Naraka Bladepoint

I woke up lying in a mass of flowers, screaming red soulbloom.

Once more there we have a VGA announcement that was actually a brand new game coming out of nowhere and surprising people. (Keep and like this and you threaten actually bringing credence to the term 'World Exclusive') Before I dive into this, though, I have a couple of things to address. Firstly, yes I initially misreported this title as 'Raraka Bladepoint'. I know, how could I make such a serious and continued lapse in judgment? I should be ashamed. Secondly, yes this is a game coming out a Studio based in China, but that doesn't mean we should levy all of our China-related frustrations upon this title; not when we have Blizzard eager to take that bullet for the moment.

The VGA reveal for this particular title was noteworthy for the fact that it's trailer actually featured gameplay. (Oh how nice, I'd almost forgotten what that felt like...) Our trailer starts off with some nice artwork featuring the first character to be revealed for this game, Crimson Night, and it probably is immediately clear through everything, from the character design to the sound choices, that this game will lean heavily on it's Chinese cultural and historical influences. Once the action actually begins, I personally was struck by how much the world seems to have been crafted around the expectation of perpetual motion. We see it from the way the leaves bustle as though caught in a hurricane, as well as the billowing of Crimson's robes as she locks blades in combat. This fluidity to the animation actually creates quite a unique feel for the title which I think will help this game gain an audience once it starts hitting shelves. (It at least makes any footage of game fairly recognizable.)

From there the key thing to note about this trailer is way in which we can observe the marriage between combat and movement that appears to be rather seamless. (Although we'd have to get our hands on the title to really attest to that fully. Otherwise we'd end up with another Assassin's Creed 3 on our hands.) The footage focuses on two different characters, both representing players, who jump and whizz through this breathing painting-in-motion in their hunt for each other. Once they finally meet there is a clash of action that seems to hearken make to the visceral melee attitude of Ubisoft's 'For Honor', but with a fantastical, vibrant and more lively flair.

With that out of the way, let's be frank with on another; I'd call 'Naraka Bladepoint' one of the more exciting reveals at the VGA's; and, yes, I say that because I think it looks like a new-age For Honor and I'm still bitter about how that game's ecosystem choked on itself. Although, perhaps the really exciting parts about this game is the way it appears to veer from 'For Honor' into a weighty melee PVP game that feels distinctly more agile. Looking at any of the promotional text around this game it is easy to see a theme of 'freedom' in this title, most commonly in relation to movement. The official Steam page makes mention of a "boundless movement system" and that specifically is in reference to the 'grapple' system for this title which is alleged to allow players to hook onto anything that they want, essentially making traversal of the environment a key factor to consider during your matches.

Another key bragging point for the promotional material would be on the way that thier combat is entirely built around a parry system with no reliance upon blocking at all. (Someone call From Software, these guys are stealing their Schtick!) This might seem like a minor feature to brag about, but those who have tried out 'Sekiro' will know that something like that actually holds major implications for the way that combat plays out. Typically, solely melee online games come down to battles of stats wherein those with the best 'item sets' or 'point distribution' is more likely to win unless they truly sabotage themselves. (In fact, that is part of the reason why 'For Honor' did so poorly in it's first few months. Stats ruled the meta for that game and concepts like 'Skill' were all too often lost.) What '24 entertainment' have hinted to, by shirking such a system, is an experience that sounds like it will be far more accessible for folk in the same vein as Overwatch.

Of course, it's too early to say whether or not this title will command the same respect as Overwatch did in it's heyday (although common sense would indicate that it never will) I believe we can see a faint bit of inspiration from the world famous hero shooter. My first evidence to that point is the way in which this title focuses on 'Hero' characters that are likely to boast unique skills and backstories between each of them. Note, this is different from the 'charcter archetype' model from competitive titles like 'Destiny' or 'For Honor' because it relies on creating PCs with personality and character too them. Secondly, the Naraka's visual style maintains some degree of cartoony-aloofness that is similiar to the style that Overwatch and Fortnite cultivate, although the gameplay itself is decidedly more violent. This allows the game to avoid looking dated within a year as well as opens up the potential for creativity with character and world design. (When you stop trying to be accurate all the time, there's actually a lot of other directions you can go in.)

Of course, I am imbuing a few of my own hope and dreams into my analysis of this game, because we have no idea how this title will turn out. The Studio behind it, '24 Entertainment', don't appear to have any other games under their belt, at least according to their steam page, and they are self published, meaning this ambitious title is being undertaken without any outside help. Even Keighley admitted that he came across this title by chance and wanted to show it off to the world, we're essentially looking at a blank resume and being told to expect great things. Of course, everyone has to start somewhere, and a solid showing like this is as good a foundation as any to start building your studio's reputation.

Admittedly, I'm not exactly the gold standard of player that a title like this is looking for, I'm more of a single player guy, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a suitably exciting game when I see it. But then, I am a rampant oriental-obsessive so perhaps that has clouded my judgment a little for this title. As far as fresh new indie games go however, I think it'll be a while before we see anything that looks as slick and polished as this game does, and that's enough for me to give this project my time of day. It's up to the developers themselves to deliver, however.

The Walking VR

Who, are you?

Today I want to pivot away from the trailers that I have been covering over the past few weeks and into something fresh, like trailers that surprised me the other day. It's always funny for someone like me, who goes to stupid lengths to have a finger on the pulse of the public gaming landscape, to be introduced to something through organic marketing, but here we are. Some magical how I ended up looking at brand new footage for an imminent VR game from the second biggest zombie franchise of all time; The Walking Dead. Ain't that a kick in the head?

This new title from the minds over at Skybound, 'The Walking Dead: Saint's and Sinners', seems to be their way of apologizing for that shortlived travesty, Overkill's The Walking Dead. (A game so rough that it was killed by the licensee after they accused the title of hurting their overall brand.) Personally, I'm rather ashamed in myself for missing a new release from a franchise that I used to like, but then again I suppose that speaks to a failure in their marketing department. Why were these guys not at the VGAs? Geoff loves his VR so I can't imagine him turning them down or out charging them to appear, so I can only imagine the company didn't pursue a spot on his show. (I mean for god's sake, he showed off a average-looking 'Streets of Rage' VR game that I've already forgotten the name of; I'm sure he would have space for a choice-based zombie survival VR game!) But I'm getting lost in my own incredulity and speculation, let's get into the nitty gritty of their latest trailer.

From what I can tell about this trailer, Skydance Interactive seem to have taken a very curious approach with the visuals wherein they've danced between the comic book stylings of the original comic and a more realistic angle. The result is that the zombies look decent up close (although they aren't a patch on what Capcom are putting out these days) and the humans look comparatively cartoonish. My problem with this, and I'll admit that it's a particularly personal one, is that I'll find myself taking the zombies more serious than the humans. (Which is the exact opposite trajectory that The Walking Dead franchise aims itself in.) Why should I care about decisions regarding the lives of potato people? Simple, because those potato people should be well written with likeable and believable character traits that make them endearing. So I suppose it'll ultimately come down to the writing to sell me on this game.

Apart from that, I will say that the trailer looks decent enough to leverage it's VR routes in a desirable fashion. That is to say, when I watch this trailer I desire for VR to be remotely affordable so that I could check this game out. (Which it currently still isn't.) We see some deft handling of weaponry throughout this trailer that seems to really blur the lines between playing a game and acting out a performance piece, which I can only imagine is the intent of such features. In fact, for one scene wherein we see the player stab one Walker whilst shooting at two others, I couldn't help but think back to that scene of item manipulation and complex weapon loading in the 'Half Life: Alyx' trailer. (Could this title be setting itself for direct competition?) Another point worth mentioning in this trailer, is the mindnumbingly overt way that the narration indicates player choices occurring throughout the story, before we get an example of that very thing at the end of the trailer. (So we didn't really need the awful narration, now did we?) I see this as an example of VR games adopting the bare minimum requirements of being a good and engaging title, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bow down to this titles igneous writing because they've offered a choice. (Especially when the choice offered in the trailer is as opaque as "Will you kill this man.")

Taking place in New Orleans, 'The Walking Dead: Saint's and Sinners' promises to showcase a new side of the outbreak that we haven't seen before with a slight promise of visting the marshy swampland. (Could we be looking at zombie crocodiles? Extremely unlikely.) This will provide players with the classic iconography of the New Orlean-ian landscape as they explore what looks to be a fleshed-out open world environment. Additionally, part of the trailer showed off the player and some allies facing off against some human npcs with actual weapons. And, judging from the clunkiness with which the model's moved, the allies were either online players, hinting at co-op, or just poorly animated. (Not sure which.) I'll readily admit that I am somewhat skeptical about human enemies showing up in a zombie game, that is almost always a recipe for disaster, but I can't imagine The Walking Dead without the human element so I'm willing to keep an open mind.

One of the biggest problems with this title, in the way that I see it, comes from the pure merit of game-ifying a world as bleak as The Walking Dead. Namely, I'm talking about the way in which in the universe of TWD, a single zombie bite is enough to land you a death sentence. Now it's true, this isn't exactly unique to TWD's lore, in fact it is a staple of most zombie films, but that has almost never been the case in video game zombie lore. In order for games to be fun they have to be somewhat forgiving, therefore if the player irrevocably died the second they received their first piece of damage, most people would be instantly turned off by that. On the flip side, the constant peril of The Walking Dead universe is what gives that world it's weight; anyone can be handed a death sentence at any moment no matter how strong they are, all it takes is one careless movement/ mistake. In previous Walking Dead games this mechanic has even reared it's head in the form of a god-awful combat system (in 'Survival Instinct') or important story beats ('Telltale's game') so it'll be interesting to see how it's handled in a modern title.

As I've already hinted at several times, this isn't the first time that Skybound have licensed out The Walking Dead license to games so we do have precedence to base this title against. 'The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct', for example, was a lazy crash grap hinging on the profitability of Norman Reedus from The Walking Dead show and presenting itself as a boring, nigh un-fun, game. Telltale's The Walking Dead, created it's own cast of characters and took them on an award winning journey that ultimately ended up going on for 3 seasons too long. (Like the show.) and 'Overkill's The Walking Dead' was built on the shoulders of Overkill's 'Payday 2' and ended up being little more than a bad idea that was poorly conceived. So what I'm trying to say is, The Walking Dead doesn't exactly have the greatest track record with games, so I would approach this title with caution.

As far as VR titles go, this particular one has the rare honour of attracting both my interest and mistrust. Whilst I understand and respect a number of the choices that this game has gone through, and am actually really impressed by the intractability that the player is privy to, I'm worried about the execution and how it might sully the experience. That is to say, the trailer I saw proposed a lot of ideas that I found interesting, but presented them on a platter that looked a bit humdum and shoddy. (As I say this, bear in mind that I'm not a VR consumer, so perhaps that may cloud my judgment a little.) Ultimately, I do want to like this title, but given the average showing, the lackluster marketing and the late Jan release date, I can't help but predict that this game might end up being: dead on arrival.

RE3 Trailer 2!

Break bread with the enemy.

Oh Hype, thy touch offends so and yet I long for you, desperate and dearly. It truly is terrifying to think how dependant I am on such a destructive yearning, and yet anyone who used to know me could attest to how worked up I get over these things. Be glad, dear reader, that you and I are separated by the veil of the Internet, because excitement like this has the tendency to make me even more unbearable than usual. But then, as a fan of gaming and the Industry, why shouldn't I be unreasonably excited for the coming year? (Aside from the obvious.) Disregarding the dawn of the new console age, which I am comparatively ambivalent about, this year will see the release of Cyperpunk 2077, Watch Dogs Legion, Breath of the Wild 2 (allegedly), Final Fantasy 7, Doom Eternal (which just got another trailer), an unnamed Arkham game, (at least that's rumored) Star Citizen's Squadron 42 (At least until it gets delayed into next year again) and, the topic of today, the Resident Evil 3 Remake.

What is it exactly about this game that I find so much more tantalizing than all those other titles? I couldn't really say for sure, apart from the plain fact that last year's Resident Evil 2 was easily one of my all time favourite games and I'm still amazed with how much that title gelled with me. As far as Horror games go, it is an absolute masterclass and I feel the way it got snubbed at the VGA's was downright criminal. All my hopes and dreams are, therefore, shifted onto their next big remake and the grand promises it has of rewriting the lukewarm Resident Evil 3 into something more grandiose. I suppose I find that goal more appealing than the Final Fantasy 7 Remake because I'm still unsure about what Square Enix have to really fix about that title. FF7 is a classic, why mess with that? But Resident Evil 3 is the second-to-last true Resident Evil title before they all went weird for a decade, and that makes it worthy of some touch up to properly reflect it's emanate place in RE history.

Obviously, the only reason I'm bringing any of this up is due to a new trailer that dropped recently, so I'm about to dive into that world and bring all of you along. Dubbed 'The Nemesis trailer', this RE3 trailer revolves around the titular monster and his special relationship with our title character Jill Valentine, whilst also giving us our first official look at his new mug. (Which we've already seen in great detail thanks to the leaks, so I won't go over my thoughts on his redesign again.)

As a BOW specifically designed to kill of the members of S.T.A.R.S, Nemesis will follow the player throughout the game and face off with them through multiple encounters, and we see a few of these encounters throughout this trailer. First we go back to the burning corridor from the first trailer (Which I now presume to be Jill's apartment complex) whereupon we see that this beast appears to be so resilient that it is unaffected by fire. (A trait that most Tyrant-class BOW's share, now I think about it.) Nemesis picks up and knocks Jill around with such abandon throughout this trailer it's a wonder how any bones in her body are left unbroken.

One of the most interesting returning features from the original would be the slimy tentacles that the Nemesis could resort to should the player not be close enough for his meaty fists. With the redesign of Nemesis I was wondering how and if this would come into play, and it would seem that the team have decided to make these tentacles a traversal technique. In the trailer we see a brief shot of the monster flying up a floor to reach the player with only his tentacles. This makes him more agile than he was in the original was well as more threatening than the RE2 Remake's 'Mr. X', although I do wonder how effective that scare will be up against the relentless dread of stomping boots.

Another key scene from this trailer would have to have been the shot of Nemesis wielding a flamethrower and going ham. This is nothing new with the Nemesis by any means, in the original he wielded a rocket launcher, but it's still cool to see the ways that they've bought that aspect of him back to life. Umbrella specifically designed this BOW to be able to hunt and kill a group of survival experts, so his ability to wield heavy weaponry sort of makes sense. (In a weird don't-think-about-this-too-hard kind of way.) This characteristic even showed up in the second Resident Evil film wherein that Nemesis wielded a minigun against his foes. (Personally, I'm hoping that minigun makes it into the game. We already know the model exists as it pops up at the end of Claire's playthrough in RE2. Fingers crossed!)

Aside for the title boy, we also got a brief glance at the way that Carlos will be interacting with Jill and attempting to ingratiate himself with the viewers before his inevitable death at the end of the game. Interestingly, I noticed that he introduced himself plainly to Jill as an agent from Umbrella, and I wonder how that will play out seeing as how Jill is very well aware of their involvement in the BOW program by that point. We also had a chance to see some of the action of this title, highlighting how this'll be faster paced than the previous game; and we saw a Hunter up close, which was pretty cool. Interestingly, the Hunter seemed to be docile in the presence of an immobile Carlos, which implies that the creators have borrowed the sound=death mechanic from RE2's Lickers. (But that's just speculation.)

This title will launch on April 3, and I just feel the need to stress once again how astounding it is that Capcom have put this title together in the space of a single year. 20 years ago when they pulled it off with the original RE2 and 3, it was a commendable feat, whilst today it is nothing short of wizardry. In a world where it is taking longer and longer to make high quality games, for obvious reasons, it's insane to think that Capcom could manage this remake so deftly, but multiple teams and appropriate time management does seem to have it's benefits. The only doubt in my mind from this point is whether or not this title will be able to survive in the same launch month as Cyberpunk 2077, but I'm hopeful. (Even if the statistical evidence isn't.)

Microsoft and the new generation

We don't need no artificial FOMO

Ever closer do we creep to the dawn of the new era of games, and we're slowly starting to hear about the ways in which our gaming overlords seek to wow us with policy changes. But why does policy matter? Because when you strip away the FPS and the teraflops and everything else, the real test of the kind of games that get made and those that don't comes down to the policies of each of the industry leaders. If Nintendo are worried about the sustainability of their new console, expect a two year period filled-to-the-brim with their tried-and-tested main series titles; if Sony feels confident that their system will sell on it's own merits, we'll see a lack of high profile exclusives going into the new generation. The wants and whims of gaming corporations have a significant effect on the games that we ultimately get to play and I think that's an fact worth considering.

Point in case, we can take a look at Microsoft and see a huge break from tradition going into the next generation which many are conflicted about; namely the way that new first-party Xbox titles will not be generation exclusive for the first, or maybe first two, years of the Xbox Series X. (Or whatever it ends up being called.) This information came out from an interview conducted by MCVUK to the head of Xbox Game Studios, Matt Booty. (Now that's a name.) Essentially what this means is that any first-party Xbox game made to work on the Xbox Series X will also be ported to the Xbox One in order to ensure that system still remains relevant going into the next generation. Of course, this is a practise often exercised by third-party studios in order to maximize sales, but this is unique for a console developer to commit to. For Microsoft, one would imagine that their key motivator in life would be the pushing of units, and that is something that is potentially put into jeopardy without their insistence of pushing people to the new console in order to play the latest games. But then again, the mere act of leaning off on such pressure could ingratiate the general populace to their brand which might invigorate sales. (At this point all we can work with is conjecture because this simply has never happened before.)

The Internet has been positively buzzing over the last few days as people have tried the hardest to theorize about the implications that this policy might, and likely will, have going forward. No one can settle on whether this choice will be a net positive for Xbox or net negative, especially now that Jason Schreier as effectively confirmed that this is a policy that very much will not be shared by Sony in the future. It has come down to a battle of the policies as folk argue about consumer friendliness and what that even means in the face of this news. Such is the level of the discourse, that I thought it might be fun to cherry pick a few of the arguments and go over both sides to try and figure out the truth to it all.

One of the key complaints that I have heard has been from people who believe that prolonging the player base of the Xbox One will draw from the player pool of the Series X and make multiplayer games lacking. This is incredibly lethal considering the fact that many game series rely on having healthy player pools in order to keep their ecosystem alive, such as 'Destiny' and 'COD' titles. If people aren't forced to pick up the new console then they simply won't be playing those games which will allow them to wither. That would be a compelling argument if it wasn't for one key fact, namely that the Series X is apparently completely backwards compatible. We've actually known this for a while after Phil Spencer bragged about bringing his home and playing with unsuspecting Xbone users in the wild, meaning that the new console can connect to the old ones. Player pools should be fine for those first few years and, honestly, might even be more healthy than that of their competitor. Food for thought.

Then there is the allegation that such a policy change will work to make the Xbox Series X seem irrelevant for the first few years, and that is an interesting point. Gaming consoles are made for the sole purpose of being able to play games, and if one already posses a console that can play the newest titles just fine, why would they bother move to an alternative? One could retort that the substantial improvements to fidelity and frame rate would prove how superior the Series X is, but the whole "this is the best place to experience X" marketing strategy only really works on a certain kind of consumer. I know for a fact that I could care less about the more powerful console, heck, I'm still using my current gen console that shipped with the first wave of units, so why should I care about this new console? For me the answer comes in the form of the way that games are supported in the modern day. The games-as-a-service model, for example, will likely prove the biggest incentive to jump ship once the persistent developers just simply stop supporting new content for the old generation. That's what happened with 'GTA Online' from the 'Xbox 360' to the 'Xbox One'; and it's likely what will happen again in the next generation. (Probably with GTA Online once again because that title just doesn't know how to die.)

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this new policy, however, is the accusation that creating games to be ported from the Series X to the Xbox One will harm the scope of the game in question. Obviously, the Series X is an incredibly powerful console capable of a great many things that the Xbox One simply isn't able to do, so does that mean grand ideas will have to be sanitized in order to make them functional on both systems. Possibly, but it's hard to make a definitive assumption on that without being personally acquainted with the tools and systems that are common amongst the development world, which I am not. Generally, however, creative visions can be at risk due to the overabundance of available technologies, as evidence by the spate of 'tech-demo' console launch titles that we usually get at the start of a generation. Here's a topic probably deserving of a grander conversation at some point.

All of these conversations have distracted away from the launch titles themselves, and perhaps that works well for companies like Sony. Afterall, all of Sony's exciting exclusives are launching on the PS4 with nothing yet ready for the PS5 except for Godfall. Additionally, they've made the decision to skip E3 for the second year in a row, indicating that they've no grand announcement to make regarding launch titles for the coming year. (Or that they intend to make such reveals at a show of their own.) So Sony can brag about how they won't be catering for their less powerful consoles and how each new game will take full advantage of the PS5's tech, but without games to back that up it's all just words. Perhaps we'll see how that argument takes form as 2020 propels onwards, but presently I am dubious as to who has the right course of action for the next generation.

As a consumer, I appreciate this new directive from Xbox and wish that Sony would follow suit. When Nintendo launched their Switch, it came with simultaneous game launches for their last-gen Wii U console, and yet somehow the adoption rate for 'Breath of the Wild' was still over 100% for the Switch Version. If nothing else, that anecdote proves that consumer friendly practises like this have the potential to keep everyone happy without ruining one's bottom line. Of course, I say this as a fellow with no expertise, or interest, in the higher-level tech involved for this new generation of play, so there's likely some significant factor that I'm not yet taking into account. As of so far, however, in my ignorance I am content and hopeful, I suppose time will tell if such contentment is warranted.

Is Supersmart AI a possibility? Part 2

They'll be back

Today we are going to do our best to round up my set of 2019 knowledge on Supersmart AI to come to a final conclusion upon what Superintelligent AI actually is and just how looming of a threat it would seem. As such, I felt it important through the course of my research to take a look at the mediums that were doing the best for AI development and, surprise, surprise, I found one of the leaders to be a topic quite familiar to this blog. You see, whilst 'weak AI' (defined in the last blog) is an incredibly useful modern tool for managing packets of data, we can see the greatest investment and innovation towards it being funded not by an industry in general but by a nation. The Chinese Nation. And that makes sense, doesn't it?

China is the most populated country in the world and, different to all the other countries on that top ten list, their government very much has the desire to monitor and sanitize as much of that populace as humanly possible. We hear about the ludicrous amount of surveillance that goes into 'safegaurding' the average Chinese city, as well as the deeply ingrained 'social credit system', but rarely do we reflect upon the complexity of the AI systems that are involved in order to make all that possible. Whatsmore, China have a desire to increase their presence on the world scale in order to become the global superpower, and as such they devote a heavy amount of research and funds into areas that they presume will blow up in the years to come. Should it be any surprise then, that China are the leaders in AI technology around the entire globe? All that is under the knowledge, however, that this drive to 'improve' AI is more aimed at increasing the capacity and scope of 'weak AI', rather than expanding the abilities of that AI itself and moving towards 'General AI'. (Intelligence comparable to humans.)

Many scholars, such as those who agree with the arguments presented by John Searle's 'Chinese Room' thought experiment, would argue that there is a fundamental barrier that AI will never be able to cross. That thing that we humans like to argue is the key part of our brain function that separates us from animals is something we refer to as 'Inspiration'. For the sake of this discussion, we'll choose to define such a broad word as 'the ability to come up with new ideas'. (Or compound upon old one's to create innovation.) As computers are expressly designed to operate within the parameters of their instructions, they should be actually incapable of 'inspiration' which would make their capacity to learn inferior to that of even the dullest human. As such, General AI should be an impossibility. But there are those who disagree and even those who think that concepts such as 'inspiration' are complete fabrications of human hubris. (but that's a topic I really don't have the time to go into today.) As I hinted at earlier, there is one medium in which AI possibilities are regularly being pushed to their limit, and true to this blog it lies in the world of gaming.

In 2018, Danny Lange held a conference through GOTO which explored the scope for AI development. But what made this particular demonstration worth paying attention to was the fact that Lange wasn't interested in AI that was taught to reach it's goal, but rather AI that learned what to do through the act of 'Deep learning'. Deep learning is a model of development very much inspired by biology, albeit in a more mindless, thrashing, fashion; so it's the perfect system upon which to test the possibilities of AI simulating Human-like intelligence. To this end, he named his conference "Deep learning in gaming" and you can watch it yourself to get a better understanding of what we're talking about. But I'll attempt to pull up the salient points.

Gaming makes for a great environment in order to conduct testing for learning capabilities, as that objective-based ecosystem works to quantify traditionally qualitative traits such as 'problem solving'. Therefore in order to create a game that simulates human intelligence we would have to define the key operating goal of every human being, those driving forces that unite us all. To that end, we must look at our base drives; we work in order to maintain energy and prevent entropy. We amass food in order to consume and keep our energy up, maintain order to prolong reliable access to energy supplementing sources and seek to multiply to stave of entropy, even if that's more symbolic. When we simplify intelligence like this, we aren't so much measuring 'human' intelligence as we are observing ' biological' intelligence in general, but that is an important stepping stone on the road to general intelligence.

Using a game engine no more powerful than Unity, Mr. Lange showed us a model of AI that was taught to navigate an environment in order to reach it's goal, with no prior programing to assist it in that task. The only incentive provided to the AI was a standard reinforcement learning algorithm, which is a process not so dissimilar to the 'Pavlov's Dogs' model. The AI would navigate it's avatar to the goal and once it reached there it would receive a 'point'; this builds upon how learning is achieved in nature all around us, through the merit of observation and reinforcement. By building upon this model for deep learning, one could teach an AI how to explore and exploit in a manner that replicates very human behaviours. Once the AI started to show some emergent behaviours, such as demonstrating an understanding of the reward function, the courses could become progressively harder to ramp up it's rate of learning. (Which, incidentally, is another parallel showing how computers learn in a similar curriculum to humans.)

Now, the problem with this model is thus; standard reinforcement learning takes too long. As I've mentioned several times now, when you provide a computer with nothing more than a goal it will take literally every path in order to reach it, no matter how little that path-way makes sense. Lange described solving this problem as teaching AI to 'Learn long short-term memory', describing that memory needs depth in order to grow into intelligence. To achieve this, there was a new parameter added to the reward system for the AI that would mirror the values of human's, in the form of extrinsic and Intrinsic rewards. Most AI deep learning evolves by offering extrinsic reward values, but if one could find a way to give AI the ability to distinguish between the extrinsic and intrinsic, you could then promote very human-like qualities to that machines such a curiosity. We saw an example of an algorithm that seemed to display exactly that during this presentation, and in the pursuit of expanding the scope of AI, that alone is supremely promising.

But what we discussed so far has been a string of maybes and hypotheticals, or small scale experiments that may mean something more at some far-off date in the future; but perhaps the most important question when it comes to the possibility of supersmart AI, is if we even want it. Now, that isn't to fear monger about how AI has the potential to wipe out humanity, but merely to wonder if creating such an intelligence will benefit mankind's struggles. Anthropomorphism has the tendency to make one assume that general or supersmart intelligence will emulate us, a thought-train which shapes the very methods we use to teach AI, although artificial minds might not end up thinking anything like ours do.

To demonstrate this best, I heard one thought experiment that I will refer to as the 'Stamp collector conundrum'. The scenario goes like this; you are a stamp collector with the desire of getting as many rare stamps as humanely possible. In order to achieve this end, you buy as many as you can off E-bay, but you find it hard to track them down so you create a general AI to assist you with the task; giving it the goal "help me get as many stamps as possible". With the help of this AI, you are able to contact thousands of fellow stamp collectors simultaneously in order to buy their stamps off of them, but you feel like you could do better and so does your AI. Now your AI is scouring the web for folks who aren't advertising their wares on E-Bay, for anyone who might have stamps and spamming Email their way. But you only have so much money, so you can't buy them all. So then the AI begins spoofing credit card numbers to pay for the transactions that you can't afford, or scamming them from the sellers in whatever way possible. Soon you have more stamps than you know what to do with, but the AI hasn't reached it's potential of "As many stamps as possible". Maybe it will hack into the postal service and start shipping stamps directly to your door. Soon it will have to come to a sobering realization, there are only a certain amount of stamps on the planet; so the obvious solution would be to create more. The AI starts hacking home printers all over the world and money printers and industrial plants, all to create stamps to ship to your door. What happens when it starts to run low on resources, or energy? Maybe it starts diverting energy from nearby infrastructure and taking over automatic harvesters to accelerate deforestation efforts. You get the message. It probably ends with an end to all humanity.

Now, obviously, that there is an example that is positively seeping in hyperbole, but the point is still valid; who says that a machine that is capable of the same level of thought as a human would play by human rules? Why would it? How could it share our ethical compass without the generations worth of evolution and societal training to ingrain it? How could we teach the goals of humanity to an AI and make them share and retain those goals as they evolve ever more, and is it even ethical to force that? Up until this point, Humanity has managed to evolve through the act of pooling their knowledge, until we can be sure that the next step of AI would be willing an able to do the same, perhaps it's best to slow down on the AI bandwagon.

Not that such would ever be likely in the near future, not with some of the biggest companies in the world throwing all their money at it every year. In America we see huge businesses like Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft leading the charge for AI, whilst in China we can see Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba doing the exact same. It is for that reason, as well as the significant level of spending from the Chinese government, (like I mentioned earlier) that many call AI "The new Space Race", with it's ultimate winner earning the prize of potentially shaping the direction of humanity's future. Therefore when we come back around to the question that started this all off, is Supersmart AI a possibility, our corporations will be the one's to answer it for us, not our scientists. From my point of view, however, I'm slowly warming to the possibilities. Technology is always expanding and growing in surprising ways, but we must always be aware of the fact that once that line has been crossed, that is a can of worms that can never be closed again. (I doubt we'll get there in our lifetimes, though.) In my next blog, which won't be next Sunday, we'll take a look at the leaders of AI to determine exactly where this 'inevitable' breakthrough will occur.

...kay then

You couldn't live with your failure.

Yesterday I captured my own raw unfettered emotion upon learning of the delay of the single most anticipated game of the year, not just for me but for many others. I went over my disappointment and conspiracy theories about the potential truth behind this decision, and where I feel that we were a little let-down in terms of communication. (They keep in contact with fans so regularly, I feel like this could have been disclosed sooner.) And yet today roundly shocked me when we heard the admission from CD Projekt Red that the studio would undergo "some degree" of crunch in order to get this game out on time, despite the 'delay'. That broke my brain a little bit. Are you serious? That was the one thing that those guys promised wouldn't happen, which felt important given the history of their previous games. If this doesn't solidify the fact that the April deadline was never a possibility, then is sure means someone seriously dropped the ball when it came to deciding the release date.

But none of that is either here-nor-there for the current topic at hand, because I want to seed some positivity into this situation for a hot moment as we go over the ways that this switch in release date is a good thing, both for Cyberpunk and the industry at large. Firstly, obviously, it is always good for a studio to take their time when working at putting a game together because first impressions are incredibly important and you only get to make them once. (Ignore what Todd Howard says on that matter. And the FFXIV team. And the ESO team. Those are mostly flukes.) I'm pretty sure that myself and many others are willing to wait a handful more months in order for the game to be polished to a mirror sheen and for all of the kinks to be buffered out. Additionally, this might give the team the time to set in the hooks for that Online mode that they plan to move onto after launch, hopefully making it's eventual implementation as seamless as humanly possible. I hear Miymoto's Razor loud and clear, I'll wait this one out.

Secondly, this decision has helped to clear out the early months of 2020 so that some of the other first quarter games get their chance to shine. On one hand this means that such 'stellar' and 'exciting' titles like 'I am Jesus Christ' will get to strut it's stuff. (Rumors on that one is for an April release.) Whilst on the other end of the spectrum there will be games that will be allowed to hit with the impact that they deserve to, like Resident Evil 3. Originally that title and Cyberpunk 2077 were slated to share the same release month, and I was a little worried that someone might have been a little out-shone. Additionally, titles like the 'Final Fantasy VII Remake' and 'Doom Eternal' had been pushed back to April and March respectively, essentially putting both those titles into a disastrous collision course. Now things are looking a lot more sound as those titles will all be given their room to breath and undergo in a much more fair 'popularity contest'. (It's just too bad that this year's COD is going to suffer from the compe- >sigh< I couldn't finish that with a straight face.)

Thirdly, there is the matter of the impression this will leave on the industry going forward. As I have stated before, the prominence of Cyberpunk 2077 in the gaming industry cannot be understated, it is the biggest title right now and with that heightened attention comes inflated culpability. So when CDPR make the admission that they cannot bring out the title when they intended and need to delay things by a few months, it leaves an impression upon other producers and indie teams. Will this cut down on the amount of rushed and poorly put together titles? perhaps, it's difficult to rightly say for the moment. Some games, like Anthem, are doomed to fail from the start and no amount of prolonged delays would have saved it, (It already benefited from a crazy amount of delays, afterall) but perhaps this example could do some good elsewhere.

Fourthly, (is that a thing people say?) I feel that moving Cyberpunk to September may have the effect of raising the bar of titles around it through the merit of competition. (In know this is kind-of an expansion upon my second point but bear with me.) As the 'release month', September is usually home to the big titles of the year including COD, Sports titles, and whatever Battlefield offering is out this year; and that means the pace of that month is all-too-often set entirely by those games. Other prominent titles that get relegated to the back half of the year often have to time their releases all around those games as they tread on eggshells praying they don't get overshadowed. This dominance has allowed for certain assurances regarding quality to slip, as those games usually mop up sales regardless of how broken they are.

Last September saw the launch of two terribly-broken sports titles, a decent (but not brilliant) COD game and an ill advised overhaul to Battlefield V that destroyed the in-game balance. All these mess-ups mean that eyes are on these yearly mainstays to deliver this year, and now that pressure is compounded because they will be going up against a title that is set to be one of this generation's crowing masterpieces. This will either drive these studios to pull out the best they possibly can or encourage them to half-ass this year in the knowledge that they can start fresh next console generation. (You never know.)

Finally, I feel that this delay will be beneficial to the marketing push for Cyberpunk. Even as we entered into this year, there were concerns running amidst the fans that the excitement for Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't as high as it could have been. That is to say, hype probably peaked from the 2018 gameplay trailer, but 2019's 'ways-to-play' walkthrough seemed a tad tame in comparison. Most thought that we'd get something cool about the game at the VGAs, and we did, but (for reasons that I'll go into in a separate blog) it wasn't really the kind of thing that would sell the game to those that weren't already convinced. Cyberpunk 2077 needed to put out one last 'hail-mary' trailer that would soak up all of the press and attention and have people as excited as they were during 2018, and with this delay they have a prime opportunity to do that. 2020's E3 will be the place to be, (despite Sony's pulling out for the second year running) and so I would anticipate that as being the perfect moment to spring an extended final reveal to take all of our breath away.

After going through this little bit of self-therapy with myself, I feel slightly better about the lamentable position that we gamers find ourselves at going into this year. Personally, I will admit that it kind of sucks that we literally have nothing to look forward to this entire year until September. (except for RE3, that'll be nice.) It feels like we're collectively starting 2020 on a low that has the trajectory to persist. But then I also have a neuroses about the passing of time, so perhaps you don't share such concerns and am happy to let a few more months pass you by in haze of anticipation. (I'll just be spending that time feeling my skin starting to crack as atrophy slowly sets in.) Here's hoping that CDPR make the most of their time; bring us something spectacular, guys! Or just bring Cirilla into the game. I'd accept that.

oh...

Well that sucks.

What a year to be alive for a gamer in 2020. We have big news on blockbuster games nearly every week and it almost feels as though no year of gaming has ever topped the one we are about to undergo. (Or at least that claim is accurate if all of the rumors I've heard about carry any remote weight to them.) However I feel it safe to say that if there was one title, ahead of the masses, that promised to colour this year in an undeniable shade of it's own; one game that promised to sneak onto shelves early in the year and reshape the discussions around gaming coming into the next generation, it was CD Projekt Red's Cyberpunk 2077. That is why it's with a particular lump in my throat that I've had to digest yesterday's news: That Cyberpunk 2077 would be delayed by 5 months until September.

I can't pretend I didn't have nightmares about this scenario. For the biggest game of the year to launch outside of the typical gaming month (and an exact week before my Birthday, by-the-by) seemed incredible and a little unrealistic. Heck, if I'm riding the 'unrealistic' train, I don't even think this new launch date sounds all that achievable, but I suppose if the team picked it then they know what they're doing. (I mean, they clearly didn't when they picked the first date, but I'm sure they've got a handle on things now.) I can't help but groan when I think about the deluge of games that are going to clutter up September and October and am positively melancholy at imaging Cyberpunk joining that lot. (God knows what all the Devs who usually occupy that release slot are thinking. They're probably in the middle of posting their hate mail to CDPR's head office.)

Let me be abundantly clear, I'm not upset at the decision to ensure that the game is finished and complete before the final shipping. For those that are, I would direct you to the sage wisdom imparted by one of the pioneers of this industry, Shigeru Miyamoto, "A delayed game is eventually good, a rushed game is forever bad." Those words are undeniably true and sear red hot at this exact moment in time. I lament the fact that early announcements like Cyberpunk's worked to whip up a fervour of excitement before kicking you in the crotch and stringing you along for another few months. It feels like a decidedly marketing-based move that emanates with the stench of corporate deception. Everyone was surprised when CDPR said this game would make April, and this delay (3 months before launch, mind you!) makes it seem like they never planned to make that date either, and that sews a little mistrust that I don't think was ever there before between CDPR and fans.

To illustrate what I mean (through words) let me take you back to September 2013, the release date for Grand Theft Auto V. Or, should I say, 2012 the original release date. (Oh Jesus, I just looked at what the current date is. I need to go vomit quick.) When this title was first announced on Nov 2nd 2011, alongside a beautiful trailer to the tune of 'Ogden's Nut gone flake',  it wouldn't be along until the general populace got a release date to fuel their excitement. It would come out soon, surprisingly soon, within a year in fact. People were positively buzzing with anticipation and Rockstar fed off of that excitement by drip feeding information in the months to come. We would only have three introductory videos to introduce each protagonist alongside a gameplay trailer to show up the title that would consume the next decade of our lives. There was no talk about the online features which Rockstar promised would be 'grand'. As we drew closer to launch, concern began to amount as people realized; we hadn't seen the promised 'Online trailer' and there was only a few weeks until launch, what was going on? It wasn't long until Rockstar announced that the title would be delayed until September the following year, breaking hearts and setting us all back to square one.

But surely that is just the way things play out, right? Delays happen all the time in development and no one can accurately see them coming, can they? Well, yes and no. Game development in particular is an incredibly difficult beast to get to grips with due to the everchanging state of the medium, it's why I find the Bennet Foddy analogy of "It's like building on wet concrete" to be so apt. Gaming evolves far more rapidly than any of other entertainment medium and so it's almost impossible to give something as definitive as a release date without drawing a line in the sand and promising not to cross it. It's how projects remain sanitized and it allows for release dates to be drawn up for the benefit of investors and fans.

There is, however, a little marketing twist to this whole routine for, you see, there is a certain amount of spin that goes towards every game announcement. Apart for the reveal, the most important piece of information that any company can give is the release date. It is the one thing that everyone waits for, and so it's important to get it right. In that vein, there are a set of rules that should be followed. One of which being that the release should be far enough away to allow for the advertising machine to get going but not so far off that people put it from their minds entirely. (A good rule of thumb; make the release within a year.) That is the reason why some titles will announce their release dates early even when they have no intention of hitting that date, like with GTA V. Is this the case with Cyberpunk? I don't know, but it would make sense.

That April release date was always a little weird considering that every major release is usually tilted to hit that pre-holiday season crowd. (For reasons that I've gone over in a previous blog.) Of course, some bigger titles can completely ignore such things as tradition, if their word of mouth transcends usual game marketing, however it still feels like shooting oneself in the foot to not aim for the most lucrative time of year. Sure, it means that they'll have to go up against the yearly big hitters, but is Cyberpunk really in danger of losing out to any of them? With everything that I've discussed, consider this; what if this September release was their intent all along? They only had Keanu Reeves for a brief, highly classified, E3 visit, and what better way would there be to announce their upcoming game than to have a legendary Hollywood star do it? But September 2020 was just over a year on from E3 2019 and the higher ups knew that would cause fans to put the game out of their immediate cone of vision, so they made a more palatable April announcement only to sweep that rug out from under us.

Perhaps what I've written so far comes across as a bit of a conspiracy theory, and I suppose it is in a way, but we know these strategies have been used by companys before so isn't it fair to assume that they would be again? I know that CDPR have facilitated a lot of good will over the years, and I respect them too, I just find it a bitter pill to swallow to think that they didn't realize that this game would have to be delayed until the new year. I know this is a huge studio and all, but that just rings false to my ears. Whatever the case may be- Cyberpunk 2077 has been delayed by 5 months and now the first half of 2020 is just that much more unbearable. Let's all just collectively hope we make it long enough to finally get our hands on the game.

Hellblade 2: Senua's Saga

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

After we spent yesterday going into PlayStation's inaugural attempt to secure early console sales, I only thought it right that we shift our gaze to their direct competitors, the folk over at Xbox. Theirs, afterall, is a rivalry that has persisted through the ages of gaming in the modern century, and as such their marketing strategies tend to mirror one another. Xbox focused on creating a community hub console last gen whilst PlayStation focused purely on games, and roles appear to be switching around for the coming generation. Similarly, both of these companies thought it was appropriate to offer up a brief teaser of the capabilities of their next console via a brief trailer supposedly rendered using that console.

For PlayStation that title was Godfall, a game that didn't do much for me personally but others have elicited some excitement for. Xbox, however, decided to take a fresh approach to this trend by teasing a game that was not a brand new IP, but a sequel to a celebrated game from a recently acquired Studio; Ninja Theory's 'Hellblade: Senua's Sacrfice'. I find this choice of teaser game interesting for a great many reasons, not least of which because Ninja Theory first burst onto the scene as a very Sony-friendly developer. In 2017 they published their very own Dark Souls-inspired title named 'Nioh' that received mass praise and attention but, crucially, was a PlayStation exclusive throughout it's lifetime. Even the original Hellblade was originally only playable on Sony's console until nearly a year after launch. Having seemingly secured the franchise as an Xbox title, Microsoft are clearly showcasing their willingness to poach the premiere talent where needed. (Although I really hope this isn't an exclusive. That would suck for fans of the original.)

Another key reason that 'Hellblade' is a significant choice for a launch title is because it is a sequel as opposed to something new. The prevailing train of thought when it comes to creating a launch line-up is that you are on the verge of a whole new generation of play and so it would behoove you to support and develop wholly brand new ideas. Afterall, if you want to showcase the domineering power of your new console it would help if your consumers didn't have any earlier games in the series with which to compare and go "I don't really see that much of a difference." However this line of reasoning has bought us title after title that is designed to look flashy on the outside but is ultimately devoid of passion and content on the inside. (A phenomena that I went into great detail about during my last blog.) This generation Xbox has decided to go a different way.

'Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice' was an absolute powerhouse in 2017, rising from relative obscurity to hit the game awards and walk away with the 'Best in Voice acting' award. It also received considerable praise for the way that the team studied and depicted mental health and paranoia in order to make the core themes of the game feel vivid and real. This is a title that the general public have a history with and an expectation of quality around, an expectation that is very much transitive once they hear about the impending sequel 'Hellblade 2: Senua's Saga', despite the negative connotation usually associated with 'launch titles'. Xbox don't even really need to let people know what the game is about, that audience already has that history, their only job with this reveal was to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this new 'Hellblade' would blow the old one out of the water on terms of raw fidelity if nothing else. (A tall order considering how visually stunning the last title was.)

Whilst last blog I slyly mocked 'Godfall' for choosing to render easy 'clean' textures and visuals to showcase the power of their new engine, I must give credit to Xbox for choosing the harder path. 'Hellblade 2: Senua's Saga's trailer prominently showcases one of the most difficult textures possible to pull off, human skin, up close and in detail. It is a good sign, then, that during this reveal people in the comments were fighting over whether or not this trailer is live-action. (It isn't.) Senua's face is genuinely remarkable to behold in this trailer in the way that is contorts and pulls in incredibly realistic movements. Muscles pull the tendons they are supposed to, nothing seems too bright and sub-surface lighting is appropriate. This face looks real. Of course there are some small issues if you look too closely like some 'halo' outline around the hair, but overall the effects are truly striking.

As for the content of the trailer itself, this one was appropriately mysterious considering the themeing of these games, (A series in which, I'll remind you, Senua travels to a manifestation of the afterlife) however there are some interesting thematic changes that I've noticed. Most prominently, the fact that we actually see other people in this trailer apart from Senua, both wondering through a foggy marsh and lining up behind her during her demonic ravings. (No clue what that's about, by the by.) This is significant because of how prominent the theme of isolation was for the first title, fueling her schizophrenic hallucinations of voices to fill the void of company. Now she is not only with company but appears to be at the head of a druidic tribe, possibly symbolic of her growth as a character from one who was lost to one who now leads.

We also see a great deal of druidic imagery in this trailer, hinting at the dark, cultish-like vibes of the original and likely promising that this name game deliver a great deal more. Tonally, this all seems very different to Playstation's 'Godfall' and the godawful 'Faux-Avengers' dialogue that the characters were sharing. The distinction is so pronounced, in fact, that I can't help but wonder if Microsoft and Sony coordinated their reveals in order to pull separate crowds and not step on each others shoes. (Big if true.) I have to admit that Senua does seem more up my street, but PlayStation does also have their 'Last of us Part 2' and another title which I may be covering soon, (Or have already covered, considering the ass-backwards way that I organize these blogs) so I can't say that this alone has sold me on the Series X, or whatever the final title is. (The first step on that road would be Microsoft solving that energy consumption issue that folk are speculating about. It's pretty darn non-negotiable too.)

Gaming has always been an unique medium in that despite it's size there is still room for smaller studios to come out with something crazy that blows everyone out of the water. (providing the folk involved are insanely skilled, passionate and get lucky with amassing an audience.) For Ninja Theory it is amazing to think that they've gone from a tiny studio to one of the frontrunners for the next generation, and personally I feel that story has to be a little inspiration for other big-dreaming studios out there. Even if this game weren't the launch title for the next gen, I would be excited to dive into it, and that's not something that I can say for every title I come across. That being said, there's still room for Microsoft to completely botch the release of the Series X, just like last generation, and ruin the chances of 'Senua' to reach a large audience, so I suppose the ball is in their court now. Don't mess it up.

Godfall

Do you think God stays in heaven because he too lives in fear of what he's created?

The future is now, or rather, it will be by Christmas 2020 for that is when we will finally have the drop of Xbox Series X (Or whatever the final title ends up being) and the PlayStation 5, ushering in a brand new age of consoles. (An age where early predictions estimate the Series X as being a significant environmental risk due to energy drain. Sure hope your working on that one, Microsoft!) Recently the next gen has been on everybody's lips after the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in which Sony officially revealed the logo of their next console. (Spoiler: It's exactly what you think it is.) What folk didn't realize was that this logo did not actually debut with CES (Despite what was said at the expo) but was sneakily shown off a month early during the VGAs in order to tease a brand new title; Godfall.

Now, personally I'm not much of a fan of those first few games of a console generation. I remember 'Killzone' from back in the day and 'RYSE: Son of Rome'. Both beautiful games for the time, no doubt, (Heck, RYSE still looks good) but wafer thin on actual content and value for your buck. Such is the trend with 'launch titles' which is why I sighed when I saw this trailer when so many other people gasped in excitement. I see past the glossy visuals and overdesigned armour pieces and see the product for what it seems to be, a glorified tech-demo that wants to retail itself at full price. But perhaps I'm just being a Debbie downer and there's potential here that I'm not seeing; lets take a look.

Godfall hit hard with a teaser trailer that actually shows off some rendering potential, although after Xbox Series X's first game showing (which we'll talk about in due time) this one did feel a little weak. Rather than get a good look at all the complexities that go into rendering human skin, what we see is a fellow clad in shiny, overcomplicated armour that is dripping in gaudy overlays, a monster-hunter style mane on the helmet and a flaming Pauldron; (Possibly the most eye-rolling character design I've seen all year) as he races down a pristine lavish hallway in the midst of what seems to be an earthquake. Eventually our man bumps into a couple more walking tin-cans, bringing that character count up to golden three that's favoured by games like Destiny and Division. (Guess this is a looter shooter then.) The group exchange some off-kilter banter that veers dangerously close to 'Faux-live player speak' and the camera pulls back on a gigantic hydra beast atop a gleaming golden tower and wreathed in dark storms. (How cataclysmic.)

Does any of this ring a bell for you? Because for me when I see this title all that comes to mind is Anthem which, in-case you've forgotten, is the title that was lambasted for being all style and no substance. We see it all here, (although thankfully without the 'faux player speak'. I don't think I'd have been able to keep my lunch in for that.) from the full-body suits of messy-looking armour to the three characters (likely representing the inevitable three character classes) and that final money-shot with a scary looking badguy that will probably be a disappointment in person. (At least this time we got see the monster inside the storm. They can't bait-and-switch us quite so badly this time around.) This game elicits pure skepticism from me and I would caution all those getting their hopes us to adopt a similar view of things.

To play devils advocate for moment, however, if we take all we saw at face value then this would end up being a perfectly balanced teaser. Let people see the world, smatter some establishing lore so everyone knows we're in some sort of apocalypse and give folks something to be excited for. All of my negativity for this title stems from crappy launch titles in the past, which is due to the short turnaround that those projects are often subjected to, however there is evidence to support that Godfall may not suffer from this issue. We started hearing about developers getting their hands on next-gen dev kits as far back as early 2019, and Godfall's Devs, Counterplay Games, haven't put out a game since the well-received CCG-Turn based hybrid 'Duelyst'. (Looks like it should be the name of a Silicon Valley start-up...) It is reasonable to assume that the team could have been working on this project for several years in order to get a quality product out for Christmas 2020, and I'm just being s superstitious jerk.

However there is another dimension of this title that should be considered, and that is the fact that this title has been described as being a "Looter-slasher". (Yeah, I knew this was the case when I wrote that earlier joke. I just wanted to look smart...) Any rational person should be seeing alarm bells ringing from that statement alone, because if there's one game type that no one can get right it's 'Looter Shooters/Slashers'. As we have discussed in other blogs, Looter Shooters need a lot going for them in order to be successful, not least of all interesting and varied loot. Destiny has had trouble pulling this off and that's run by the storied vets over at Bungie. Counterplay is made up of former Destiny Devs (and others, I'm sure) but that just makes me feel worse about this project's chances instead of better. Who's to say that they don't repeat their past mistakes? Will anyone remember to tell a good story and provide a decent amount of content to keep things feeling fresh? What the heck is The Darkness? All these are questions that I would levy at Counterplay if I had the chance.

The launch period of consoles are always a rough time as it is the point where everyone is doing their best to find their feet. The players are starting to get used to this new system, developers are adjusting to the new ecosystem and the big gaming companies are wondering how to quickly migrate their community. With all that shifted attention it can mean that too little diligence is paid to the games which launch in this time frame allowing for mistakes to be made. History proves that if a AAA reputation-carrying product is going to slip through Sony's QA, this is the period in which it will do so, and that has me worried. Justifiably so, I would say.

Ultimately, there won't be much more to say on this title until E3. Well actually, there might not be a truth to this title until the game launches, as Anthem taught us how studios are prepared and ready to lie their way through E3 when they need to. Punditry generally tends to be positive towards this title, however, and I wonder how much of it is genuine considered feedback and how much rides on the back of the hype train for the next generation. Maybe my pessimism is showing, but I'd just like to impart a pertinent Shakespearean adage to those that seem impressed by Godfall's visual fidelity and flairs; "All that glisters is not gold."

The start of a new age for League?

They will know fear. Suffering. Ruin.

For better or for worse, League of Legends has been one of the most influential games of the past decade, shaping the way that we look at free-to-play content, cross game promotion and professional competitive play. LOL has almost singlehandedly bought rise to the thriving e-sports culture in gaming and is the primary reason for that mid 2010's 'E-sports envy' that every publisher and their mother was suffering from. It proved to everyone that a game could be completely profitable by operating on a free-to-play model whilst charging for cosmetics. (although that's a lesson that the industry still has trouble learning.) And it even managed to get away with cross-promotion with various other game franchises throughout the years without causing an uproar, paving the way for Fortnite's all consuming promotional conquest.

All this legacy managed to spawn from an odd little multiplayer game with only one game mode and one map, who'd have thought? Riot games managed to turn this rather basic foundation into an entire universe full to the brim of lore, costumes and even a K-pop style music video. (Oh wait, make that two.) It was this dedication to building out their world which turned the heads of casual players and transitioned those who just played the game into those that lived the game. Other MOBAs have risen since LOL's inception, but they mostly fail to capture that spark that made League so special and influential. (R.I.P, Battleborn.) It's a surprise, then, that with an entire universe of lore to sit on, they've never expanded it into another product. No web series, no comics, no lore books and no movie. (Thank god)

Most would say that the reason for this is actually quite obvious; LOL may be dripping with lore but practically none of it goes together in a manner that one might call satisfactory. A lot of the short stories that exist between characters are superficial and designed to ingratiate the reader to that personality, not hint at a larger world. 'League of Legends' is very unique in that manner, as it's brand is built upon a universe of stories that are at odds with one another. In some ways it makes sense, afterall the gameplay is complicated enough to have players get a grasp on, without then trying to figure out a decent reason why it's all happening. Overwatch famously did awful in that department, feeding crumbs of a storyline that seemed to make no sense before giving up for a light reboot with this years' Overwatch 2. (Is that coming out this year? I can't be bothered to check.)

Okay, so adapting LOL into another product would be difficult, but perhaps such a transition is necessary due to the huge barrier stopping the growth of that game. That barrier being the aforementioned issue that the game is only one game mode and one map. What happens if, like me, you have no interest in the MOBA format? Well, then you don't get the game or join the community. Some folk out there positively despise the Assassin's Creed games, but are active consumers of the various related books. The same is true for Halo and the old Warhammer canon, (I'm not sure if the new universe actually has any books yet) as well as 40k. Meaning that leap from single video game to multiplatform franchise is the next thing that LOL needs to do in order to cement it's legacy into the next decade and set the stage once more. But then, how should they start with that?

This must have been the prevailing question rattling around the executive rooms at Riot Games not so long ago, for they established a project known as 'Riot Forge' with the soul purpose of producing single player games in the 'League of Legends' universe. Their labours would bear fruit sooner than anyone was expecting as during the VGAs the world received it's initial look at the first title to come out of the 'Riot Forge' product; 'Ruined King', much to the delight of the audience. As for the tease itself... it was pretty, meh. The trailer consisted of stylized frames that were mostly still with some light sound effects and ominous narration over the top of it. From studying the images we can assume there'll be a nautical theme to the game, with a seabound keep at the center of the action, but this is just speculation at this point at there was literally nothing concrete to go on regarding this title. At least we know the work of the developer 'Airship Syndicate', who recently created 'Darksiders Genesis', so we can assume this will be an action hack-and-slash affair with light rpg/metroidvania elements. (Although, again, there's nothing definitive on that front.)

So League fans had that tantalizing little teaser to sit on through this event, although that wouldn't be the only surprise as later that night we were all hit with another trailer. That's right, somehow 'Riot Forge' was working on two single player games at once. (The things you can achieve when you put your mind to it...) This second trailer was just as much a teaser but a lot better at setting the stage. The title in question, 'Conv/rgence', appears to take place in a high-tech Steampunk future (with actual animation this time around) featuring colourful explosions and spiky haircuts. We also know that this title will be an action platformer, so that's already more to digest on this title then 'Ruined King'. The thing that sticks with me, however, is the way how these two trailers perfectly encapsulate the dichotomy of 'League of Legends' lore. On one hand you have a serious, muted, story that looks like it's set in the 1500's and on the other hand you have a bright colourful future game the looks to be buzzing with energy. To some degree this speaks to the variety promised from the 'Riot Forge' project, however you'd have never thought that these titles were related unless you were specifically told so.

These two games represent the mortar and pestle that is working on the foundations of what Riot hopes will become an enduring franchise, and curiosity bades my attention to these titles at hand. A part of me has always wanted to be involved with 'League of Legends' and this feels like an olive branch thrust in my direction, which is likely exactly the kind of story that Riot Games want to be generating with this whole project. I like the idea of building up an interconnected franchise and I feel that gaming is the perfect medium with which to do that. Create a franchise from a flurry of different games and genres and you'll set the perfect catch-all net to bring millions more to your community than ever before, this seems to be the end goal for 'Riot Games' so far.

Although the projects in question are just other games, and seemingly small scale ones at that, I can't help but think of the future of this brand when they inevitably go multiplatform. (And I'm not talking about different gaming platforms.) This fills me with the same sort of excitement that I felt during the early days of Overwatch, until it became clear that the studio were more interested in building up a category of skins rather than working on building the brand. I want to see Riot Games succeed and surpass the likes of 'the Matrix' franchise, which spanned films, animations and games. (Although I sincerely hope that Riot stays away from films, for everyone's sake.) On the otherhand this may colossally backfire and end up devaluing the LOL brand to the point where no one wants to work on it anymore. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

New ESO Tease

"No reaction is ever so forceful as the mixing of opposite components"

We're always talking about new games on this blog and making wild speculation upon titles with which I have no first-hand experience. It makes it difficult for me to get my thoughts together as I always feel like I'm out of my depth and screaming into the void. (Well I'm kind a doing that regardless but that's besides the point.) Today, however, I found a decent excuse to talk about a title with which I am incredibly, uncomfortably familiar with, and that is the Elder Scrolls Online; due to some light teasing that they pulled off regarding a brand new expansion to be revealed later this year. The tease was especially vague, however, so I may ramble.

As it would just so happen I am incredibly involved with The Elder Scrolls franchise as a whole, having played these games for over a decade now and- whoops, sorry lost my train of thought. (My own mortality caught up with me for a second there.) I feel like I must have mentioned it at least once before, but I credit the Elder Scrolls as the very first fantasy franchise that I truly got into at a visceral level and it's one of the only fictional worlds that I would truly want to live in. (Ohh, that'd be a good idea for a blog in the future! Actually, that'd make a more fun discussion but it's not like I really have that option...) When it comes to the world of Tamriel I can recount the races of the land, both playable and otherwise, and recall the historical moments of the founding of the empire. I can name the Septim Dynasty practically from founding to dissolution and I can reliably recite the opening 5 minutes of Skyrim from memory. In fact in matters vegetable, animal and mineral I am the very model of a fan who's ES hysterical.

It would come to the surprise of no-one then, that I was a very devout player of The Elder Scrolls Online back in my day, but interestingly enough I didn't hop on at initial inception. Just like with the trajectory of modern Bethesda, Zenimax's ESO launched in a fairly dire strait, and people lambasted the title enough to keep me far away. It was only after the first major overhaul to the game that I was tempted to give the title a shot with the promise of getting to play an MMO with actual friends. In truth I was always curious how the team could handle a Massive Multiplayer title from a lore perspective given how previous Scrolls protagonists were renowned for the scarcity of their type. (Those that they call 'Fateless' are only supposed to show up once a generation or so, for this title there were thousands!) That curiosity would turn into a feverish passion as I found myself swept up in my very first MMO love-affair. (Former WOW-Addicts will know how intense the first time always is.)

My time with ESO was perhaps the first time that I truly began to get into the concept of min-maxing, (Not that I ever got anywhere close to that with ESO, but it taught me how to apply that knowledge to over RPGs) raids, and communicating with other players in the game for coordination purposes. (There's an experience that I never want to go through again.) So it's safe to say that this title held an exceedingly precious place in my heart for a decent couple of years and those are the kind of gaming memories that I'll take into the joy stick afterlife, or whatever. The bubble would have to burst eventually, however, and for me it was when I realized that I was the only one who liked playing this game, everybody else was just in it for grinding the best loot and that sort of sucked all of the fun out. I liked the idea of role playing and not taking everything so darn seriously, (Unless we're talking about the 'Planar Inhibitor', because she was demanding of the utmost seriousness.) but I was alone in that desire and it meant that I ended up being alone in playing the game. It's no fun playing an MMO by yourself, and so I gave up the title. But I still pay attention every now and then to see what's going on with updates, not to gauge whether I'd jump back in, but to fantasize about what it would be like if I'd never left. (Does that sound weird? Reading it myself it comes across as weird.)

Good thing I got out when I did, however, as the year after I left ESO was the time when Zenimax decided to assassinate the lore with their 'Elesweyr' expansion. The one which introduced dragons into ESO. The game which is, let me remind you, the prequel to all of the single player Elder Scrolls games. (Warning: I'm about to get all nerdy about Elder Scrolls lore so this your last chance to duck out.) Can I just say how sad it is that no one in Zenimax's writing staff could figure out a way to up the stakes from last year without resummoning the dragons several thousand years early? You have a universe brimming with ancient demon gods, (Daedra) mysterious vanished super-races (Dwemer) and iconic storied locations that we've still yet to explore in exhaustive detail. (Sancre Tor. Yeah, there was that one mission but there's got to be more to it than that!) But some moron came in and said "People want dragons, right?" and so they pulled all the majesty out of the canon of Skyrim whilst simultaneously invalidating the prophecy on which Skyrim's story is premised. (Sure, they didn't awaken the World Eater early but they still knocked the wind out of that poem's sails.)

Okay, I know I'm getting too deep into this but I need to rant about this to someone and all my contacts have blocked me so this is my only outlet. In the lore, the dragons had the run of the land in ancient days and thus enslaved the first men under a despotic rule. Man couldn't fight back due to the dual fact that the dragon's held a powerful magic in their very voices that could tear men apart and that the dragon's ruler, Alduin, had the power to fly into the land of souls. (Essentially meaning that he could revive any Dovah that men managed to slay.) It was only through the combined forces of the greatest heroes of their day (and the help of a traitor) that the first men banished Alduin through time and thus got the upperhand in the war. For the preceding centuries, the descendants of those heroes worked to slay every single dragon in existence in the knowledge that they couldn't be revived without the work of 'Alduin the World Eater'. The only dragons who supposedly survived was the traitor, because he earned some reprieve from the slaughter at least, and Nafaalilgarus, because he lived in secrecy and even his existence could very well have been a myth.

From a point of storytelling convention, it really helped distinguish the world of Elder Scrolls that they didn't rely on dragons to be their ultimate bad like every fantasy has done since 'Beowulf'. That was a story in which 'the dragon' is utilized as a personification of all of man's struggles into one beast that one may do battle with, but will never entirely triumph against. A powerful and evocative metaphor, no doubt, but one that has lost it's edge and fundamental meaning with constant reimaginings. Skyrim, however, managed to tap back into that mythical original by introducing 'Alduin' the dragon destined to destroy the world. Even when you are victorious at the end of the game, you've only delayed the inevitable, not stopped it. Just like the legend of Surtur's role in Ragnarok, his ultimate destiny to be the end of all things: he is the World Eater.

"But screw that noise, let's throw in dragons!" the executives must have argued, reasoning that the bottom-line was more important than narrative integrity. You may have picked up on the fact that I'm actually really ticked off by Zenimax for how they handled 'Elesweyr', but that doesn't mean I didn't get a little bit excited to see where they're taking the story next. And that is because at the VGA's us fans were provided with the vague tease that the next part of the story would be taking place in a previously unexplored corner of 'Skyrim'; my single favourite Elder Scrolls province. I've always been a huge fan of Scandanavian and Nordic mythos, so any more attempts to feed into that fandom is absolutely fine by me. I'm also excited to see another side of a landscape that I know like the back of my hand at this point, so ESO has me curious.

At the end of the day is this going to be enough to get me back into The Elder Scrolls Online? Probably not, but that's okay. The gaming world has been completely taking over with time-sink live-services so folk like me just plain don't have time to sink into an MMO. Even one in which I'm already well established. Perhaps this'll make for a nice treat for those who are still loyal to those Zenimax folk, but I'd rather wait until the next full fledged entry to sink my money. Wait a minute- does that mean I have to depend on Bethesda to get their next game right? Oh boy, maybe I should get back into ESO, soon it might be the only game keeping this franchise afloat...