SEPHIROTH

 Joins the fight

So I'm pretty sure that I've literally never disclosed this to anyone before, but I'm actually quite a big fan of Smash Bros as a fighting game, even if I absolutely suck at it. (Put me against another human being and I might as well be playing blindfolded) As such I do have a mild interest whenever I see that there's a new character reveal coming to Smash Bros because I'll never miss out on seeing the next addition to 'the biggest crossover in gaming'. And maybe I say that simply because I cherish the days when that title can still be held by something as well intentioned and cool as 'Smash Bros' before Fortnite manages to close the gap surely and steadily. (They just bought DC into their world which already had Marvel in it! Their ascension to tyrannical supremacy is inevitable at this point) And what's more, I'm ever interested in the characters that are turned down from such a role because I find that just as curious.

So this month heralded us a reveal that Sephiroth, the one-winged Angel, is our new addition to the cast, and quite honestly, I had to do a double take as I realised he wasn't already there. Yeah, it just sort of makes so much sense for his ludicrously long sword to be in the Smash arsenal that I wasn't remotely blown away about the brilliance off it all. Which isn't to say I disproved of the addition, far be it. Sephiroth belongs in Smash Bros right next to his other-half Cloud, and I look forward to all the cool ways the two of them can showdown in mock recreations of Final Fantasy 7's key moments. Also, I adore the setting of Midgar, so getting to explore a new themed location in that world is just fine by me. I wish we'd got to see a little more of his final smash (Which I assume was what was hinted by him becoming his One Winged Angel form at the end) but I like a little secret now and then so I can't get too riled up about it. Although at the end of the day I'm just not blown away because this doesn't really seem all that surprising.

When it comes to the franchises that crossover in Smash Bros, the coolest thing about them is that they go further than Nintendo licences and span the gaming world. (I mean, they're mostly Nintendo Licenses, but there's some exceptions) You've got Konami's Snake from Metal Gear who brings his gadgets and equipment to litter the stage and turn it into a death trap for the other fighters; Square's Joker from Persona 5 who brings a literal gun to the battlefield, although I guess it's a 'metaphorical gun' like in the game, huh; and even Capcom's Ryu and Ken, further prolonging fighting game's longest rivalry. Heck, even Microsoft/Mojang's Steve joined the fight just recently, in a pretty cool break from the traditional Smash bros visual style that I think most responded well to. I love it when non-Nintendo properties join in the fun, but Smash Bros already had a Final Fantasy character, and whatsmore he was also from the exact same Final Fantasy game. (You guys know there's like 15 of them now, right?)

Although I suppose it shouldn't exactly be a shock to see Sephiroth here given that the most substantial move from the Final Fantasy series this year (Aside from the announcement of 16) was the release of part 1 of 'Final Fantasy 7 Remake'. For years now Square have been riding the success of this one game seemingly over all their others, coming back for spin-off games, a movie and now a multi-part remake that's going to span the next decade at this rate. Thus I guess this Smash Bros placement can be seen as a sort of promotion for that series, as if it really needs promoting given how the wider RPG world gravitated around FF7R as much as anyone else. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with this, per se, just that it would've been cool to see more Final Fantasy characters from the breadth of the franchise take the centre stage.

For example, what about Squall? I know he has a gunblade, but they let Joker in and as I said, that dude bought a glock, so some fantasy revolver sword shouldn't rustle feathers too much in comparison! Or you could bring in Tidus, with his famous laughing scene as a taunt, or maybe even Lighting if you're really stretching for a protagonist. Noctis could bring his godly summons to the plate which would all be very visually epic and I just had a thought that they could make the entirety of Class Zero a single character! Due to the way that every single student is affixed to a different held weapon and fighting style, there could be a sort of switching function where instead of getting strong moves the player switches to another student and thus changes up the basic moveset completely. It would be trading easy smash-ability with versatility but I think that'd be kind of fun on the competitive level. What I'm trying to say is; Sephiroth isn't exactly scraping the barrel, there could have been more done.

And this all just brings me back to the discussion surrounding Mai Shiranui and how she essentially got blacklisted from ever appearing in Smash by the creator. Mai, for those that don't know, is perhaps the most well known character from a fairly comatose fighting franchise known as Fatal Fury, and Smash Bros. has in the past served as the only means through which long dead franchises still get coverage to this day. That being said, it was rather definitively stated that Mai would never make it to the game due to her general design which I guess was considered too provocative for a Nintendo game. (Never mind the BSDM witch who dresses in leather and attacks people with her clothes made out of magic hair) It just kind of sucks that actual fighting games don't get representation on a stage where it would really be appreciated, whereas FF7 gets over-represented with another character to go alongside the new game release.

But with all that being said I will say that I do find Sephiroth to be one of the more interesting characters being added this Smash DLC cycle. He's a lot more exciting than Min min, at least, who literally hails from a game that Nintendo themselves pulled the plug on because it wasn't performing well enough. (So you killed her and then dragged her to Smash to prop her up like a trophy? You're sick, Nintendo. Just sick.) Although the typical grumbles of "Oh great, another sword wielder" are inevitable, I hold out hope that the sheer character and charm of Sephiroth's stupidly long katana will make him feel unique from the twenty Fire Emblem characters already here. I mean if nothing else it'll give him unprecedented sword reach, that can't feasibly be overlooked, can it?

So I guess the only thing to do now is speculate over who might the next character added to Smash, and do so with absolutely no regard given to the likely possibilities! So my first guess would be someone from the Resident Evil franchise, given that the game already shows up within Ultimate as Spirits but with no actual character representation. Unfortunately, most of the characters from RE use guns so I think it'd have to be a villain which pretty much makes Albert Wesker an obvious shoe in for the position. Else we could have the crewmates from Among Us if we're going to get super memey up in here, I think the kill animations lend enough material for a full move set. Or maybe even Johnny Silverhand from Cyberpunk 2077. He can spit out profanities every 5 seconds and crash the hardware whenever more than two characters are on screen. (Ops, I think I slipped into bitterness over CDPR again, better cut this short) So those are my not at all tongue-in-cheek suggestions, what are yours?

Perfectly Dark

As all things should be

I didn't know that 'the Avengers' were into game development now! At least that's the impression I get when I hear of a new studio with a name as cold and detached as 'The Initiative' dawning upon us. But this marks the very first project from a relatively new Microsoft-formed studio that promises to launch a new breed of videogame that has been described as 'AAAA', apparently. Now, honestly I'm really bummed that I'm only hearing about these guys now because looking back and seeing the ways in which Microsoft promised the absolute moon from this studio, I'm just fascinated by how handily these guys are being set up for failure. I mean just listen to this; apparently the term 'AAAA' was coined by Microsoft in order to refer to the studio working on games that surpass the scope and development means that we've seen out of the AAA market so far. Can't you just taste the 'doomed' in that mission statement? The AAA landscape is littered with overbloated and overfunded projects that choke on themselves due to any number of reasons relating to the size and expectations welling all around them. Almost every single one of their number has seriously disappointed in some regard, whether that be for poor vision, terrible execution or lack of clarity. (Or serious overpromises in the optimisation department; Cyberpunk) So how do you solve that problem? Throw more money at it, of course!

It just makes me smirk and cringe at the same time, to think back to the days of Destiny and the 500 million which went into forging a game that was only really worth half of retail price in terms of content. I mean don't get me wrong, Destiny's first person combat slapped harder than any other FPS ever made and that's a hill I'll fall down on, but somehow I don't think that 500 million was needed to intricately craft each individual microaction of the player's joystick. And yet if you hear Microsoft talk about it, they think there's a whole new tier of videogame waiting to be unlocked by the right team of the developers with a Caribbean-island's load of money and a name as ominous and non-descript as possible. (I wonder if they'll be officially published by 'The Corporation' and hand off PR to 'The Organisation'?) To that end they certainly secured the talent, most notably being huge alumni from Bungie and Crystal Dynamics. But will this be enough to make Microsoft's vision come true? Almost certainly no, but in this cynical world fuelled by hatred; at least there'll be an entertaining show.

Thus it was confusing when the very first we hear out of the mouth of 'The Initiative' was as big a turn off as one could feasible imagine hearing in their lifetime. 'Eco sci-fi'. I mean just what the heck is that supposed to mean? Are we going 'Fern Gully' up in here, is this another 'The greatest threat was man!' story? And then they went onto clarify that they're talking about a sci-fi world on the brink of ecological disaster. (Way to hit a little too close to home, guys) Also, why exactly does that need the term 'Eco Sci-fi' to be coined at all? That makes it sound like there's something new or innovative at work here, but the way they describe it the story just sort of resembles the exact same thing that Final Fantasy 7 was going for. (Which is really awkward seeing as how that game just got a remake and it was present at the very same game awards show right next to this game's announcement.) So I think it's safe to say that, just like with the zombie game, I didn't start off on the best foot with this game. (Which wasn't helped by the developers attempt at acting for the intro. I appreciate the attempt, but I also don't appreciate it and please stop.)

And so we saw a trailer of pure cinematics which I'm not going to reactively pop-off about considering the fact that the studio itself is literally two years old and this game is absolutely in such early development that it's still an embryo. In fact, even seeing this trailer probably qualifies all of us to apply for the position of 'Oracle of Delphi', because we're seeing further into the future than ever before, and I don't mean that in an excited way. (I'll be surprised if we hear anything more about this game in the next 3 years.) Myself, I found the trailer rather dry and uninteresting for a good length of it's running time, to the tune of me yawning myself silly through the drone shots roaming the futuristic city. In fact, all I really remember thinking was "is that a gun turret? Doesn't seem very 'ecologically friendly' to me. I'd go so far as to call that a betrayal of vision." In fact, I was so checked out that I didn't even notice the logo atop the building, nor the voice over man with his generic-as-heck dialogue refer to the only human we see in the trailer by her instantly recognisable name. But I did sure-as-floods-in-English-summer do a double take when I saw that title card.

Perfect Dark. My lord, how long has it been? And just like many out there I immediately thought of but one thing when I saw that; "I guess Microsoft really did nick all those licenses when they took control of Rare all those years back. That's pretty rough for them, buddy." But seriously, I have to admit that whilst I didn't exactly explode with mirth at this reveal, I did get a little excited. Perfect Dark was a truly exceptional first person shooter back in it's day that still holds up in the gameplay department. It bought the best in FPS gameplay before there was a standardised equation to the formula and so sort of played like a better version of 'Goldeneye'. (Yeah I said it. 'Perfect Dark' is better!) It was pretty challenging too, but so much fun to master; and I'm told the sequel is like the franchise's 'Invisible War', thus not worth playing. But then I learnt about the pomp surrounding 'The Initiative' and I couldn't help but find the whole thing ridiculous again.

This 'super power' studio who are going to set 'new horizons for big budget video games' started off their very first project with a remake; way to hit the ground running, guys! Okay, so maybe this isn't as much a 'remake' as it is a 'reimagining'. (If that makes anyone more interested in the project.) An interview after the matter clarified that whilst this borrows the name and basic premise of Joanna Dark's first adventure, the game will very much be a brand new thing. Does that give it enough room for the story to blossom out from it's 'Deus Ex lite' thing it had going on in the original? Who knows. (No one's mentioned anything about Aliens just yet...) At the very least it means that people who played and loved the original, à la moi, can lie to themselves that this is a sequel because honestly there was nothing about the original narrative to get too attached to anyway. Consider me tentatively interested.

Now it may seem for a minute that I'm being a bit disparaging to this studio on their very first game, and I absolutely am. But given their mission statement, the ludicrously big corporation backing them up and the fact that they're advertising their studio as a place for veterans to flock to; I don't really feel like I'm punching down. Though that being said, let me clarify that I don't mean the team or their game ill-will, I just expect failure from everyone now that CDPR betrayed me. I rolled my eyes when I heard these people talk about their passion in this studio built for 'mega blockbusters' first, but I still would definitely like to see what a Perfect Dark for the modern age looks like. Heck, a new stealth-based action game with high quality developers behind it? That's totally up my alley, so of course I'm down. I'm just worried that maybe the team might not be all there, considering the obvious monetisation-driven compromises this studio is going to be subject to alongside the fact that their marketing team seems to have messed up the web page that's supposed to explain more about the game only 3 days after going live. (Pretty amateur move for the world's first AAAA studio...)

With Metal Gear dead, Deus Ex probably soon following suit and Ghost Recon firmly in the dog house- I need a new stealth-based game to set my passions alight and so based on that selfish desire alone I'm willing to route for this 'Perfect Dark'. Does that mean I believe in the studio behind it and their apparent vision to make the 'biggest games ever'? No. And I also don't understand how this insanely big budget team landed on making a stealth title for their debut, those tend to be pretty niche. (Then again, I'm merely assuming it'll be stealthy because that makes sense given the context. The original actually had a lot more loud action to it, so this may be nothing like I expect it to be.) But even if this 'Initiative' only manages to churn out one game before Microsoft realises that it's too unsustainable and scales things down, I'm glad it's this one.

Medal of Honor: Above and Beyond

 Day by day

War games have a very special place in gaming, in that their presence is a constant that I think will never truly go away. Like Zombie games, isometric RPGs and anime games with teenager protagonists, historical based war games will have never faded from popularity and even after all these years you'll still find dedicated battle sims and arcade shooters draped in those all-too-familiar battle fatigues. However, if we were to go back to perhaps the golden age of this genre, there is one title in particular that stands out to me in a big way, because it was one of those games that I used to play with my dad once upon a time. I'm talking about the Medal of Honor series and the how they stood out through the way that they dedicated themselves to being great storydriven titles that did their best to provide historical context behind events years before Assassin's Creed made it cool. Thus I was honestly surprised and happy to see them represented at the game awards like they were.

For those that don't know, Medal of Honor was an attempt to capture some of the gravitas and respect for World War 2 which was seen around the time through films like 'Saving Private Ryan' and the series 'Band of Brothers'. Gaming had just begun to hit this period where cinematic storytelling was becoming genuinely feasible (Thank you 'Ocarina of Time' and 'Metal Gear Solid') and thus some of the heads over at Dreamwork interactive (Wow, bet you forgot they were a thing) got together with EA to publish this game at the behest of a small time movie maker called Steven Spielberg. Hang on- Steven Spielberg!? Yep, that's the kind of name behind the Medal of Honor brand and thus you can see why an up and comer like EA were eager to publish it. Great care was put into the project to ensure that there would be respect towards the source material, (because at this time video games were still considered the height of uncouth entertainment) and when the game landed it proved to be the start of a long running and beloved franchise.

Personally I came to the series alongside Allied Assault and the games around that time, thus my fond memories are of charging up Normandy Beach, infiltrating submarines and starting bar fights. When I think of the quintessential mission-based first person shooter, I default to my time with MOH, and I think it's for good reason. Even today I balk at how well the level design, enemy layout and even enemy AI turned out for a game so far in the past. (Okay, maybe the enemy AI did have the tendency to try and physically jump out of the way of bullets rather than take cover, but it felt great at the time.) The sound design too was spectacular, coining that now iconic M1 Garand ping in the subconscious of countless gamer's minds. And, of course, the orchestral score was soaring and typical 'Band of Brothers'-esque; this was the go to shooter game of it's time. And even to this day, I can tell you unironically that my favourite Medal of Honor level is also one of my favourite levels in gaming ever; Frontline's 'Yard by Yard'. (personal classic right there!)

Unfortunately the series found itself at odds once some former developers grew tired with the direction of the series and left to start their own competitor in 'Call of Duty'. History pretty much shows you exactly how that turned out, with 'Call of Duty' growing popular as their formula began to, first match the pace of the industry and then begin shaping it. Meanwhile Medal of Honor found itself wrestling against EA's own Battlefield for attention and often losing. The real final straw came when the series tried to make a jump to the modern day (long after COD had done it) with two titles, the first of which was a bit of a mistep with earnest heart behind it and the second is so legendarily bad that I can never find anyone who'll speak about it to me to say exactly what went wrong. It was a tragedy beyond recounting, apparently. And the consequence? Medal of Honor was put on ice for the rest of eternity.

So Medal of Honor is back apparently. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure how we got here either, I genuinely thought this franchise was dead and there was no money in EA reviving it. I mean EA themselves have proven how much they despise juggling similar franchises when the actively sabotaged their own company during Titanfall 2's launch by mandating launch between their own Battlefield and COD. (Which Respawn took on the chin by-the-way. Really forgiving, those Respawn fellows.) But it seems there's been something a USP agreed on for Medal of Honor, and it's VR. Uh huh, that dubious field of games that are either too hard to make or too limited in scope, it's MOH's new home now and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Actually, I guess I am and I've already stated it; I'm dubious. But when we're looking at a new Medal of Honor game I have to cut a little bit of slack.

Above and Beyond supplants the accessibility of the original franchise but does it's best to recapture that earnest charm which defined this series all those years back. Whereas maybe now we aren't getting the mission reads from the same man anymore, (which is shame, I miss him) now there appears to be interviews and more actual footage from the time as bonus content. This is, of course, on top of providing an immersive story with the level of intractability that we've come to expect from VR. Thus even though some of the situations we're seeing aren't exactly fresh, such as the rebellion of the French, the new perspective is enough to make it all feel new and original to some significant extent. In fact, EA have gone so far as to call it "The closest thing to a time machine you'll ever see" which feels slightly dismissive of the fringe sciences, but I get their sentiment. This is as immersive as you can get into the World War 2 experience.

In fact, the only thing which may bring people out of it would be the art of the game which seems oddly stylised, although I think it's understandable why this is. Old school MOH was always trying to get things as good looking as they could, (and in my memory it still looks great consequentially) but VR just doesn't really have the ability to match traditional games on that front right now. The only VR title which eeks close to console games graphics would be 'Half Life: Alyx', and even then that's only if you get £1000+ equipment to accommodate for it. Thus Medal of Honor's more stylised take, while not my cup of tea given the subject matter, is a tactic for keeping things still somewhat attainable to the average joe. Whatsmore, that development decision likely gave the team room to pursue a competitive multiplayer mode, because the game has one of those too and that's pretty cool. (MOH never really did manage to compete with COD on multiplayer, so perhaps a whole separate player pool is what they need)

As far as pleasant surprises go, I'd like to think that 'Medal of Honor Above and Beyond' is a substantial one, particularly given that it was released the very night it was announced just after the game awards. Though, of course, any one willing to play has to take into account that due to the natural inflation of VR game prices, you won't be getting a £60 experience out of the game in terms of content, but what's there and in the way it's available might be enough for your tastes anyway. Early impressions seem heavily mixed on whether it's worth it, but I'd say that if you have a VR headset and the means, why not take a chance with one of the most storied franchises in gaming? If nothing else, you may just learn something about the war.

Crimson Desert

 It should be illegal to look this good.

What is it with Korean games and the Desert? Or more specifically, with Pearl Abyss, because they've just announced another gorgeous looking game with the same naming structure as Black Desert without seeming to share a core visual thematic link- it confuddles me. Whatsmore, this is the second AAA looking Korean online game from this publisher that I've seen in the past two months, is there something in the water over at Kakao games? Because I'm being completely honest when I say that only Ubisoft have such a consistent track record with creating such beautiful gameworlds, and Ubisoft have the advantage (or Handicap, depending on how you look at it) of relying on real life material as a reference. Look at this texture work, the lighting engines, the particles; why do all these games look so good? And when is the actual game behind the visuals going to finally live up to the front cover? Hey, maybe this Crimson Desert will be the first. (And 'No', I'm not willing to put my money behind it.)

Quiet honestly, I wrote Crimson Desert off from the moment that I heard it was an online game before the trailer actually began. (Maybe not nearly as hard as I wrote of 'Back 4 Blood', but I was still in the disinterested state of mind.) Thus this trailer from the Game Awards was literally working at negative rapport from me when it first started up and every piece of ground they won from there was a victory. And it's at this point that I guess you'll learn a sad truth about me; I'm a shallow human being. When I see something objectively beautiful I can't help but let it worm under my armour just a little bit. It worked with Cyberpunk 2077, it'll work with Resident Evil 4 Remake when we see the first footage for that (Despite it being a patently bad idea) and it worked from even the sweeping vistas we saw of Crimson Desert. Because my god, these developers have just nailed the look of the wide open, haven't they?

I mean, if I'm splitting hairs I might say that they seem to always err towards total fidelity over creating a visual style which usually fairs a little better to the test of time. As such, were I to compare this early footage with the sort of thing we see out of the early footage for 'Black Myth: Wukong', my preference would land in the camp of mystically stunning Chinese game. There's something to be said about a conceptual style over the vaguely medieval vibe that this developer tends to land on. But even with that criticism that I had to literally pull teeth to get out, a stunning vista is still a stunning vista! The first part of this footage played like a travel log-style collection of panoramic shots and lingering, ponderous pans. I almost expected it to fade into a advert from the tourist board of New Zealand every time I watch it. And the cherry on top of the cake; the characters don't look ridiculously Anime this time around! I know, I can't believe it either! These designs that I'm seeing genuinely blend into the art style of the world and it works so well it honestly bothers me that it took the designers so long to realise how much better this feels. (Not that I have anything against anime, obviously. I'm just a sucker for thematic consistency)

But pretty visuals does not a great game make, just look at Cyberpunk. (Okay, I'll stop mentioning it. I swear!) And if Crimson Desert believes they can successfully woo the socks off of me they're going to have to do a bit better than- huh, they show action too? (Dammit, I must resist the shiny looking game...) So by the good grace of the marketing gods, it seems that we were granted a series of unlinked shots that honestly sold perhaps the most epic-looking early-dev teaser that we've seen since 'Black Myth: Wukong'. And whilst I still think that 'Myth' does it better, Crimson Desert don't look too shabby neither. Watching gusting winds batter the landscape in the middle of stormy combat feels incredible, the scale of the brief exploration glimpses similarly looked impressive, the mystical realm we see construct itself in what looks like gameplay real-time makes my stomach all aflutter, and that crowning shot of the player seemingly riding a dragon whilst fire is rained on them from the ground... is honestly a little much, if I'm being honest, I didn't really care for it. But it was enough to make me accept that Crimson Desert is selling itself as a spectacle and there's a least enough scope within the team to shoot that direction. (How the actual execution ends up, on the otherhand, is anyone's guess.)

But all this is pretty much the general consensus anyway, the game looks too good to be true and we're all learning to find that highly suspicious after Cy- I mean, recent events. Where I actually differ from most people's opinion is that I think the combat looks rough as heck right now. I mean sure, it's flashy and the animations look great, and if I didn't realise these were the Black Desert devs that would be as far as I looked, but having actually played their previous game I know the sorts of traps the guys can fall into and I'm seeing the same sort of thing here. Now firstly, of course we're all judging a trailer and it's impossible to know what the combat feels like at this stage, but there's still some things we can critique. Namely, I'm talking about the presentation. Ignoring the iffy framerate, this is a reveal trailer I expect them to get a little too ambitious, the combat looks nigh on indecipherable. The camera is zoomed in to that extent that looks great for the trailers but usually ends up being infuriating for actual play, (Unless the AI in this title is strict on the idea of waiting their turn to wail on you) the animations look pretty but lack the sort of fluidity that generally makes for more adaptive systems (that one is a stretch, I admit, but I'm basing it on my experience with Black Desert, who's combat looks very similar) and finally the particle effects need to be toned down. I get it, you know, they look pretty; but dang! There ain't enough LEDs in the screen for all that luminosity; have mercy on my poor iris', Pearl Abyss!

Having said that, most of my criticisms are skin deep, because this team seriously knows how to make everything they do glimmer with that sort of beauty that makes you want to love it. That one low shot of the horse walking across the desert towards a rising sun is heart stopping. I almost want that as a desktop background. (But I'm currently happy with my picture of the ESO concept art for Vvardenfell) The long shadows on the rocks, the gentle dust kicked up by the horse's trot, everything looks stunning. And I know I'm labouring on that point but it's true, darn it. The only thing which ruins the image is the pop-in that's rather obvious in that particular shot because the scene is so still, but it's prevalent throughout. Although again, I'm splitting hairs about minor technical issues of a reveal trailer, I'm just trying to find a reason not to get hyped about something because I know where that roads leads. But as far as taking that first step to winning me over, pleasing my eyes, Pearl Abyss know how to pull it off.

Where things get a bit more serious is with the game behind the exquisite mask, and here it helps to be a little familiar with this company's previous work on Black Desert Online. There's a game that promises the world but is, at the end of the day, an MMO and that means one thing: somewhere along the line a revenue stream needs to be secured. A lot of nuance goes into nailing that and ensuring you get what you want whilst keeping players happy, and Black Desert Online edged to the wrong side of that fence a long time ago. What I'm trying to say is that the monetisation is bad. Really bad. To the point where most are prohibited from having a good gameplay experience, and I wouldn't be surprised if Crimson Desert follows a similar pattern, depending on what it ends up being. I specify that last part because literally no one can agree on what this game even is and it's infuriating to me. It certainly sounds like another MMO, but the trailer looks like anything but and that throws people off. Then there's the fact that the official website lists it as an 'Open world action adventure', a tag which doesn't, in itself, exclude the possibility that it's also an MMO. (And Black Desert is labelled on the same site clearly as an MMORPG) I just don't know what to expect, and when you cut away the mouthwatering visuals and mesmerising scale; isn't that sort of a huge problem with the marketing? The last time I felt this fundamentally in the dark after a reveal was Avengers, and I don't need to remind you all how that ended up.

But I'm tired of being the doom caller, even if in all honestly it feels like I haven't done that enough of late... If this turns out to be a tight singleplayer or limited multiplayer style action adventure roleplaying game then perhaps this could tap into the same sort of energy that recent Final Fantasy games are going for, or maybe even Dragon's Dogma. (Without the story strengths of the former, of course, because BDO was amazingly weak on that front) Plus, the fact that this game is being marketed at the Game Awards reveals how the team are looking for an international audience rather than considering us all after the fact, which might mean they'd adhere to international expectations. (I.E. not making this a monetised hell hole of a game.) At the end of the day, I'm a completely bewitched buffoon over this game, yet cautiously dubious all the same. I'll keep an eye out for this game in the future if nothing else, and that's only partially because I literally head of heels in superficial love with the screen.

Back 4 Blood

It's go a name like a B-grade action movie starring Steven Segal

Christmas has finally arrived for me. No, not because of Cyberpunk, but because of Game Awards season, which essentially allows me to piggyback off of the industry for content. (Yay) The night itself was pretty boring and anticlimactic for me, with the obvious suspect collecting all of the rewards that they were looking for, but there were still a steady selection of trailers that tickled my interest in various ways. Now I didn't feel that everything I saw there was worthy of conversation, and that might be because we saw neither Silent Hills nor Elden Ring despite several assertions from 'in-the-know' sources. (Never trust anyone ever) But I thought it wouldn't be right if I just ignored the game awards entirely on this blog about gaming so I'll say this much; congrats to Last of Us, Hades should have won more and Christopher Nolan should spend more time talking about games and less time twisting producer's arms in order to get his movies into theatres in the middle of a pandemic. (I'm never going to let that go.) So let me start off this award day coverage by talking about Back 4 Blood.

Behold probably the biggest 180 I've ever done regarding my opinion of a game, because I went from completely disinterested to signing up for the Alpha in the space of a couple minutes. To my credit I will say thus; their trailer sucked. I mean the cinematic trailer specifically; and it was the most terrible cinematic that I've seen in a good long time. (Actually only topped by a few other trailers during this very event.) First it started off with zombies, never a good sign when you're looking for imaginative premises, then it showcased a group of survivors so forgettable I literally cannot remember a single one of their faces; and it was all garnished with comically generic dialogue and witty banter which bordered on parody in it's flat lifeless content. I mean this looked bad. That was, until, I saw the title and noticed it was 'Back 4 Blood', with a stylised '4' instead of 'for'. "Huh", I thought, "that's similar to Left 4 Dead." (The cogs began to turn.)

Apparently this particular game had been floating about for a while without me hearing about it, and it is quite literally the spiritual successor to Left 4 Dead that Valve would never allow the original devs to make, so they left and made it anyway. I still think it's kinda crappy of Valve not to hand over the IP, provided the story really is as cut and dry as they say, but I cannot understate to you how excited that connection to L4D made me, because I am all about Left 4 Dead. Back in the day, that game was the co-op title of the day, a game that was so unendingly entertaining that it spawned a whole community dedicated to creating custom maps for it years down the line. I mark L4D as one of the few games that's just as fun to watch as it is to play, thus even hearing suggestion of a continuation was enough to soundly turn this here frown upside down.

It only made a cherry on the cake for the developers to then come out and treat us with an actual gameplay trailer that was luckily devoid of all the 'great dialogue' that the team decided to write. And I have to say, it looks just like my memory of the old games do when I close my eyes. The animations look smooth, the graphics have stepped up and this just feels like a natural successor to the Left 4 Dead franchise. Back 4 Blood doesn't try to push the envelope in terms of fidelity and it doesn't need to; merely capturing a glimmer of that excitement wrapped in ingenuity is what everyone really wants to see. The years have shown us countless pretenders to the throne of Left 4 Dead, and a few have even been decent, but I remain adamant that there's a special little touch of jank that really sets this sort of game apart. I hope that Back 4 Blood might touch upon that.

The basic story of the zombie infection has been slightly updated in the most perfunctory way too, by blaming this infection on some breed of alien worms, but aside from that everything seems to be like your typical apocalypse. The various types of zombies has changed somewhat, however nothing seems to be incredibly distinct from their Valve counterparts. You have the Four-armed zombies that seem to hop around the place and lay traps for players, large zombies that take a lot of damage to take down and quite a lot of bile spitters. Where the creativity takes a step up is with the scale of these beasts that can be several feet higher than any normal human. The gameplay even showed one juggernaut interacting with the environment and chucking things out of the way, creating a very dynamic looking gameplay moment which I hope will be indicative of the design philosophy for the rest of the game.

All the gunplay looks to be serviceable too, with the cartoonish vibe to the gore really offsetting the many limbs that are being shot off. It really reminds me of the arcade-like feel to L4D's action which made it so accessible to jump into. Although, I do wonder for what the public might think of this game now we're no longer in a world without competition for this style of game. I've mentioned that there's been many pretenders, but some similar style games have actually made the idea their own and innovated in truly spectacular ways, such as Vermintide. There is a game that worked in decent melee combat into the formula as well as loot systems and progression, all in a way which felt like an evolution upon the formula whilst Back 4 Blood might be seen as a little 'same old, same old' to some people. But each to their own, I say.

Honestly, at the end of the day the things that I'm most excited for regarding this project is the stuff that they didn't talk about; namely, how accessible it'll be for the community. L4D 2 proved to be a playground for people to mess around in, and it resulted in a game that ballooned it's lifecycle to a legendary length. (Albeit, much of that prestige is lost today due to plain zombie fatigue.) Nowadays we're really missing that sort of community interaction with our games, and I'd love for Back 4 Blood to be the catalyst for those sorts of games to return. Mods, model swaps, custom maps, these are the tools of a virtual playground I long to mess around in. Anything which stirs the creativity of it's players is always worth a look, even if it's not the sort of game you'd typically play. (Take that from someone who literally has no one to play a co-op focused game with)

But of course, I tend to be someone who's easy to inflame but harder to satiate, and it's quite possible that Turtle Rock Studios have no interest in nurturing a community of custom content in a title they'll clearly be looking to monetise. (Modern development sensibilities have diverged quite a bit from the old days) Yet even then, there's still enough interest and blind fun in a fun little zombie massacre game for me to sign up to the Alpha, so I guess that alone proves I'm willing to give this team at least a modicum of my faith. We may exist in a gaming world saturated to the gills with undead romps to the point where zombies have lost any and all remote intimidation they once held, but despite it all we keep going back for one more run like the mindless instinct-driven automatons we take pleasure in annihilating. There's a lesson there somewhere.

 

Mankind Divided and the Deus Exit.

Come back to us, Eidos, I promise we won't be mad.

So now that Cyberpunk is out it's got me thinking about the other Cyberpunk-type games that walked so that this one could run. Or rather, I've found myself postulating on the one series that deep sixed itself conveniently just so that Cyberpunk could swoop an enjoy an entirely clean playing field; that series being the Deus Ex franchise. Deus Ex is often considered to be one of the best PC games ever made, and the legacy it spawned can often be just as lauded in their own unique little ways. (I'm even told that some could stand Invisible war long enough to finish the first level. Amazing what some folk are capable of!) In fact, until this 2020, Deus Ex was really the only game in which you could take a conspiratorial look at the dark future as well as address the ethical and philosophical quandaries around the role of transhumanism in evolution. Deus Ex was that higher tier game which was mature enough to ask the bigger questions and be of consequence in it's narrative. Until Mankind Divided, that is.

Something about that game just seemed to drive everything of course in a manner that no one could of foreseen. What was designed to be the springboard for a whole Deus Ex Universe backfired wildly and ended up banishing the entire franchise to a limbo realm in which it still resides to this day. Now we've got former Deus Ex devs putting together trash like Square's Avengers, and there comes a moment to lean back and ask "Where in the heck did it all go wrong?" I remember back when Human Revolution launched and it was hailed as the true successor to Deus Ex original, and I remember how I fell in love with it's bleak view of the future from day one. There was just something so tangible and believable about what we saw, something that was lacking from the unfounded optimism of Star Trek and the unabashed whimsy of Star Wars or Mass Effect. This was a harsh futuristic reality that echoed so much of the world around us, and yet was still fun enough to be a game worth devoting free time to. So why couldn't Mankind Divided capture that same spirit?

I think that in order to quite isolate the things that Mankind Divided did wrong, we need to highlight where Human Revolution got things right, so let's start there. Firstly, Human Revolution, despite being a prequel to the original Deus Ex, set itself far enough apart from the original for it's story to be entirely unique and yet still of consequence. This allowed for newcomers to the franchise, like me, to play without feeling that we were missing out on huge chunks of the larger narrative. Indeed, the story was pretty much entirely self contained too! The story also followed this huge globetrotting adventure as Adam Jensen followed the trail of a conspiracy across to the other side of the world and back again. I cannot understate how diverse the locations are that you travel to in Human Revolution are, it really invokes the sense of an epic and wild adventure through this corporate-ruled world. The characters were all well written, with arks that neatly fit within the story; quirky features such as the interrogation mode were used sparingly enough to be special but often enough to be justified; progression was balanced out perfectly across the game; level design allowed for unique playstyles; the artistic direction was almost always arresting; the presentation of narrative-central information felt dynamic and interesting; side quests felt fleshed out- Basically there's a list the size of my arm for all the reasons why Human Revolution is one of the best games of it's decade. But how much of that did Mankind Divided replicate?

Honestly, quite a fair bit by my reckoning. And that's what makes everything so darn infuriating when it comes to the state of the Deus Ex franchise. The gameplay in particular saw a huge glow-up for Mankind Divided, with cybernetic abilities becoming more encouraged then ever before due to a user-friendly recharge system. The Gunplay felt a lot better, side quests felt a little touched up; and, dare I say it, the level design really stepped up it's game. But in a strange twist of events, I think the improvements to the game design was where the problems started. You see, for the Human Revolution the levels were designed to be open ended, but they really had three main routes to them in most situations; sneaking, fighting or taking some sort of shortcut that was enabled through a skill check. This way the team could work on making things feel dynamic and yet still be functional. I think the same basic philosophy was applied towards Mankind Divided, but somewhere along the line there was a shift which tipped things out of balance a bit.

The levels in Mankind Divided quite frankly dwarf Human Revolution; but that increase in size and options means more development time put in each level to the point where, honestly, some locations became ungainly and overwhelming. I know, it's a strange thing to admonish in a Stealth RPG immersive sim, but it's genuinely where I landed on the matter. Rather than handle new locations like I would in Human Revolution, by observing the whole picture and then picking my path through it, I would end up just going with whatever worked and taking any route which opened up to me. Now this is both a positive, because it means that new playthroughs still surprise me, and a negative, because it made me feels constantly out of control of my surroundings. Now you may look upon all that and think I'm ranting like a mad person and how you don't agree with me at all; but even if that's the case listen up, because the issue I just described, though mostly subjective, is just the tip of the iceberg.

You see, I think that because of the added effort which went into designing each individual area it led to a severe lack of making new areas, because there just wasn't the time for that. Point in case, the Hubs. These are locations wherein the player is meant to travel to between missions and mosey around, sometimes outside of the breadth of the main narrative. You can get know the world around you, take on side quests, explore this snippet of society and start to immerse yourself in the calmer moments of the narrative. It' just, Mankind Divided only has one Hub, whilst Human Revolution had two. This may seem insignificant, as Prague is a beautifully detailed and realised environment which easily surpasses the last games' in scale and realised potential; (A lot of great key moments happen there) but oddly enough the problems come back down to the storytelling. Remember how I congratulated Human Revolution for being globe trotting? Mankind Divided does the opposite to that by setting all the locations in roughly the same part of the world and brining us back to the same city inbetween each mission, robbing a lot of the romance of adventure from the story. This is especially off putting for a Deus Ex game, because it's a franchise that bases itself on global conspiracies and worldwide corruptions, and yet you never get to actually travel worldwide; once again imparting the feeling of a insignificant snail in a bigger world. In any other Cyberpunk game I would say that this is exactly what you want, a world that's bigger than the scope of the story, but Deus Ex is a special case wherein the story is about coming to terms with that wider world and analysing it; something which Mankind Divided only ever scratches at in it's final moments.

Which brings us to our final, and most damning, point against Mankind Divided; The storyline. Human Revolution's storyline throws it's players into a world on the peripheral of a huge leap forward in technology and the way it'll influence our lives, rewriting the very way we look at human capabilities, and alongside that trails the warring opinions about how such a monumental evolution should be treated. What starts as a very personal tale to uncover the truth behind a terrorist attack that cost your protagonist dearly balloons into an epic and far-reaching mission to, eventually, save the very world itself. It's in this way that Deus Ex differentiates itself from similar games in its genre and becomes something more akin to a Science Fantasy in narrative, but that just lends to the unique feeling of what a Deus Ex game is. Mankind Divided, on the otherhand, immediately undermines the events and multiple endings of Human Revolution and, in the effort of serving as the beginning of a series of games, trucks along at a snails pace wherein the entire breadth of the game is spent trying to solve the initial presented problem. The narrative never significantly evolves, 'the world' never enters the stakes in a significant manner and the endings are left murky, with the true implications of each choice promising to be subtle changes to the world state going forward. Now again, that's not inherently bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not Deus Ex. It's not what the series was built on. As a result, by the end of Mankind Divided you feel like you've just finished the first act of a story when the credits start rolling and probably aren't looking forward to waiting another 3 years for the next entry. (That's '3 years' if the franchise hadn't frozen. Now we're sitting at 5.)

You wanna know the funny thing? Mankind Divided isn't even that much shorter than Human Revolution in terms of content. Myself I only noticed a 4-5 hour difference. (Although I was playing HR as a veteran and MD for the first time ever) It just goes to show how a misjudgement in narrative can really shake up how full a game feels, making one experience feel like a shallow pit compared to the other. And when it's all said and done, I don't even really know who to blame for all this. Is it Eidos Montreal for leaning too hard into making a universe over just the one story? Square Enix for mandating that change with monetary intentions? Both for biting off more than they could chew? Whatever the case, the result is that Mankind Divided wasn't as well received as previous entries and now everything hangs in the balance whilst Eidos is dragged through the dog house and us fans lose hope. But let me be the first to say it, even with Cyberpunk here, I haven't lost hope in you, Deus Ex, and there'll always be room at the table for another Cyber-fuelled dark-future epic, as far as I'm concerned at least.

Revengence

In thirty days or your money back!

If there's one topic that does tend to grace this blog quite a bit, albeit rarely in the 'centre stage' manner, it's that of the 'auteur' and their special brand of work which only they quiet get. It's this illusion of a story or ongoing narrative which seems so woven and strange that one cannot just supplant the original mastermind behind it all or everything will simply fall apart, and it's something that I find myself conflicted on. In some ways the person who created the story originally bought out a bit of their own heart and soul to bring that thing into life, which one could argue is irreplaceable, although that's never stopped anyone else from putting in their two cents before. And to be honest, usually the best stories are the ones formed of a melting pot of different perspectives and life experiences. However, we usually to see auteurs as some sort of holy exception to this rule and thus have a tendency to automatically diminish any work within the role which isn't directly connected to them. Take Hidetaka Miyazaki of the Souls series, for example; his work is cherished for birthing a whole new genre and handling videogame storytelling in a unique manner to practically every other style of game on the market. Yet Dark Souls 2, the only one not be directed by him so far, has suffered considerable backlash for its very existence and the gall it has to try and add upon his story. (As well as a series of legitimate criticisms such as that mess of a hitbox.)

First I'm going to throw a predictable spanner in these works; I don't believe in a story that can't be adequately attributed to by other people. Sometimes what you really need is a whole new look at things to uncover a quality about the narrative that you never saw coming, or in terms of gaming, a whole new approach to make you realise that your favourite series was more versatile than you imagined. And in the vein of proving that, I want to take you all back to one of my favourite surprise games that pulled off just that in one of the favourite series' ever. Yes, once upon a time there was a Metal Gear game that Kojima himself did not get to direct, and I'm not talking about Metal Gear Survive because... yeah, that game sucked... No, instead I'm talking about a little title out of the lunatics over in Platinum Games which bore a curious deviation to the series stable naming structure alongside a long redundant word as its suffix. I'm talking about: Metal Gear Rising: Revengence.

Now to understand the sort of expectation around this 2013 game, you must first understand that Revengence was the first Metal Gear game to follow the modern day setting for 5 years. (With the Naked Snake following: 'Peace Walker' coming out inbetween.) This means we had here a game that was set to follow the apparent 'last game in the franchise', Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, promising to continue a solid-shut storyline regarding the commercialisation of warfare and the manner in which human suffering has turned into a profit-driven industry. Also, the 'Rising' tag was meant to symbolise that this time players wouldn't be controlling series-beloved protagonist Snake (indeed, they probably couldn't, given the year in which this was set) but instead Raiden. Butt of the joke, Raiden. The man who, famously, was introduced to the series in a bait-n-switch which upset just about everyone. (At least among the Western fanbase. Can't speak for the East) This was the man destined to be our protagonist in this monumental series continuation? Please...

But those many who wrote this off on the anime-face of the protagonist alone were casting great underestimation on Platinum games and the potential they contained, because they knew exactly what to do in order to correct this age old wrong. Raiden was critiqued for lacking the presence and richness of Snake, looking like a K-pop Star, constantly having inane dialogue with his annoying girlfriend Rose, and just not being a very decent replacement for Snake. Immediately Platinum identified these issues. Rose is annoying? She's gone. (Okay, to be fair I think that was done in MGS4 but Platinum knew she wasn't worth more than a half-hearted mention) He isn't cool? drastically shift his tone dynamically right at the beginning of the story. He looks like a prissy boyband member? Turn him into one of the most badass Cyborg ninjas to grace the video game space since Grey Fox himself. (Heavy cybernetics always make everything better. Ain't that right, Cyberpunk 2077?)

Right from the getgo Platinum games proved they could do something that Kojima couldn't; they took a character that had failed to land with audiences and transmuted him into someone objectively more interesting. The first mission had happy-go-lucky mercenary Raiden (Whom MGS4 had already established as a Ninja assassin by this point) come up against a band of international cyber-terrorists not unlike the crew from 'Deus Ex: Human Revolutions'. (Do I detect a hint of inspiration?) In this fighting he is beaten down and defeated in a manner most befitting any half-decent anime protagonist; yes, he loses his arm. (And gets cut-up pretty bad, but the most anime thing is the arm loss) This marks a change in Raiden's character to a lot more of a gruff, pessimistic, leading man who still retained the cockiness that differentiates him from his more sneaky counter-part. And all of that is just the character work, bare in mind how Platinum evolved the gameplay too.

Metal Gear is a name synonymous with stealth, due to the way in which the franchise resulted in great strides for the medium, but Platinum were a studio who specialised in beat-em-up action, so how could they reliably pull off a Metal Gear game without looking like pale imitators? By completely changing up the formula and largely discarding the stealth (except for in small gimmicky and forgettable optional moments) in favour of bringing a hack-and-slash edge to the game which Platinum committed to entirely. With Raiden at the helm, Platinum created a new trademark to sell their game under in their 'cut anything' system, wherein players could manually control their sword through use of the analog and cut away in any which way they so please. This combined with an engine that could procedurally generate the results of these cuts in such a way that enemies could be literally sliced into chunks, and often were, throughout of the course of the action.

So a traditionally slow-paced stealth action series exploded into gory and loud action which completely committed to spectacle in all the most admirable ways. Heck, the first mission's final boss is the Metal Gear final boss from MGS 2, Metal Gear Ray. As if to directly reference the difference in scale this game's action wanted to present, the player is tasked with fighting one-on-one with Metal Gear Ray in a fight that will take from a rooftop across an entire street and up the side of a clock tower before you literally slice the machine in half with your sword. That is Metal Gear Rising, and it only grows in scale and/or spectacle from there. This game implemented a strong and effortless sword combat system, awesomesome-ly over-the-top bossfights, great and challenging enemy variety and, let is not be forgotten, a robot pet dog. Love the robot dog.

Metal Gear Rising Revengence is a absolute gem from Platinum games that doesn't get talked about enough, and honestly it's a shame that we haven't seen a sequel since because this title alone proved how big and wide-reaching the Metal Gear franchise could be. Even with everything traditionally 'Metal Gear' stripped from the title, (including the series' famed director) the series is still unmistakable in this game's very soul and nothing feels hackneyed. Since then I've, of course, come to realise what a truly special studio Platinum games is, and what a great result one can see when a fresh team of developers get their hands on something ostensibly immutable. Am I saying that we need a turn-based JRPG version of Dark Souls? No, (But then 'Like a Dragon' does seems to be getting well received…) just that it helps to keep an open mind for what could turn into a great, and unexpected surprise. Also, play MGR Revengence. It'll impress you by some degree, I promise.

Nintendo and the art of the popularity contest

 What do you mean 'people don't like morally reprehensible conduct'?

Yes, I know that I've been harsh on these fellows in the past but make no mistake, dear reader, they deserve it, and it comes from a place of love. I respect Nintendo, I truly do; the legacy that they're strived for and built over a manner of decades has very much facilitated the gaming world around them, and they've remained a constant in most every gamers heart because of that pre-eminence. That being said, such makes us hold them to a higher standard, because if we can't expect greatness out of our rolemodels than who can we believe in? But in doing so we open ourselves up to disappointment because it seems the further we move into a new age of gaming entering the mainstream and rewriting what it means to be part of an entertainment-based community, Nintendo have been digging in their feet and stubbornly refusing to meet with the time. Over the years this has started to build to the sort of friction that's becoming a serious problem, and sooner or later something is going to give; the only question is whether or not that'll be the backs of the old guard or the general public respect for this once-cherished industry pillar.

Recently I covered an issue regarding Nintendo and the way that they've chose to enforce their brand on the general community, which may be well within their legal right, but that doesn't always make for the best of decisions. Now to be clear; legally the defence of one's own brand is their responsibility and should they fail to do the consequences could be disastrous. Never would I, or anyone of sound mind, expect a studio like Nintendo, or indeed anyone who wants to be taken seriously in this world, to allow their brand to be taken away from them. So yes, this means putting their foot down whenever they see someone looking to profit from their copyright, even in situations where no malicious intent was implied. But is there some sort of balance to strike there? A situation where the other cheek can be turned in situations or contexts of extenuating circumstances? Nintendo, as a whole, seems to have leaned towards the blunt-most answer, but this year alone I'm not sure that the general public has agreed.

That being said, I don't think that any and all corporate action against infringement is bad, no at all. Take the Streamer who was apparently sued by Nintendo this year for trying to sell merch with her official brand labelled to it. Given her name (Which riffed on 'Pokemon') and the design itself, (Which were two shirts, one with a Pokeball on it and the other featuring Mew) this seems like a pretty straight-forward situation of infringement that Nintendo were fair enough to step in on. The Streamer in question seemed to understand that she was in the wrong and changed her brand to step away from the Pokemon name, and Nintendo acted fairly with their cease and desist. Again, this a baseline for what I would call an acceptable application of Nintendo's legal powers. They didn't cause too much of a splash, acted in a manner that was in complete defence of their brand, and didn't fail to account for extenuating circumstances that really should be considered before action is even approached.

And then there's the issue with Smash Bros. Now I know I've gone over this recently but allow me to quickly summarise. The recent Pandemic which has shut down travel both internationally and locally to most places across the world, seriously took a toll on organised events and caused a great many to be shut down pre-emptively for everyone's safety. But there are still those who actively looked for a way around such restrictions because their passion for sharing what they loved outweighed the complications they had to abide by. In such a vein, one old-school Smash competition decided to move to an emulation software to run their game and keep their tournament alive online, seeing as how official Nintendo severs have long since closed and this would be the only feasible way to hold a not-in-person contest like this. And yet, as you likely remember, Nintendo shut that right down with a cease-and-desist right out of the pits of hell for the absolute gall of not using official Nintendo resources instead which did not, and do not, currently exist. (Outstanding move, guys)

Since then there has been considerable backlash levied right at Nintendo's head, and may I say rightly so! This was such a dumb decision on every level that it cannot be justified through any means except for the coldest and most technical imaginable; but that doesn't make it good for the community or, indeed, the company! Ignoring the pandemic which is perhaps one of the largest context-shifters of our lifetimes, try to think of the potential positive exposure to the oldschool Nintendo scene that the numbskulls in the legal department just signal boosted and poisoned in one-swift move. That's a lot of unnecessary heat they bought on themselves out of nowhere and for no reason. Then there was the fact that no one was really stealing from Nintendo in this situation, the games themselves were legitimately purchased and the software wasn't replacing anything that Nintendo themselves were providing. No one was directly profiting from it. At the end of the day, I believe it was an overreach of power, and it seems the general consensus leans my way too.

But what if I told you that the Big N managed to take things one level further, and double down on their folly to really set the fanbase ablaze? This actually extends past the Smash Bros. incident and even the more recent scuffle wherein a Splatoon 2 finals livestream was cancelled for reasons that most assume fall once more on Nintendo. For you see, on Esty there was an independent content creator who sold a decent number on Nintendo themed products... (You see where this is going, right?) Now on the surface this probably seems a lot more sensible then Nintendo's other actions. Much more in line with the Streamer ban than the Smash/Splatoon debacles, but as always there is context which shakes things up. You see, this creator received their cease and desist for creating and selling Switch Joycon shells which were themed after Etika.

Now if you are unfamiliar, Etika was the online persona used by one prominent Nintendo-themed creator who, last year, took his own life in a shocking incident which shook the content creation world. These Joycon shells (Remember again, that these are shells. Not even the hardware itself, which can still only be bought from Nintendo) honoured this man's legacy, who many still love and miss, whilst sending the profits to charity. Oh that's right, Nintendo went after a charity-case honouring a famous, deceased, Nintendo fan, because it was infringing on the trademark of the Joycons. (Yeah, they couldn't even get a copyright out of this one so they want straight for trademark.) I'm not going to lie, even as I squint my eyes to see the legal side of this I cannot see past the utter disgust this one evokes. I'm not usually one who gets this way, especially about Nintendo who aren't usually worth it, but there's just a special level of uncaring in this act. If there was ever a situation to turn the other cheek, this was it, and every single last it of vitriol incurred is, from this point forward, entirely self inflicted.

Oftentimes Nintendo get criticized for being too family friendly and not willing to take the sorts of risks that other studios are, and whilst that typically comes with a defence of, "there's nothing wrong with playing things safe" let this be a direct contradiction to that line of logic. Fandom and artisitc expression has changed so much in the last few decades that current copyright law has become a lethargic holdover which is indicative of a long-dying way of looking at ownership and enforcement. Most with their head in the right decade can see that and, until seemingly impossible reforms come, can act in a way that is fair and embracing to this new age of expression and artistic freedoms. But not Nintendo. Oh no. Like the Dinosaurs they are, they must cling to the old ways terrified of being made extinct, never realising that the greatest danger to their future right now is their own damnedable conduct. Enough is enough, Nintendo is in desperate need for high-level reshuffling before they shoot themselves beyond repair. (Or at the very least a semi-competent PR department) But we all know they won't do that. Nintendo are masters of playing it safe, even when they risk everything by doing so.

The 2020 Console shortage

It's all gone

We sit in a brand new age of shiny game consoles which have been promised to be more powerful than any box we've put in our living rooms before, easily outstripping anything that's predated in terms of raw power. Thus that just means that games companies have found a new excuse, this time in ray-tracing, to cap gameplay at 30 FPS when 60 should be basic industry standard at this point. But excuse that over-priced sales point for a moment, because the Xbox Series X (Can't believe the smoothbrains in marketing settled on that) and the PS5 (Can't believe the designers settled on that) can't even make it to the shelves of regular consumers this side of Christmas, thanks to a seemingly unsurmountable storage problem that has attacked everyone, no matter your petty console allegiance. Well, almost everyone. I'm far out of the range for any of this super powerful paperweights so I can pretty much wait until a year or so down the line, but for those that expected to get their box in to be the highlight of the holiday season on this, absolute dick of a year, sorry guys; you're fresh outta luck.

We see shortages with every generation, it's just the way things work around here. Manufacturers seem to go out of their way to "misread" the market for their consoles so that they can act all surprised and brag about how popular they are when their stock runs dry; meanwhile the public finds themselves left potless. Perhaps the most notable recent example was, in fact, the time of the Nintendo Switch launch where stock was running out literally seconds after being booked. I still have no idea how I managed to secure mine in the middle of all that chaos! But even then there seems to be something special about the Xbox and Sony situation that we're in now. These aren't just normal shortages and setbacks, this is a gridlock situation where there's a total wasteland of availability that's driving holiday shoppers to the absolute extremes of their patience. One can but wonder about what could have caused this, as weekly stock updates blink out of existence before people's eyes and the desperation starts to sink it's icy grip into our backs during this winter blitz. Lets speculate.

First is the most innocent example which proposes something of an extreme benefit of the doubt towards the multibillionaire companies who run this season. Perhaps these people just misinterpreted the growth of the market and didn't account for the increased amount of folk who were ready and willing to buy a new console out of the gate, thus under manufactured. Now, this is assuming that these folk who's literal jobs rely on understanding the way the market is heading have no idea about the correlation between consumer growth and demand (which would be a ridiculous thing to overlook) but we've seen companies in similar positions who forget how to tie their own freaking shoe laces so I guess this could remain a distinct possibility. But then, would this really fall into a category of 'Company is so big that they fell out of touch with the consumers'? Because this seems like basic inventory management meltdowns. I'd call this an unlikely excuse. Sure, Nintendo did just this; but they really are so out of touch to the point of genuine self-sabotage, the others are supposed to have firmer heads.

Secondly I bring together a theory that I think may hold some more weight, even if it's just blaming the go-to patsy of this god forsaken year. Coronavirus. Maybe the Coronavirus got the consoles. Wait, let me explain- We know that these machines aren't produced too long in advance to sale, probable more to secure intellectual property secrets than to wiggle in more development room; so given that, it's probably true that the workforce who would be making these consoles, wherever in the world these guys could secure inexpensive labour, is suffering from reduced turnout. (And you can't really manufacture from home) If numbers can't be provided to make the things then it would explain why production can't just be ramped up on a dime to get over this hump, it's logistically impossible right now; which sucks because Covid is also the exact reason why so many are at home right now and need something to keep them distracted. Of course, one might say in response that the vast amount of the building work is done by machines these days, but I'm sure there's a human element in there somewhere. (Packaging?)

But thirdly we have the more insidious reasoning, the one doing the rounds and making headlines this time of year; that this was all incurred by the folly of scalpers. Now in case you are unfamiliar with the term, Scalpers are essentially the caste of scumbags that Nintendo try their hardest to exclusively cater for in everything they do. It's a term used to refer to those that swoop in and buy up the stock of a sought-after product so that they can control the market and force up prices to an insane, illegal profit margin. Or rather, it would be illegal if they had an actual merchant's licence. (I believe in this position it's just heavily frowned upon.) And as of late they have been the absolute scourge of people trying to make the most of this holiday season.

More so than with any other console release I can remember, scalpers have come together to absolutely throttle the console market by hawking online retailers with bots that swoop up thousands in an instant to be resold at a frankly ludicrous mark-up. In fact, there's even a specific group behind this scum-riddled tactic who's name I won't even mention because they don't deserve the recognition. (And I can't be bothered to look them up) These guys have delighted in talking about their process and taunting on social media, whilst spinning some nonsense about how they have no regrets, and simultaneously attempting to claim that their cause is sympathetic because they have families and thus that makes it entirely fair for them to try and blackmail other families in the middle of a global pandemic. As you can imagine, I have pretty much no sympathy for people who aren't just bottom feeding maggots, but who are so delusional that they can't even accept that. Talk about pathetic.

As we currently sit now, there are supposedly actually empty storehouses which the teams over at Playstation and Xbox can do nothing about in a reasonable time frame, and in a way they themselves are partially to blame. Both companies have drastically scaled back their own physical storefronts to a point where for this generation you absolutely have to buy from a third party retailer. This means that the responsibility for the order is being placed in the hands of people that have no incentive to watch out for scalpers or bot-orders because they get paid anyway, the backlash doesn't land on them. Some retailers don't even have to deliver the product with any level of professional pride, or at least that's the excuse I assume that Amazon is using to justify the absolute spate of stolen consoles that have been the fault of their drivers. (I guess that's what you get when you encourage distaste through anti-employee practises; a disobedient workforce) The next gen is, then, certainly in a pickle.

Of course, at the end of it all these are just the problems of today and when these consoles start becoming more reasonably priced they'll likely become far more available too. Scalpers genuinely do their best when keeping their stock shifting so I'm sure that games consoles will be released from their grasp in notime, but the fact we've reached this state to begin with certainly doesn't reflect well on Sony or Microsoft. As I stand, looking about my dying 7 year old console which is my only viable means of playing Cyberpunk 2077 (Barring a surprise CPU upgrade) I find these trials and tribulations of the new generation as an inevitable rite of passage that early adopters most endure. But that doesn't make it any more embarrassing that all these generations down the line the most simple problems haven't been resolved. (and in some cases, they've become worse) Fix your stock, guys. And the framerates. Fix that too.