Fast and Furious: Crossroads

Earn that paycheck, Tyrese.

I have expressed before my general respect for the effort and hard work that goes into developing racing titles. I've always found that their grasp on fidelity and all the little features that elevate this hobby from a pastime to an artform can often put entire other genres to shame. Just look at the amount of talent that went into constructing the recent F1 game; genuine F1 drivers have attested to how accurate that title is, if there's higher praise to be had I don't know it. But if there is one type of racing game that brings down everyone, not just the racing genre but gaming in general, it is a half-assed cash grab product. Just as a brilliant, well-conceived product ups the quality of all those around either out of inspiration or fear of being left behind, a soulless cash grab drags down the quality of all those around it in a depressing fashion. On a related note; Fast and Furious: Crossroads, everybody!

Let me be the first to admit that I am not a fan of the Fast and Furious movies, I've only seen the first two movies and 15 agonizing minutes of 'Tokyo Drift' but I got a decent grasp on what the franchise had to offer and why it didn't appeal to me. It is a franchise built around grand spectacle and impressive (if fake) stunts, with weak attempts at character development shoved in every now and then. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, mindless action films can be a great time for those with the time and tolerance to withstand it, but it tends to birth a franchise with very little space to grow and become transcendent. Fast and Furious has proven to be one of the few lucky ones who have managed to escape that stigma and become important to the global movie conversation, (for better or for worse) allowing the brand to stretch out to multiple sequels, an apparently god-awful spin off, and a real life stunt show that actually exists. But could such a franchise survive the jump to video games?

My initial gut response to that query would be 'of course it could, duh.'. Afterall the franchise is built on giant spectacle and set-pieces lacking any real substance, a great many AAA gaming titles boast that exact same premise, but what if that very merit is harder to translate than we give it credit for? To understand what I mean, take a look at the first F&F video game tie in, (At least that I know of) 'Forza Horizon 2 presents the Fast and Furious'. The basic premise of that title was grabbing the successful framework of the car enthusiast game of that year, Forza Horizon 2, and using it show off digital versions of the flashy cars that identify the F&F franchise. A perfect storm of free marketing for the films and an attractive tie-in for Forza, everybody wins.

However, when you take a look at the actual effort put in by Universal to accommodate this crossover you can see an interesting discrepancy. The car models for this spin-off title look great, obviously as they were all handled in-house by the Forza developers, all the team behind the movies had to do was provide an interesting scenario and the voice talent. The story in-question was incredibly weak and revolved around racing cars (a plotpoint that the movies left behind since 2006's Tokyo Drift) and, despite racing everyone's iconic cars, the only voice talent that the studio were able to provide was Ludachris. (Wow, I'm star struck.) Now, I understand their mentality "Hey, we're providing the bulk of the value by agreeing to this crossover, so why should we have to put in any effort?" But the lack of tangible effort on the studio's part speaks to an inherent lack of caring for the perception of their brand and/or a disdain for the video game market in general.

So now we have the announcement of 'Fast and Furious: Crossroads' which seemed to tick all the right boxes, in theory. They revealed the title at the game awards, using the 'gamer-cred' of Vin Diesel to sell it's legitimacy. (And Michelle Rodriguez, I guess, but she did arguably mispronounce 'Tekken'.) So what went wrong? How about the game itself? From the moment the trailer started it became immediately obvious that something was seriously off about this product. Maybe it was the PS3-era graphics, the seemingly sub-60 fps or maybe the... actually, it was defiantly the face models. Dear god: the face models! This time around Universal went out of their way to bring their A-talent to this title (likely because they had to) but the end-result ended up looking like uncooked pudding more than an accurate digital depiction of Vin Diesel's mug. I mean, how could they get it this wrong? Vin has been bought to life in video games before, from Riddick to Wheelman. (Although those titles were admittedly rather visually stylized.) This just screamed 'half assed' from the moment go.

Developed by 'Slightly Mad Studios' (The guys behind 2015's project Cars), Crossroads seems set to deliver a more faithful F&F experience than the Forza outing. That is to say, when looking at the trailer one can see all the hallmark indicators that you could expect from a Fast and Furious movie. The game's narrative will follow espionage, explosions, giant guns attached to sports cars, and all manner of set-piece moments that look like they come straight out of a bad Bond movie. They even managed to rope in the talented Sonequa Martin-Green to lend her voice and a rough approximation of her facial features to the project. Throw in some vague talk about 'vengence', an unfunny back and forth between Vin and Tyrese Gibson, and you've got yourself a F&F trailer.

And yet it all of it feels very weak-sauce compared to many of the things we see out of  the F&F movies of today. (Or at least, the trailers that I watch.) Where's the big eye-rolling stunt to close out the trailer, where's the customary message about 'family' for the umpteenth time, where's the braggadocios celebrity villain? This trailer failed to capture any of the stupid charm of the movies and I feel that may be a real problem going forward. 'Slightly Mad' have a game that looks dated and a trailer that doesn't feel like the source material, at this point all this game really has going for it is a release date that hits the same week as the movie, and I'm not entirely sold on if that will be enough.

Just like most everyone else who watched the game awards, I found this title to be an embarrassingly weak title to end the show on and that may have peppered my reception towards it. After watching the trailer through again a few times, I will admit that it does look like a title that might some vague potential. Afterall, it's been a while since we've been graced with a racing game that is married to a narrative, so the end result might not be completely terrible. I just hope the team has the time to do something about those character models in the next 6 months. (Yikes.)

Jesus Christ: The Game

So does this count as sacriledge or...

The hobby of video game entertainment is one that crosses a lot of demographics and borders across the entire world. There is no one kind of person who is 'allowed' to enjoy video games and, in reflection, gaming has begun to open up to all types of folk out there. Recently we've seen how this has effected people with conditions like colour blindness, with many triple AAA titles instituting alternative solutions for coloured HUD icons depending on the specific type of colour blindness. We've also seen entire studios formed in order to address uncommon issues and topics such as that recent group of veterans who came together to make games focusing on African American characters. Isn't it strange then, that in all of this diversity we see throughout the world of gaming that there are never titles geared towards religious demographics?

Take a look at any other form of entertainment media and you'll almost always find a 'Christian counterpart' ready to feed to the contentious masses. You have the evangelical channels on TV that adopt the style of shopping channels, Movie stars who dedicate their entire careers to spreading the good word of their patron deity and even musicians who seem steadfast in their pursuit of everything holy. The only real problem with all these diverse Christian alternative comes in the small commonality that they all inevitable suck and/or are terrible. I don't know what it is about pursing good->insert religion here<-values, but it just seems to suck all the talent out of the room like a black hole. This is even true with the few Christian video games that have been made over the years, with half of them being pseudo-educational snore fests and the other half just being crappy platformers, for the most part. Honestly, the best religious-themed video game out there is probably 'Super 3D Noah's Ark', but that's more a joking reskin of DOOM than an actual effort to spread a good message.

Enter 'SimulaM' and their debut video game with a title so in-your-face that it couldn't help but draw attention from just about everyone who laid eyes on it. 'I am Jesus Christ' is a game with a real Steam page that you can look up right now (as of the writing of this article) complete with a real trailer, screenshots and a description that looks like it was written under duress. I think that the element of this whole thing that strikes people so profoundly when it comes to this project isn't the concept itself, we see countless video games with premises much weirder than playing as Jesus Christ, I think that it more comes down to the po-faced seriousness that this whole operation seems to exude. Whilst looking through all of this preliminary promotional material, one cannot help but feel a sense of "No, we're not 'in on the joke' and, in fact, we disapprove of you having a joke in the first place!"

Taking a look at the amount of work that went behind the official reveal trailer alone is another to set one's head a-scratching. We start with seeing the stereotypical  'White bearded man' depiction of Jesus, crossing the desert in his heavy robes, just as he comes a cross a disgusting potato monster that I can only presume is supposed to be an old woman. The camera then flies into the eyes of Jesus as we get to see the man hover his radioactive glow-hands over this old crone in order to imbue her with the power to open her eyes. (Not sure if that's a blessing or a curse for a thing like that.) From there the miracles keep coming and they don't stop coming as Jesus fills an empty bucket with fish, walks on water and calms roaring seas in order to save an empty boat, and is crucified before returning from the dead as good as new. It's worth noting, by-the-by, how all of this in rendered in such a blatantly poor fashion that it is clear how none of this is real gameplay as, I can only presume, we are meant to believe.

We can learn slightly more about this title by attempting to decipher the word dribble that goes for a 'description' on this title. "Become Jesus Christ, the famous man on Earth - in this highly realistic simulation game." It starts in curious fashion. Perhaps parodying that infamous John Lenon quote, but in reality probably just showcasing a distinct lack of a decent translator for the Polish development team. "Pray like Him for getting superpower, perform famous miracles like Him from Bible like casting demons, healing and feeding people, resurrection and more in 'I am Jesus Christ'". I find it curious that the team decided to describe Jesus' abilities as 'Superpowers'. Perhaps they intend to aim for that illusive super hero crowd? 

"'I am Jesus Christ' is a realistic simulator game inspired by stories from the New Testament of the Bible. Get into old times and follow the same path of Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. Game is covering the period from Baptizing of Jesus Christ and to Resurrection. Have you ever wondered to be like Him - one of the most privileged and powerful people in the world?" Well I sure am glad someone finally shone a light on Jesus' privilege. It had to be said one day. "Follow his path" The flavour text reads. "Check if you can perform all famous miracles from the Bible like Jesus Christ. It is a simulation game and you can try to save the world as He did. Are you ready to fight with Satan in the desert, exorcising demons and curing sick people? Or calm the storm in the sea?" Not sure about most of that stuff, but fighting the Devil in the desert does sound pretty damn cool. I just hope the fight itself is one of those tiered affairs, you know with the multiple boss bars and changes of scenery. I think this team should really look into borrowing some of the more cinematic cues from DMC5. "Over 30 Miracles!" The game rightly boasts. What? How many miracles does your game have, huh? That's what I thought...  "Pray like Him to get your Holy Spirit's power and help people around you. Fight with evil, make miracles, resurrect dead, feel and act like Him. If you a game-lover, why not to get to know His pass, His challenges, His sufferings, and His power!" Sort of making Jesus sound like a Necromancer in that passage, but I've always wanted to raise an army of the dead so I'm down.

This all ends with a beautiful looking 'Features' list that certainly does paint this title as a GOTY 2020 contender...
"Key features:
- Open World
- Special skills
- Realistic fight with Satan
- Over 30 miracles like healing people, walking on water, calming storm, feeding people
- Baptising and getting super power of Holy Spirit
- Praying and increasing of Holy Spirit
- Crucifixion and Resurection
and much more..."

You might find yourself wondering about the pedigree of a Studio like this, are they capable of making this ambitious-sounding title or are they just blowing smoke where the sun don't shine. Well, as I said this is the developer's debut title, but we can look at the sorts of game that the Publisher puts out to get an idea of the calibre of folk that they work with. Those fellows, who go by the moniker Playway S.A., are rather prolific in their work, in that they've published 5 games this year and three of them are 'simulator' titles. In their defence, the simulator genre is notorious for folk who throw up 'coming soon' titles that never deliver, so Playway's clients at least put out games. (I've even heard of a few, like 'Thief Simulator' and 'Cooking Simulator') They also published that 'Lust for Darkness' game which attempted to mix Lovecraftain horror themes with erotic undertones. It wasn't very good.

So at the end of the day we have a hilariously shoddy title with an irresistible premise, but does that mean we'll actually see a game down the line? Honestly, I think that the developers would be fools not to patch something together after all the free publicity that this title got. Right now all the materials we see about the game are obviously conceptual and the promised feature set is practically eye rolling, this seems like a product destined to become vapour-ware but I implore the developers, wherever they may be, to not let this opportunity pass and to put out something, no matter how trashy it ultimately is. (Even if it's terrible, streamers will give the title life.)

Skill Based Match Making

Who's the most skillful of them all?

When we look at the spectrum of online games, there is a certain common expectation of 'competitive purity' that tends to transcend games and genres. Whenever we get to the point of pitting one human against another is a match-up of, what is predominately considered to be, skill, players engage with these matches whilst putting their trust in the developers behind the game to ensure that match-up is as fair as humanely possible to aid the most objective result. This is a responsibility that is very important for any online game developer to take seriously, lest they risk ruffling their core fan base, and it is the driving force behind many of the chief concerns that run in game developers minds to this day. However, there are times when the pursuit of objective fairness clashes with ideals that some consider to be healthy to the community, and I want to explore that today. More specifically, I want to discuss the benefits and ramifications of 'Skill Based Match Making'. (SBMM.)

Maintaining a healthy online ecosystem has always been important for online developers, but with the recent rise of 'live services' it has become even more integral than ever before. Developers are expected to keep on top the latest cheats and exploits that threaten to ravage their game as well as prevent the homogenization of particular 'Meta strategys' that could prove threatening to the concept of gameplay variety. This sort of management it what allows games like 'Overwatch', 'Team Fortress 2' and 'Counter Strike: Global Offensive', to continue to dominate online play times despite being years old. To this end, teams often deploy a variety of different methods to stay ontop of things, ranging from hands-off endeavours such as the development of 'Anti-cheat' algorithms, hands-on methods such as investigations into reported system abuse and banning, and community efforts such as Public Test Servers. (PTS.) All these systems serve towards endorsing a fair environment where as many people as possible get to enjoy themselves, benefiting recurrent player numbers and, hopefully,  provide strong feed for your monetisation mulcher. (Gotta pay for those servers somehow, right?)

Recurrency is a very important figure when it comes to any game's statistics, but it is incredibly omniscient in the 'online gaming' sphere. That is because 'recurrancy' is a figure often consulted when judging the 'health' of a game and, therefore, the viability of continued investment. Basically, if people enjoy the game enough to keep coming back then Publishers are more interested in supporting further development of that game in hopes of turning those players into profits down the line. This relationship incentivises developers to go out of their way to keep players happy as it benefits them financially: A perfectly symbiotic relationship with absolutely no downsides, right? Well, it actually depends who you are. For it is in the pursuit of 'making as many people as possible happy' that some peculiar systems have been created and endorsed by gaming companies in the past.

Perhaps you've heard of the concept of 'beginner's luck'? An interesting phenomena that is certainly worth some philosophical debate as to it's validity, but there is an observable result on the individual effect of it which is more relevant to the matter at hand. When the person in question, whom we shall call 'Individual A', (Like this is a freakin' legal document) tries their hand at a new skill, they can often do so in a probationary capacity in order to determine whether or not they'll enjoy the activity that they are attempting. The question of whether or not they will continue to try their hand at that activity can often be dependant on those initial few attempts. (You're likely familiar with the commonly recognized importance of 'First impressions') Therefore, if 'Individual A' has a positive experience in their introductory step into this new activity, they'll be encouraged enough to stick around and see where it takes them. This kind of reaction also applies to Online games, and as such it is very attractive in the eyes of developers and publishers.

Not too long ago, in the prime of online games, there was a bit of hubbub around a system implemented by developers with the intention of securing that early retention, which would then hopefully lead to regular recurrancy. This was a practice wherein new players would receive a 'beginner's bluff' when they started playing an online game that would subtly make that player more powerful, thus increasing the chances of them winning their inaugural matches and getting that early positive feedback loop started. This buff would typically only last for the first few matches, or until the subject secured their first win, but it still tilted the balance of 'fair play' in a direction that was unfair to those who put their time and effort into the game in order to become 'skilled'. Whatsmore, the practise came across as deceitful due to the fact that it was never disclosed explicitly by the company's who did it, despite the fact that a lot of them did. (I believe even Call of Duty got on board with this trend at one point.)

In their defence, however, the practice could be looked on as something mostly harmless in the grand scheme of gaming. Skewering a few matches in hopes of securing some more fans to the game might seem a bit dishonest, but it's certainly a lesser evil when compared to the methods that some of these companies use nowadays. Pro and Hardcore players have complained that this practice sullys the 'purity' of the game systems and well as decidedly striking against the core demographic of online gamers, (A.K.A. Them) but it is difficult to calculate what effect this practise actually had on the retention figures of veterans who were directly impacted from this system, and so such concerns typically went brushed off. Game developers who were outed for this practise hid behind the "You don't think you want it but you do" excuse that they so often do with clandestine systems like this. It is unclear whether or not that practice is still commonly used by online Devs, (I bet it is) but there is another practice which has drawn ire from the 'hardcore' community of gamers and that is 'mandatory SBMM'.

Skill Based Match Making is a system wherein the developers encode a series of AI algorithms to asses the 'skill' of players (often derived from stats such as 'Number of wins', 'Kill/death ratio' and 'Weapon Accuracy') and skewers the 'match making' systems in order to place players with others who are similar to them in 'Skill'. The intended consequence of this is to cut back on the amount of times that less-experienced players find themselves getting pummeled by those who are infinitely more skilled. In turn, this would promote the 'positive feedback loop' of players who feel more fairly matched against their opponents, thus encouraging recurrency and roping in a few more fans who can be monetized down the road. Once again, this feeds the old symbiotic relationship between players and developers so there can't be anything wrong with it, right? Well, this time there are some unforeseen consequences which actually effect more than just the few.

Most obviously, there is the accusation that this 'sullies the purity of the compeititon', which may sound 'whiney' but there is some truth to that accusation. Competitions, by their very nature, inspire a number of individuals from all levels of skill to compete against each other to secure some sort of victory. Developers who endorse SBMM, operate under the assumption that those who find themselves hopelessly outmatched will be then disincentivised to continue improving, but often the opposite can be true. Some folk, who find themselves eager in the face of challenge, can look upon the most powerful opponent of the game as a goal to strive towards. if they find themselves being constantly outwitted, they'll take it as indication to improve and these are the kind of folks most likely to become dedicated regulars to the game. But if these folk never come across anyone who truly challenges them, then they have no incentive to push themselves as they never come across an example of someone who is that much more skilled then them.

Of course, there is also an argument to be made for SBMM when it comes to 'high level play' scenarios too. Players who enter the upper echelons of competitive play are often left dissatisfied with picking off the bones of less skilled players, so it would be better for them to try their hand against players of equal footing to really challenge themselves. Of course, the method to make the best of both worlds in this scenario would be to allow a choice, and that is something that a lot of game's companies recognize, hence the creation of 'Ranked Matches'. Ranked matches typically use SBMM for those times when you want a blood pumping match up, whilst casual matches exist for those who appreciate the random luck of potentially being paired with a master or a novice. The key here is player choice, something that not all developers have been on board with all the time.

Apex Legends recently cam under fire for the way they implemented SBMM into their core, and only, match making function. It was stealthily added to the game in season 2, and folk are just starting to get sick of it and the way they've been given no choice but to play along. One of the key issues that has been pointed out with this set-up is the way that SBMM often overrides proximity based connections and thus can result in iffy Internet connections. Traditionally it is the top priority of any match maker to ensure that latency and lag is under control, but that all goes out the window with SBMM and Apex fans felt that the integrity of their experience had been sacrificed in the name of feeding the 'casul' market.

I find the debate surrounding SBMM to be a particularly interesting and intriguing one as it lacks a clear cut 'right' answer. One on hand I applaud the efforts of any studio that seeks to make their games more accessible, whilst on the other I don't feel that necessarily has to come at the cost of the core gaming experience. I'll be particularly interested to see how this issue plays out with Apex, given that they just won the Multiplayer game of the year award. For better or for worse, eyes will be on them to set an example going forward, and seeing as how I doubt this SBMM issue is going anywhere, theirs is an example that will prove very enlightening.

Discless entertainment systems

It's all in the cloud.

We talk quite a bit about the evolution of video-gaming tech on this blog and I sometimes offer my thoughts on how I feel it's playing out. Quite recently that is a topic that has had all the air sucked out of due to the release of google Stadia, all anyone wants to talk about nowadays is 'cloud streaming' and how viable it is for the future. but I feel that there is another, much more pressing, issue to contend with when it comes to assessing the future of gaming hardware. Something that I alluded to recently, in fact, and that is the war, intentional or otherwise, on the second hand economy as waged by console developers.

Second-hand markets are huge fixtures in any economy, as they permit the resale of goods from a consumer, allow for premium items to be made affordable and, incidentally, provide jobs in this particular area of industry. For gaming, the second-hand market has been around since the beginning of the home console era; back when Video games cost $60, (they still do, but accounting for inflation, that price was a whole lot more prohibitive then it is today) the rental industry became just as important for the growth of the gaming market as retail stores themselves. Most folk couldn't afford to keep up with the exorbitant prices of the latest software and so they would rent games for a weekend, pressuring the players of the day to be as good as they can be to make the most of their money.

As gaming moved to steadily become more attainable for players, (Or, more accurately, didn't move. Inflation did the bulk of the work.) so too did the second-hand market move from 'rentals' to 'buying the game preowned.' This was made possible because of the way that video game software was shared using CD-ROMs, a piece of kit that could be feasibly reused indefinitely. Once someone was done with a game, they could sell it to a second-hand store who could then resell that game for a lower price, prolonging the value of the game. This was great for consumers, but not so much for the studios behind those games. Obviously, publishers make nothing from second hand sales and in some cases they can't even track purchases made through such retailers, for it is fully within the discretion of the retailer themselves to track and share that data. Many would just see this as a necessary consequence of selling reusable products; but when there is the potential to make money, people will find a way to bend what is into what they need it to be.

In this instance the name of the game was taking something that was inherently reusable, disc based software, and make it unreusable, forcing all sales to be made brand new. (Or driving customers to piracy. The Yang to their Yin.) One of the most notable methods for achieving this, and most contentious, was when some publishers (>cough< EA and Activision >cough<) thought it was completely acceptable to introduce an 'Online pass'. This was a service in which every copy of a game would come attached with a one-time activation code which was the only method through which players could access that title's Online content. This would mean that people who picked up the game second-hand would be locked out completely or, as was often the case, would have to buy their 'Online pass' as DLC. (Profits that would go directly to the publishers.) This caused quite the uproar as people easily saw through this transparent attempt to smother the second-hand market, and games companies were forced to scrap this method going into the future for fear of gamer backlash. And so a potential anti-consumer trend was nipped in the bud, but it wouldn't be long until another took it's place. (Thanks to Polygon for that lovely graphic below)

Recently this issue has come up again through the natural evolution of software and the way through which everything as become increasingly 'digital'. You see, nowadays one of the biggest innovations of tech that is specifically pushed by publishers and console developers is the distribution of purely downloadable games. Internet speeds and harddrives sizes have ballooned to the point where one no longer requires a disc to make everything function, and that means every single console of the modern market now boasts a digital downloadable version to accommodate for this evolution. (To be fair, the PC market has already settled on this approach for a long time now.) This is slightly more convenient for the consumer, who no longer has to shift through physical discs to play their games, and a whole heck of a lot more convenient for the publishers, as they don't have to deal with disc/case manufacturing costs and retailer fees.

This relates to the second hand market in a very obvious way, games that are directly downloaded from dedicated stores cannot be resold. On PC this isn't the case, as the concept of a 'dedicated storefront' for personal computers is redundant and therefore purchased games can be resold through their 'activaiton keys'. (Usually through Steam.)  Download a game through the Microsoft, Playstation or Nintendo store, however, and you're stuck with it for life. (Unless you mange to ascertain a refund which is particularly difficult on some platforms.) The more that the industry moves towards the 'downloadable' model of gaming, the more potential business is drained from the second-hand market.

I believe that this is one of the key driving factors for one of the latest trends that we've seen popping up with home consoles, that of Disc-less entertainment systems. Whilst we have yet to see such a system materialize itself on the market, early discussions have started ever since leaks started coming regarding the development of Xbox's next console, Project Scarlett. Initial reports claimed that Scarlett would be an entirely disc-less system, thus requiring all of the games to be directly downloaded, causing some mixed opinions amidst gamers on this topic. Since then, however, it has come out that there is actually an entirely separate development effort ongoing for a second console that would be a powered-down version of Scarlett for folks to sink their teeth into: Project Lockhart. Lockhart would presumably be at a much more affordable price than Scarlett and, in recompense, would be much cheaper to produce for the developer and much more profitable, what with every title being purchased directly from them. It's not hard to see how such a concept might pick up steam with other companies in the future.

One of the big concerns for my part, when it comes to consoles like these, is figuring out just how they will work from a retro angle. Perhaps it's foolish to be thinking about how consoles like these will operate 20 years from now, but I'm the kind of guy who does like looking at how old SNES consoles run all these years after the fact. I wonder if these systems will end up becoming little more than useless paperweights once the online services for them are discontinued and everyone moves onto the next big console. I know that right now Microsoft still go out of their way to support the online features of the Xbox 360, but eventually that will become untenable for them as they develop new Netcode and some things are bound to be left behind. I'm already constantly searching the news for the day that Microsoft announce the end to 360 support, so that I can quickly buy a hardrive and snap up all those hundreds of downloaded games I still have on there. Is that going to be how things will be for project Lockhart and future consoles?

Addictive tendencies in gaming

I just can't put it down!

The act of gaming is one that has become more widespread in recent years as proliferation has started to stretch over the globe. I've mentioned before how gaming is currently the most profitable form of entertainment (as an industry) and that is a distinction that will only grow as we move into the next decade and the prevailing stigma surrounding the world of gaming starts to die down. As more and more people have begun getting into the world of gaming, it has become more readily apparent that many of the presumed 'ill effects' of gaming. (i.e. increased predilection towards violence and anti-social behaviours) have proven to be mere figments of fiction. However, there is one accusation that has been levelled upon the world of gaming that has not only stuck, but recent received an official classification by the World Health Organization, and that is of it's addictive properties, leading to the establishment of 'Gaming Disorder'.

Much ado was made about this classification when it was first issued, but the principles behind the 'disorder' are simple enough; gaming is a commodity that is capable, in excess, of invoking symptoms similar to non-chemical addiction. That's something that anyone could have told you for free, but I suppose having a label assists the filing process for Doctors and Therapists. Folk were still disgruntled to hear about the establishing of 'Gaming Disorder' and demanded to know what effects this may have on the industry. Since then, however, we've heard little to nothing in realm of notable public blowback towards the perception of gaming and, as the dust settles, we are left with no other distraction from the issue and are now forced to confront the question, 'Is gaming addictive? And if so then how bad is it?'

Now, obviously, I am no expert on the subject of gaming addiction, (in fact, at this point nobody is.) but I have been around the world of gaming and participated with the community enough to offer my own glimpse into these matters. As of how such matters have effected me, I'm not so sure, if clinical objectivity is a necessity for casually diagnosing such a disorder then I am clearly the least qualified person to determine. Regardless, I intend to take a look over some of the anecdotal stories of relevance that I have heard on this topic with some rough approximation of objectivity, and so I hope that we come to something interesting and valid by the end of this.

Before I proceed, I wish to make it readily apparent that I, as of the writing of this article, have intentionally done no more than preliminary readings into this topic for the sole purpose of providing another 'more researched' blog down the line. This blog is intended to an approach from a purely anecdotal angle, (as most of my other entries are, you'll notice) with myself focusing on the ways that game developers feed into addiction. So, in other words, don't expect quotations and heavy research into my following words as I wanted to approach the topic as blind as possible for the good of the topic. That being said, as always I should remind you that I am biased, take that into account at all times.

When someone says 'addiction' in relation to gaming my initial first thought goes to the big boogie man of the gaming world, EA, and the cash-hungry, Games-as-a-service, model of game that they popularized. That is primarily because if we distill the key identifying symptom of an addiction, the dependency on the substance in question, then the main goal of 'Games-as-a-service' is clearly to be as addictive as possible. Whilst there was a time, somewhere between the arcade age and where we are now, where developers and publishers worked together to secure that one-time entry fee to their games, now it much more lucrative for those folk to work all the wily tricks that they can to establish a steady stream of regular payment from their customers. How do they do that? With, what is colloquially know as, hooks. (Or 'recurrancy incentives' if we're being fancy which, judging by my inexplicable verbosity today, I suppose we are.)

We see this concept materialize in our games through the ways in which modern online games ape the actions of Mobile games, MMO's and gambling stations. We see hooks that inspire us to revisit the game as often as possible, (Daily quests and rewards) hooks that make us equate our time with the game as valuable and thus seek to elongate it, (timed challenges, sales in stores, and the mere act of spending money on the game in the first place. The more you've invested into the game, the more valuable it becomes in your subconscious) and Hooks that keep us coming back because we've never seen the end. (New content as often as possible for as long as possible.)

All of these little clever tips and tricks work together in order to create a dependency between the player and the game; which, off the top of my head, is the threshold at which the hobby tips into the beginning of an addiction. Unfortunately, at least for those companies who wish to readily exploit such tactics, non-chemical addictions rarely come accompanied with the 'life threatening' side effects that can tie people into other addictions, but they sure can effect and manipulate one's mood in a way that would encourage them to stick around. 'Exclusivity offers' and 'timed events' can feel exclusive to those that aren't there to participate, and many of these games company literally bank on people fearing the feeling of missing out more than spending their time and money in a non productive way. (I know where I usually land on with such decisions.)

But does any of that make 'Game-as-a-service' addictive, or at least, in a manner voracious enough to encourage labelling by the WHO? Possibly, but I still feel that such would probably be insufficient to justify it on it's own. Afterall, the fact that games are slowly evolving in a way that intends to suck more and more money out of their players is a natural evolution for any profit-based-industry. Which would mean that the driving force behind the label of 'addictive gaming' runs deeper than the greedy machinations of unscrupulous cooperate entities. ('Players gonna play', as they say.)

In that case, why don't we look at one of most addictive common traits of gaming; collectibles. Now don't get me wrong, I'm using the term 'collectable' as more of a catch-all for any type of 'collect them all' type of list. Similar to how collectors will dedicate their free time to the acquisition of every type of a certain specialty item, Like Stamps, Classic cars or rare stuffed Fish, (I've met odd people in my time) some people can feel the allure of completing things just as strongly from the digital world. I suppose a more apt term might be 'compeletionism' as it comes from one's desire to complete everything that the game has to offer, even if it only in a certain regard. And I believe that this has some addictive qualities to it.

Most prominently in the way that people can find themselves coming back to a game that they don't particularly like or enjoy with some desire to 'complete it'. This is something that Online games like 'looter shooters' can take advantage of by constantly updating items and adding new ones so that players never quite get to the end. That desire to 'finish collections' is by no means unique to gaming, but it can be realized in this medium and result in financial trouble or merely excessive quantities of spent time. For my part, I have an issue with playing through series in the middle and feel the need to play every game leading up to the entry that I'm interested in. That led to me pushing my way through such titles like 'Splinter Cell: Double Agent' which I now hate myself for.

Although a better type of game that can be addictive for people is a genre that I'm going to label as hobby games. Those that settle into someone's everyday and become a staple in their life in the way that another hobby might. More specifically, I'm referring to the types of games like 'Second life' or 'World of Warcraft' (Or even 'Minecraft') which are so deep and/or offer so much scope of play that one can dedicate a huge portion of their free time to it on a regular basis without exhausting their possibilities. Ideally, this is what a lot of people want out of their gaming experiences, but driven to excess it can be actually quite destructive on folk's personal and/or social lives.

During the heyday of 'World of Warcraft' there was a lot of chatter about 'gaming addiction' and South Park even did an episode directly targeted at it. That is because this was around the time that we were hearing about people who were falling into disrepair due to prioritizing the game over all else. (You'll often hear Joe Rogan talk about this period when disparaging gaming.) Self neglect, breaking down of relationships and general anti-social consequences actually became a reality around this time, and although these situations were minority instances, people tend to remember the worst moments a lot more than the good ones. Compare such examples with the troubles of junkies and you may find some similarities, albeit to a generally much lesser degree.

We've heard stories similar to those days popping up again, recently, due to another rising habit: addictive gameplay loops. The Battle Royale genre in particular has been blowing up in the past couple of years due to it's accessibility and quick match turnover, both of which is just enough to draw players in and encourage them to stay. Fortnite specifically, has seemingly been a hotbed for stories of general personal woe at the hands of unfortunate self neglect. We've heard about children who's grades have suffered considerably since they started prioritizing gaming over their personal lives and even those who avoid school altogether. (Although that could just be a personal choice) Could these destructive habits be serious enough for the hobby to be considered dangerously addictive? Well it all comes down to how wide spread these issues are, or more appropriately, how wide spread the perceived issue is.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of folk who partake in regular sessions of Fortnite and other Battle Royales do so in some sort of moderation, afterall the damn things are frustrating, however if enough of a fuss is raised about such games then institutions who manage such situations are inclined to act. Personally, I don't find myself sold on the accusations that gaming itself is a hobby the encourages and inspires addiction, but I will concede that there are certain addictive aspects to it. Perhaps my opinion on that will change once I sink more hard research into the topic for my next blog on it, but I won't hold my breath. (We'll see what we see.)

The quality of gaming AI and bots

Machine or man?

The gaming culture is one of ebb and flow, fads and trends, habits that come and go. Sometimes that is for the best, and sometimes it's for the worse, but either way, it makes gaming and game design a world in constant flux. To pull out that Bennett Foddy quote again, "It's like building on drying concrete." We all have those eras of gaming that we wish we could return to, times that we can point to and go "There! They had the right idea with that one." But time moves ever onward. That cannot prevent some wistful folk, like myself, for sparing a nostalgic thought about what was and what might be had certain trends played out differently, with that in mind, let's talk about AI.

No, I'm not talking about the traditionally accepted definition of AI (Which can be more accurately defined as 'super-intelligent AI') but rather the collection of algorithms and processes that make up the mind of a computer; it's 'Artifical Intelligence'. In gaming, we commonly use the term 'AI' to refer to the handling of bots and NPC's by the software, it's a catch-all term that encompasses their behaviour, reaction and believability. A game that would considered having 'good' AI, would be one wherein the NPC's make appropriate use of their tools, navigate their environment succinctly and pose an actual threat to the humans; whereas a 'bad' AI would be the type you see running into walls and standing around waiting to be shot.

In the early days of gaming, AI wasn't too much of concern for programmers as their games were a lot more simplistic in scope. Enemies didn't really need to be programmed with a wide range of possible actions and route planning algorithms, they just had to operate a simple patrol task with the player's one job to be to avoid them. It was in this vein that famous video game bosses such as Super Mario Bros' Bowser, resorted to little more than jumping up and down and shooting fireballs every now and then. The only real challenge on the player's part is jumping over the Koopa king and hitting the axe-switch to plunge him into lava. Difficulty ramped up as patterns became more unpredictable and/or erratic, which is why many a player still has nightmares about the Hammer Bros from Super Mario Bros 3 and the Gorgon heads from Castlevania.

Games gradually evolved throughout the years, however, and so too did people's perception about what made good enemies in video games. In my opinion, the real watershed moment was when 3D world's became a thing with the advent of the Nintendo 64. Suddenly, AI would need to navigate a whole 3D environment and it became difficult for Developers to get away with simple patterns for the enemy AI. Now they had to code in path-finding and write in extra rules to determine line-of-sight and determine when to use certain abilities. The old guard method of planning would be to have enemies attack the moment they rendered on the screen or whenever the player got too close, now games consoles had become so powerful that this was unfeasible, enemies could be rendered from far away and players could navigate in 3 dimensions, requiring the system to evolve.

This really started to take route in the early 2000's when Developers began to expand the sorts of games that they could make. On of the biggest games of the time that boasted about it's AI's capabilities would have to be, possibly the first game I ever played, Metal Gear Solid. That was a game which ushered in a whole new genre of play, stealth, and with it a whole new set of requirements when it came to coding enemy AI. Patrolling guards had to follow their routes, sure, but they had to be able to react to their situations in a way that felt dynamic and realistic. Should they become alert, they needed to comb the area in search; if someone held them up with a gun, they needed to freeze in fear of their life. This revolutionized the way that people viewed AI and laid the ground works for where it would evolve next.

From this point onwards it became something of a point of pride for developers to boast about the cool new AI that their games had to offer and boast about how clever it was. Battlefield 1942, for example, had one of it's key selling points rest on the strength of it's bots and their ability to mimic real life opponents. (Isn't that weird? A purely online game that teases the offline components.) This trend caught on too, with future online games like TimeSplitters putting considerable effort into ensuring that their offline play was just as exciting as their online play. During this time it was actually feasible for an offline gamer, like I once was, to buy the newest multiplayer centric game under the knowledge that I wouldn't be left out.

One might have thought that this influx of innovation would be never-ending considering the huge jump forwards in software tech in the years since, however that has not been the case. It seems as standard AI procedures (AI good enough to hold their own against a human) became less of a novelty and more of the norm, there grew less of an incentive to strive for improvement in this general area. Games stopped boasting about how smart their AI was and some multiplayer titles started forgetting about AI Bots altogether. (COD has never had AI bots in their multiplayer as far as I know.) I guess that creating the perfect online opponent was too close to literally cloning gamer brain patterns for Devs to continue down that road. (Although, some of the best advancements in the development of general AI have been made in Video game settings. Maybe these game companies are selling themselves short.)

In the modern age, the only time you'll hear a big fuss made about the quality of AI is when something truly spectacular has been achieved. Who remembers the reveal gameplay demo for 'The Last of Us' when we saw Ellie dynamically react to a situation when the player was in trouble? It was an incredibly impressive showcase and one that should have, in a perfect world, sparked interest in bot development for the future. But it didn't. The same was true for the impressive AI systems behind the Xenomorph from 'Alien: Isolation'. With a reputation for being the 'perfect organism', Creative Assembly knew that they had to do something more imaginative with their Alien beyond giving it a patrol schedule, and so they designed two AI 'storytellers' to manage it's behaviours. One storyteller would give the Alien's AI clues as to where the player was, simulating the 'it's always nearby' paranoia from horror movies, whilst the other would send false clues to distract the alien, ensuring it wasn't always on the player and making it's movements difficult to predict. Despite the creation of this ingenious system, 'Alien: Isolation' was not the spark to revive the AI trend.

So is the concept of great AI complexity dead in the world of gaming? Not quite. Some games have started to look into bringing bots back into multiplayer games, like Battlefront 2, and advanced AI scripting is slowly becoming more of a talking point thanks to pioneers like 'The Last of Us part II'. But perhaps what we really need is a huge leap forward in the technology to really fan the flames of creativity once again in the minds of creators and push the boundaries of what can be possible. I've seen AI demos in simulated environments that go so far as to start simulating the action/reaction motion of human emotions, effectively creating artificial wants and needs; the least we can do in gaming is create an AI that chooses to take cover once and a while.

Umbrella and the mismangement of their BOWs

Please stop laughing. I worked so hard. I worked night and day.

With all the attention that is being directed towards the Resident Evil franchise of late, from the announcement of Resident Evil 3, to the addition of a new RE3 Easter egg in Resident Evil 2, to the re-release of the RE2 demo complete with a 'Nemesis-themed' Easter egg. I've got to thinking about all of the lore of the Resident Evil universe as I understand it. I find these games to be a fascinating series chock full of secrets and questions that have never been officially answered, and that is perfect fodder for the active imagination. Seeing as how I'm intending to start playing the Resident Evil games and analyzing them in minute detail, I feel that it's high time that I get one particular Lore-related issue of my chest in regards to this franchise. (Cue the Jerry Seinfeld voice) What's the deal with Umbrella's BOWs? (Warning: Major spoilers for the first 3 Resident Evil games.)

Before I get into anything, I should preface this blog by saying that this is quiet unlike anything I've done before on this blog. Rather than focus on hard cold mechanics, I'm delving into narrative and lore in order to point out a funny little thing that I've noticed regarding the way that the first 3 Resident Evil games play out. Therefore I will do my best to explain things for those who aren't as familiar with the lore as I am, whilst simultaneously pointing out that I'm not exactly an expert of everything Resident Evil myself, so there may be some factual inaccuracies here.  (In my defence, I've fact checked everything that I can.)

Let's start at the beginning; The Umbrella corporation, formerly known as 'Umbrella Pharmaceuticals', is the fictional company that is at the heart of most, if not all, of the paranormal going-ons in the Resident Evil franchise. After being founded in 1967 by a trio of 'experimental' doctors, Umbrella quickly rose to become a prominent player on the national field of pharmaceuticals, earning them the title of, In the words of a 19 yr old, "the area's biggest taxpayer". (That is literally the only thing that Rebecca tells you about Umbrella in Resident Evil 1. She doesn't even mention that they're a company. For all you know it could just be some oddly named rich Samaritan with a penchant for developing gauze.)

Unfortunately, widespread market domination and, presumably, considerable profits weren't enough to satisfy the big wigs at Umbrella, and soon they started putting funds behind the research of, easily the most insane of their founders, Oswell E Spencer. Spencey Boy was quite the sucker for agriculture in his youth, you see, and whilst on a flower picking trip in deep Africa, Ozzy came across an incredibly special flower which... You know I can't exactly remember. (This is why I need to play through these games again.) Look, long story short they could inflict serious change to an individual's cellular structure and, naturally, this led to the Umbrella team immediately seeking a way to monetize on it.

To this end, Umbrella founded their 'BOW' program (Bio Organic Weapon) in order to grow super soldiers that would then be sold illegally on the black market, or to the US government. (Management never could quite nail down that part.) There were a few problems with their 'super soldier formula' however, most pressingly how it was a parasitic virus that only seemed able to work it's magic on dead flesh. That, mixed with the fact that the resulting 'Zombies' were lacking the mental acuity to respond to orders, made the marketability of these 'Zombies' rather lame. Luckily the team got to working around the clock to rectify this and they ended up coming to an ingenious solution, they'll create artificial hosts for the virus to take over. Thus the BOW program kicked off in earnest as the team got together to make a deadly organic weapon that would be the envy of any black market weapons deal.

To this end, Umbrella created hundred of useless cannon fodder and a scant few truly marketable super soldiers through with which they could terrorize the world. This prototype was assigned the codename 'Tyrant' and grown underneath the mansion of their founders, in the hills of the Arklay mountains. (A location picked for having the perfect conditions for regrowing the necessary plant. Or being the only place that grew said plants in the first place. The lore tends to conflict with itself on that point.) Umbrella were right on track to create their super soldier and make, in the words of the TMNT movie, "Stupid money" which, let's not misremember things, is their ultimate goal. Umbrella originally had no goals of world domination or to 'cure the world of death' (Okay, that might have been Spencer's goal but no one liked him anyway. He was ousted from the company is a very 'definitive' fashion. Let's say he was 'pushed' to leave his position.) Umbrella only cared about money to begin with, and therefore it only makes sense that every single one of their early decisions should be in aid of that vague goal.

Cue a terrible disaster that isn't worth going into in this blog, and Umbrella's laboratory in the Spencer mansion goes dark. Somehow the virus leaked and infected most of the staff in and around that facility, resulting in incalculable losses for Umbrella R&D, whilst also locking the team out of direct access to their finished prototype: Tyrant. This would be a situation that would require incredible levels of tact and planning on the company's part to ensure that they could contain the situation and retrieve their assets without authorities becoming aware of anything bad, or if that cannot be accomplished, than at least without knowledge of the company's direct involvement. There's only one nagging issue...

The nearby populace of Raccoon City boasts a specialized division of their police force called S.T.A.R.S.; Special Tactics and Rescue Service. (Sigh. You're not supposed to include the 'and' in your acronym, guys.) These guys end up sending their B-team to investigate a distress call nearby which ended up leading directly to the Spencer Mansion. (Whoops.) Luckily that B-Team promptly went dark, (Probably because the team was comprised of several people with no guns and a 19 year old.) unfortunately, there is an A-Team ready to pick up that trail. Cue panic mode for Umbrella, their secret is about to leak out to the Authorities! What can they do? Good thing then, that their captain, Albert Wesker, is actually an Umbrella scientist working as a plant! All he needs to do is call off the investigation, bribe a few folk, and the anonymity of Umbrella is secured. Or he could lead that A-team in a mission to investigate the Spencer mansion... that's proactive, I guess.

Once S.T.A.R.S. land in Spencer Mansion, Albert's goal should be frighteningly obvious, he needs to get his entire team killed off as quickly as possible. And yet the first thing he does is save Chris Redfield's life from Zombie dogs and lead everyone to safety inside of the relative safety of the Spencer Mansion. (Not too clear on your plan here, Al.) Wesker then allows the team to go their separate ways whilst he disappears to... I dunno... destroy evidence hopefully. Somewhere along the way, however, he realizes that he cannot pull this off alone and thus enlists the help of resident S.T.A.R.S. moron, Barry Burton, to help him betray the team. I'd imagine the conversation went a little bit like this:

Albert: Barry, I need your help to betray S.T.A.R.S.

Barry: What? No way. Why would I do that?

Albert: I dunno. Name something that you really care about.

Barry: My Family?

Albert: Yeah, them. I've got them hostage so you better do as I say.

Barry: Oh god. You've lied about everything else I thought I knew about you, but I instantly believe you on this and will do absolutely nothing to fact-check that incredibly bold statement.

At this point Albert practically disappears from the story whilst the rest of the team slowly begin to pick apart the truth behind the mansion. Only in the final act do we find out that he has spent his entire time down in his personal labs with his Tyrant test tube. God knows what he spent all his time doing there, but I'll guess it was mostly trying to figure out the logistics of escorting a 9 foot pale monstrosity out the building and to Umbrella (Who's nearest facility would be the NEST underneath Raccoon City) without being spotted. (You should've bought a van along or something.) Cue the confrontation scene which either ends with Barry learning that Albert didn't kidnap his family (Meaning that Barry murdered on S.T.A.R.S member and tried to murder another for literally no reason) and shooting Wesker or the Tyrant merely waking up from inside it's test tube and choosing to skewer his creator. Either way things end badly for Wesker and, incidentally, the Tyrant, as in the canonical ending the monster is blown to pieces with a rocket launcher. And then again when the entire mansion explodes.

This leaves Umbrella with a huge potential breach of information, as there is an entire squadron of living S.T.A.R.S. who now know their secret, and a lot of money lost in damages. Luckily for them, another convenient tragedy should strike less than 1 week later as the town of Raccoon city is felled by a zombie virus outbreak. (Unfortunately, this virus outbreak also signalled the destruction of Umbrella's substantial NEST facility, providing another potential leak of information.) It is from this point on that I seriously wonder what the heck Umbrella were doing in the aftermath of this mess and just who was in charge the whole time. Let me explain why.

At this point, Umbrella has 3 key problems that they need to solve: They need to ensure that the S.T.A.R.S. members are silenced. (The zombie virus outbreak isn't enough, they need to make sure.) Secondly, their data drives from the NEST need to be erased/retrieved. (Unless the team wants to risk potential exposure from rescue services after the fact) And Thirdly, they need to erase all evidence of their involvement with the 'Spencer Mansion Incident' and 'The Raccoon city incident'. (And, if it's possible, prevent widespread knowledge of zombies hitting the main stream news broadcasts. Remember, this game takes place in 1998 and Raccoon City is relatively secluded so that was still possible.)

The scientists currently in the NEST, likely desperately trying to keep the whole place running as the virus tears through it all, makes the first dumb move to try and control the situation. Word comes to them that the bulk of survivors are hiding out at the police station, so they decide to play dress up with their own Tyrant prototype, Mr.X. (presumably the only other one in existence) and set this expensive piece of proprietary organic-technology loose on the Police station to ensure there are no survivors left to tell tales about the zombies. Somehow this team thinks that their 9 foot pale skinned monster wouldn't attract suspicion if they just stuck it in a trenchcoat and put a top hat on it, and they didn't spare a thought about how they might retrieve their Tyrant after the face. "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it" they likely said as they reveled in the fact that their quick thinking might have saved them their jobs.

Unfortunately, an outside division of Umbrella has a similar idea with a different end goal in mind. Knowing that the biggest potential info leak comes from the S.T.A.R.S. operatives, seeing as how they are in possession of documents that can tie Umbrella to illegal experimentation, this team decided that they should be the chief target. Therefore, this team decides to deploy their very own prototype BOW; Nemesis, with sole orders to wipe out S.T.A.R.S. Now, you know this was a big screw up, as Nemesis is probably more valuable than Mr.X, (Seeing as how he can follow orders, utter rudimentary phrases and operate large weaponry) so sticking him in the line of fire is exceedingly reckless. (I can only imagine that it was after deploying him that the external Umbrella team called the NEST in order to tell them that they had everything covered. That must have been an awkward conversation...)

So we currently have two incredibly expensive assets active in the same area with mildly conflicting goals, already a gigantic recipe for disaster but hey, at least the job in question will get done. Except there is another variable in this equation as Umbrella's head office preempted the potential issues of S.T.A.R.S and worked a way to  clean it up days ago. You see, Chris Redfield, Rebecca Chambers and Barry Burton were immediately reassigned upon coming back from their adventure and sent all over the world. This is because Umbrella happened to have the Chief of police in their pocket and so could ensure that none of the S.T.A.R.S. members had the chance to spread their story. (Especially as the 'reassignments' in question resulted in the members becoming trapped or incarcerated) Only Jill Valentine was exempt from this treatment, and they were likely cooking something up for her when the second outbreak hit Raccoon city.

This means that Nemesis has had the majority of his potential usefulness invalidated as most of the crew are already around the world, making his deployment a waste of time and money. Umbrella high brass also sent 2 (3 if we accept the story of the now non-canonical 'Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City') separate agents to collect information/samples from the NEST so that the entire site doesn't become a completely write-off for corporate. Which further shows how confused everyone was when running this mess as no one took the time to communicate their plans.

Do you want to know the cherry on top of all of this? Atop of the millions of dollars worth of asset that are already invested in covering up this colossal screw-up, the top guys over at Umbrella were already hard at work on a solution to all this that would render all over efforts entirely moot. You see, Umbrella had the kind of contacts under their belt that could mobilize the military if they pull the right strings. Now, this could be used to set up a perimeter around the city or any number of boring solutions, but the guys had a better idea in mind; if they wanted everything gone why not just blow the whole city up in hellfire. This plan was put into place likely under the impression that they were doing the best thing possible for the situation and with no idea that there were 2 high level BOWs, one mercenary and one hometrained agent active in the city at the time. (Since when did Shepherd ever care about danger close?)

As far as Snafus go, that's a big one. I wouldn't want to be the poor lackey who ends up drawing the short straw and thus has to go before Mr Spencer to explain why it is that their past 40 odd years of innovation has to be flushed down the drain. Without the hard work of their mercenary, this screw up alone might have been enough to bankrupt the entire company. (Which means we have a certain seductress to blame for the future Resident Evil games. Surely, that makes her the ultimate bad guy.) Still, at least this whole affair will have likely led to the adoption of 'conference calls' into the Umbrella corporate culture. (Ever improving!)

What Resident Evil 1, 2 and 3 presents us with is a perfect cluster of a situation that is hilarious to look at in hindsight. Just like with any real organization, Umbrella ended up costing itself millions (maybe billions) in resources and lost research time all because there was no vertical or lateral communication going on between teams. At the first scent of trouble, everyone rushed to put out the fire not realizing that their various methods ended up making things worse. I love how this messy story convention is the unintended side effect of Capcom setting so many of their games within the same 2 week scenario, and really enjoyed pointing it out today. Perhaps this style of blog isn't quite like what I usually put out, but I hope to settle into more 'Lore discussion' topics like this in the future.

The Games Awards Winners

Give him his crown.

Here we are a full day after the events of 'The Game Awards'. A show which, in the UK, streamed from 1:30 AM to 4:00. (So thanks for that Geoff.) Personally I have to admit that I really expected a more low-key show coming out this year than we actually got. Previous years were blessed with only a couple of brand new announcements and a plethora of DLC showcases, whilst this was still kind-of the case this year, the sheer volume of companies who wanted to co-opt the Game awards stage was incredible. (It's as though people started to realize that gaming makes more money than any other entertainment medium today.) Over the show we got to see brand new games, a grand reveal of two Next gen titles, a next gen console unveiling and a re-announcement that had me literally bouncing out of my seat.

Small disclaimer, there was a grand amount of noteworthy events that the team pulled off for the game Awards. So many that I cannot, feasibly, go through them all in this one blog if I expect to survive. (Yes, I know my prediction blog was 90 paragraphs long, but that almost ended me and I don't want to go through that hell again.) Luckily, this means that there will be a lot of content for me to explore in depth in the days to come, which is also fitting as that is likely when details will start to leak out about these titles, allowing for me to ensure that this blog remains as well-informed as I always aim it to be. So without further ado, let's get into the events of the day.

The show kicked off with another performance from the Game Awards Orchestra. Once again I felt that the showing wasn't as strong as the 2017 performance, which I think set the bench mark for eclectic video game medley performances, but I won't knock them for doing what they were told. (Which was sticking to music from titles that were directly related to this year's events.) After that, however, things started off very strong as we went directly into a brand new trailer for the 'Final Fantasy 7' Remake, which allowed us to get a good purview of some of new voice actors (who are really starting to grow on me) as well as the new remix of the classic FF7 Battle theme. (Which I instantly adore.) I'll get into specific details at a later date, but damn you Game awards more making me nostalgic/emotional from the first trailer!!

Things really kicked off in earnest here, as we got straight into announcing the very first award already, bear in mind that this was all still happening in the pre-show. Due to the influx of advertisers and game reveals that Keighley had managed to drum up, the team didn't even have the time to revel in the usual pageantry that the Awards show likes to. The Award for best Community Support, therefore, was relegated to a quick-fire award announcement. The kind that is obviously already rehearsed, given the fact that the award recipient is always just off the camera shot and ready to come on and give a small speech the second that their name is announced. For this award, the honor went to Destiny 2, which is exactly what I predicted by-the-by. Fans just love Bungie for the way that they made the choice to split from Activision, and it was no surprise that they all showed up in force to display support for Bungie in the voting polls.

The next couple of announcements were relatively small, but that actually made it all the more special that they managed to pick up as grand a stage at the game awards. I always respect the way that Keighley's show gives a voice to the unheard, and it is one of the things that really sets the Game Awards apart from E3. That trade show is more of an advertisement for the industry, and thus you are unlikely to see any smaller titles there outside of Devolver Digital's booth. (Which is typically situated outside due to the exorbitant fee associated with renting space in the hall itself.) Although one might not think of a title like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 as small, the fact that all we saw out of it was a character DLC is the kind of small announcement that likely wouldn't see the light of day on the typical E3 stage.

What is much more commendable for the Game Awards, is the way that they go out of their way to connect viewers with small prospective developers from regions that one might never have expected them from. This is something that was quite dominant throughout the show, and yet there was only one part of these 'promos' that came attached with a actual announcement. That went to a prospective Facebook game called 'Salaam', which was envisioned by a refugee as a way of depicting the struggles of a refugee for gamers across the world. Although we personally saw little of the product, one interesting dynamic was the way in which the game's in-app purchases all went to charities that help real refugees. I.e. when you buy medicine in the game, you're also technically buying it for real folk who need it. Which is certainly a generous concept.

Next up came another big event that was relegated to a quick-fire round as the show would rather spend it's time speeding through announcements. This time the award in question was for the best score and music in gaming. An award which I predicted would go to 'Cadence of Hyrule' due to how that entire game shapes it's play around rhythmic action set to some of the most iconic music tunes of all time; The Legend of Zelda musical catalogue. Seems that I was alone in my thinking, however, as the award ended up going towards 'Death Stranding' Instead. To be fair, folk often say that the music of Death Stranding is the kind that can only really be appreciated once you play the game, so I guess I was unqualified to asses this award in the first place.

Here's a fun little side effect of being bombarded with so many announcements on the night; I can't remember what half of them actually were! Looking at my notes, I see that now was the 'World premiere' of a game called 'Maneater' and I'm racking my brain to remember what- ah. Right, so this was the title that looked like it belonged in a the bargain bucket in the best possible way. This was essentially a 'Jaws' simulator that decided to go the extra mile and allow players to turn their sharks into super powered death machines. This sort of 'silly fun' game actually looks a lot more fun than it sounds and I was pleasantly surprised with the energetic feel to the whole thing. Maybe not the kind of game for me, so to speak, but certainly a cool addition to someone's library out there.

You can tell that the team decided to relegate all the categories that they didn't care for (or couldn't feasibly get all the nominees for) into their Quick-fire segments. Point in case: the Esports categories which were all smooshed together into a whole list of 'who gives a crap'. Which isn't to say that I didn't bother to make my own predictions, I just put absolutely zero effort into picking them out. The best Esports Coach of the year went to 'Zonic', who's name alone justifies the award over my choice in hindsight. The Esports event of the year went to 'League of Legends', which is an absolutely travesty against taste. (How would they actually award the entire game show anyway?) Host of the year went to 'Sjokz', proving that I absolutely should not take up betting in the future, and Esports team of the year went to 'G2 Esports' because there is no justice in the world.

After that painful slog, the game awards decided to award those who stuck it out with a Game premiere for a title that no one was expecting; 'Humankind'. Just to be clear, this isn't 'Ancentors: The Humankind Odessey' and was apparently announced beforehand. (I feel like someone should sue.) The prevailing takeaway that everyone had for 'Humankind' was "This is the poor man's CIV", and honestly that was a hard feeling to shake. The entire trailer revolved around a tribe that evolved into a huge modern metropolis whilst being narrated in a decidedly more casual manner than one might expect from a Civilization title. The only noticeable difference that I managed to pick up is the way the civilizations are apparently not based on real-life societies but rather completely unique to the player. Meaning that people could design their own immortal leader for their civilization. Whether that would ultimately be enough to shake the 'Civilisation' association remains to be seen.

Our next reveal went for the good-old bait and switch, just like how last year Netherrealm cut through all the festivities to announce Mortal Kombat 11. This one was a little more sneaky however, with the team in question actually producing a whole deceptive trailer to throw people off the scent. We see a studio-Gibli style animation sequence with VHS stylings in order to imitate the whole '80's aethetic'. Storywise, we saw a small child and their alien pet part from each other as children before being reunited in the future wherein the alien is now buff and slightly foul-mouthed. He announces that he's a 'Goddamn hero' which is then accompanied with a title screen. Eagle eared viewers might have recognized that irreverent style, but suspicions would be confirmed once that title screen ripped away in order to reveal Travis Touchdown. That's right, this was 'No More Heroes 3' all along. (Nicely handled guys!)

The last of the pre-show awards to be handed was in in a category that I was very passionate about not very long ago; Best fighting game. This award boasted nominees from all over the shop due to the fact that there weren't enough fighting games to warrant a full list. This left us in the embarrassing scenario wherein we had to nominate 'Jump Force' in order to get the candidate number up to 4, which is so damn insulting to all the other games that were actually made with same quality assurance in mind. Be that as it may, at least the award itself went to the only title that could feasibly win it,  Super Smash Bros Ultimate. (Which was my prediction, once again.)

At this point the show kicked off in earnest as we got to see that Orchestral performance that I mentioned earlier. To be fair, I may not have enjoyed this performance as much as previous years, but that doesn't mean it wasn't any good at all. 'Chvrches' came up on stage to perform a heavily 'Death Stranding' themed show with one of the key songs from the game. (I'm told.) So I didn't like the song in question, having no context to tie it too, but I will admit that it was pretty cool from a practical level, particularly in the way that they simulated 'rain' on stage and the singer went the extra mile of decorating her eyes with the 'black substance' that we see on 'The Soldier' from 'Death Stranding'.

Finally the show reached the stage that they were allowed to devote the actual stage to announcing awards, and just in time for the 'Best Narrative of the year' award. This one was hosted by the first big guest of the night, famous screenwriter Johnathon Nolan, known for his work on movies like 'Momento' and 'The Dark Knight triology' and shows like 'Westworld'. He was surprisingly complimentary to the gaming medium, considering I don't believe he has ever worked on a game himself. (I can't be bothered to do a quick IMDB search, so I could be wrong.) He shared how he believes that the best narratives of the modern world often debut in the video gaming world, and even mentioned the way that gaming influenced 'Westworld' and name dropped one of my favourite game characters of all time, Elizabeth, in reference to their Westworld star: Dolores'. Oh, and the award went to 'Disco Elysium', meaning I was wrong and I definitely have to play this game. (Okay, I get it.)

The next event was a surprise unlike any other, as Geoff managed to snag one of the biggest reveals of the year. We saw a trailer that had absolutely everyone guessing with the way that it shifted from dreamlike visuals to recognizable characters like Master Chief. Only then did it all come together, this wasn't a 'game' at all, but the debut of 'Project Scarlett', the next-gen Xbox system that no one had seen yet. Not only did we get a look at the actual box, which looked like a desktop computer, but we got to see the name that would presumably accompany the console. The 'Xbox Series X'. (Personally, I feel that's a couple too many X's for me.) This surprise reveal was followed up by a beautiful look at a title being made specifically for 'Series X'; 'Hellblade 2: Senua's Saga'. It's fair to say, the fidelity was high enough that folk in chat honestly thought this was a live-action trailer for a good portion of it. (That's some darn high praise.)

After a bombshell like that, it makes sense for the show to wind down with a whole bunch of smaller announcements. One of which was Mortal Kombat 11's newest DLC, which bought back a fan favourite character into the mix, Joker from the DC universe. (Although the VO was certainly odd for this version of the Clown Prince of crime, and I can't quite put my finger on exactly 'why' just yet.) There was also a quick showcase of the 'Expedidtions' DLC for 'Control', which looked to add a whole bunch of challenge scenarios to the game. (Which is sure to annoy the crowd who remember the cliffhanger that the main story left on.) And the awards quickly ran through the E-sports player of the year; (as announced by everyone's favourite walking embarrassment, Ninja) Bugha. Yes, I guessed him too. Bow down before my predictive might.

The next premier was one that particularly tickled me for how comparatively low key it was when compared to it's competitor. 'Godfall' is a title that was remarkable in it's ability to leave very little in the way of an 'impression' upon the viewer upon first viewing. It was your typical showcase of a variety of hero-looking folk in excessively spiky and over-detailed armour wielding swords that just seem ungainly. The scene then moves onto a giant Hydra on top of a tower that they presumably are prepared to tackle, before fading to a title screen. So far so forgettable, right? Except right there, in the corner of the screen and easy to miss, was the logo for PS5. It was so low key, in fact, the Geoff had to point it out himself in order to keep people excited. (At least it's a more sensible title than 'Series X')

The next part of the ceremonies was dedicated to three award announcements that were all handled in the 'quick-fire' style that they love so much. Best Audio design was completely stolen from RE2 and handed to 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare', an alright game but one that doesn't wield it's sound design like a weapon in the manner that Capcom did. Best Strategy Game went to my personal pick, 'Fire Emblem: Three Houses', a well deserved win. And content creator of the year went to 'Shroud, just like I predicted, because the Game Awards weren't woke enough to nominate the actual biggest gaming channel of the year, Pewdiepie. (He literally got the most views of any channel on Youtube, you can't just ignore that.)

Once more we were gifted a 'World Premier', this time by the same team behind a particular darling of the RPG world; Octopath Traveller. That was a title that was heavily commended for it's incredible visual flair, endearing characters and gripping narrative; so any new RPG title from them was sure to be well received. Initial reactions to this reveal were similarly positive as folk commended the graphical style and wondered if this was the long awaited sequel to the DS classic; Bravely Default. Which, funnily enough, it actually was. Bravely Default 2 (Which I guess is a sequel to the 2013 original and not the 2015 'Bravely Second') will be another Square Enix RPG and Nintendo Exclusive due for 2020.

A fan favourite company stole the show from here, as Warframe's community lead (Who is affectionately known as 'Spacemom' amidst the fandom) came to announce the release of the expansion that they had teased earlier that E3, 'Empyrean'. This is the expansion that would allow for real-time space ship navigation and combat through a manner that is honestly remarkable to behold for a free-to-play title. (If only I actually liked ninjas, then I might actually be into this title.) 'Spacemom' managed to steal the wind out of the Game Awards' sails by announcing that this expansion was out that very moment, at least on PC, which I'm sure cost the event a few thousand viewers in the excitement.

The next couple announcements were very niche titles that one would either become immediately enamoured by or find ultimately boring. There was the latest 'Magic: The gathering' CG trailer, which I welcome purely so that I can stop seeing that same melodramatic trailer from last year everytime there's an ad on YouTube. Only, this trailer is every bit as melodramatic in a way that it particularly eye-rolling when you have no idea who any of the characters are. The other title was a bit more vague, as we saw a fellow alone in the woods with, what sounds like, a camera. Most immediately sighed and said "Oh god, we're getting another 'Blair Witch' game already!?", However, this was actually an incredibly vague title called 'Prologue' which is touted as a game from 'Playerunkown', which is sure to have some people scratching their heads. I'm not sure what to expect from that team, but I'm intrigued enough to keep an open mind.

The next award up for grabs was Best art Direction of the year, which is a section that featured more than a few indie titles that revolved around their peculiar art styles. I remember noting, at the time, how I felt such an award was owed to 'Sayonara: Wild Hearts' before concluding that is should likely go towards the remake of 'Link's Awakening'. Seems I was wrong on both accounts as the award ended up going towards 'Control', which was a title that I had completely discounted. In hindsight, I can certainly see where the title gets some it's love in this department, due to the weird stylings and visual approach, although I still think that 'Wild Hearts' had 'Control' beat in the 'outlandish' category. Still unsure how I feel about this one.

Fortnite's Epic games took to the stage next to showcase their relationship with Disney once more, through their upcoming Star Wars event, in which a small scene from 'Rise of Skywalker' would be shown ingame at the movie theatre. (Seems like the perfect way to line up a bunch of people for a good old-fashioned rocket launcher strafe, but then that's just me.) Epic's representative also took time to express how they want to make Fortnite a nexus title for 'all IPs' to work alongside; basically admitting that they have a lot of money but want all the money. I give Fortnite a hard time, but I guess this event is kind of a cool way to drum up excitement. Also, it was cool to see J.J. Abrams come on screen to big up the whole affair, even if it all did stink of corporate. (Put me down as 'not coming' for this event.)

I was actually quite surprised with how this next Premiere went over so many people's heads. This was a sequel to a small Steam early access title that became quite popular over it's years in development; The Forest. The game basically revolved around attempting to survive in the wilds after a plane crash whilst being besieged by an island that proved to be ever more weird than you initially thought the further that you go in. This new title 'Sons of the Forest', seemed to improve upon the fidelity of that first title immensely, to the point where even I had trouble picking up that this title was even related to the first game. Of course, only time will tell if that trailer is even remotely indicative of the final game product.

From here came an announcement that had actually been rumored for a number of months leading up to this point. You see, League of legends has remained one of the biggest online games of all time with some of the most indepth and varied lore of any online game despite only having one actual game to it's name. This was a trend that was broken at the game Awards wherein Riot Game announced their very first extended universe League game, a single player title that goes by the name  'The Ruined king'. It's unclear, as of yet, what sort of game this will ultimately end up being, but seeing as how I never liked the whole 'MOBA' game type, I'm interested enough to devote some attention to this alternative foot into LOL lore.

After that the ugly commercial side of the Game Awards reared it's, sadly necessary, head with the debut of two unwelcome adverts. The first featured Margo Robbie in her ridiculously exaggerated Harley Quinn voice, performing a mildly unfunny skit before the reveal of a brand new teaser for 'Birds of Prey'. I have no idea what that movie has to do with the gaming space, and thus am mildly perturbed by the whole affair. Then came the first in a series of Adverts directly aimed at the 'Vaping' culture, with intent to kill. Personally, I realized that the concept of 'Vaping' had got a bad rap this year, but I had no idea that things had gotten to the point where advocacy groups were forming campaigns on the matter. I mean, I've heard of a few vaping relating deaths but I was under the impression that they were down to bad vape juice rather than the act itself. Whatever, I don't vape so none of this effects be anyway, move on.

Next up came a look-in from that one title that's on everyone's 'most anticipated game' list; Cyberpunk 2077. I knew that they wouldn't miss the chance to advertise on the last big gaming show before their release, and I was right, although we didn't actually get a gameplay trailer like I was expecting. Instead CDPR opted to put together a showcase video boasting about the plethora of talented artists who were willing to work on the game and bring their own flavour to this title. (For which the soundtrack is said to be entirely Original content, by-the-by.) This was followed by a cyber-punky performance by Grimes, who managed to drag her boyfriend Elon Musk to the show, so that's another famous face that Geoff Keighley can tick off on his 'collect 'em all' quest.

Next up, one of the nominees for best performance, Norman Reedus, took to the stage in order to host the award for Best Action Game of the year. This was a decision that I actually agonized over for a while as I switched between the brilliantly cinematic action of Devil May Cry 5 and the intense immersive environments of 'Metro Exodus'. In the end my own personal preferences leaned me towards the latter and that cost me the 'told you so' point here as DMC ended up winning. I'm not too peeved about this one, as I feel that both titles were worthy of the award for entirely separate merits. I only lament that the fantastic 'Metro' franchise couldn't get the recognition that it deserved.

Back to the premiers for the time being, as we got to take a look at the tonally confused trailer for 'Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance'. A title that the developers described as being created to "Put the 'action' back into 'action adventure RPG'". If that means out-of-place rock music, ugly head-tracking camera shots and a reveal that viewers charitably described as 'crap Vermintide', then I suppose they're on the right track. We also got to see Respawn embarrass themselves and Roger Craig Smith with a cringe-worthy Christmas event announcement for Apex Legends and our bi-annual look at the still-stunning 'Ori and the Will of the Wisps'. Still looks great guys, now you're just got to bring it out!

Next came the announcement for 'Games with Impact' as announced by Beaker and Honeydew from The Muppets. (Still better than when 'Crash Bandicoot' turned up last year.) This was a title that I was a little bit dismissive off last blog, a fact that the Muppets made me feel particularly bad for this year as they announced that the award would be awarded for 'Progressive and inspirational' game making. (So I'll admit I was a little grumpy last time around and apologize.) This award did not end up going to 'Sea of Solitude' like I predicted, but to 'Gris'. A title which I guess is equally as deserving, even if I think 'Sea of Solitude' did it better.

The next award was one that I found particularly amusing given the fact that every title was published by Nintendo. Best Family game of the year boasted such contestants as 'Super Mario Maker 2' and 'Ring Fit adventure', proving that Nintendo is completely unmatched when it comes to supplying the family market. Even Geoff Keighley had a little laugh when it came to this award as he joked about how he "Liked Nintendo's chances for this one." Unfortunately, the title ended up going to 'Luigi's Mansion 3' despite how that game features a truly abominable co-op mode. (Something you'd think would be detrimental in a category built for 'family' games.)

After that there was the award that had to combine sports and racing games due to the lack of decent sports games this year. Anyone could tell that there was no way the sports titles would win as, despite Fifa's dominate numbers this year, none of the folk who settled with FIFA could muster the mental capacity it took to vote online. (Okay, I'm being mean now, I should move on.) This was really a race against the racing titles (see what I did there?) and I felt that it should go to anyone other than Crash Team Racing, due to their abominable polices when it comes to microtransactions. Of course, that means that Crash Team Racing was the only game that ever could win, and they did. (Once again, there is no justice in the world.)

Our next award was awarded in an equally as contentious category; Mobile gaming. For a very long while, mobile Gaming has earned a reputation for showcasing the worst of the worst when it comes to overbearing anti-consumer practises and their corrupt nature has started to leak into the AAA market in the worst possible ways. The Best Mobile game of the years award was supposed to showcase those mobile titles that buck the trend to deliver a worthwhile experience to the player without gouging them for everything they're worth first. And yet, 'Call of Duty mobile' ended up securing the award for it's trophy cabinet over actually innovative and intriguing titles like 'Sayonara: Wild Hearts'. Truly a shame to mobile gaming everywhere.

Working as something of a palette cleanser, the next premiere involved a whole bevy of key words that succeeded in piquing my interest. Devolver Digital, the publisher renowned for supporting creative and cool indie products, The co-creators of 'Prey' and 'Dishonored', two fantastic stealth games, and RPG, the best genre. Bring all those together and you get the top down adventure title 'Weird West', that looks to capitalize on mythology and camp side stories to depict a supernatural cowboy tale. Needless to say, this is definitely a title that I'll be keeping my eye on in the coming months.

Next up was a CG Premiere that did very little in explaining what the actual game was. Once again the folk behind 'Magic: The Gathering' proved their talent at constructing elaborate looking trailers with no substance behind them. Luckily, there was a press release around about the same time clearing things up so I could confirm that this title 'Magic Legends', is actually an upcoming MMO set in the 'Magic' universe. Because that's what we need, another MMO in a market full of MMO's and 'Live-service-MMO-wannabes'. I won't hold me breath for this title turning into anything particularly special.

Once more the age of adverts descended upon us and were greeted by the absolute worst things that humanity has to offer the world. Point in case; that absolutely abominable Google Stadia advert from a couple of weeks back made an appearance. Regardless of being an incredibly hard watch, which is something I very much expect from any gaming-related advert nowadays, the advert itself is woefully misinformed and straight up lies to people on some points. Namely, the fact that Google Stadia runs 4k 60fps, which is something that the actual service does not deliver for the majority of its newer titles. I could dedicate the rest of this blog to picking apart this advert, but I don't want to give it the time of day.

Back to announcements, we received an announcement about one title that is exclusive to the VR realm, and that would be; 'Path of the Warrior'. This trailer started off by mimicking the 'Streets of rage' pixellated style in a bar room brawl, before devolving into a much more unappealing cartoony visage as the perspective shifted form 2D beat 'em up to first-person action. Despite my hang-ups on visual design, I will admit that the title looked pretty fun, especially in the way that the environment played into the fighting, like how the player could pick up and chuck a board dart at his foes. Whether this is an actual full-blown game or just another VR 'proof in concept' remains to be seen once reviews start popping up. (Which should be soon as the game just launched.)

Back we go to the awards part of the event as we moved onwards to Best multiplayer game of the year. This was a selection that had a variety of high-profile titles, all of which were some form of a 'live service'. Once again, I allowed by distaste for developer antics cloud my judgment here, as I gave my prediction to Borderlands 3, figuring it was a title that did well enough with critics to earn a commendation. What I failed to account for was the fact that Apex Legends caused quite a storm when it launched and secured a decent fan base ever since then, regardless of their greedy machinations in the time in-between. Of course, 'Apex Legends' got the title.

I needn't remain upset, however, for the next reveal was of a title that has earned sufficient hubbub in the last year; Ghost of Tsushima. This was a title that boasted an enviable setting, feudal Japan, an exciting premise, grounded samurai combat, and a mouth watering visual appeal. The game practically oozed with it's classic Japanese film inspirations from the field of falling grass lilies from 'Hero' to the 'epic showdown' appeal of 'Enter the Dragon'. It doesn't just 'pay homage' to these titans either, nor does it decide to do some ropey send-up, rather it stands proud as it's own incredibly exciting looking product. One thing in particular I noticed was the way in which the model of the sword cut into people was actually outstandingly stable. (a credit that I don't often award for an impressive feat that I don't often see.) This game is certainly one to watch in the next year.

A couple more 'premiere's came up next, although one of these titles was most definitely announced all the way back in E3. 'Gears Tactics' is the title through which 'Gears of War' which to expand their series into the genre of tactical turn based combat, a genre that I whole heartedly support. It was a bit strange seeing that familiar Gears action taken at a much slower pace, but I know how much more it will lend to the intense reverberance of each decision and so I wasn't put off. We also got a quick glance at what appears to be a competitive action title called 'Raraka Bladepoint' which was created by a studio from China. (Yes, the chat immediately devolved into anti-China sentiments once this game came up.) This was a game that looked similar to 'Ghost of Tsushima' in concept, only in a more stylized and fantastical manner. Despite the country of it's origin, I found myself intrigued.

Back to the awards of the night and we found ourselves met with a decidedly divisive choice in best Ongoing game. Typically this award goes to the game which made the most sweeping change to it's overall structure in that year as it is a sign of the health of that game and those developer's willingness to take risks. (Providing that those updates don't break everything, Battlefield and Fallout 76.) With this in mind, I opted for Final Fantasy XIV knowing of their incredibly well-received shadow bringers update which reintroduced that most beloved of Final Fantasy Story points; a warrior of light. But this is a reward that could have just as easily have gone to Destiny 2, for their switch to free-to-play, or the game that it did ultimately go to; Fortnite, for their 'Chapter 2' update.

The next premier was 'affectionately' labelled 'Furry Fortnite' by fans at the time due to the way it showcased a army of obnoxious bunny rabbits waving guns at each other with blaring music over it all. Unfortunately, that incredibly arresting introduction was only the 'bait-and-switch' for a really dull looking military shooter called '9 to 5'. (The Dolly Parton video game is finally becoming a reality!) The Developer elaborated a little bit by explaining that this game would be a tactical online shooter (so 'Rainbow: Six Seige') built around the 'increadibly original' concept of a world that has become so entrenched in cooperate influence that warfighting has become an everyday job. (Hence the '9 to 5' title.) Let's just hope these developers never find out about 'Borderlands', 'The Outer Worlds', or 'Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots', or they'll be really put out.

The next three awards were quickly rushed through in another quick-fire segment. Which is not the kind of treatment that I was expecting for one category in particular. The Best Esports award ended up going to 'League of Legends' for any number of reasons that I don't understand, never played the game and never will. Best VR game of the year was one I was really interested in, wherever or not the award would end up going towards the title that was of higher quality or the one with more a cultural impact. Things seems to land in the latter camp (Which was where my prediction laid, incidentally) as 'Beat Saber' won the award. Much to my shock, however, the final quick-fire award was dedicated to 'Best Performance', which is an award that typically invoked much fanfare from the crowd. My working theory as to why it was demoted stems from the assumption that they perhaps couldn't lock in some of the actors that were nominated, such as he who won; Mads Milkeson. (My choice.)

Then came the award that had been constantly teased throughout the night and was the only award which I wasn't aware about before the show. I'm talking, of course, about the 'Player's choice' which I can only presume would be rewarded to the title that fans feel is the best the year has to offer. But then, isn't that what the entire voting process is for. Which also brings into question the job of all the reviewer outlets that sign up to the game awards. I don't quiet understand this award, nor it's implications, but I guess that fact that it ended up going to 'Fire Emblem: Three Houses' is commendable enough.

The final musical performance of the night (Excluding the annual 'game of the year medley') was one that Geoff Keighley clearly wanted to tick off of his personal bucket list. And so we all received a performance by Green Day as they shot through a couple of their songs and managed to get the crowd on their feet. (Quite the achievement, I must admit.) Green Day also managed to prove themselves rather unjustly foul-mouthed, which really highlighted the lack of f-bombs that I heard compared to previous years. I even remember hearing one Dev actively mention watching their language. Is Geoff attempting to clean up the awards to bring in more advertisers? Big if true. Oh, and Green Day were here because their newest album was releasing on Beat Saber via an impending song pack. So there's your gaming connection, folks.

Our next premiere was an intriguing title from Amazon Game Studios that seemed to deftly defy common classification. First we saw Romans rendered in such high quality that people immediately assumed it was Ryse 2, then we saw zombie Romans fighting 17th century soldiers in a manner that invoked For Honor 2, and then we saw typical English adventurer/colonizer garb that made us all think of Greedfall. This title was obviously none of them, but a brand new title called 'New World' that promises to be Amazon's first MMO. (Yikes, that's one heck of an undertaking there for your first big budget game. Good luck, guys.)

For the next slate of awards Reggie Fils-Aimé returned, fresh from retirement, to read out a slate of games related to the indie scene. Reggie expressed his personal love for the Indie scene, and expressed how they are the backbone of the industry, a sentiment with which I agree. The Fresh Indie Game award, which is an award delivered to a Studio rather than an game, went to 'ZA / UM' for Disco Elysium, whilst best independent game went to...Disco Elysium. (Goddamn, just what am I missing out on having not played this game?) That team received so many awards tonight that they reached the point where their acceptance speech became little more than 'Thank you'. What more is there to say, honestly.

Once more we brushed past another terrible Stadia advert, this one Christmas themed. Although it was interesting to note that they amended their language in this one by telling us that Stadia offers resolutions 'up to' 4k 60fps. (Way to cover your ass there, Google.) This was followed by two Premieres, one covering a second League of Legends game on it's way; 'Convergence', (Wow those guys are really working at pumping those out, huh.) and Surgeon Simulator 2. The long awaited (?) sequel to the YouTube darling game about having terrible control of your hands and attempting to perform surgery. Only this one is an Epic Exclusive. Yay, for needless exclusivity!

Finally we come to the stand out moment of the night. Oh sure, 'Xbox Series X' got it's unveiling here, two MMO's were announced and we found out that A$ap Rocky is making music for Cyberpunk 2077, but there was only one announcement that had me out of my seat in disbelief. Or should I say, as Geoff did, 're-annoucement'. For right there, as the night was coming to a close, the lights dimmed as we were reintroduced into a familiar faintly-neon penned world, with a familiar voice addressing a familiar detective. This was the night that THE WOLF AMONG US 2 was bought back from the dead! I'm still in shock and cannot express my adoration, but I'll likely need an entirely separate blog to properly process this amazing announcement.

The next category is one that I described as having been made with Death Stranding in mind, and that is an assertion that I very much stand behind. Best game direction was never an award that was going to go to any of the 'tradtional' games due to it's very nature. It has to go to a title that decides to buck the trend, and so the 'Death Stranding' win here was nothing short of inevitable. Of course, the real situation of note was Kojima's acceptance speech and the way in which his translator managed to keep up with one of the longest stream of consciousness that I have ever seen. (He probably made most of it up.)

As we were coming to a close it seems that the Game Awards suddenly realized that they still had a couple bits of fluff to fill in the gap, and so they finally revealed their selection for 'Tweet of the Year'. That ended up going to the "I regret nothing" tweet which accompanied a run through the notoriously difficult Mario Marker 2 map 'World 1-1 with a twist'. there was also a little cinematic for 'The Elder Scrolls Online' which was followed by a brief teaser of next year's expansion, which promises to delve back into Skyrim.

The last world premiere ended up going to honor the two final guest hosts of the show, Michelle Rodriguez and Vin Diesel. They popped up to briefly talk about their love for the gaming scene, which was nice, whilst Vin took the time to reveal that he had seen the trailer for the upcoming 'Fast and Furious 9' (Kind of a derail there Vin, but you bought us 'Assault on Dark Athena' so I'll let you off the hook.) Together they debuted 'Fast and Furious: Crossroads', which is a game that looks... rough. Not exactly the showstopper reveal that you want to go out on.

Finally came time for the big award of the night; Ultimate Game of the Year. (Which comes accompanied with Best Action Adventure game of the year as those awards often go hand in hand.) This was the one award for which I had no inclination where things should end up beyond that 'Death Stranding' shouldn't win it. (It shouldn't have been nominated, but here we are.) You may remember how I made my case for 'Resident Evil 2' to win the award, but lo-and-behold my baby was snubbed as the award ended up going to 'Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice'. No real losers here, as both were obviously deserving titles. Still though... should have gone to RE2.

And that, in a nutshell, was the entire Game Awards night summed and wrapped up nicely. Of course, this won't be the last time that I talk about them, all those premieres that I mentioned deserve their own look-over, but I'll give myself space for them as I feel like that's when I'm at my sharpest. As for the show itself, I was rather happy with how everything turned out. I already know that some folk considered it to be boring and to them I ask "What were you expecting?" This was an Awards show, it's a miracle that we get any announcements during it at all. Plus, I'm a lot more excited about seeing the 'Series X' than I would have done if I saw it at E3, and I'm not sure why. Probably because it didn't come attached with a full list of features and a price tag, allowing us all a full 6 months of speculation. I feel that Geoff did a good job this year, and hope he keeps it up for the future, I've come to enjoy this yearly tradition a whole lot more than Christmas.