick? Sorry if any of my sarcasm actually offended you out there, I've worked up quite the immunity to name calling and general self loathing so I can get kind of carried away at times. But that little diatribe up there is really the first thought that came to my mind when I read John Garvin's views about the whole Days Gone 2 situation. But just in case you've found yourself out of the loop and am currently looking at this sentence with the glazed out expression of someone trying desperately to care; I'll consolidate. On my Birthday in 2019 (that's April 26) Sony publish a zombie biker open-world (survival?) game called Days Gone. It proceeded the usual flair and excitement that Sony originals got, which is why when it dropped and was only 'good', that stood out as a misfire from a studio that was determined to establish a reputation of publishing only excellence. That game sold well, but not amazingly, and now we've learnt that plans for a sequel have been scrapped for the time being and Bend Studio is without the franchise that they deserved. Also, we miss out on another Sam Witwer performance, and I positively adore Sam Witwer so that alone makes me devastated.

Yet in the words of a sullen pre-impetus Peter Parker; "I missed the part where that's my problem." Well don't worry cause John Garvin's got you there. I mean, he's not going to shoot your uncle, but he's got you covered anyway. Garvin was actually a featured guest on David Jaffe's (the creator of God of War) Youtube channel, whereupon he let off some choice opinions about the game he wrote for back when he worked for Bend. (which he didn't at the time of saying this) When addressed with the fact that Days Gone would be coming to the PS5 collection, our protagonist retorted with something that he admitted he knew would annoy some people. "If you love a game, buy it at full f******* price." (Sorry my man, no F-bombs on this blog) He extrapolated. "I can't tell you how many times I've seen gamers say 'yeah, I got that on sale, I got it through PS Plus, whatever-" Jaffe replied with the quite sound argument that one can't exactly say they love a game if they haven't played it, but our man Garvin knows how to sidestep, alright? He's on that politician game right now, avoiding direct questions like Muhammad Ali out here. "I'm just saying, you don't, but don't complain if a game doesn't get a sequel if it wasn't supported at launch." He then went on to make some modern God of War comparisons but that's just apples to oranges. Not really interesting.

The take away, as I see it, is obvious. Damn, gamers killed Days Gone 2 by not flocking to it like rapid monkeys on a banana tree. (Are monkey's really addicted to banana's like that? I feel like that's cartoon propaganda, gimme a sec- nah, at face value it would seem that they are. I don't care enough to really research.) Whereas other developers recently rode against Sony and their obsession with publishing nothing but constant blockbusters in a frankly unsustainable death march to perpetual improvement, Garvin's over here saying "No, all that stuff is fine. The gamers just failed to live up to their end of the bargain by mortgaging their house in order to buy my 7/10 game." And yeah, I suppose that's a very... a quite... well it's a point. That much is without doubt. Lets run with that a bit, shall we?

So video games live and die on the strength of their sales and engagement. That's what makes it clear to the investors that these developers know what they're doing and can make a buck. Therefore that does but the pressure of success onto the gamers to 'support' the game in order to keep everything hunky dory. Additionally, for some reason investors really care about week one sales over the lifetime performance most of the time, so I guess by Garvin's reasoning that means anyone who waits for a sale is a lazy scumbag who's prioritizing their bum selves over the poor company who makes the game. I guess I'm about to reveal myself as the embodiment of all scum them, because I haven't bought a game day one at full price since 2019. (And no, that game wasn't Days Gone. Are you kidding?) How could such inhuman waste like me be allowed to walk this earth without handcuffs and a cell?

Stepping back into my own perspective now, I actually have a reason why I don't buy games full price on day one (and Garvin should like this, it's a mild response with a sidestep!) I can't afford it. Yeah, funny that. I know it makes me the embodiment of Satan himself, but I just don't have the money to be buying every single videogame that I'm excited for just because I need to support the developer. I still pick up the games down the line most of the time, but I guess that doesn't count because it's accursed 'delayed money'. Consumers aren't endless piggy backs, or at least most of them aren't, and some of us really are quite careful about the things we spend our money on. In which case, and to draw from an example he himself used, let's examine why millions would flock to God of War to spend their day one money on over Days Gone. Let's keep this simple. Days Gone's Metacritic is 71. God of War's Metacritic is 94. (As of the writing of this blog) If I've got the spare cash to fork out on only one game at full price, it's going to God of War. But then, buying games day one is usually stupid anyway, and most informed purchases should occur after the game is out there so that we all know what we're buying exactly. Isn't that something developers should support? Empowering the consumer? Unless... unless they don't give a crap about the consumer beyond how much they can financially benefit them... but that's just alleged.

As one can imagine, Garvin's comments, though pre-empted by the man a bit, didn't hit the community well once they were unearthed. People seemingly didn't like getting the blame for the decisions of a multibillionaire company who've sunken into a habit of worshipping metacritic scores and record breaking sales over just solid games. But nones to worry, because once Garvin actually saw the responses and began to emphasise a bit with the customers, he realised the error of his view an- just kidding, he hasn't said jack. The current director of Bend Studio on the otherhand, Eric Jensen, laid out his staunch thanks to anyone who played Days Gone whether picked up "on day one, borrowed- from a friend, watched someone else play it or tried it on PS now." A wave of appreciation perhaps spurred on by the 15000 signature long petition to get Days Gone 2 greenlit again. (When all else fails, I guess) So slightly differing views on that topic, I'd say.

Personally I can see where this Garvin fellow is coming from, as a creative in an industry run by executives it can feel like the entire world is conspiring against you to watch you fail. And then when things don't work out as well as you think they should, it's easy to point fingers at what should seem like the logical culprits without really thinking things through. That and there's the fact that these comments were made in a casual chat with a friend, I understand; stupid, unrefined crap gets said sometimes, that's life. It just makes for supremely bad timing when the gaming world's optics are on Sony's culture and how that's influencing the industry. It just feels like a handwave to all his own contemporaries' experiences. Or maybe he's just saying what they're all thinking, and the wider game development world is as insular, bitter and toxic as the forums over at Resetera would have you believe. At this point I'd totally believe it, why not? It's not enough that the media labels us degenerate monsters-to-be, now developers might be looking at gamers as disloyal cheapskates. Well even if that is the case, jokes on you guys; I rock stingy like a supermodel! 

Sony's tree vs Gaming's forest

How the turns table

One of the more fun aspects of following the gaming world is discovering new ways in which the worlds of information and perspectives can open up to you, with results that you never might have conceived of before. I don't pretend to be some grizzled well-travelled professional pundit who knows the ins and outs of how every business decision across the industry is made, so times come when I'm completely thrown off-guard by a story that makes me go "Oh yeah, I guess that would be a problem, huh." Point in case, this whole sudden backlash that has been thrown Sony's way, a company who recently could do no wrong in the eyes of the average gamer through sheer merit of being the only game manufacturer with any confidence nowadays. (If 'confidence' is what we're labelling callous pig-headedness, but I'm getting ahead of myself) At first all I heard about this story was the news that Sony would be remaking The Last of Us Part 1, (go-go gadget eyeroll) but suddenly those stories ballooned into damning indictments of Sony's entire corporate structure and it seems like the whole world is screaming about how Sony have 'lost their touch' and are 'getting drunk on their own success.'

All of this stems from the accusation that Sony devs are becoming upset with the main company's growing obsession with creating blockbuster titles and how they're slowly shaping their entire company towards only that pursuit. This started with news of Sony folding one of their longest running Japanese studios into another, ending a 27 year long run with one swift consolidating wave. (And losing several employees who were none too pleased about it in the process.) Now this is great news for Microsoft who have been desperate to stick their toes in as many pies as possible; if Sony wants to step away from their home market (a strategy which Sony vehemently denies, by-the-by, regardless of prime evidence to the differ) then that just opens the field for Xbox to secure some of that Japanese audience which they've callously ignored up until now. But, why would Sony be stepping back from Japan to begin with, that is where they're from afterall. (Allegedly stepping back, I should say) Well, indicators suggest it's to move toward the western market and to devote themselves fully to growing the next great blockbuster franchise.

Honestly, this really shouldn't be all that much of a surprise to anyone; Sony have been rather transparent about their business model for a while now. Ever since Uncharted 2 it seems they've been seeking out ways to homogenise the games they publish into a few blockbuster series that cost the GDP of several small countries to make and become must-owns in everyone's library due to their sheer quality. (Thus ensuring a profit) Uncharted, Last of Us, Infamous, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Ghost of Tsushima, Death Stranding, Final Fantasy 7, Spiderman, your mileage might vary on some of those titles but there's no turning around and calling any of them small-fry or time-killer games. These are fully fledged AAA adventures that are designed to rule your summer in the same way that Hollywood does with their latest star-studded superhero movie. These are the games you're going to see printed on billboards, plastered on the side of busses, slid into every TV ad spot, woven into every banner ad, sequestered into every conversation and ultimately stamped onto both eyelids when you try to go to sleep at night. Sony have built themselves into an engine for producing 'Too big to fail' games, and it's only really recently that anyone outside the development studios have had a problem with that.

That's because they make, and seemingly have always made, great games. These aren't just titles that are big for the sake of being big; they typically fill that space with gusto, are technologically innovative and, frankly, are just plain impressive. So what's there to complain about? Well, when you put all your chips into one basket there's bound to be some bad eggs in the bunch. (Mixed metaphors much?) Making all of their games a horrendously bloated mega product makes the economics stand front and centre, influencing decisions astray from what's best for the industry or the artform and angling it more towards, 'what's going to allow us to keep this up for as long as possible?' Point in case- Xbox game pass. Now I don't care about no console loyalty or any of that malarkey; the Game Pass model is the future of game accessibility that more and more studios should be getting in on. (Heck, even Apple have their own version of it!) But stubborn ol' Sony doesn't want to play. Why? Because they invest so much money into each of their exclusives that it just plain wouldn't be finically wise to start sticking them on an affordable subscription service. So there goes Sony's chance to be ahead of the industry trend for game accessibility. And now you're starting to see how stifling this mindset can be.

But so far I've only discussed this from an outsider's angle, because that's where my personal viewpoint lies, however the real interesting elements which sparked my fascination in this matter to begin with actually spreads to the inner workings of this enigmatic gaming giant. One such element being the story of Sony Corp's Visual Arts Service Group, a nameless studio who have been assisting many of these large titles that I've bought up, making them probably some of the most qualified developers in the entire industry right now. (Good lord, those resumes must be gold lamented) But despite their several years worth of hardwork (successful hard work, I might add) the Sony blockbuster machine has kept churning and they've been trapped making other people's products for an age now, lacking autonomy of their own. (The dang studio hasn't even got a name yet! That's just neglectful...) The problem is that Visual Arts Service Group isn't nearly big enough to helm their own AAA blockbuster title, and Sony seems to be interested in nothing less nowadays.

Their story over the past few years has been one of hope getting swiftly crushed, as the Studio hoped to score the right to do their own product by kowtowing to Sony's ravenous hunger and helming a remake. (A much more doable prospect for this studio) They proposed Uncharted 1, which would have been too difficult because of it's age, and instead they settled on a The Last of Us remake. (See, we went full circle) This pleased the great feeding machine, because a remake could be bundled alongside The Last of Us 2's PS5 upgrade, and so the project was approved. Unfortunately, then The Last of Us 2 started to hit development snags and SCVASG (My god, I thought that acronym would read better before I typed it! These guys need a name) was drafted back into a support roll for Naughty Dog. The exact thing they wanted to move away from doing. And then, as if to rub salt into their eyes, upon The Last of Us 2's completion, Sony moved ownership of the The Last of Us Remake project over to Naughty Dog, essential stealing Visual Arts Service Group's idea and robbing them of credits and an identity. The group had been fearing for a while that they were destined to be consolidated into Naughty Dog, and now that seems like a forgone conclusion.

The gaming industry isn't run on the back of tentpole franchises, but a sea of smaller and imaginative titles that fill the gap between these huge event releases. But it seems more and more apparent that Sony is loosing sight of those lily pads in favour of the whole pond. Honestly, I never really thought of this as a bad thing until hearing of these stories, Visuals Art Service Group's and Bend Studio's. (Who got their 'Days Gone' sequel concept tossed out of the window because the first game, despite being profitable, was not a blockbuster success) They paint the picture of a distinctly unsustainable company ethos obsessed with topping itself each and every release; bigger budgets, bigger studios, bigger games and bigger success. And some think this makes them blissfully unaware of what they're setting themselves up for; a major fall. What happens when it all runs out of steam? What will Sony do when these series and studios, as these things do, start to change as old faces leave looking for something new? Will Sony have enough of a bedrock around them to raise another blockbuster studio and keep the train running?  I honestly have no earthly idea.

Sony are a giant of a company who have been on the top of the gaming industry for a while now, so I'm not surprised to learn that their leadership is pretty bullheaded and dismissive. I am surprised, however, to hear the effect it's having to their own talent, and I wonder if this news coming out will spark enough of a response to change their course at all. Because, as much as we may grimace at a studio of talented developers getting crunched up by the Goliathan content creator that is Sony, at the end of the day they're still on the top of their game. Putting out hit after hit, crushing sales figures, raking in awards; what's a little internal discontent against unadulterated success? I may have come around to the accusation that Sony is missing the forest for the trees; but I honestly can't see the Sony of today actually doing something about it. (Maybe the Sony of tomorrow. We'll see.)

Destruction Allstars

Game's of Chicken have never been so high stakes.

I feel like even today the effects of Overwatch upon the gaming world are still being felt. Now you may take that as a bit of a misrepresentation, and honestly it might be, but I think when you look at the current face of a lot of multiplayer darlings and aspiring multiplayer darlings; Jeff Kaplan's punchable mug glimmers beneath them all. (That's not a comment on Jeff as a person, I just think he has an unfortunate face. Okay, maybe it's a little bit of a dig at his person...) The reason I say this, is because Overwatch started a trend that we see in almost every new multiplayer game that isn't trying to be Fortnite; (we'll call that game the other chief influencer behind today's multiplayer landscape) it started the 'Hero' trend. Now yes, Overwatch is a 'hero shooter' that owes it's formula for TF2, but people weren't flocking to capture TF2's success nearly as reverently as they do for Overwatch. Blizzard started a movement. And I think a little bit of that movement lies in the genesis of 'Destruction Allstars'.

But let's start by going over exactly what 'Destruction Allstars' is. Simply, 'Destruction Allstars' is the modern day's answer to 'Star Wars Demolition' the old school vehicular destruction game that I refuse to accept aged poorly. (It lives on as a classic in my memory, dammit!) It's proposition is simple; here is a world themed around a 'game show' environment where larger-than-life figures ride around in powerful vehicles and attempt to blow each other up in loud, audacious ways. In the trailer alone we can see cars smashing into each other, getting caught in huge traps around the arena and also people on foot going at each other. (not sure how that last part fits in, to be honest, but there it is.) So this is hardly a brand new idea that's never been seen before, in fact it's be done in satire-themed gaming for literal generations now, and I still remember something very similar parodied in 'Dead Rising 2'. There's also this sort of aesthetic vaguely obscured within the lore for Apex Legends and PUBG, and what I'm trying to say is that this is neither clever nor original, but the demo derby angle could be seen as a little unique, I guess.

Perhaps the biggest claim to fame right now for this title is that fact that it's due to be a Playstation 5 title (seemingly exclusively) and so the visuals we see should be indicative of what that console has to offer. In terms of fidelity this title looks fine, though it's character designs made the smart choice being cartoonish and dis-proportioned in order to be easier to differentiate characters and make them unique. (There's a page out of the Overwatch handbook.) Where the visuals really shine is in the destruction itself, as it appears Lucid Games went to great lengths to capture the appetite for destruction that those who visit demolition derbys show up for. You have decently explosive collisions, impactful crashes and a gore-system for the cars that has parts and debris fly off in a flashy way in order to sell the damage that's been dished out here as well as look spectacular all around. I can't say for certain whether or not all of this would have been possible without next gen tools, but I certainly don't think it could have been this pretty and widespread in a cohesive competitive multiplayer environment. (If there's no slow down, then this new generation will be worth it.)

Now if this sort of game sounds somewhat familiar to you, either in visual aesthetic or in concept, then I don't know what to tell you, there's no real connection to derive there. But the team behind the game where responsible for the old wipE'out' game, so maybe there's a little bit of recognisable history in that little factoid. wipE'out' (No, I'm not having a stroke, that's how it's stylised) was a futuristic racer title that very much owed it's genes to the old F-Zero titles, featuring that one character who's now spent more time outside of his vehicle than inside of it. (Smash Bros has really stolen a lot of thunder from old series', huh.) In play it was a high-speed racer with slick, improbable, vehicles racing around spacey tracks to implacably sci-fi tunes, and I actually played and loved at least one of these games back in the day. (And as someone who doesn't like racing games, that's saying something.) So this paints some precedent for the team being able to make off-kilter car-themed games, perhaps that sort of pedigree with shine for them here.

But why do I say that Overwatch has it's hand in the pot for this title? There's not a single car in all of Overwatch, what am I on? Well I think that feeling comes from the aforementioned loud personalities that seem to have gotten ample amounts of thought and effort behind them. Heck, even on the key promotional art we see a luchador take the front rather than any of the big vehicles which are the heart of this game. It's indicative of the way that multiplayer games, nowadays, are just as keen to build a rooster of instantly placeable 'heroes' as they are to build a solid game. I intend to go into this in detail at a later point, but modern multiplayer marketing calls for this sort of 'instant recognition' factor to be attributed to games where it doesn't even make sense. As far as I can tell this is supposed to be a title about smashing cars together, so who cares about the wacky person inside the car? Why aren't the cars on the front box?

Of course, to play Devil's advocate, this could be an intention on the part of the developers to add a little depth and replayability into their title, in the vein that most modern mulitplayer titles do, by throwing in hero playstyles. One of the reasons that games like Valorant and Overwatch overshadowed their more tame predecessors is due to the very hero-obsession that I just mocked, because it actually opens up the potential for diversity. Traditional shooters are usually limited by constraints such as player roles, which only really covers a few narrow archetypes (Usually; healer, tank, DPS) with some hybrids tossed in there. But if you instead base your roster on unique characters, you can have characters who achieve those archetypes with unique skills, thus letting you make several tanks or several healers and drawing players in with the concept of mastering these different playstyles. Now it's still very much sparse as far as marketing for Destruction Allstars goes, so I can't confirm whether or not this is definitely the direction they're going with their game, but the implication is certainly there from what I've seen.

It's early days, but I already know I'm not the first one to look at a title like this and get immediately struck with subconscious 'Rocket League' parallels, such to the point where a few people believed this to be Rocket League 2 during the reveal footage. (Which it obviously wasn't; there isn't even a ball!) Think about it; both games include vehicular avatars in competitive showdowns that conceptually differ from the majority of the day's competition. When Rocket League came out, the sheer newness and originality of the concept was enough to propel it to international gaming stardom for a time, and even now the game is going decently strong with dedicated fans. That could be the sort of arena, so to speak, that Destruction Allstars wants to step into to try their hand at, and if they can I think there's the potential there for some serious oneupmanship to take place. There's also a lot of potential customisation choices in the car-avatar concept too, so this is a title that already has it's monetisation sorted out. When you really break it down, it's a wonder there aren't more car-combat games on the market today!

When it's all said-and-done, Destruction Allstars is not the sort of game that appeals to me, I'm not sure if that came across in my writing on it, I'm just not the type for multiplayer carnage games. That being said, I'm still interested in titles that break the mould a little like this and that goes especially true if this game has the potential to be 'the next big thing', and I think that if this game launches right it just might. If only there was a bit more of a wider audience to launch to, this might even be the kind of game to enter the multiplayer annals. Unfortunately, the exclusivity angle will undoubtedly hurt the wide-spread appeal of the game. (See that Sony, your draconian practises are becoming a nuisance.) But irregardless I hope for the best for this title, what can I say; I'm a sucker for an underdog story.