Fortnite V Apple: Grudge map of the decade

This fight just got personal.

I was wilting over here, you know. Melting into a cesspit of my own mediocrity and boredom. No, not just because of this pandemic and the chaos it's wrought on our daily lives, truth be told I've been healthier these months indoors over my times outside them, no my malady was much deeper seeded than that. There's just been nothing going on. Or to be more precise, nothing surprising going on. Even when the Covid cases started hitting I felt more "Yeah, that sounds about right given everything else that's happened this year." And whilst the world of gaming has kept itself moving through all this, it's almost as though the rest of the world has frozen still. That curse was somewhat broken just this past week when Epic threw it's gauntlet at fellow dirt-bag company Apple in some heroic battle against commission prices. Talk about giving me what I didn't know I needed!

Now I have a reason to pay attention to the news once again, and care about the happenings of real life outside of my digital escapism. Two greedy gluttons are slugging it out in the parking lot and I'm hear for every second of it, there is quite literally nothing else in the world right now that I'm more invested in. Do I honestly care about the extortionate way that Apple go about wringing it's app developers of commissions? Not really. I don't even own any Apple products, never have. Am I really rooting for plucky Epic Games to break the glass ceiling and change the phone app market forever, no and I never did support Epic. But if these idiots are willing to rip chunks out of each other I will holler like a howler monkey in excitement. And if you think that little metaphor there is a little heavy handed or melodramatic, just wait until you hear the latest developments/ new ultimatums, which Apple has levied at Tim Sweeney's door.

You see, Epic have very much positioned themselves in the role of the selfless freedom fighters, campaigning for the rights of everyone who uses the Appstore, but in reality they're just petulant whiners who purposefully broke the rules so they'd have an excuse to leverage the legal system against Apple. Does the ends justify the means, that's a question for your own time, but don't you fall for Epic's 'wounded hero' act, this was a movement born from that most selfish of emotions; greed. And if you don't yet believe that, then try this on for size. Apple were already aware of Epic's desire to break free from their commission model prior to the brazen circumvention tactics they implemented, starting this whole mess. How did they know this, you ask? Is Tim Cook prescient? Perhaps, but the heart of this matter is far more mundane. You see, in the filing against this lawsuit Apple has let a great many related documents fall into public domain, including recordings of correspondence between Apple and Epic where the game developer begged for exemption from the commission. Not abolition; exemption.

Now, of course, this probably wasn't an offer made with any serious intent in mind; this was likely just an establishment of a recordable dialogue so that it can paraded in front of the court and Epic can weave a sob story about how 'unreasonable' and 'closed to ideas' Apple is. They even went so far as to wind Tim Sweeney, Epic's CEO, into the correspondence to make it look like they really gave it all. Maybe there was a hail mary chance in hell that Apple would respond 'Wow, no one's ever asked for exemption before. Just for that, no more commission on Fortnite; and I crown you, king of Apple!' It was only after being tuned down that the narrative changed to bringing down the commission for everyone, but isn't it telling that Epic started this whole affair with themselves in the forefront of their concerns. They could have just, I dunno, go around the big App developers for the Apple store and got a petition written up to set this off, but they wanted the more personal touch, I suppose. How suitably 'Epic' of you, Tim.

But Apple went one step further than just tattling on Epic, oh for you see they've got a murder technique of their own. Ol' Tim Cook's been winding up his Divine Sandstorm for a while now and he's ready to let it loose on Sweeney at practically any moment. They were very blunt at first; Epic broke the rules and now they are in the time-out corner. This can all be over and normal relations can start the second that Epic bites the bullet and retracts their position like a coward. (And kiss the ring, obviously.) But then they slipped into threats, as Apple causally let it slip that if all this nonsense isn't dropped promptly (too prompt, in fact, for this matter to ever see the light of a courtroom) then Apple will suspend Epic's working relationship. Fair enough. Except, apparently that would ban all software that makes use of Epic's property from appearing on the Apple App store. Okay then, so how bad can that be? Well, ladies and gentleman, I hate reminding even myself of it, but Epic are the folk who created and license the Unreal engine. Oh man.

If you somehow didn't know, the Unreal Engine is perhaps one of the most used engines in all of the gaming industry, second only, perhaps, to Unity. (Which Apple has a very good working relationship with.) So yeah, banning Unreal is like taking a nuke to deal with a mole-hill, Apple want to make it very clear in this game of chicken that they have the biggest wheels. A straight-up ban on unreal would hurt countless App developers revenue and they would have no one to blame but the greedy company who kicked the hornet's nest to begin with, shattering Epic's working relationship. Honestly, this is an incredibly dirty move on Apple's part, and Epic's rightly trying to get the courts to forbid this before the deadline. (And I have to say, this really doesn't help Apple with the whole 'tyrannical dictator' angle which Epic is trying paint right now.) I just wanted a fair ballgame, and this underhanded little legswipe has even me calling for the Ref. See what you've done, Apple, you've got me siding with Epi- Urg, I just threw up over my keyboard in attempting to type that unholy sentence. For shame, Tim. For shame. (That's aimed at the Cook, not the Sween)

If Epic aren't able to get in the way of this death move headed their way then they'll have no choice but to step down and reveal just how self serving this whole 'Crusade against the app-store' ultimately was. Although, one has to really wonder about this 'mutually assured destruction' stance that Apple seems to be taking. Are they really under no threat at all of hurting their own consumer base by wantonly killing half their apps? I know who has more to loose in this stand off, and I'm sure Epic are in no delusions to that either, but are Apple really willing to saw off a forearm just to prove a point? I wonder. I really do wonder about the company that was too scared to air a biopic on Dr Dre's life that they themselves commissioned. (Okay, maybe that was more stupidity on the part of their smooth-brained CEO, but I think you get my point.)

To think that this is the sort of fallout raining down in the preliminaries, before anyone has even seen a courtroom, is wild to think about, and I just can't wait to see where this Anime fight leads us next. Will there be gladiatorial chariots? Is Apple going to enter the Avatar state? How far does Tim Sweeney need to be pushed before he "Reject(s) my Humanity!" and throws on the stone mask? And who's theme is going to start playing at the eleventh hour when all the chips are down? As you can likely pick up, I am freakin' enthralled by all these goings ons, and I loathe the lethargy of the court system which'll likely mean it'll take months for juicy court details to hit my hungry lips. (It's infuriating.) But when that day does come, when il Vento D'oro starts jamming out and we all become acutely aware that proceedings have started, you can bet I'll be there with my popcorn and coke, ready to eat it up!

EA gets dunked on

Do you think even the worst person can change?

It is rare, ladies and gentleman that I get to count Ars Technica as the source for a blog, but when it happens you know it's for a juicy one. In fact, this story actually relates to a little something I was complaining about the otherday inside of the game industry, as though the gods of Karma themselves were listening and went "You know what, that does sound pretty screwed!" (Of course, those in the wrong that time weren't those punished this time, but I'll take my victories where I can.) Of course, I was referring to the Blizzard situation wherein the huge discrepancy between what the employees are paid and the astronomical bonuses that get handed to management led to a situation where important ground level workers were going hungry in order to afford rent. (And that was inside of Activison/Blizzard, one of the biggest games companies in the world.) At the time I vaguely remember citing EA, either saying that this was something they would or had done; and today I can relay that they tried to do it again. With tried being the operative word there.

Electronic Arts have never been the gold standard for great and fair business practises, positive employee experiences, positive customer experiences, ethical responsibility, or literally anything beyond the capacity to wring ludicrous amounts of money out of minimal investment on their part. They're really good at that. Too good, some might say. As such, one can hardly be surprised to hear that gaming's most classic pantomime villains were planning to pat themselves on the back for another year of astounding mediocrity, to the tune of one of those huge 'executive bonuses' that these people go to sleep dreaming about. For why else does anyone get into business if it isn't to over pay oneself with funds that are better spent on the wellbeing of the company? That's like, the only incentive, isn't it? And then, of course, they can complain about not having made quite enough to meet all employee paychecks and go around slashing those, maybe slash a few jobs while your at it. (That's the typical end-goal here.)

Which is why it might have been confusing, to the fellows who've performed this nepotistic ritual for decades now, to have their shareholders vote down their plan for 'executive compensations' recently. "Wait, we have shareholders? Wait, they can do that?" According to Ars Techinca, this sort of vote (dubbed 'say-on-pay') rarely ever gets voted down, making this a huge anomaly. In fact, a recent study from Harvard Business School came to the conclusion that below 3 percent of these sorts of votes have been lost in the last decade. (Leave it EA to break new ground.) Now of course, EA are big boys and technically in charge of their own finances. They could chose to completey overturn this decision and handily fill their coffers anyway. However, doing so would require them to pout, and shirk the wishes of, 74 percent of their shareholders. Would EA be so brazen? Who knows?

But the question of how much EA was cucked for in this deal, because maybe it was just a pittance that they can move on from and easily forget. Or maybe it was 21.37 million for the EA Android-in-Chief Andrew Wilson. (A man who looks like his robotic endoskeleton was too big for his fleshy bodybag) Thats nearly 4 million more than the bonus he received last year and, distressingly, the smallest out of the proposed bumps to executive bonuses. Man with chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome, Blake Jorgensen, was looking at a 10 million buff to finances, totalling up to 20 million, alongside Laura Miele, a chief studio officer who's been smart enough not to stay in the news. Needless to say, this sort of kick in the nuts is going to hurt, but it's not like they're going to be hard-up after this so I don't feel bad ruthlessly mocking them for their lost fortunes. (Screw them.)

But why, I must ask, why did these shareholders for EA decided to bite the hand that feeds them in such a public and vicious way? Why did they decide to grow balls after all this time and throw their weight around against their playground bully-meal ticket? Why indeed. Well, as it turns out this wasn't some sort of spur-of-the-moment revolt, nor a reaction to the way that EA have been performing over the past year. (Or for their entire life span, because EA are career creeps, afterall.) As it turns out this is a precedent being set by investor activist groups to prevent the exploitation of CEO privileges when that sort of funds can be used on "Talent Development and retention." And I never thought I'd be saying this about a freaking 'investor activist' group but hear-hear! (Urgh, can I take that back? I feel dirty.)

It is so hard to come to the conclusion that the most important asset in a development studio are the talent who make the freakin' games? I feel like that's a given, but apparently not so. More and more so in recent years we've watched as talent in the industry has been looked over or straight-up abused to the point where some have called it quits in gaming entirely. I'm talking months in which people don't receive the pay that they're due, developers being over worked until they're ragged and broken, entire studios getting snapped up and gutted over something as stupid as licenses, (Looking at you for that particular one EA) and none of it ever comes with repercussions. Who could possible make these big wigs stop and change course? They're the big players in the game and they know how to make money, so the only people with the chance to give them pause would have to be the one's with their fingers on the purse strings. I suppose it's fitting, then, for that to be exactly what's happening today.

And it's not as though there's never been a set precedent of huge publishers/developers actually taking the time to ensure their employees safety before. Take Nintendo, for instance, grandfathers of the industry that they are. Rarely do you hear a word of complaint regarding the way that developers are treated under their offices. (the way they treat creativity, however, is another matter) Now that could be due to the company being Japanese and there being an inherent difference in company culture there, but anecdotal evidence paints a different picture. In times of hardship for Nintendo, such as the disastrous launch of the Wii-U, it's actually the upper management who took responsibility for their bad calls and took paycuts so that they didn't have to resort to layoffs, which would be a last case resort for Nintendo. When asked about this, the word at the time was actually rather adorable. They said that 'Nintendo employees are tasked with creating products to make people happy, how can they do that if those employees are afraid of losing their jobs and thus aren't happy themselves'. (There's a 'hear-hear' I feel less gross about giving.}

So what does this mean for the industry going forward, or more specifically for EA, well on the surface it's an incredibly slight shuffle in a positive direction, but honestly this does sort of feel more like a power-play on the part of shareholders. Perhaps I'm driven by unconscious inherent bias when I say that, but I mean it nonetheless; why would a bunch of inventors give a rats about the treatment of EA's employees? Unless it's cutting into their profits, which it might if things get too bad, there's no incentive for shareholders to so much as acknowledge EA's shadier goings-ons. But maybe this may send a message to the likes of Activision, Blizzard and- nah, Konami's too far gone on this matter. No matter how big you are, there's always someone with the power to kick you where it hurts, there's no such thing as impunity free actions.

Avengers... you're embarrassing yourself...

Too big to fail

When it comes to the impending release of Square Enix's The Avengers, I'm a fellow of two distinct minds on the project. On one hand I feel it was inevitable that someone got to making an Avengers game finally, and I see a big chance for some literal record-breaking success here due to the obvious popularity of the brand over the last 8 years. Marvel's movie studios have been rewriting the art of blockbusters over the last decade for better of for worse, (usually for worse, as every big studio is desperate to follow in their footsteps but too lazy and-or stupid to figure it out) and it has resulted in a ballooning of brand recognition beyond anything that Marvel could have imagined when they were still making comic books. Everyone knows the Avengers in today's day and age, and that means it's prime real-estate for the most profitable entertainment industry in the world right now to get ahold of things, gaming. It's destiny. The only thing is, why didn't more effort go into it?

Now if you've paid attention to the marketing life of this game here you'll note that the cycle of this game has been defined both with confusion and anticipation in equal measure. On one hand "OMG, it's Crystal Dynamics behind the development? They made those dope Tomb Raider games, I love them!" and then one the otherhand it's "Okay, but what exactly is this game? Because we're seeing an abundance of gameplay but nothing that spells out of nitty-gritty of what to expect." Personally I think this was a purposeful move on the marketing side of things, to give people a game to ramp up excitement for without telling them what that game was, in order to allow them to fill in the banks and to avoid that inevitable moment of dawned realisation. I bet this project was in talks about for as far back as 'Age of Ultron', and they spent so long throwing it back and forth between studios that by the time it was presentable their original plan, to make a Destiny clone, was so far out of the 'cool' it wasn't even funny.

Imitating the looter shooter trend grew old years ago. Maybe that happened due to the apparent lack of content that the first Destiny had, or that the first Division had, or that Anthem had. (The list goes on.) It's just an entire sub-genre of game that demands too much player investment for too little return, and people already get that out of their mobile games, they didn't need it gripping them in their AAA releases too. Then there were the high-profile issues that rocked this world, like the truth of how Anthem turned out to be a completely unfinished product. That's the sort of revelation that leaves scars, not just in that studio's reputation and their publishers (already abysmal) reputation, but that of the entire genre. And thus it was a real shame that Avengers, after all these years, turned out to be little more than a riff on that formula once again. It just strikes me, and a lot of people, as behind the times in the same way that Fallout 76 did when it turned into a survival title. "No man, that ship sailed years ago. What are you doing?" Between this, Godfall and Overwatch 2, I'd say OW2 has probably the most reasonable justification for it's structure and probably will resonate the best. Avengers, on the otherhand, looks a little lost.

I think that was evident all the way back during the roundtable from a month or so back. This was supposed to be the information blow-out that was going to clear up all the miscommunication around Avengers and what it would entail, bringing everyone into the fold to get behind 'the new biggest game of our generation' or something. And what did we get? Well there was ample explaining and ample gameplay, but we didn't really come away with anything unlike the games of the day. That's the most disappointing part. The Avengers movies trailblazed their marketing and brand in a way never before achieved with Cinema, whilst this game just feels cookie-cutter and uninspired. The combat looked alright, but the gameplay loop was just collecting new gear to buff stats. (Where have I seen THAT before?) Even the multiplayer elements looked tired, with big 'strike team' battles that looked to be designed to be grinded day-after-day for the perfect rolled stat gear. The main enemy, A.I.M is alright, but not a concept seller by any means; and the all-star cast don't really shine at all so far. It's just a middle-of-the-road milk-toast product, as far as we can tell.

But it would seem that none of that matters; making an original game, establishing a strong foundation, winning over the audience, all of that is moot. "This is an Avengers game, afterall, so we don't have to earn the excitement. Do people know how much we spent to earn the license? They owe us unquestioning devotion!" (At least that's what I assume the sort of rhetoric flowing around the office is.) I say this because it's so clear that Square or Crystal, (or, more likely, both) are smelling their own gasses and have crowned this title 'too big to fail'. That's why, instead of establishing good will with their potential client base these fools are out making exclusivity deals. Exclusivity. Really? From the Avengers movies that bent over backwards to be inclusive in the later films and make room for as many folk as they could. (Maybe not a direct parallel, but you're picking up what I'm putting down. Right?) I don't know, I just think it's so regressive to start making shady exclusivity deals and it really speaks to a lack of confidence, doesn't it? If you've bagged such a big franchise, then why risk angering your client base by treating two-thirds of them like second-class citizens? Or do you think your brand is so big that you're untouchable? (We'll see about that.)

So what's the exclusive I'm riled up about today? Spiderman. That's right, the webslinger himself is going to crawl onto Avengers as a Playstation only hero. ('Friendly neighbourhood' my ass) And may I just voice how short sighted of an idea this is. The beta for Avengers just landed and early impression are already voicing how the game feels devoid of variety and how there's a lack of character distinction, and now they're starting to ration out potential roster boosters as version exclusives? Well that's how you lose my sale, at least, I was already dubious about this game but now I know I want no part in your game if this is the way you want to start things off. Antman is coming as DLC and Spiderman is coming as a backroom deal with Sony, and the game isn't even out yet. (This bodes terrible for the cohesive growth of your game, Crystal!) But if you think that's just a sad direction for their marketing, wait to you see the pathetically embarrassing promotions that the marketing team have cooked up. (Warning: this stuff is really sad, you may want to sit down.)

So maybe you've seen the screenshot going around of the cast of the game clad in a red and white colour scheme, vaguely reminiscent of the time-travel outfits from Endgame. This is an example of the cosmetics within the game which will form the backbone of their monetisation efforts, yet this specific instance is particularly indicative of their desperation for marketing too. You see, these are said to be leaked screens of exclusive skins only available for those that are customers of Verizon or Virgin mobile. Seriously. What is this, 2012? I thought we left this level of pathetic cross marketing in the FPS age, are you guys seriously so hard up that you need to revive it, or do you really think that you need to one-up freakin' Call of Duty in order to be a 'serious game'? There's more as well, such as more retro skins that are linked to purchases of 5 gum (I'm losing the will to live) and, for the customers who choose to pre-order at Gamestop, a struggling retail chain desperate to assert itself as a still-serious force in the gaming market/industry, you get a pin set. It's limited edition. (I've lost it. Kill me now.)

What more do I need to say about this, what more can I say; this is straight up embarrassing. Honestly, for Crystal Dynamics and Square (I have a feeling this isn't all Enix, but they certainly had a hand in it) to be pimping out Avengers so aggressively to any brand with some spare change in their pocket, it just reflects poorly on the industry as a whole. Where's your damn class and decorum, people? You represent one of the biggest publishers and am holding one of the biggest licenses, and this is what you choose to do with it? Being absolutely truthful with you, this actually grosses me out a little, I don't feel comfortable signing on with a game that resorts to these lows  and I'm slightly starting to lose my respect for Crystal Dynamics Tomb Raider series, which I've loved up until now. I hope this is the worst things get and that everything from here on is smooth sailing for the game, but even if it is I won't be along for the ride. I'm just not down for giving money to these sorts of people, and certainly not when there are actual original and good-looking games literally on the horizon. (Hey Cyberpunk, please don't do what these guys have done.)

Earthlock 2

Changing it up!

Every now and then I come across the kind of title that isn't exactly the 'beat-the-door-down-and-scream-from-the-rooftops' masterpiece that some other games are. With my prolific catalogue of game that I've played over the years, it probably comes as no surprise that there's a great many games that don't blow my socks off but are just good, and would slip from my mind mostly, but remain enough for me to recall my good memories. Maybe these aren't the leaders of their industries, but not every game has to be and I can carve out some of my day to enjoy a good RPG just as readily as the next guy. Of course, the game I'm talking about in particular is 'Earthlock', and I must admit I entirely forgot I had played that game until news broke of the vastly different Earthlock 2.

Now Earthlock, for those who are unfamiliar, was a RPG that seemed to draw significant inspiration from the odd school semi-active turnbased JRPG's of yesteryear. Final Fantasy in particular seemed to have it's DNA in this games inception, only this was a smaller game made by a smaller studio and coupled with a narrative and world which felt decidedly... distinct from FF. Earthlock created this decently adorable world with fun enough characters that all worked decently well together in a strike team, but the real innovations came in some of the unique twists upon the gameplay. Like, for instance, the complimentary ability effects that rewarded smart timed actions and tactical debuff choices. Or the 'friendship buffs', which made certain synergies incredibly powerful for particular encounters. All this contributed to making a fine and different RPG title that managed to stand on it's on two feet. If the main narrative were a little bit stronger, I might even consider this a diamond in the rough and recommend it. (Okay, the narrative isn't so weak as to invalidate a recommendation, I take that back.)

When it comes to the act of 'paying homage' to a story or genre that you like, it's all too easy to fall into the trap of making a direct rip-off. Copying sweeping ideas like story, setting, characters or just the gameplay features that made another game special, all without thinking that you're plagiarising. Earthlock, however, managed to jump out of that trap and deliver a delightfully original fantasy world which, though it may have some features similar to JRPGs, (such as the obligatory race of sentient cute fluffy animals that they all have for some reason) is still a world you can recognise at a glance. The environments were decent, though not really unique and distinct, the enemies were kinda cool, whilst also being kinda forgettable, and the activities that you perform outside of fighting, such as crafting of potions and other general base management activities, were actually surprisingly intuitive and well-conceived. Like I said, decent RPG, worth your time.

Earthlock 2, however, doesn't seem to be resting on the laurels of the first game and that's what is keeping me fascinated right now. It would have been easy for this team to completely rehash the first game with a new story and improved locales, (or not even made a sequel at all) but instead the team have taken that traditional JRPG trope of 'a different story every entry' and stretched it's definition to a more fundamental sense. Speaking plainly, Earthlock 2 is an action adventure RPG that looks to be completely abandoning it's predecessor's turn-based combat for real time combat. Now that's a power play if ever I've seen it, because I've never seen a title that completely reinvents itself for every single entry, that's a new one to me. Sure, Bioware have a tendency to reinvent their narrative structure from title to title in order to avoid Ubisoft-itis, but the game's themselves remain semi-static RPGs. Not Earthlock, however, they're taking a decided step into new territory.

Now to play devil's advocate for a hot minute, we don't actually know if this direction portends to the future of this franchise, or even if this franchise has a future at all. (Not to insult the quality or popularity of the games, I just think it's a little early to be throwing that word around.) In my optimistic brain, this lays the groundwork for a game series that could remain interesting by being wildly different with each entry touching on a new sub-genre of RPG until we get a crappy FPS entry and revert back to what we know. (I know some people like 'Dirge of Cerberus'. You're just wrong.) But in reality this could just be the developers of Earthlock quickly shifting gears to hit the popular trend that all these former turn-based RPGs are hitting. Final Fantasy has gone the action adventure route, Trials of Mana's pretty-looking remake went full action adventure, why not follow them early? As much as I'd like to think this is a series completely dedicated to paying homage to beloved bits of RPG gaming, and in some ways it still absolutely is, I could absolutely believe there's a more cold and cynical reason behind this choice. But hey, the company's indie so I'm not going to ride them for it; you guys do what you need to.

What this does portend, however, is a trend of games that you wouldn't expect having the breadth to, getting sequels. I'm talking games without the investors, backing or funding to guarantee record sales, but merely a dang good premise that people want to see more of, getting a chance to delight their fans. For me, Earthlock isn't exactly the kind of game that I'd write home to my parents about, but there are those who really loved the first game and are likely buzzing for a sequel, you might even call the popularity 'cult' in this light. On another stage, archetypal rougelite 'Rouge Legacy' is getting a sequel. A game with a modest pedigree and a genre positively despised by mainstream publishers, is getting a sequel. Isn't that wild? It hints at a time where indie developers are getting the sort of financial and creative freedom to strike their own niches, and that's got to be the ultimate dream for any creator.

There's a certain level of ballooned ambition behind Earthlock 2 that I find deeply inspiring. To think that an openworld RPG could grow from a linear one is encouraging and impressive to behold. When I think about the amount of work that would have to go in to make this sort of an idea work, I find it hard to get my head around. There's so many more jobs to assign, more dimensions to consider, more world building both literally and narrative-ly, to do. This is a whole different ball-park of game creation that Snowcastle Games have stepped into, and I just hope they know what they're doing because if this goes wrong, it'll go really wrong. (I'm sure they do. Right?) They've already spoken about how they've got their hands on next-gen development tools and a new engine, so they have the tools at their disposal to kick off the next gen of indie games. (How exciting.)

The way I look at things, there aren't enough RPGs in the world today. Now okay, there's a million JRPGs, sure, but as for unique western RPGs, we could really stand for a few more fresh ideas to stir around the pot. What else are we supposed to do, wait for the next Bioware game and hope it isn't complete trash again? And when it is; then what? These guys and Spiders are really standing out in the RPG landscape as independents who keep this genre alive when nobody else is there to. (Yes, Spiders aren't exactly Indie, but you know what I'm getting at. It's how these games shape up.) I hope to see a bit more of this Earthlock 2 in the months to come, see if it's as solid a title as the first game. (I can spare the odd 40 hours if it is.)

Serial Cleaners

Throw on a little bit of Abraxo, cleans that blood right off!

Looking at all the new titles being announced today it's hard to keep track with all of them. I say this as someone who currently has unlimited time on their hands with an unhealthy addiction to gaming that I use as a coping mechanism to curtail my perpetual self deprivation; even I'm getting overwhelmed with the sheer number of new games, re-releases and remakes. Thus it's always nice when I can spot that one game in the crowd that makes me sit up and point at the screen, "Hey, isn't that?" And yes, against all odds I managed to find an honest to goodness sequel to a small-time game that I actually really enjoyed, who'd a thunk it? (This certainly does make a change of pace from all those games where I have to delve into every single web domain that merely mentions it just to get a semi-coherent gameplay description.) So it's with some experience and expectations that I cover 'Serial Cleaners'.

Now first a little bit of history so we're on the same playing field. 'Serial Cleaner', the first title, was a quirky game out of the studio 'Draw Distance' that proposed the scenario of playing as someone who 'cleans' crime-scene's of evidence before the police can collect that evidence. He was essentially a contractor who specialised in cleaning bloodstains and absconding with bodies in the middle of active crime-scene investigations scenes. (Which, you've got to imagine, has to be a little bit too late, no? If the police are already there than you have to imagine they've at least been alerted to the fact a crime has happened.) The gameplay played out as a stealth based title with an isometric perspective, good classic stealth fun. In aesthetic, the game utilised it's 70's setting to make it's world a celebration of everything from that decade in style, music and even popular movie references. Basically it was, and is, a great little title that's certainly worth your time for the low price it's currently at on Steam.

'Serial Cleaners', much as it sounds, is an expansion upon that original premise that proposes to introduce more 'cleaners' into the story of events. As it happens, however, this doesn't appear to be the prototypical framework placed in order to accommodate for a multiplayer system, far from it, but rather a increased roster for the single player to choose from. Of course the natural question to ask at this point would be what exactly it is about each character that should draw our attention to them, as presumably they'll all come with their own backstories, motivations and character skills. (Although if this game has a mirror-image of the first game's gameplay then I doubt we'll have to worry about if their personalities are interesting. Not much talking from what I remember.) As we've only a teaser trailer to go off for the moment there isn't a great deal of concrete information on that regard, but the Steam page has offered us the team's thesis on how this should all play out. Apparently all four characters will have their own play styles and 'perspectives' (whatever that means) which cover the vague titles of 'Street smarts', 'Brute Force', 'Tech skills' and 'old fashioned'. A curious assortment who's implementation I do wonder about, but the team seemed competent enough the first time around so I'm willing to cut them some slack. (How does a 'Brute Force' play-style fit into a stealth game anyway?)

Aesthetically the game has taken a huge shift in order to sufficiently distance and differentiate itself from the predecessor; jumping more than 20 years into the future out of the 70's and into the late 90's. Whereas the original was very much shaped around it's image of the 'swinging seventies', this title title already describes itself as a "Homage to 90s Cinema" with inspirations like "Tarantino" and "B-Movie action favourites" being thrown about. I'll be honest, I'm not as familiar with the 90's aesthetic as I am with the 70's so a lot of what they are proposing goes above my head, but the team seem to know what they're aiming for so that's all that really matters. In their Steam description they touch upon a style formed from "a decade full of brightly coloured optimism... and the grime underneath it all." which I'm sure rings out to some 90's-heads out there. They've also apparently tailored their music to the decade, although all I head from the teaser was dis-concordant Jazz so again, I'll take the team's word on that front.

Another step up on the graphics department is the way that, judging from the screens and two seconds of gameplay in the teaser, we're upgrading from an isometric flat 2D world to a isometric 3D one. Now, admittedly, I do think this costs some of the charm of the original game and it's angular art style, but the new world does fit surprisingly well with the new direction they're heading. There's still the comic-book feel to the world, but the third dimension allows for more slanted shots that show off the environment a little more. One screen I absolutely love displays this beautifully as we see a police cordon over a parking lot that's littered with loud graffiti everywhere, it really does help the world speak out a bit more. Also, I'm a big fan of the whole 'New York' setting that I'm fairly certain they're going for here, real 'Max Payne' of you.

If there's one interesting aspect that I've grown curious about (learnt from Steam and not the teaser) it's the proposition of a 'non-linear' story that has the player pick up the parts the want to hear, presumably by picking the character they want to hear from next. Now in concept I think this could be an absolutely fascinating way to tell some sort of grander narrative, having these various folk who specialise in being around events, instead of being involved in them, gradually picking up on the main plot. It's like a complete evolution upon what the old Thief games did back in the day. On the otherhand, however, it could be a mess of bit-fed information that requires several playthroughs and a whole time-line graph just to construct a vague idea of what's going on. (Think the messy narrative of Fallout 1 x 20.)

I just think that if I'm correctly interpreting this bullet point then Draw Distance have opened themselves up to a mother of a challenge in pulling this off, and I commend them for their attempt, I truly do. (Fingers crossed it turns into something worth bragging about.) That being said, I don't hope for a title like this to get too serious and bogged down with telling a cohesive narrative, because at the end of the day the first title succeeded on the strengths of it's gameplay and sly gallows humour. (at least from my point of view.) I mean for goodness sake, the main character is called 'Bob C. Leaner'; Ain't nothing po-faced about that! In essence I admit that this concept does kind of remind me of Party Hard, with this sequel idea actually reminding me of Party Hard 2, so I hope for something similar to those games in respect to direction. (If you're familiar with them.)

In conclusion, Serial Cleaners is a sequel that I didn't expect from a game I actually quite enjoyed, so I'm happy to see what becomes of it. Draw Distance appear to be self publishing this title too, as opposed to the first game, so I'm happy they now have the flexibility to do so, because theirs is a skillset I'm quite enamoured by. (Also, they worked on the 'Vampire: The Masquerade' series, something I dream of doing one day, so I have to give them props for that.) I applaud Draw Distance for keeping this game feeling fresh whilst familiar to the last title, and curiously await seeing how it plays out for them. (Fingers crossed it's good!) May cool, off-beat ideas for games like this become more of the norm in the next generation of gaming, This is the sort of stuff that I like to see.

Outer worlds Peril on Gorgon

Secrets and conspiracies. My favourite!

There we are; finally the update we've been waiting a freakin' age for! On the Microsoft game reveal event for some reason... (What sort of weird deal does Microsoft and Obsidian have going on?) Even though 'The Outer Worlds' launched at the tail end of last year it still made a huge splash. (And I'm still going to write up thoughts on the game soon, I promise.) People raved about the title, calling it the return to old school Action RPG's that we've been missing since the downfall of Fallout. And you know what, they're right. The game was every bit the magic Obsidian touch that all of us loved so much. And so it was in that light that an important question was asked; "where's the DLC? I know it's in the works, gimme the damn DLC!". And after months of silence, finally here's something to sink out teeth into, should we please.

'Outer Worlds: Peril on Gorgon' promises to give us even more of that Outer Worlds goodness we all loved whilst giving us a unique situation we haven't been in before in the game. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. The trailer for the 'Peril on Gorgon' actually hit some rather reminiscent notes coming from a studio as storied as Obsidian. It was themed around that 50's sci-fi-pulp style that reminded me of the original 'Old World Blues' trailer which has a similar style to it and thus remains one of my favourite bits of writing in the fallout franchise ever. ("Get your brain back!") Unfortunately, we didn't actually see much of what the DLC was about, just saw an overview of the landspace and not really a whole lot stood out as "That's brand new, I want to see that!" But not all is for naught because The Outer Worlds team did, actually, go into much more detail in person.

This DLC will be set to take place on the asteroid of Gorgon, a place which, lo-and-behold, was a former science station that fell into disrepair. (Is any institution in the Halcyon colony not in disrepair?) This little bit of story content is being made to slot neatly into the main campaign, and is said to contain about as much content as Monarch did for the main game. (Which was easily the biggest planet in Outer Worlds, so that bodes well.) Of course, as with any DLC for a game like these there are the standard things you'd expect; as in an increased Level Cap, new weapons and armour,  and a few new skills, but seeing as how the gameplay was never really the shining point of Outer Worlds (Nor the fashion. Definitely not the fashion.) I'm pretty much take or it leave it in this regard. No, what I really want to know about is whether or not the story has any heft to it, and lucky for me, I think that it might.

From what sparse details there are to go on, we've been told that this DLC will involve an investigative dive into a Spacer's Choice facility in search of the secret behind adrena-time and why this product was cancelled by the higher brass. It's a concept that leans into my favourite aspects of Outer Worlds, conspiracy and uncovering corporate secrets, calling back to that classic 'Deus Ex' feeling that I crave for so dearly. As the place is said to be defunct we can probably expect a lot of the story to be told through terminals and the environment, and some of the NPCs in the trailer to fill our the world, although i'll bet there's going to be some wild Scientist left over to provide that slight antagonistic hook. As much as I'd love a story deftly told with no NPCs, there's too many folk out there who are convinced that 'No voice acting' means 'taking the easy way out' and will get all upset. (Personally, I like the kind of quests where you drive your own narrative)

If I were to compare this with any of Obsidian's past work, I'll admit I'm getting pretty strong 'Dead Money' vibes from 'Fallout: New Vegas', which works perfect for me. That was a story about an old world casino that was said to be flush with gold and was set to be the newest wonder of the modern world before the bombs fell and claimed it beneath a toxic cloud. That is, admittedly, more of an NPC driven affair; with the protagonist being kidnapped and forced to work alongside a bunch of iffy co-conspirators in order to break into the casino-vault, but the majority of the playstyle was spent in brooding isolation as you picked through the remains of a dead resort and pieced it's mysterious narrative together. And yes, one might point out that this was the aesthetic of Fallout at the time, but I don't think that means Outer Worlds can't learn from its older brother.

That being said, I'd be lying if I didn't say that this premise failed to capture the same level of 'pizzazz' as anything that I can remember from Obsidian's past. It's not a deadly delve into a toxic casino occupied only by ghosts and Ghosts. It's not a journey inside the weird and bizarre extremities of science unchecked. It's not a climatic culmination of a subtly told meta-storyline. It's not- actually 'Honest Hearts' kinda sucked- I say this DLC sounds about on the same level as that. I'm not seeing any grand narrative in work here, or exciting experience unlike any we've seen from the base game, this just feels like the team is playing it safe. (Which is also my takeaway from the full game, but I'll get to that in another blog.) What's more exciting is their DLC coming next year which promises to give players a shot at solving a murder mystery. Maybe that would be more up my alley.

If I were to cast my eye of wild speculation at this DLC and what secrets it might still be hiding; I hope that the team of the Unreliable actually have a part to play in this beyond being the player's bodyguards. What would be ideal in my eyes would be a little bit of a micro Citadel-DLC set-up; wherein the moment you land your team would go their separate ways and you can meet up with to help with their individual cases over the asteroid. I think with that sort of design there could be opportunity to mount short stories with the companions we love as well as flesh out those who really didn't go anywhere in the maingame. (>cough< Felix >cough<) But that's only applicable if Obsidian are looking at this as an opportunity to fix the issues with the maingame, and I'm still not entirely sure if that's the case.

Long story short, I'm down for more Outer Worlds any day of the week and Peril on Gorgon is pretty much already in my library; but if I weren't already sold by the mere concept of an Obsidian DLC, I wouldn't be signing off just yet. There's just little to nothing that makes me sit up and pay attention, making this feel more like an update to a tired MMO than a brand new offering from one of my favourite RPG companies still in business and good repute. Of course, like always, I'm ready and willing to be astronomically off-base with this assessment, and for Peril on Gorgon to blow me away with either it's gameplay, locale or sheer brazen narrative risktaking. But I'm not feeling it right now, so it would be one heck of a surprise if it did. (Finger's crossed on this one.)

Fortnite: Vs the world

Let's get read to rumble

Something's happening here, and what it is, ain't quite clear. The gauntlet has been officially thrown and now the world's most recognisable game of all time; Epic Games' Fortnite, and two of the biggest tech companies in the world; Apple and Google, are going to war. I mean- doesn't that just sound like the most epic anime showdown of all time? It's like Goku vs Broly, Jotaro vs Dio, Aang vs Ozai, Spongebob vs Squidward; all those times 1.3 trillion. (Apple's estimated value at the time of this writing, for reference.) For a game as big as Fortnite to be cast as the underdog in any situation is eye-turning enough, but for it be in a duel to the death against Apple, I'm sorry but it's popcorn and Marshmallows time. I'm straight itching to watch these titans tear each other apart in the court of law. I'm only sad that it's seemingly impossible for both sides to lose the lawsuit. (Is it? I dunno, LegalEagle hasn't uploaded a video on this yet...)

So you've already heard the news right? Sure you have; but I'm starting from the beginning because I just love to tell a story, even better when it's non-fiction. First off, we have to talk about how App stores work. (I know, exciting stuff) So if you're interested in getting into the ludicrously lucrative world of making a app for mobile devices, you'll have to get used to the fact that it'll be sold on someone else's storefront. Whether you're on IOS or Android, it's a well known truth that you have to play by the rules of Apple or Google respectively in order for your app to sell to the millions of folk around the world with a mobile device. On Android there is the choice to offer your app directly, but it still won't get as much traffic as it would on the Google store installed in most phones, and on IOS you literally cannot use a non-Apple-approved app. (Unless you jury-rig your device, but I don't want to get into that right now.) So basically, the default mobile stores are the toll keepers that every app developer must pay in order to get where they need to, due to the solitary nature of the devices there's no direct competition, and all the bargaining chips are situated solely in the mega tech companies' court. So as you can imagine they exploit the hell out of it and charge a 30% commission on all in-app purchases.

30% is a pretty heft kick to the groin for anyone to get over, and when it's in a nonnegotiable format such as sitting in the hands of a monopolistic entity- well, it's hard not to feel taken advantage of. I mean, that's like if Steam were to start charging 30% commission in order to sell your games on thei- oh wait, they do charge that. (And we wonder why Epic came along...) Obviously, as this is such a bitter pill for the companies to swallow, they practically invariably refuse to eat that cost themselves and instead pass it onto the customers, so that's why things tend to cost a lot more on mobile apps than on the website. (The more you know.) What's more, Apple's terms of service forbid developers from redirecting traffic away from the Apple store in order to circumvent commission, which leads to situations such as with Netflix's mobile app wherein you simply cannot subscribe through the app. They don't tell you why or where you need to go, they just expect you to figure it out. (Luckily Netflix has the brand familiarity to do that, whereas many other brands simply do not.)

It is within this ecosystem and under the purview of these rules that Epic Games chose to function in order to offer the mobile version of their popular Battle Royale; Fortnite. All the game was missing was portability, and with this release came a whole new wave of player engagement and retention for the folks over at Epic to enjoy. Que the claims of Fortnite addiction gripping the youth due to it's accessibility and the, much-more-real, issue of kids playing Fortnite in class with their phones. (I wasn't even allowed my phone in class, what's up with that?) So it was a successful move into a new market, good for them, let's fast forward to today. Not too long ago Fortnite decided to surprise the world with a shocking announcement; the in-game premium currency, V-bucks, would be granted a permanent 20% reduction in price. (Which, seeing as how this is in-game currency who's value is determined solely by Epic games, is pretty much meaningless when you think about it.) So far so nothing, but there was a little change up to the way that the mobile app demonstrated this deal. You see, whereas everywhere else folk would be treated to the discounted price, on mobile they would be greeted with two prices, the original one and the new one, with the more expensive option labelled 'Apple App store'. It was basically Epic showing people an obvious choice and saying "Which would you pick?"

That's ballsy one might say, very alpha; but also completely and undeniably against the rules that everyone else abides by. Thus it was pretty much inevitable that this little stunt would end up with Fortnite getting justly booted from the app store post haste, probably whilst Apple were scratching their heads and going "What did they think would happen?" But 'Oh! You fell into my trap card, Kaiba!', Epic muttered as within moments of getting pulled from the app store they were granted the legal precedent to clap back. Hardly a few minutes after the fact there was a video uploaded to Youtube retelling the classic 1984 parody advert that Apple made in their genesis, only this time with Apple as the grey tyrannical entity and the colourful cast of Fortnite as the liberators. (Very crass and on-the-nose there Epic. Do not approve.) As well as, in a move with a little more weight, a lawsuit filed against Apple by Epic for unfair practises. (Big moves!)

So obviously this whole affair was orchestrated to the nines, with Epic being their same slimy, sneaky selves in order to lure Apple into granting them the basis for a lawsuit. (As their claims wouldn't be nearly as strong without having been personally affected by Apple's policies) But if we ignore the grossly deliberate way that Epic planned all this out, there's an interesting conflict here which has the potential to touch a lot of people. They allege that Apple's iron fist on who gets on their phones is in direct contrast to healthy competition and thus grounds to be forcibly penalised within a court of law. Whatsmore, in offering themselves up as lambs to the slaughter here, Epic have managed to rally App developers behind a shared interest (getting this extortionate commission rate lowered) as well as Apple's customer base. (As There's sure to be plenty of kids absolutely distraught about not being able to play Fortnite for the forseeable future.)

The lawsuit, which was penned suspiciously legible to non-lawyers, feels catered to be as much an impassioned speech as the end of a crappy melodrama as a declaration for legal war. They even make a point to call out Apple's apparent hypocrisy as being a company that said it stood against the stifling of innovation only to become that behemoth all these years later. (Hence the eye-roll inducing Youtube video.) I feel as though the scope of their transgression did get a little bit out of their control, however, as Google also booted them off the playstore, leading to a much less flowery and little more delayed lawsuit thrown Google's way too. So does Fortnite stand a chance? Maybe. Afterall, we are in a political environment of folk who all seem to talk about breaking up the big tech companies, could this be a prime excuse to take a swing at that? We'll have to keep an eye out to see if any independent parties start weighing in on this matter, as I think this has the potential (and I'm sure this is what Epic is going for) to become much bigger than a simple commission dispute. This could be the start of the major curbing of Apple's growth.

So this very much is a David vs Goliath level showdown here today. A real Zuko vs Azula, Joseph vs The Pillarmen, Yugi vs Kaiba, Finn vs The Lich King, situation. (Did Finn ever actually go up against the Lich king? I can't remember.) Now don't get me wrong, there are no heroes in this tale to rally behind. Epic definitely broke the rules in order to fuel this lawsuit, and they're 40% owned by Tencent, so one could construe this as an attack on American business' through a Chinese proxy. But I'm sure Epic would deny that and spout some nonsense about them 'fighting for equality and freedoms' whilst simultaneously smothering the PC marketplace with exclusivity culture, so I'll not accuse anything formal. (You're a real class act, Epic.) At the end of the day, however, when you strip everything away this is just one mega rich corporation taking a swing at another, and in that light I think it's hardly controversial to say 'screw the lot of them and I hope this somehow ends off turning sour for all parties'. But if that, admittedly unlikely, scenario never happens, then I'm fine to just sit back and watch the fireworks like the stereotypical car-crash-watcher that I am.

Destruction Allstars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avowed

We have always know war.

I like hype. I like the feeling that is generates for the masses that it enraptures, I like the imagination it can stir and the conversations it can spark, I like the communities it can build and the ceilings it can shatter. Hype is fun. But I'm careful with awarding that sort of investment to just anybody, least I end up a hopeless hollow stuck forever ramping up for a game that's long doomed to fail. (Sorry Star Citizen, that's just the truth.) And in fact, even when proven developer rides up on their horse and flashes their teeth about I need a little more than just a studio name to get excited. Unless it's Elder Scrolls 6. I literally cried at that announcement. (Don't you judge me!) So it's with an acceptance to the fact that I'm about to get flamed, with which I announce that I don't get the hype for Avowed. (Do your worst, I've got thick skin.)

Now don't get it twisted, I love Obsidian, we all do. Back in the day when 'Fallout: New Vegas' first launched, I thought it was impossible for my love of Fallout 3 to be topped, only to have that love completely redefined by the infinitely superior sequel. 'The Outer Worlds' managed to sneak in not too long ago and prove a devastatingly successful space RPG despite it's small stature and within the hugely delayed marketing cycle for Starfield. They are also the ones responsible for the sequel to one of the greatest games ever made, and easily the greatest Star Wars game, 'Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic'. (Yeah, the original was better than 2 but I think a lot of people overlooked the intensely smart writhing of the second game.) So I'm more than just someone who actively likes Obsidian, I practically love their brand and am excited when anything comes out of it; but that just doesn't extend to anything that comes out their mouth. Why? Experience, dear readers, that is what has jaded me so. Remember when Blizzard were heroes of the gaming industry? When Valve made games? When Bethesda weren't... whatever the hell they are now? I remember all of that, mostly, so I know things can change on a dime.

That being said, I'm not looking at Avowed like any impending disaster on the scale of Fallout 76 or Diablo Immortal, god no; I'm just not letting my skirt get blown up by what basically amounts to an excessively sparse teaser trailer. Let's go over it, shall we? The camera fades in over rolling mountains covered in flame and ash, obviously indicative of some large scale martial action to let us know that this is a world of war- and maybe some crafting too. Some dialogue is said that isn't really all that interesting or impressive without context, probably not even with context either, but it is what it is. We see parapets lined with archers with incredible aim, as they manage to let loose from their hilltop hidey-holes and rain death upon a battlefield filled with slowly plodding skeletons. The camera pans down, and we get to see the first person view of the player's sword, their cool wavy magic hand and a lumbering beast making it's way through the cave system. That's it; cool trailer, glad I came. Why are people losing their minds over this again?

In terms of what one would expect from a fantasy world, we saw literally nothing deserving of extreme excitement. The world looked pretty standard for what one would expect for an environment based on Earth. (Hills and trees, got it.) The aforementioned dialogue was pretty generic, saving all your good lines for the game I guess, no shade. The only enemies we actually see from the game are literal skeletons. Skeletons! The most dime-a-dozen enemy in fantasy RPGs everywhere, edging it out just above Rats! I would have taken a glimpse of some of the armour, so we can see if this is a world full of ridiculous Warcraft proportions or sleek, sexy, Dark Souls armours, but nope; we get some prototypical, paint in the lines, no assembly required, Skeletons. (Goshdarn!) And the finale of the trailer shows off some placeholder animations which absolutely does not constitute gameplay because I can see that unnatural head-bob, Obsidian, I know that's a mock up! (The magic hand animation did look kind of badass though, so points there.)

Now, if I were just a guy with hardly any knowledge of the latest video game news, (were only it so) then I would look at this and likely instantly forget it tomorrow, which is why this isn't a trailer I can board my hype train off of. It's just generic and bare, what can I say? But the reason why I do understand why some-people are getting themselves all a-flutter, is because of the name that's attached; Obsidian. This year saw the Beta release of 'Grounded', a small scale Obsidian title with none of the sweeping RPG majesty that people love the company for, as is self admitted by Obsidian themselves, but here is the announcement for Avowed to fill that void before it even has a time to fester. The wider gaming world can really learn some things about basic marketing strategies from Obsidian. Whatsmore, whilst there is precious little information about what this Avowed is, there is enough to base significant hype on.

When I was ragging on the world and the fact we were fed skeletons as the primary focus of a reveal trailer (A REVEAL trailer! Talk about putting your best foot forward!) I intentionally omitted the fact that some information has been released on this world. Rather, the fact that this game is poised to be set within the same universe of 'Pillars of Eternity', at which point everything starts to make a lot more sense. POE is Obsidian's answer to Baldur's gate, as an isometric top-down party-based Kickstarter success story, and in it's brief life cycle it managed to scoop up enough love and accolades to mount a sequel. This is a world of beauty, great storytelling and thrilling adventure, so when people became aware of a first person single-player RPG set within that world; they felt justified in their fervour. Once again, smart move on Obsidian's part, way to market your game. But that might also explain why I'm unaffected.

I never played 'Pillars of Eternity.' I know, I know. But it was only because I fell for the lie that the game was another Diablo-clone, (I don't know who told me that but they were a lying ass) so I just wasn't interested at release. I don't have that basis of 2 great games to base my expectations of this world so all I can do is look at what was offered and go, "don't look like much." That being said, now I can acknowledge that this franchise (as I suppose being connected to POE makes this part of that franchise now) is beloved, so there's a little bit of relief on that front, but I'll need more then that to really get going. I mean, at this point we don't even know if this is going to be the 'Skyrim killer' that everyone wants it to be, or just another 'Outer Worlds'. Smaller in scale and not really a replacement for the games already on the market. (Although, in the defence of that argument, Fallout isn't exactly all that comparative to 'Outer Worlds' anyway, aside from in raw gameplay where neither game is exactly a shining beacon for the industry. Although modern Fallout does slightly edge out there, to be honest.)

So that's where we are; Avowed has been announced and now it's in the hands of the Internet to either soak it in or balloon their expectations to unreachable, and unpromised heights. (>Sigh<. They're doing that second one, aren't they?) Look online and you'll find plenty of understandably excited fans buzzing about how this game will be the next big thing, and whilst that's sweet and all, I operate in the realms of reason, and until we've some clearer idea on the scope of the game, I'm going to hold off on the applause and partying. Obsidian certainly have the talent to make a spectacular game, so in my kingdom of hearts I hold some excitement for this title, but I wanna hear it from the horses mouth. "Yes, this will be a simulated world", "Yes, this is a large scale RPG", "Yes, we're bringing our great writing and humour", "Yes, you can kill domesticated chickens and set the entire village on you". Until that day I wait patiently. Congrats on Avowed, Obsidian, I hope it's everything people want it to be.

Everwild

Listen to the beat, listen to the rhythm

Jumping ahead to the Xbox Series X second reveal event, wherein we saw an influx of new games, I did spot a certain group of games that made me excited. Although, as should be obvious by now, Microsoft does suffer from an overabundance of 'Cinematic trailer' syndrome when they could really use just a solid gameplay trailer every now and then. Sony have got this down pat but Microsoft are still dragging their feet, showcasing that even at the cusp of a new generation they are still behind the curve. (Cue the 'mile long ship' analogy.) One problem with all these new games is that a lot of them have left their audience quiet in the dark about what the game actually is (you know, the single most important part!) which really speaks to a failure in marketing if you ask me. Some games, however, do manage to skate past even this, although barely, on the grounds of being just so gosh darn beautiful. 'Everwild' is one of those games.

Back when this title was announced last year under the Rare label, it's teaser trailer was still enough to turn some heads. For me, as a huge fan of the 'fictional ecology' aspect of games like Monster Hunter World, the creature designs absolute glared out to me as something interesting that I wanted to see more of. Take or leave your stylised aesthetic with the smoothing of details and the emphasis on stark, differentiating colour, but I had to see more of the inspired animals and fungi that inhabited this world. They seemed to walk this line between the fantastical and the believable, managing to delight your senses without totally alienating them. So even when I had little to no idea what Rare had up their sleeves for this title, and given their eclectic back-catalogue of games it could literally be anything, this is a game who's image stuck around in my subconscious for a while. It must have made an impression, because even a year later in a year of game reveals, I recognised this title instantly and was excited all anew. (There's the power of a strong design team, folks.)

That's something that was carried through in the trailer once again, and thus I suspect that it'll end up being the main draw and likely the sole focus for whatever the title shapes up being. The fictional ecology just seems so rich well conceived that I'd imagine truly becoming immersed and invested in this fictional, but fantastically tactile world. In the trailer we see an abundance of wildlife take the forefront, from the huge earred elks from the very first trailer hiking along mountain paths to bulky mustachioed beasts-of-burden felling trees in the woodlands. Everything pops out so well. I think that comes, in part, to the glorious fur animation that I think every beast we're seen so far appears to be sporting, it's reminiscent of 'The Last Guardian' in a way and manages to convey the fabric of the animals hair decently. You can just about imagine brushing your hand through the individual strands, it's particularly evocative.

In fact, there's this sense of spirituality running through the whole trailer, emphasising the connection between nature and man in a harmonious sense, and we can translate that into a connection between the viewer and the fictional animals of this world. Practically every shot in this trailer that features a human is co-starred by one of these animals and we see them tackling the challenges of the day as one, whether that be trekking up a dangerous mountain with falling rocks, sitting at a campfire to unwind or, well whatever they were planning to do with that toad who spewed out his spawn from his mouth. (That's probably my favourite shot from this all, by-the-by. Which actually mirrors my favourite shot from the 'Horizon: Forbidden West' trailer.) Even the climax of the trailer seems to hone in on this theme of spirituality, with the four humans of the trailer conducting some pagan-looking ritual with incense, apparently in order to cure a wounded fawn. Then they get visited by a Deer god or something, it's all very whimsical- Yet frustratingly mysterious.

To say that Rare are playing the actual meat of Everwild close to the chest is an understatement, currently it's starting to feel like they actively don't want us to know anything. (Which could be indicative of the title still being fairly early along in it's development cycle.) Even on their official website all the marketing team could muster to try and sell this game was the following; "Everwild is a brand new IP in the works at Rare, where unique and unforgettable experiences await in a natural and magical world." (Wow, and what does this tell us? That this isn't a sequel to Banjo Kazooie? Figured that one out myself, somehow.) As much as the aesthetic of the game is strong, I'm a big proponent of substance over style, so this secrecy does tick me right off. Don't get me wrong, I understand wanting to be discrete for one's first trailer, but if you can't even muster a blurb at the bottom of your second trailer, maybe you've started the marketing ball rolling a little prematurely.

But this gap in actual coverage does leave space for one of my favourite things; rampant speculation, so that's where I'm headed next. But I should probably start by saying that I'm already fairly certain off the bat that this game isn't going in the direction I most want it too. Because as beautiful as all this fantastic creatures are, my first thought is of all the exciting a cool fights they could put up as I attempt to bring them down in a Monster Hunter style-showdown. That's not this game, I'm almost certain. (Besides, MHW exists to scratch that itch right now.) But then the big question is what exactly all this is leading up to? My gut guess would be that we're looking at some sort of action adventure title that revolves it's story around the preservation of some spiritual threat that's going to look something akin to the swirling darkness from 'Breath of the Wild', only that it's not going to have something as tangible and understandable as Ganon behind it all. I know that, given none of the coverage has even hinted at the slightest sign of trouble, this seems a little like a wild guess in the dark, yet it's also the safest choice. I would personally hope for something a little more original, but I feel like if the team had something like that they'd show it off. (Or at least hint at it!)

I mean, what's the alternative? That this turns out to be some super-pretty survival game that's all about utilising the power of nature to prosper? That just sounds like an even less fun version of 'Ark: Survival Evolved'. (Apologies to those who actually like Ark, I could never get into it.) Maybe there's something to be said for that theory though, as we do get a look in at four humans in this trailer which is typically the go-to for game trailers when they want to convey co-op play. Modern survival titles are almost always cooperative in order to provide some 'depth' to an inherently paper thin premise, and modern Rare do have a prior of releasing a puddle deep game that looks beautiful but was lacking in tangible promise for a least a year. (Looking at you, 'Sea of Thieves') Look at me, the second I raise the possibility of this being a survival game I immediately start looking down on that concept, but I suppose there could be some surprising twists in there that could reinvigorate the over-saturated genre, but I don't know because these developers are adamant in keeping us all in the dark!

And that's my biggest problem with Everwild that I keep circling back around to; what is it that we're supposed to be excited about? Even 'Death Stranding' was proceeded by Kojima letting us know that this game would be unfamiliar to everything else we've experienced, Rare are treating this game like the red-headed step child. I'm not asking for gameplay- well I am, but I'll settle for a genre drop, hell even a perspective drop, so I know that I'm supposed to look forward to. Right now, Everwild could just end up being an animated movie and I'd be fine with it, but something tells me that Rare haven't suddenly started to get into the movie market, especially not in 2020. In closing, Rare, your game looks creative and beautiful but you're being protective; it's time to be real parents and allow your baby to fly the coop.