Like a crappy boss, Atsuku, like a crappy corporation...
You know, I remember a time when Blizzard weren't just looked at fondly within the gaming world, but were revered as gods! You could sculpt a stature in their honour and you'd have droves of pre-mainstream gamers flocking to pledge their fealty to this covenant of the Bluemoon. And this was because theirs was one of the first studios to covet the line of "We're a studio of gamers" which is now such a commonly mundane phrase that I swear it's become the industry mantra that every out-of-touch CEO hangs on their wall so that they can point to it everytime their avaricious tactics get dragged out into the light. "Yeah, we ask for the soul of your first born in order to pass the first paywall but remember the sign; we know what you guys want! We're one of you- or something..." It's wild to see a studio that was once a champion of being 'One with the people', dissolved and disseminated into little more than a warped corporate printing press for bad stories. Seriously, games Journalists everywhere could carve their careers out of such a trainwreck of public relations; but then that would require them to do journalism and we all know there's only 3 reporters willing to do that in the entire gaming industry. (God, I'm feeling spicy today! Must be something I ate.)
Perhaps the beginning of their woes can be traced back to the acquisition of Blizzard by everyone's least-favourite anti-creativity entity; Activison. EA may be bad with their practises but... actually, nah them and Activison are just as bad as each other for their own reasons; yeah, that's a battle of mediocrity that I don't want to get in the middle of right now. But as a fan, I can only imagine how heartbreaking it must have been to see the heroes of the gaming world get swallowed up by the Acti-rich, Devourer of Studios, all the while assuring everyone that it would be all right and that they wouldn't change too drastically. It would be like watching Bethesda take all of their years of hard-earned public love and systemically burn it down with bad decision after bad- ouch. (That one hit a little rough.) So did Activison change Blizzard? Yeah, they did! And for the absolute worse too.
If I stick to the high-profile incidents; then we have the notorious 'Diablo Immortal' scenario wherein the next title in the famed Diablo series was revealed at the coveted 'final announcement' slot of that year's Blizzcon; only for it to turn out to be a mobile cash grab aimed at gouging the player base for every last schmeckle the team could get their hands on. Blizzard got called out on it, they apologised and nothing was fixed. Then there was the Warcraft 3 remaster which released missing many promised features, looking half-assed and aggressively stamping down on the original Warcraft 3 community who had been some of the most passionate people in all of gaming. They were called out, Blizzard sort-of apologised, (they removed the false advertising) and nothing was changed. Then there was the freedom-of-speech issue where Blizzard got caught silencing a tournament player speaking out for the freedom of their country, all in a transparent attempt to wiggle up to their Tencent investors. Blizzard were lambasted by everyone from gamers to politicians and they did this weird thing where they half-apologised whilst emphatically lying to everyone that their agenda was to kowtow to their Chinese sugar daddies. (How does that even- You know what? Shut up, Blizzard. We're all done hearing your crap.) Oh- and nothing ultimately changed aside from some vague ban walkbacks. Are you seeing a pattern here, yet?
There's more, smaller stuff, too, but I have neither the drive nor the attention-span to recall it all so lets stick with that. It's still all damning stuff and paints a poor picture of those who were once the heroes of so many. What's worse, is that the people who really suffer from all this nonsense, not just because they have to put up with it but because they're also on the frontline for all the vitriol when it blows up in management's faces, is the employees. They don't make these dumb decisions, yet they're often the most accessible to the common man and so they hear it all for their bosses sake. It get's to the point where some employees have to take matters into their own hands in order to affirm that they are not aligned with cooperate's crappy mandates. Such was the case with the mild defacing of the gaudy Blizzard monument outside their headquarters in the wake of that last issue, there were some real voices inside the fold that were just as disgusted as we were, real good eggs that deserve to be remembered as such. So it's in the interest of them that today we talk about the latest failing of Blizzard; in signing their employees' checks.
I'm being factitious, obviously, as far as we are aware Blizzard do pay their employees the wages they are due, although, that does not mean said wages are substantial. According to a recent internal employee action that was rather contentiously leaked, several lower level folk at Blizzard have begun to look at their pay and realise the significant disparity between what they earn and, say, what the companies top brass earns. So far so normal, I hear you remark, and I am much the same. But Blizzard does take it a step further by, in some people's situations, failing to provide a liveable wage within the expensive areas that Blizzard drags their employees to. I mean, I'm hearing that what Blizzard have to offer it's employees is bad, really bad; as in, they are developing a relationship within the industry of being particularly poor payers, bad.
Now in some respects this is a reflection of the wider gaming industry, (Not that that's supposed to be a positive in this situation) in that around the board there are positions that are notably undervalued by the developers and publishers. One of the particular positions noted in this expose was the role of 'tester' and given the sorts of tales we've heard coming out of Activision I think it's fair to say that story tracks. If you remember back to the tumultuous development cycle of Black Ops 4, there was a pretty serious situation wherein play testers were underpaid, kept on short contracts and ostracised by other teams, with most only staying on board out of the slim hope of being hired on a permanent basis. Apparently that's a practise that has somewhat leaked over to Blizzard and the way that they run things, because we're starting to see history repeating itself.
Given that we're in a year of significant financial downturns across the world, but especially in America, (which houses Blizzard's base of operations) it certainly isn't a good look for a majority of your lower staff to turn around and realise that they're being underpaid for all of their hard work. Certainly not as the company in question remains one of the biggest in the industry that string together successful product launches like the Nameless King strings together my many deaths at his hand. (I'm still playing Dark Souls 3, it's becoming a problem.) From this there have even been a few stories about just how bad things have become, and it's rough to listen to. One employee spoke about how his partner had stopped talking about starting a family, knowing that they couldn't afford to raise a child. Another spoke about making less today than they were when they started working at the company, 10 years ago. And one person said they had to often choose between paying rent and keeping themselves stocked on food for the week, meaning that they had to use the company coffee as an appetite suppressant. (I typically use toothpaste for that, didn't know coffee worked too.) Now this all reads pretty awful, almost like the kind of machinations you'd hear from the ultra-corporate world of Obsidian's 'Outer Worlds', and that's meant to be a parody. (Actually, the 'appetite suppressant' thing is a plotline from that game.)
So what does this all mean? What indeed. One of the biggest companies in the industry has had their dirty laundry aired out to the public and it's to the point where now the employees are getting sick of waiting. Negative press is starting to build, heads are starting to turn, and soon people are going to start really heeding the words of those who moved to other studios and industries in order to see an instant bump to their income. Blizzard's in a hell of a do-or-die situation right now, and their management has a history of doing nothing and waiting for everything to just go away. (I don't know if that's going to work out this time.) It's heartbreaking to witness the fall of someone you used to respect, even if that's a corporate someone, but one can only hope that positive lessons come out of it. I don't want to see Blizzard gone tomorrow, but I also want them to fix up their act before this industry loses some of it's best talent. But the power to turn things around, lies only in their hands. (Now watch them totally squander it.)
Monday, 10 August 2020
Sunday, 9 August 2020
It's raining men!
Hallelujah!
There's something very special about party games, wouldn't you say? Those that serve as a vehicle for socialisation and partying rather than labouring itself down with constructing solid narrative or immersive worlds. All those games need to do is prove fun enough to make people want to hang out in their virtual spaces alongside some friends. (Although that's easier said then done.) Recent years has seen this space pretty much dominated by the Jackbox series of games, but even amongst that yearly franchise there have been some notable duds and misses for the developers; so creating the next big party game is not a refined art at all. That's why it's always interesting to see when a new one takes the place, what does it do differently, why does it appeal, and is their long-term success in this title's future? Well for today that game is Fall Guys, and I intend to look into it's utmost depths.
So what is Fall Guys? Well have you ever seen Takeshi's Castle? Because it's basically that. 60 odd people enter a tournament of competitive tasks wherein a certain number of people who are in the lower bracket of completing that task (Usually the last third, from what I can tell) are eliminated each round. This all rolls around to a tense finale where only one can storm the castle and use their little water pistols to destroy the paper target of the enemy, which I swear only ever happened like twice in the entire history of that show. Wait, we were talking about something else? Oh, that's right, Fall Guys. So Fall Guys takes that basic premise and turns it into an online game which, lo and behold, works surprisingly well. Games are simple, usually involving running obstacle courses, battling over giant foam balls or their own version of Grief Run from Mineplex. (There's one you couldn't really pull off on the TV.) So maybe it lacks the sheer surrealist absurdity that Takeshi's Castle coveted, but it's still a whole bunch of fun.
Ah, but what's the catch? A multiplayer game in today's age, there has to be some sort of slick twist upon the basic formula in order to confirm its long-term success. And indeed there is, seems that Fortnite truly has pushed the envelope beyond the closing point. For you see, Fall Guys cuts it's teeth on cosmetic transactions, a battle pass and the whole 'seasons' thing that every game is doing now in order to bring people back under the delusion that each new season will drastically change up the game. Although, to their credit, I think a formula like this could greatly benefit from a season-based angle; if they were to literally just throw in a few new games to the rotation every season whilst retiring a couple, that really could keep things fresh. But Devil's Advocate aside, this does read like the play-by-play book of the entire online world right now and I'm not sure how I feel about that. In one way I like the idea of games that grow with their audience but on the otherhand It's just another game vying for my freetime and there's only so many hours in the day. I just finished my second run of Dark Souls 3 and that alone took close to 3 days, I don't have time to sprinkle these pseudo MMO's into my schedule too.
But apparently I'm in the absolute minority in that regard, as this Fall Guys game has hit absolute paydirt with it's launch in a big way. Those with even a passing comprehension of the Twitch landscape (à la moi) will notice that this game has been showing up on the streams of many a popular influencer, as it's a title that allows for mass competitions both amidst fellow streamers and fans. (Also, a competition format in general makes for great content.) The game itself practically exploded at launch, with people hitting the servers so much that they died and the developers took to twitter to complain about an apparent 'review bombing' in response. (Questionable tweet, but I understand how frustration can make one a little tunnel-visioned.) The title has shot to one of the most watched on Twitch right now, with just shy of 200,000 viewers watching right now at the time of writing. And as for the publisher of the indie world, Devolver Digital, who backed this project, apparently this is their most successful launch of all time. (Good for them. Maybe they'll now have the capital to make next year's E3 the weirdest yet! Assuming we still have E3 then...)
In the current climate, both in gaming and the international space, I couldn't think of a more apt game to enter the annals of widespread popularity. We're in an age of depressing content suiting depressing times, everywhere we look there's just more reminders that everything is a mess and getting messier everyday. What we really need right now are the bright colours and adorable abandon to which Fall Guys throws itself, with it's cast of cute creatures, neon drenched courses and ludicrously head-bob-worthy tracks. This is a game perfect for a time when everyone could use a break, and it's inoffensive gentle exterior helps mitigate that overwhelming stress which burns out a lot of regular's in the battle royale field. Because make no mistake, this is a Battle Royale. Just one that turns the formula on it's head a little, tilts it's perspective to the side and makes you see something else.
When you look at the popular big multiplayer titles around it, like 'COD: Warzone' and 'Valorant', there's a certain leaning away from casual play that isn't exactly friendly to the majority of the gaming public. Even Fortnite, which initially won appeal as the more chill (and better constructed) version of PUBG has now been consumed by overly aggressive competitiveness that make casual play nigh-on impossible. (Just look at the walking conduit of meme-worthy diatribes known as 'Ninja') Right now we're looking at a game that seeps itself in approach-ability, to a degree where I actually can't even envision the same fall into hardcore-hell that Fortnite underwent. This game is just too cutsey, too chaotic and too open armed to develop that sort of an audience. And I think that details a comfy little niche for this game to fit into that it may just snuggle into for the long haul if all the stars are shining on it.
These days are the honeymoon days, of course, the times when everything is rosy and no one talks about the problems with the game or the repetitiveness of the whole affair; nor the problematic nature of a pay-to-entry game which runs itself on microtransactions. Will these become a problem once the sheen of newness fade? (As it did with 'Apex Legends'?) Only if the Devs get greedy and try to push the envelope. (And then try to gaslight the entire Internet. Absolute galaxy-brain move there, Respawn.) Right now I think that Fall Guys is in a good place, one where the team can continue to count their good fortunes for a while before the other shoe drops. I do wonder if this team, who's game seems to have blown up beyond their wildest expectations, will be able to keep up with demand. We've already seen the huge server debacle from the launch day, maybe that's indicative of crazy noisy days to come. (I can't stop the Jojo references. SEND HELP!!!)
I'm a fan of the idea of Fall Guys, and I hope the studio continues to enjoy their surprise good fortunes. It's always nice when a smaller studio manages to hit it out the park like this, and also when the wider gaming community find one title they can collectively get behind. Though I will admit I do wonder about the longevity of a title that depends on a handful of very same-y feeling modes, I remember that Mineplex is still very much alive and well so I guess I'm just the shortsighted ass in the minority. Maybe not the game for me, solo fellow that I am, but I still respect and enjoy watching other people have fun with it.
There's something very special about party games, wouldn't you say? Those that serve as a vehicle for socialisation and partying rather than labouring itself down with constructing solid narrative or immersive worlds. All those games need to do is prove fun enough to make people want to hang out in their virtual spaces alongside some friends. (Although that's easier said then done.) Recent years has seen this space pretty much dominated by the Jackbox series of games, but even amongst that yearly franchise there have been some notable duds and misses for the developers; so creating the next big party game is not a refined art at all. That's why it's always interesting to see when a new one takes the place, what does it do differently, why does it appeal, and is their long-term success in this title's future? Well for today that game is Fall Guys, and I intend to look into it's utmost depths.
So what is Fall Guys? Well have you ever seen Takeshi's Castle? Because it's basically that. 60 odd people enter a tournament of competitive tasks wherein a certain number of people who are in the lower bracket of completing that task (Usually the last third, from what I can tell) are eliminated each round. This all rolls around to a tense finale where only one can storm the castle and use their little water pistols to destroy the paper target of the enemy, which I swear only ever happened like twice in the entire history of that show. Wait, we were talking about something else? Oh, that's right, Fall Guys. So Fall Guys takes that basic premise and turns it into an online game which, lo and behold, works surprisingly well. Games are simple, usually involving running obstacle courses, battling over giant foam balls or their own version of Grief Run from Mineplex. (There's one you couldn't really pull off on the TV.) So maybe it lacks the sheer surrealist absurdity that Takeshi's Castle coveted, but it's still a whole bunch of fun.
Ah, but what's the catch? A multiplayer game in today's age, there has to be some sort of slick twist upon the basic formula in order to confirm its long-term success. And indeed there is, seems that Fortnite truly has pushed the envelope beyond the closing point. For you see, Fall Guys cuts it's teeth on cosmetic transactions, a battle pass and the whole 'seasons' thing that every game is doing now in order to bring people back under the delusion that each new season will drastically change up the game. Although, to their credit, I think a formula like this could greatly benefit from a season-based angle; if they were to literally just throw in a few new games to the rotation every season whilst retiring a couple, that really could keep things fresh. But Devil's Advocate aside, this does read like the play-by-play book of the entire online world right now and I'm not sure how I feel about that. In one way I like the idea of games that grow with their audience but on the otherhand It's just another game vying for my freetime and there's only so many hours in the day. I just finished my second run of Dark Souls 3 and that alone took close to 3 days, I don't have time to sprinkle these pseudo MMO's into my schedule too.
But apparently I'm in the absolute minority in that regard, as this Fall Guys game has hit absolute paydirt with it's launch in a big way. Those with even a passing comprehension of the Twitch landscape (à la moi) will notice that this game has been showing up on the streams of many a popular influencer, as it's a title that allows for mass competitions both amidst fellow streamers and fans. (Also, a competition format in general makes for great content.) The game itself practically exploded at launch, with people hitting the servers so much that they died and the developers took to twitter to complain about an apparent 'review bombing' in response. (Questionable tweet, but I understand how frustration can make one a little tunnel-visioned.) The title has shot to one of the most watched on Twitch right now, with just shy of 200,000 viewers watching right now at the time of writing. And as for the publisher of the indie world, Devolver Digital, who backed this project, apparently this is their most successful launch of all time. (Good for them. Maybe they'll now have the capital to make next year's E3 the weirdest yet! Assuming we still have E3 then...)
In the current climate, both in gaming and the international space, I couldn't think of a more apt game to enter the annals of widespread popularity. We're in an age of depressing content suiting depressing times, everywhere we look there's just more reminders that everything is a mess and getting messier everyday. What we really need right now are the bright colours and adorable abandon to which Fall Guys throws itself, with it's cast of cute creatures, neon drenched courses and ludicrously head-bob-worthy tracks. This is a game perfect for a time when everyone could use a break, and it's inoffensive gentle exterior helps mitigate that overwhelming stress which burns out a lot of regular's in the battle royale field. Because make no mistake, this is a Battle Royale. Just one that turns the formula on it's head a little, tilts it's perspective to the side and makes you see something else.
When you look at the popular big multiplayer titles around it, like 'COD: Warzone' and 'Valorant', there's a certain leaning away from casual play that isn't exactly friendly to the majority of the gaming public. Even Fortnite, which initially won appeal as the more chill (and better constructed) version of PUBG has now been consumed by overly aggressive competitiveness that make casual play nigh-on impossible. (Just look at the walking conduit of meme-worthy diatribes known as 'Ninja') Right now we're looking at a game that seeps itself in approach-ability, to a degree where I actually can't even envision the same fall into hardcore-hell that Fortnite underwent. This game is just too cutsey, too chaotic and too open armed to develop that sort of an audience. And I think that details a comfy little niche for this game to fit into that it may just snuggle into for the long haul if all the stars are shining on it.
These days are the honeymoon days, of course, the times when everything is rosy and no one talks about the problems with the game or the repetitiveness of the whole affair; nor the problematic nature of a pay-to-entry game which runs itself on microtransactions. Will these become a problem once the sheen of newness fade? (As it did with 'Apex Legends'?) Only if the Devs get greedy and try to push the envelope. (And then try to gaslight the entire Internet. Absolute galaxy-brain move there, Respawn.) Right now I think that Fall Guys is in a good place, one where the team can continue to count their good fortunes for a while before the other shoe drops. I do wonder if this team, who's game seems to have blown up beyond their wildest expectations, will be able to keep up with demand. We've already seen the huge server debacle from the launch day, maybe that's indicative of crazy noisy days to come. (I can't stop the Jojo references. SEND HELP!!!)
I'm a fan of the idea of Fall Guys, and I hope the studio continues to enjoy their surprise good fortunes. It's always nice when a smaller studio manages to hit it out the park like this, and also when the wider gaming community find one title they can collectively get behind. Though I will admit I do wonder about the longevity of a title that depends on a handful of very same-y feeling modes, I remember that Mineplex is still very much alive and well so I guess I'm just the shortsighted ass in the minority. Maybe not the game for me, solo fellow that I am, but I still respect and enjoy watching other people have fun with it.
Saturday, 8 August 2020
Rocksteady; you guys are alive!?
Suicide is painless
Where have you been? I being serious here, it's been four years and you folk haven't even made a peep out of your studio, and even then it was only to throw this 'Arkham VR' experience and then slink back into the dark. For years I've been hearing the rumours that "This year is it, this is the year when Rocksteady are going to announce 'Court of Owls' or 'Superman: the game'!" And you know what? Every single time it was another trumped up rumour turned lie, that amounted to exactly diddly squat. There were no announcements, no reveals, no communication, no indication that anyone in the studio was still breathing. These people could have all taken a collective vacation to Mars and we'd have no idea. But lo and behold, at long- LONG- last, someone peeped their head into the office window and knocked on the pane to jolt them all awake. Rocksteady are alive, ladies and gentleman, and apparently they still make games too. (Couldn't even confirm THAT in their absence.)
For the uninitiated, Rocksteady are the game studio behind singlehandedly reviving the action adventure genre with a castlevania twist on things and a universally appealing lead character. The Batman Arkham series took a beloved character and bought him to life in a way that no game had done before, allowing people to truly immerse themselves in the world of the world's best fist-fighting cowl-wearing batarang-throwing shark-repellent-bat-spray-owning, detective. At the time of Arkham's launch, the action adventure genre was pretty much in dire straits as the last great game to come out of there was... I dunno... Shadow of the Colossus? Okay, maybe things weren't that sparse. But the focus had shifted to FPS games and how successful one can become by copying everything that Call of Duty was going and waiting for the wheelbarrow of money to show up at your door. Nobody with capital was willing to spend it on something different and unique, which is one of the many reason why Batman Arkham Asylum stood out to a lad like me.
The other reason was simple, because it was fun as heck. The system of combos', counters and special attacks that Arkham introduced was so solid that it easily supported four games without anyone feeling it grow stale. It made you feel powerful, looked incredibly snazzy and cool, and required actual concentration, skill and (in high level scenarios) actually quite a bit of foresight to master. It worked to strike this balance between Batman as an accomplished hand-to-hand martial artist whilst simultaneously a man flush with gadgets and tools, having nearly every tool the player come into contact with also double with a tactile use in combat. And as a result of such a great combat system, every single battle felt fun, the boss fights had great scope to be varied and the titles retained significant replay value. (Rocksteady didn't even need to significantly change things up as the games went on either. "Just throw in a couple more combos and switch out some tools; done.")
Can any other franchise boast such a well loved basic foundation for their game? Not many, I'll bet. Mass Effect completly switched up it's gameplay from 1 to 2 and then again from 3 to Andromeda (With some funny lore implications to explain it away) Metal Gear reinvented itself several times over the series. (but then those games have been around for 22 years at this point, so that makes sense.) Only shooter games stay so rigid in their controls and gameplay and that's because it's a style that has been detailed so often that everyone reiterates upon themselves. Rocksteady kept their gameplay exciting and fresh with minimal maintenance, and I think that's something worth commending. They did their genre justice, they did Batman fans justice, and I'm sure they made themselves a decent chunk of change in doing so. (And isn't that what it's all about in the end?)
But why are we talking about this, I hear you ask. What could Rocksteady have done to send you down memory lane at mach 5 like this, it must have been something significant! And yes, reader-san, it most certainly was. For out of absolutely freakin' nowhere, Rocksteady decided to tweet out a picture of Superman and a date for a reveal, (which happens to be the date of a prominent DC fan event; the 22nd) confirming that after all this time the game they've been making is Supe- Suicide Squad. What? Yeah, the picture of Superman had the words 'Suicide Squad' scrawled over his headspace. Then why is Superm- has Superman ever been part of the Suicide Squad? Pretty sure he hasn't, that would kind of completely invalidate their entire MO. I mean... okay, but why Superman? I'm going to need some time to work this one out.
Discourse seems split on what this means so far, aside from the fact that it means Rocksteady are making a Suicide Squad game which I think is universally recognised as something that's brilliant and cool. Some say that this was a sly nod to the rather popular rumor that Superman would be their next game, pouring water on that flame whilst going 'Surprise! It was Suicide Squad the whole time.' I'm just going to veto that and point out that there's absolutely no sane studio in the world that would commission a piece of high-quality art work from their team in order to make fun of a rumor, they'd have done a composite meme at best, so that's a garbage theory. What's more believable is that what we are looking at is actually Bizzaro, indicating he'll have a major role in the story either as an antagonist or a member. Seeing the purple hue of the image (a colour that's often thematically linked with Bizzaro and/or evil in general at DC) I can definitely see that, although it does open some questions.
Like why would Amanda Waller think that she could control Bizzaro in a team comprised of supervillains? (Which is the premise of Suicide Squad, by the by. It's a team of captured villains that are 'coerced' into being an expendable special forces unit.) Or, even worse, that her Suicide Squad would even be capable of dealing with a threat as big as Bizzaro? The Suicide Squad is often built with B-tier villains who couldn't hold a story on their own (with some A-tiers in there every now and then in order to bring it all together) so I'm already seeing a little cognitive dissonance in this story. However, I believe the very idea of this theory may hold some water and am already excited about the prospect of getting to actually play Deathstroke. That's right, Deathstroke is almost confirmed to be in this game due to the fact that he was literally the villain whom the project was introduced to when this game was first teased all the way back in Arkham Origins. (They've been working up to this reveal since at least 2013! That's wild.)
There's so much more to speculate about and guess on, but with a full reveal only a couple of weeks away is it even really worth it? Absolutely, but perhaps a little closer to launch so that we can fully enjoy the speculative chaos. I, for one, hope for multiple playable protagonists who can be switched to often and who each have their own side narrative to explore. (Perhaps leading to multiple endings depending on how each story is resolved? Am I asking too much?) I also would like for Suicide Squad to forgo the 'forever become more of an open world' style of the later Arkham games and return to the 'heavily metroidvania' routes of the original. (I love the intimacy that concept provided.) These are just idle speculations, however, tossed into the wind with little more than a dream. It's up to Rocksteady to blow us all away in August 22nd. (Good luck, no pressure, don't screw up. Also, Batman cameo or bust. I've gotta say it!)
For the uninitiated, Rocksteady are the game studio behind singlehandedly reviving the action adventure genre with a castlevania twist on things and a universally appealing lead character. The Batman Arkham series took a beloved character and bought him to life in a way that no game had done before, allowing people to truly immerse themselves in the world of the world's best fist-fighting cowl-wearing batarang-throwing shark-repellent-bat-spray-owning, detective. At the time of Arkham's launch, the action adventure genre was pretty much in dire straits as the last great game to come out of there was... I dunno... Shadow of the Colossus? Okay, maybe things weren't that sparse. But the focus had shifted to FPS games and how successful one can become by copying everything that Call of Duty was going and waiting for the wheelbarrow of money to show up at your door. Nobody with capital was willing to spend it on something different and unique, which is one of the many reason why Batman Arkham Asylum stood out to a lad like me.
The other reason was simple, because it was fun as heck. The system of combos', counters and special attacks that Arkham introduced was so solid that it easily supported four games without anyone feeling it grow stale. It made you feel powerful, looked incredibly snazzy and cool, and required actual concentration, skill and (in high level scenarios) actually quite a bit of foresight to master. It worked to strike this balance between Batman as an accomplished hand-to-hand martial artist whilst simultaneously a man flush with gadgets and tools, having nearly every tool the player come into contact with also double with a tactile use in combat. And as a result of such a great combat system, every single battle felt fun, the boss fights had great scope to be varied and the titles retained significant replay value. (Rocksteady didn't even need to significantly change things up as the games went on either. "Just throw in a couple more combos and switch out some tools; done.")
Can any other franchise boast such a well loved basic foundation for their game? Not many, I'll bet. Mass Effect completly switched up it's gameplay from 1 to 2 and then again from 3 to Andromeda (With some funny lore implications to explain it away) Metal Gear reinvented itself several times over the series. (but then those games have been around for 22 years at this point, so that makes sense.) Only shooter games stay so rigid in their controls and gameplay and that's because it's a style that has been detailed so often that everyone reiterates upon themselves. Rocksteady kept their gameplay exciting and fresh with minimal maintenance, and I think that's something worth commending. They did their genre justice, they did Batman fans justice, and I'm sure they made themselves a decent chunk of change in doing so. (And isn't that what it's all about in the end?)
But why are we talking about this, I hear you ask. What could Rocksteady have done to send you down memory lane at mach 5 like this, it must have been something significant! And yes, reader-san, it most certainly was. For out of absolutely freakin' nowhere, Rocksteady decided to tweet out a picture of Superman and a date for a reveal, (which happens to be the date of a prominent DC fan event; the 22nd) confirming that after all this time the game they've been making is Supe- Suicide Squad. What? Yeah, the picture of Superman had the words 'Suicide Squad' scrawled over his headspace. Then why is Superm- has Superman ever been part of the Suicide Squad? Pretty sure he hasn't, that would kind of completely invalidate their entire MO. I mean... okay, but why Superman? I'm going to need some time to work this one out.
Like why would Amanda Waller think that she could control Bizzaro in a team comprised of supervillains? (Which is the premise of Suicide Squad, by the by. It's a team of captured villains that are 'coerced' into being an expendable special forces unit.) Or, even worse, that her Suicide Squad would even be capable of dealing with a threat as big as Bizzaro? The Suicide Squad is often built with B-tier villains who couldn't hold a story on their own (with some A-tiers in there every now and then in order to bring it all together) so I'm already seeing a little cognitive dissonance in this story. However, I believe the very idea of this theory may hold some water and am already excited about the prospect of getting to actually play Deathstroke. That's right, Deathstroke is almost confirmed to be in this game due to the fact that he was literally the villain whom the project was introduced to when this game was first teased all the way back in Arkham Origins. (They've been working up to this reveal since at least 2013! That's wild.)
There's so much more to speculate about and guess on, but with a full reveal only a couple of weeks away is it even really worth it? Absolutely, but perhaps a little closer to launch so that we can fully enjoy the speculative chaos. I, for one, hope for multiple playable protagonists who can be switched to often and who each have their own side narrative to explore. (Perhaps leading to multiple endings depending on how each story is resolved? Am I asking too much?) I also would like for Suicide Squad to forgo the 'forever become more of an open world' style of the later Arkham games and return to the 'heavily metroidvania' routes of the original. (I love the intimacy that concept provided.) These are just idle speculations, however, tossed into the wind with little more than a dream. It's up to Rocksteady to blow us all away in August 22nd. (Good luck, no pressure, don't screw up. Also, Batman cameo or bust. I've gotta say it!)
Friday, 7 August 2020
Operation: Tango
How many spies does it take to disarm a thermobaric nuclear device?
As a fan of asymmetrical systems in video games (you know, despite lacking the actual friends to play them) I've always found myself at odds with the way in which few developers actually dedicate themselves to that style. I mean sure, you get the 'dime a dozen' asymmetrical multiplayer showdowns, but I feel like this could be an area of great potential for actual story-driven experiences too. (In fact, I may even have a few fleshed out ideas to that regard.) It's a difficult balance to strike, no doubt; but given how everyone talks about games and 'the power to bring together', it's somewhat alarming that it's not been done justice yet. Perhaps it will take an indie studio to set that ball rolling, because 'Operation: Tango' seems aimed at just that. (That would be the game, and not the military-themed gay erotica novel of the same name.)
'Operation: Tango' is a spy thriller that poses it's players with a choice right off the bat; will they play as an Agent or a Hacker. Now the potential for both should seem fairly obvious from the job title alone, but the gameplay trailer they announced the title with really spelt things out. The Agent would be the person on the ground in an infiltration environment, dodging security systems and bypassing doors whilst attempting to remain as stealthy as possible. The Hacker, on the otherhand, would keep completely off site during the operation and act in a support capacity, taking control of camera feeds and turrets in order to make the way easier for their stealth partner. Now I doubt that's the extent of the cooperation this game will offer but that gives a sound enough base-line for the sort of vision this team is looking for. A stealth game that pushes the envelope forward into codependency, away from solo infiltration missions which were popularised, and arguably perfected, by the Metal Gear Solid franchise.
Metal Gear is dead, so it's high about time that we all move on and see what could be new in the stealth world. Whether or not that was the sort of legacy weighing on the team's mind when they made this, (I'm guessing it most certainly was not) it's still rather evident that significant thought and effort has been put in in order to make this right. That is to say, in a manner that doesn't end up feeling as flimsy and gimmicky as your latest Ubisoft game. In fact, on Playstation Blog the game's director, Mattieu Bégin, compared the development process to "building two games in one." Personally I'll admit I do find this rather fascinating, particularly on the side of the Hacker whose said to have a "Unique Network" in each mission location. Stealth games are an art at this point, so creating a robust and dynamic stealth experience will likely result in an incredibly familiar sensation for folk like me, (Who live and breathe stealth) but I've never seen a game completely based around running tech support, so I wonder how that will shape out. It will certainly be a balancing game as each role needs to feel powerful but reliant on the abilities of the other, colour me intrigued.
When it comes to the actual mechanics of how a game like this will function, as in 'a game that relies completely on teamwork', things are actually very straightforward. This isn't the sort of title that'll be designed for the antisocial to enjoy as well, no, instead each party will be required to have a headset and to communicate together regularly. This alone is the sort of step you won't see a lot of other games taking any time soon as it's somewhat prohibitive to a whole market of potential consumers, I.E. folk like me. But I respect the team's willingness to take that risk in the same vein as modern indie multiplayer-dependant titles such as GTFO. (It's a bold step that I hope pays off for them.) On their steam page the team actually tease about the difficulty of their puzzles, for those that fear things will be too robust and straightforward, which is an important factor to consider as these sorts of games can get boring quickly. I would like to get an example of what some of these puzzles might end up actually looking like, but there's plenty of time for more trailers before the prospective launch window of next year. (Heck, I'm not even convinced that this year will ever end!)
Aesthetically the game has commandeered this colourful, cartoon-y 70's style that's meant to play to the whole 'spy drama' concept. That means a lot of orange, big font text, and a protagonist who appears to sport a huge Afro despite the fact she is the Agent and there's no way that thing is covered when she ducks behind those tables. With a concept like this, and indeed even a thematic style like this, there strikes this pleasing blend with the loud brash colours of the latter and the cold hostile environments of the former. A collaboration of opposites, so might say, to achieve a style that feel fitting allround. So far I like what I'm seeing. The Steam page, too, seems to hint that later on some of the scenarios will "Create classic Hollywood Spy moments", so I look forward to seeing if there'll be 'Moonraker' themed levels and the like. (The movie might suck but it could make for a cool game scene.)
Clever Plays, the indie studio behind this little title, still have yet to 'walk the walk' in terms of the sort of gameplay shown off in the trailer so far. We've heard so much about how these gameplay styles are supposed to combine in a manner that will be inseparable, but all we've seen so far are ways in which a Hacker player would be useful, not essential. The turrets look easy enough to sneak around and the doors appear to be hackable by the Agent character alone, so it looks like progression isn't going to be artificially hampered in order to benefit cooperation. Now, speaking as anyone who's ever walked up to a fence and been told that they need a second player in order to scale it (Screw you, 'Splinter Cell: Blacklist', 'Escapists 2' and 'Resident Evil 5', off the top of my head) This'll probably be a good thing. Forced cooperation is the absolute laziest way to include co-op play into your game. But when the title in question straight-up is designed to be played by two players, the question comes of whether or not the game can be soloed. (Which we shouldn't be asking.)
That isn't to question the talent of the studio, by the by, as they were behind the apparently well received rougelite, 'Leap of Fate', but this is an entirely different kettle of fish in that regard. There's fundamental design questions to be asked that I'm fascinated to see if the team are capable of answering, as I feel it could prove a great example for the industry if they nail it. Cooperative games seem to be making something of a comeback in recent years, with Hazelight's recent 'A Way Out' proving that there's a place of coach co-op in this world of competitive multiplayer. Now 'Operation: Tango' is not, as far as I can tell, a couch co-op title, but it proposes to fill that same void in the gaming landscape; of a dedicated cooperative experience that people can share with their friends. With games like those I've mentioned alongside titans who can pull off both such as 'Divinity Original Sin 2', we could be looking at the rise of a sub culture that I'm very happy to see nurtured.
Ultimately, 'Operation: Tango' shapes up as a unique proposition, if one that I personally wouldn't even be remotely interested in because I don't have friends. The community of co-op players has really been starved these past two console generations, and no, those '3 player party'-based looters shooters don't count. Independent studios often operate with a certain level of creative freedom that most in the industry aren't privy to, and I'm glad that teams like Clever Plays are using that as a chance to shake things up. I'm on board with the idea, would like to see a lot more of the game, but am still willing to say that this is certainly a game to keep an eye if that's your sort of thing.
As a fan of asymmetrical systems in video games (you know, despite lacking the actual friends to play them) I've always found myself at odds with the way in which few developers actually dedicate themselves to that style. I mean sure, you get the 'dime a dozen' asymmetrical multiplayer showdowns, but I feel like this could be an area of great potential for actual story-driven experiences too. (In fact, I may even have a few fleshed out ideas to that regard.) It's a difficult balance to strike, no doubt; but given how everyone talks about games and 'the power to bring together', it's somewhat alarming that it's not been done justice yet. Perhaps it will take an indie studio to set that ball rolling, because 'Operation: Tango' seems aimed at just that. (That would be the game, and not the military-themed gay erotica novel of the same name.)
'Operation: Tango' is a spy thriller that poses it's players with a choice right off the bat; will they play as an Agent or a Hacker. Now the potential for both should seem fairly obvious from the job title alone, but the gameplay trailer they announced the title with really spelt things out. The Agent would be the person on the ground in an infiltration environment, dodging security systems and bypassing doors whilst attempting to remain as stealthy as possible. The Hacker, on the otherhand, would keep completely off site during the operation and act in a support capacity, taking control of camera feeds and turrets in order to make the way easier for their stealth partner. Now I doubt that's the extent of the cooperation this game will offer but that gives a sound enough base-line for the sort of vision this team is looking for. A stealth game that pushes the envelope forward into codependency, away from solo infiltration missions which were popularised, and arguably perfected, by the Metal Gear Solid franchise.
Metal Gear is dead, so it's high about time that we all move on and see what could be new in the stealth world. Whether or not that was the sort of legacy weighing on the team's mind when they made this, (I'm guessing it most certainly was not) it's still rather evident that significant thought and effort has been put in in order to make this right. That is to say, in a manner that doesn't end up feeling as flimsy and gimmicky as your latest Ubisoft game. In fact, on Playstation Blog the game's director, Mattieu Bégin, compared the development process to "building two games in one." Personally I'll admit I do find this rather fascinating, particularly on the side of the Hacker whose said to have a "Unique Network" in each mission location. Stealth games are an art at this point, so creating a robust and dynamic stealth experience will likely result in an incredibly familiar sensation for folk like me, (Who live and breathe stealth) but I've never seen a game completely based around running tech support, so I wonder how that will shape out. It will certainly be a balancing game as each role needs to feel powerful but reliant on the abilities of the other, colour me intrigued.
When it comes to the actual mechanics of how a game like this will function, as in 'a game that relies completely on teamwork', things are actually very straightforward. This isn't the sort of title that'll be designed for the antisocial to enjoy as well, no, instead each party will be required to have a headset and to communicate together regularly. This alone is the sort of step you won't see a lot of other games taking any time soon as it's somewhat prohibitive to a whole market of potential consumers, I.E. folk like me. But I respect the team's willingness to take that risk in the same vein as modern indie multiplayer-dependant titles such as GTFO. (It's a bold step that I hope pays off for them.) On their steam page the team actually tease about the difficulty of their puzzles, for those that fear things will be too robust and straightforward, which is an important factor to consider as these sorts of games can get boring quickly. I would like to get an example of what some of these puzzles might end up actually looking like, but there's plenty of time for more trailers before the prospective launch window of next year. (Heck, I'm not even convinced that this year will ever end!)
Aesthetically the game has commandeered this colourful, cartoon-y 70's style that's meant to play to the whole 'spy drama' concept. That means a lot of orange, big font text, and a protagonist who appears to sport a huge Afro despite the fact she is the Agent and there's no way that thing is covered when she ducks behind those tables. With a concept like this, and indeed even a thematic style like this, there strikes this pleasing blend with the loud brash colours of the latter and the cold hostile environments of the former. A collaboration of opposites, so might say, to achieve a style that feel fitting allround. So far I like what I'm seeing. The Steam page, too, seems to hint that later on some of the scenarios will "Create classic Hollywood Spy moments", so I look forward to seeing if there'll be 'Moonraker' themed levels and the like. (The movie might suck but it could make for a cool game scene.)
Clever Plays, the indie studio behind this little title, still have yet to 'walk the walk' in terms of the sort of gameplay shown off in the trailer so far. We've heard so much about how these gameplay styles are supposed to combine in a manner that will be inseparable, but all we've seen so far are ways in which a Hacker player would be useful, not essential. The turrets look easy enough to sneak around and the doors appear to be hackable by the Agent character alone, so it looks like progression isn't going to be artificially hampered in order to benefit cooperation. Now, speaking as anyone who's ever walked up to a fence and been told that they need a second player in order to scale it (Screw you, 'Splinter Cell: Blacklist', 'Escapists 2' and 'Resident Evil 5', off the top of my head) This'll probably be a good thing. Forced cooperation is the absolute laziest way to include co-op play into your game. But when the title in question straight-up is designed to be played by two players, the question comes of whether or not the game can be soloed. (Which we shouldn't be asking.)
That isn't to question the talent of the studio, by the by, as they were behind the apparently well received rougelite, 'Leap of Fate', but this is an entirely different kettle of fish in that regard. There's fundamental design questions to be asked that I'm fascinated to see if the team are capable of answering, as I feel it could prove a great example for the industry if they nail it. Cooperative games seem to be making something of a comeback in recent years, with Hazelight's recent 'A Way Out' proving that there's a place of coach co-op in this world of competitive multiplayer. Now 'Operation: Tango' is not, as far as I can tell, a couch co-op title, but it proposes to fill that same void in the gaming landscape; of a dedicated cooperative experience that people can share with their friends. With games like those I've mentioned alongside titans who can pull off both such as 'Divinity Original Sin 2', we could be looking at the rise of a sub culture that I'm very happy to see nurtured.
Ultimately, 'Operation: Tango' shapes up as a unique proposition, if one that I personally wouldn't even be remotely interested in because I don't have friends. The community of co-op players has really been starved these past two console generations, and no, those '3 player party'-based looters shooters don't count. Independent studios often operate with a certain level of creative freedom that most in the industry aren't privy to, and I'm glad that teams like Clever Plays are using that as a chance to shake things up. I'm on board with the idea, would like to see a lot more of the game, but am still willing to say that this is certainly a game to keep an eye if that's your sort of thing.
Thursday, 6 August 2020
Morbid: The Seven Acolytes
Your wings shall burn
You know it's very rare where I hear a genre of media and think 'Okay, I've literally never heard of that before and am sure you made it up.' You know, I feel like I've experienced everything and no concept could possibly raise my eyebrows any higher than I expect. And yet when I hear a game that officially describes itself as a 'Horrorpunk', it sort of leaves me at a lost. Horror - Punk. What does that even mean? What would it entail? Does the 'Punk' refer to the rebellious nature of it's presentation or a grander rebellion against the norms of Horror? And how can a genre which relies on taking power and control away from the viewer be mixed with a movement dedicated to seizing control and freedom? Why don't we find out together by taking little look into 'Morbid: The Seven Acolytes'.
Oh sorry, did I say Horrorpunk? Apparently this is also a Souls-like game that has the gall to try the Dark Souls formula without the subtlety and restraint. (And need I remind you, Dark Souls features a boss called 'Ceaseless Discharge') Now that isn't to say that I didn't like what I saw, just that the trailer kicked off with, what appears to be, a lady cosplaying as Dark Sun Gwyndolin and using her own oversized womb as a morning star. (It's gonna be one of those games, huh.) Yeah, Morbid is a game that's absolutely seeping in blood and over-the-top gore, and as a DOOM purist I must say that am I somewhat intrigued. Actually, scratch that- I'm all for imaginatively gory in every possible manner. There are those who will undoubtedly find the game grotesque, which is likely the point, but I have to commend the somewhat uncommon direction the Devs took in setting this title distinctly apart from the others.
In terms of actual gameplay, this is another isometric hack-and-slash game that reminds me, at least, of a much more grim rendition of Hyper Light Drifter. (And that was a game about a near genocide, so you can ascertain how heavy this title is aiming at being.) We see our silver haired sprite performing plenty of melee strikes and rolls, and she appears to have a stamina and health bar gauge, so the spirit of the Souls franchise is most definitely not lost on these developers. (Can't wait to try out my prolific rolling skills on their 8-bit version of Pontiff Sulyvahn. That's gonna go great.) There's some customisation in terms of armour, weapons to slot and even some skills to choose; (Oh, there's a break from the Souls formula!) all of which serves to make this game feel enticingly familiar whilst soothingly new. (What? Feels like I got those adjectives the wrong way around? Nah, must just be you.) I also noticed a little bit of side-gun action, implying that Bloodborne wormed it's DNA into the creative process somewhere down the line.
Aesthetically, the game is pretty much the exact archetype you would expect from hearing the descriptor "It's a pixel-based Souls game." We're talking heavy Gothic influences, in fact, even heavier than Dark Souls from what I can see. Which does, admittedly, rob some of the individuality and uniqueness from the environments and makes them all feel a little cliche, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I still think it fits this style of game like a glove anyway. There's wooden villages in the middle of the night, graveyards, bone-strewn caves, dead-tree forests and what looks like a cathedral in this trailer alone, and I'm sure there'll be some sort of Grecian-style ruins and Dracula's Coffin in the full game. (That's just how these sorts of worlds roll.) So far I am liking everything I see, even if it's yet to quite surprise me with any visuals I wouldn't expect from a world like this. But the fact that everything gets regularly drenched in what-looks-like dynamic blood is a nice touch. Also, I like the idea of an isometric adventure title that takes a darker, gruesome twist on the 'too much blood' gimmick, as I'm fairly tapped out of the lighter way it's portrayed in games like 'The Binding of Issac'. Gross me out, if you can, I want to feel something! (It'd make a nice change...)
But whereas the environments maybe aren't tickling my 'creative' bone as much as they could be, I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the enemy design, because that is deliciously wild right now. (I mentioned 'Morning Star Womb', right?) Some of the smallest enemies in the trailer that I've seen seem to share this globulous, intestinal look to them which I suppose fits their role as 'bags of blood', whilst the bigger monster are either straight up Gothic horror or that delightful brand of 'body horror' that games are starting to open up to lately. We're talking extra arms, insides on the outside and some dude who literally seems to have had a tip-worth of stuff infused into his being. It's an unsettling defiance of the human form that I hope is driven to it's absolute extreme later into the game. (Am I asking for as much gore and gross-out at as feasibly possible. Yes, I suppose I am.) Other then that there's more evidence of the Gothic blood behind this all with killer ravens and tentacles, (Are tentacles Gothic? They're not, are they...) so there'll be no shortness of variety everytime you get slaughtered.
This title is being constructed by a smaller studio known as 'Still Running' who happen to have a few games under their belt already (although nothing that personally caught my attention) and just the coolest pixel art avatars representing them on their website. Oh, did I mention they are only a team of 6. (Or 6 'dynamic' members. I'll admit, I'm too dumb to actually know what that means, maybe they're saying they contract every now and then, I don't know.) It really impresses me nowadays how we're seeing these particularly impressive looking titles coming out from these relatively tiny studios of concentrated talent, and not even sporadically. 'Still Running' were just formed in 2014 and this is their third game! That's some crazy commitment to the craft and I laud that, truly I wish I had a fraction of that drive.
As someone who is a huge fan of the Souls series, I cannot overstate how much of it's heart I see reflected here. For example, and I'm not usually one to comment on this sort of thing, but the musical track feels so indicative to Dark Souls that it's nuts. In fact, I literally had the title screen for Dark Souls 3 up as I was watching this trailer and I was confused as to why I was hearing the same track twice. It's that epic chorus of haunting voices making noises that we all take for granted nowadays I positively eat it up. There's nothing quite like getting impaled by the Soul of Cinder whilst a thousand obscure voices mumble something indistinguishable in your ear, and I'm glad that's the sort of atmosphere that Morbid is trying to replicate.
In conclusion; 'Morbid: The Seven Acolytes' is right up my alley. It's an isometric take on one of my favourite series' of all time and manages to capture a lot of what I love about that franchise. The game looks fluid, fast and fun and right now all I want to do is get my hands on it and play it, and is there any better desire for a trailer to convey unto it's viewer? Still Running may have kept off my radar up until now but today they're right on it as a Studio-to-watch, because if they can nail this title like their trailer seems to imply that they can then the sky is the absolute limit. Great trailer, hope it's a great game, I'm sold.
You know it's very rare where I hear a genre of media and think 'Okay, I've literally never heard of that before and am sure you made it up.' You know, I feel like I've experienced everything and no concept could possibly raise my eyebrows any higher than I expect. And yet when I hear a game that officially describes itself as a 'Horrorpunk', it sort of leaves me at a lost. Horror - Punk. What does that even mean? What would it entail? Does the 'Punk' refer to the rebellious nature of it's presentation or a grander rebellion against the norms of Horror? And how can a genre which relies on taking power and control away from the viewer be mixed with a movement dedicated to seizing control and freedom? Why don't we find out together by taking little look into 'Morbid: The Seven Acolytes'.
Oh sorry, did I say Horrorpunk? Apparently this is also a Souls-like game that has the gall to try the Dark Souls formula without the subtlety and restraint. (And need I remind you, Dark Souls features a boss called 'Ceaseless Discharge') Now that isn't to say that I didn't like what I saw, just that the trailer kicked off with, what appears to be, a lady cosplaying as Dark Sun Gwyndolin and using her own oversized womb as a morning star. (It's gonna be one of those games, huh.) Yeah, Morbid is a game that's absolutely seeping in blood and over-the-top gore, and as a DOOM purist I must say that am I somewhat intrigued. Actually, scratch that- I'm all for imaginatively gory in every possible manner. There are those who will undoubtedly find the game grotesque, which is likely the point, but I have to commend the somewhat uncommon direction the Devs took in setting this title distinctly apart from the others.
In terms of actual gameplay, this is another isometric hack-and-slash game that reminds me, at least, of a much more grim rendition of Hyper Light Drifter. (And that was a game about a near genocide, so you can ascertain how heavy this title is aiming at being.) We see our silver haired sprite performing plenty of melee strikes and rolls, and she appears to have a stamina and health bar gauge, so the spirit of the Souls franchise is most definitely not lost on these developers. (Can't wait to try out my prolific rolling skills on their 8-bit version of Pontiff Sulyvahn. That's gonna go great.) There's some customisation in terms of armour, weapons to slot and even some skills to choose; (Oh, there's a break from the Souls formula!) all of which serves to make this game feel enticingly familiar whilst soothingly new. (What? Feels like I got those adjectives the wrong way around? Nah, must just be you.) I also noticed a little bit of side-gun action, implying that Bloodborne wormed it's DNA into the creative process somewhere down the line.
Aesthetically, the game is pretty much the exact archetype you would expect from hearing the descriptor "It's a pixel-based Souls game." We're talking heavy Gothic influences, in fact, even heavier than Dark Souls from what I can see. Which does, admittedly, rob some of the individuality and uniqueness from the environments and makes them all feel a little cliche, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I still think it fits this style of game like a glove anyway. There's wooden villages in the middle of the night, graveyards, bone-strewn caves, dead-tree forests and what looks like a cathedral in this trailer alone, and I'm sure there'll be some sort of Grecian-style ruins and Dracula's Coffin in the full game. (That's just how these sorts of worlds roll.) So far I am liking everything I see, even if it's yet to quite surprise me with any visuals I wouldn't expect from a world like this. But the fact that everything gets regularly drenched in what-looks-like dynamic blood is a nice touch. Also, I like the idea of an isometric adventure title that takes a darker, gruesome twist on the 'too much blood' gimmick, as I'm fairly tapped out of the lighter way it's portrayed in games like 'The Binding of Issac'. Gross me out, if you can, I want to feel something! (It'd make a nice change...)
But whereas the environments maybe aren't tickling my 'creative' bone as much as they could be, I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the enemy design, because that is deliciously wild right now. (I mentioned 'Morning Star Womb', right?) Some of the smallest enemies in the trailer that I've seen seem to share this globulous, intestinal look to them which I suppose fits their role as 'bags of blood', whilst the bigger monster are either straight up Gothic horror or that delightful brand of 'body horror' that games are starting to open up to lately. We're talking extra arms, insides on the outside and some dude who literally seems to have had a tip-worth of stuff infused into his being. It's an unsettling defiance of the human form that I hope is driven to it's absolute extreme later into the game. (Am I asking for as much gore and gross-out at as feasibly possible. Yes, I suppose I am.) Other then that there's more evidence of the Gothic blood behind this all with killer ravens and tentacles, (Are tentacles Gothic? They're not, are they...) so there'll be no shortness of variety everytime you get slaughtered.
This title is being constructed by a smaller studio known as 'Still Running' who happen to have a few games under their belt already (although nothing that personally caught my attention) and just the coolest pixel art avatars representing them on their website. Oh, did I mention they are only a team of 6. (Or 6 'dynamic' members. I'll admit, I'm too dumb to actually know what that means, maybe they're saying they contract every now and then, I don't know.) It really impresses me nowadays how we're seeing these particularly impressive looking titles coming out from these relatively tiny studios of concentrated talent, and not even sporadically. 'Still Running' were just formed in 2014 and this is their third game! That's some crazy commitment to the craft and I laud that, truly I wish I had a fraction of that drive.
As someone who is a huge fan of the Souls series, I cannot overstate how much of it's heart I see reflected here. For example, and I'm not usually one to comment on this sort of thing, but the musical track feels so indicative to Dark Souls that it's nuts. In fact, I literally had the title screen for Dark Souls 3 up as I was watching this trailer and I was confused as to why I was hearing the same track twice. It's that epic chorus of haunting voices making noises that we all take for granted nowadays I positively eat it up. There's nothing quite like getting impaled by the Soul of Cinder whilst a thousand obscure voices mumble something indistinguishable in your ear, and I'm glad that's the sort of atmosphere that Morbid is trying to replicate.
In conclusion; 'Morbid: The Seven Acolytes' is right up my alley. It's an isometric take on one of my favourite series' of all time and manages to capture a lot of what I love about that franchise. The game looks fluid, fast and fun and right now all I want to do is get my hands on it and play it, and is there any better desire for a trailer to convey unto it's viewer? Still Running may have kept off my radar up until now but today they're right on it as a Studio-to-watch, because if they can nail this title like their trailer seems to imply that they can then the sky is the absolute limit. Great trailer, hope it's a great game, I'm sold.
Wednesday, 5 August 2020
Cyngi: All guns blazing
Ground control to Major Tom-
Well here we are, on the verge of a new generation of gaming wherein everything we think we know about limits of designs will be pushed beyond our wildest dreams. Yes, just as everyone keeps reminding us; fidelity is closer to us then we ever thought possible with this new onslaught of tech and the world of gaming will never be the same. Suddenly we no longer need to rely on the tricks of the past and same game formulae in order to get our products out, now we can reach into our dreams and merely pluck them out for all the world to see. Am I being overly-melodramatic enough, yet? Good, because I'm getting sick of all this tinned platitude crap we've been force fed over the course of the last year or so, it's getting old. Games still have that uncanny valley to cross, Ubisoft will still continue to make the same game over and over and Dev teams will still continue pursue projects with familiarity and nostalgia to them. Point in case, just take a look at what 'Cyngi: All Guns Blazing' is about.
On the off chance that you've yet to look up the game, (And haven't looked at the above title card- somehow) I challenge you to hold back for a moment and guess what this game is based on title alone. Your first guess was probably wrong, but your second was on the money; this is indeed a bullet-hell space game hearkening all the way back to the old-school Atari days. (That's in concept, not in visuals) Proof, if ever it was needed, that the next gen doesn't need to rely on high-concept ideas in order to excite and delight it's fans, we don't need every game to be the next 'Death Stranding'. (In fact, I think the gaming landscape would get pretty boring if every game was the next Death Stranding. No offence, Kojima.) This here is a title that's every bit the top-down space shooter that anyone who's been gaming for over thirty years is probably infinitely familiar with. I'm talking screens full of enemies, various flashing lights, energy beams, and that weird way the player ships seems to have free lateral movement whilst invariably pointing forward. (What's up with that?)
If there's something that'll immediately stand out to even the most casual of observers when looking up this Cyngi, it's that the animation, fluidity and general aesthetic looks positively stellar. (Pun not intended) That's despite being an indie title from a previously unheard of studio who, according to their own Steam page, consists of two self taught artists and developers. I mean sure, anyone can make whatever they want to or are capable of, but this title looks like a AAA shmup, until you remember that publishers don't fund these kinds of games anymore, so what's going on here? Well, apparently that can be linked back to the pedigree of the three person team that is 'Keelworks'. These are some insanely talented people, we're talking a former Pixar VFX artist, another with extensive film and movie experience and an experienced project manager. (These are the sorts of folk that put us regular plebes to shame.)
So here I am, a fellow notoriously meh at these kinds of games, trying to breakdown exactly what I think about what I've seen. Basically don't expect the sort of nuance from me that you'd see from a veteran, is what I'm lampshading right now. But irregardless of my apparent inexperience, I'm impressed with everything as of so far, even intrigued to give the game a shot myself maybe. (Which is actually kind of weird for me to say. I think 'Nier Automata' might have done something inexplicable to my taste.) What I have noticed, is that for a genre that is usually characterised by it's unforgiving difficulty and utter desensitising action (something they even call out on their website) this doesn't look as inaccessible as I'd imagine it to. At least from these previews. I can actually make out the action that is happening and get a grip with the amount of projectiles on screen at once, there's yet to be a screen of deadly red and that somewhat fascinates me. Maybe Keelworks want to preserve their crazy moments for the actual game, or perhaps this is a title not just built for old school veterans but also for newer folks to get into. Honestly, I've had fights in The Binding of Issac hairier than what I've seen from this trailer. (I'm still only beaten The Heart once. Call me a scrub all you want, I don't care.)
Cyngi places itself in a one-versus-many style story as our plucky mass murderer- I mean 'protagonist', is tasked with slaying countless brightly coloured and interesting looking enemies in as colourful a manner as she can. 'Eye Popping' I believe is the term the team use to describe it all, but as an alternative I'd broach 'eye nourishing', because I cannot overstate how much these screens serve as great visual candy. The presentation boasts this cinematic angle to shots and scene layout that emphasises that 'epic' nature of scouting amidst the skies and the enemies themselves have this cool insectile tinge to their design which infers this organic feeling to them, something encouraged by their movement. In fact, there's even some bigger ships I've seen here that remind me somewhat of the Fallen's drop ships from Destiny, another game who's design I love, so this is a title with good company in that regard.
If there is one visual letdown in the reveal trailer for this title it has to be the lack of variety in their background environments, which is something I personally look for out of all my games, let alone those that propose to have me look at roughly the same scrolling location for hours on end. Which isn't to say that we see the same background in all these shots, just that they don't feel significantly different due to some of the tricks that the team use. We see battles happening amidst the cloudy skies, over a huge jet engine- through the cloudy skies, and above a metropolis- in the cloudy skies. See what I'm driving at here? Every location has this layer of cloud draped over it that mutes and obfuscates the environments so that they look overwhelmingly samey. And I understand that this was likely done in order to ensure that the, maybe visually busy, backgrounds don't distract from the foreground action, but I feel like there's a balance that can be struck here in order to permit for visual diversity and comprehensive action all in one. (Perhaps just render less clouds?)
On another note, not nearly as critical, I wonder about the potential for any actual storytelling in a title like this. I know that sounds sort of moot, given that these games usually settle in on the action and intense fighting, but I still bring it up because of another spaceship title that yearns to revive a genre; Chorus. (or 'Chorvs', whatever, I dunno.) Now that's a game which looks to evolve the space shooter genre more than pay homage to it, but there's a similar cinematic vein there which looks to be better realised in Chorus. (Again, judging purely from the incredibly sparse footage available for both titles.) Now, one might rightly point out how Chorvs is being published by a large team, whilst Cyngi has but a team of three and one composer, but there's always a way to tell your story if you try hard enough. I just feel that there's a cinematic potential that might go unfulfilled here. Also, I'm a big fan of context, it really helps with the 'ol immersion. (Selfish point, true; but I still like to think it's somewhat valid.)
So that's what I think of Cyngi so far, apart from the fact that I'm glad it's on PC where this sort of game belongs. (Seriously, who ever though it was wise for Issac to be on Console. I say this as a primary console player, it hurts.) Oh wait, it's coming to consoles too, isn't it... sigh. Though this is not usually my cup of tea, (nor is tea itself, for that matter) I will confess that something about this title intrigues me, even if it's only the fact that a team this small can construct something which looks so good. And they're from the same landmass as me, it's like my duty to check out their game at this rate. That being said there is still a lot more I want to get a look at as this game develops, such as that 'outer space' section which the team promises, so call me cautiously optimistic. Still wishlisting it though, I have a feeling this is one I won't want to miss out on.
Well here we are, on the verge of a new generation of gaming wherein everything we think we know about limits of designs will be pushed beyond our wildest dreams. Yes, just as everyone keeps reminding us; fidelity is closer to us then we ever thought possible with this new onslaught of tech and the world of gaming will never be the same. Suddenly we no longer need to rely on the tricks of the past and same game formulae in order to get our products out, now we can reach into our dreams and merely pluck them out for all the world to see. Am I being overly-melodramatic enough, yet? Good, because I'm getting sick of all this tinned platitude crap we've been force fed over the course of the last year or so, it's getting old. Games still have that uncanny valley to cross, Ubisoft will still continue to make the same game over and over and Dev teams will still continue pursue projects with familiarity and nostalgia to them. Point in case, just take a look at what 'Cyngi: All Guns Blazing' is about.
On the off chance that you've yet to look up the game, (And haven't looked at the above title card- somehow) I challenge you to hold back for a moment and guess what this game is based on title alone. Your first guess was probably wrong, but your second was on the money; this is indeed a bullet-hell space game hearkening all the way back to the old-school Atari days. (That's in concept, not in visuals) Proof, if ever it was needed, that the next gen doesn't need to rely on high-concept ideas in order to excite and delight it's fans, we don't need every game to be the next 'Death Stranding'. (In fact, I think the gaming landscape would get pretty boring if every game was the next Death Stranding. No offence, Kojima.) This here is a title that's every bit the top-down space shooter that anyone who's been gaming for over thirty years is probably infinitely familiar with. I'm talking screens full of enemies, various flashing lights, energy beams, and that weird way the player ships seems to have free lateral movement whilst invariably pointing forward. (What's up with that?)
If there's something that'll immediately stand out to even the most casual of observers when looking up this Cyngi, it's that the animation, fluidity and general aesthetic looks positively stellar. (Pun not intended) That's despite being an indie title from a previously unheard of studio who, according to their own Steam page, consists of two self taught artists and developers. I mean sure, anyone can make whatever they want to or are capable of, but this title looks like a AAA shmup, until you remember that publishers don't fund these kinds of games anymore, so what's going on here? Well, apparently that can be linked back to the pedigree of the three person team that is 'Keelworks'. These are some insanely talented people, we're talking a former Pixar VFX artist, another with extensive film and movie experience and an experienced project manager. (These are the sorts of folk that put us regular plebes to shame.)
So here I am, a fellow notoriously meh at these kinds of games, trying to breakdown exactly what I think about what I've seen. Basically don't expect the sort of nuance from me that you'd see from a veteran, is what I'm lampshading right now. But irregardless of my apparent inexperience, I'm impressed with everything as of so far, even intrigued to give the game a shot myself maybe. (Which is actually kind of weird for me to say. I think 'Nier Automata' might have done something inexplicable to my taste.) What I have noticed, is that for a genre that is usually characterised by it's unforgiving difficulty and utter desensitising action (something they even call out on their website) this doesn't look as inaccessible as I'd imagine it to. At least from these previews. I can actually make out the action that is happening and get a grip with the amount of projectiles on screen at once, there's yet to be a screen of deadly red and that somewhat fascinates me. Maybe Keelworks want to preserve their crazy moments for the actual game, or perhaps this is a title not just built for old school veterans but also for newer folks to get into. Honestly, I've had fights in The Binding of Issac hairier than what I've seen from this trailer. (I'm still only beaten The Heart once. Call me a scrub all you want, I don't care.)
Cyngi places itself in a one-versus-many style story as our plucky mass murderer- I mean 'protagonist', is tasked with slaying countless brightly coloured and interesting looking enemies in as colourful a manner as she can. 'Eye Popping' I believe is the term the team use to describe it all, but as an alternative I'd broach 'eye nourishing', because I cannot overstate how much these screens serve as great visual candy. The presentation boasts this cinematic angle to shots and scene layout that emphasises that 'epic' nature of scouting amidst the skies and the enemies themselves have this cool insectile tinge to their design which infers this organic feeling to them, something encouraged by their movement. In fact, there's even some bigger ships I've seen here that remind me somewhat of the Fallen's drop ships from Destiny, another game who's design I love, so this is a title with good company in that regard.
If there is one visual letdown in the reveal trailer for this title it has to be the lack of variety in their background environments, which is something I personally look for out of all my games, let alone those that propose to have me look at roughly the same scrolling location for hours on end. Which isn't to say that we see the same background in all these shots, just that they don't feel significantly different due to some of the tricks that the team use. We see battles happening amidst the cloudy skies, over a huge jet engine- through the cloudy skies, and above a metropolis- in the cloudy skies. See what I'm driving at here? Every location has this layer of cloud draped over it that mutes and obfuscates the environments so that they look overwhelmingly samey. And I understand that this was likely done in order to ensure that the, maybe visually busy, backgrounds don't distract from the foreground action, but I feel like there's a balance that can be struck here in order to permit for visual diversity and comprehensive action all in one. (Perhaps just render less clouds?)
On another note, not nearly as critical, I wonder about the potential for any actual storytelling in a title like this. I know that sounds sort of moot, given that these games usually settle in on the action and intense fighting, but I still bring it up because of another spaceship title that yearns to revive a genre; Chorus. (or 'Chorvs', whatever, I dunno.) Now that's a game which looks to evolve the space shooter genre more than pay homage to it, but there's a similar cinematic vein there which looks to be better realised in Chorus. (Again, judging purely from the incredibly sparse footage available for both titles.) Now, one might rightly point out how Chorvs is being published by a large team, whilst Cyngi has but a team of three and one composer, but there's always a way to tell your story if you try hard enough. I just feel that there's a cinematic potential that might go unfulfilled here. Also, I'm a big fan of context, it really helps with the 'ol immersion. (Selfish point, true; but I still like to think it's somewhat valid.)
So that's what I think of Cyngi so far, apart from the fact that I'm glad it's on PC where this sort of game belongs. (Seriously, who ever though it was wise for Issac to be on Console. I say this as a primary console player, it hurts.) Oh wait, it's coming to consoles too, isn't it... sigh. Though this is not usually my cup of tea, (nor is tea itself, for that matter) I will confess that something about this title intrigues me, even if it's only the fact that a team this small can construct something which looks so good. And they're from the same landmass as me, it's like my duty to check out their game at this rate. That being said there is still a lot more I want to get a look at as this game develops, such as that 'outer space' section which the team promises, so call me cautiously optimistic. Still wishlisting it though, I have a feeling this is one I won't want to miss out on.
Tuesday, 4 August 2020
Embracing the windmills
How I learnt to stop worrying and love the bomb
Stadia. Heard of them? I think I've mentioned their name a couple of times on this blog. There this really small time set-up that proposes to push forward the gaming landscape by bridging the gap between consumer tech and the very best of gaming; at an absurd premium. I've said it before but Google could have really done to operate at a loss for at least the first year of this system's life cycle in order to work up a crowd but apparently that just wasn't on the table for one of the most profitable companies in the world. (Why actually put effort into something when you can slap some turd on the table and demand to be respected for the act of having done anything at all?) Google wanted people to pay for their crappy subscription, alongside paying for the actual games themselves at full price, all so that they could experience a choppy ecosystem that devoured your Internet usage and barely had any games to it's name anyway. There's Stadia in a nutshell.
Now before I've expressed that I kinda feel bad for dunking on Stadia all the time. Not because I actually feel bad for the company or the employees themselves, guys are getting paid and I say 'good for them', but because I feel inherently regressive fighting what seems like the future of gaming. TV has decidedly moved away from networks and physical boxsets into digital libraries and... honestly so many streaming services that it's only a matter of time before someone starts offering bundles deals and we end up with networks again. Movies, just this past year, have transcended the theatre experience for the most part as folk have been literally unable to attend screenings. Yeah, admittedly this is a temporary situation and a good chunk of bigger studios are holding back their movies until they can secure a theatre release, but I'm sorry guys, the seal has been broken. There's blood in the water now, people know what it's like to enjoy a brand new movie from the comfort of their own home. I don't think that we'll completely usurp movie theatres in the same way that TV has been axed off, (that's just unfeasible) but a definite paradigm shift has been set into motion and I'm not sure that anyone can stop it. Therefore is it so 'out there' to think video games might do the same?
Gaming isn't a pass time that is inherently reliant on huge 50 inch screen and sound systems in order to sell the full experience, you just need to be able to play the darn thing. If you can pull that off on any system you can get your hands on then that's great. This is a reality I've always been inwardly accepting off, even if it rang somewhat wrong with me, and just because I opposed Stadia's approach to it, that didn't mean I hated the idea altogether. I think that the thorny issue of software ownership is still a tricky conversation that needs to be approached; in that I have no problem in buying my games provided I have the benefit of being to play them without fear of that access being deprived after the fact. (But then I suppose you could say that's an issue with or without streaming involved. Those buyer rights really need to be revised.)
But I like to be the kind of person who looks forward to the future and embraces the changes that tomorrow might bring. That is to say, I don't want to be the one 'fighting windmills' so-to-speak, when it comes to talking about Game Streaming. I think that if it's done well then I could really see a world where the art of gaming is bought to more and more people worldwide in a really inclusive manner, and though these sentiments have certainly been shared by me before, I'm just looking for that example to latch onto as a real testament for the best this concept can be. And that is actually the reason why I'm writing this article today, because I think we may be on the verge of such an example coming to the world.
Project Xcloud. I'm not sure how much longer we can keep calling it 'project' given that it's shaping up to become Microsoft's newest poster child. This is a system wherein adopters can stream the games that they want to into compatible devices. Sounds familiar and all, we know where this is going. But here's the rub, the games can be those already owned on the Microsoft store, the infrastructure is being put together by Microsoft and, apparently, there's work going on behind the scenes to make this so much more financially sensible than Stadia that it isn't even funny. I'm talking such a good deal that you would literally have to be a moron to sign up to Stadia over what Microsoft have going on. So good that Google might as well start shuttering their service now, if they haven't already started. Apparently, Microsoft intend to bundle their Xcloud service with the Xbox Game Pass, as soon as this December.
Now for those who are unfamiliar, when Stadia was first announced there was the implication that it would take the place of a 'Netflix for games', wherein your subscription opens you up to a library of games to play at your leisure. At it turns out this was not the case, everything had to be purchased after the fact with the exception of a few complimentary titles that were provided each month, in the style of most console manufacturers. Xbox Game Pass, however, was that 'Netflix' model, with a ludicrous amount of good games (the service advertises over 100 but I think it's past 150 right now) and more games get added there all the time. And know that I'm not saying this as Microsoft fan boy, I think they've dropped the ball in a thousand stupid ways these past 8 years, but I am a fan of great deals to the consumer and Game Pass is that.
With the series X launching this December, Microsoft is apparently ready to completely kill the premium price for online play, apparently, and make Xcloud available with Game Pass at no extra cost. Now when I think of a future for gaming, that sounds pretty much like the ideal to me. Paying a decent monthly subscription in order to browse as many games as I can get my grubby mitts on should be an example to all the industry, and a huge wakeup call for Stadia. Usually I find myself dreading what kind of dour new future awaits the industry as greedy corporate crap works it's way into the ecosystem, but today there's an actual win-win scenario being offered and I couldn't be more happy about it. If this is what the future of gaming looks like, provided there always remains that place for actual hardware and the ability to buy the games we want to play whenever, then I'm willing to lay down my arms and endorse it.
There only lies one more step, and it's one where Microsoft are dragging their heels. (Again, obviously Microsoft can't do everything right off the bat. It's against their nature.) There's rumour about the potential of bringing the Game Pass to Playstation and Nintendo, but Phil Spencer has poured water and that with some nonsense about 'we need to able to ensure the quality Xbox experience' or some such gibberish. Listen Phil, we're not talking about working with the Ouya or the chuckle-heads currently running Atari; Nintendo and Sony are respectable, they're not going to trash your service if they stand to make a profit. As soon as Microsoft can get their collective heads out of their rears and establish the Game Pass for the entire gaming world, the sooner we can work towards a gaming infrastructure even more united than the current TV one. Don't get caught up in the 'exclusivity' or 'console war' nonsense that the baser elements of the community do, work to make this deal compatible for everyone, before we end up on a trajectory back to square one in 5 years like the TV market currently is. The streaming ball is in your court, Microsoft, and everyone is watching.
Stadia. Heard of them? I think I've mentioned their name a couple of times on this blog. There this really small time set-up that proposes to push forward the gaming landscape by bridging the gap between consumer tech and the very best of gaming; at an absurd premium. I've said it before but Google could have really done to operate at a loss for at least the first year of this system's life cycle in order to work up a crowd but apparently that just wasn't on the table for one of the most profitable companies in the world. (Why actually put effort into something when you can slap some turd on the table and demand to be respected for the act of having done anything at all?) Google wanted people to pay for their crappy subscription, alongside paying for the actual games themselves at full price, all so that they could experience a choppy ecosystem that devoured your Internet usage and barely had any games to it's name anyway. There's Stadia in a nutshell.
Now before I've expressed that I kinda feel bad for dunking on Stadia all the time. Not because I actually feel bad for the company or the employees themselves, guys are getting paid and I say 'good for them', but because I feel inherently regressive fighting what seems like the future of gaming. TV has decidedly moved away from networks and physical boxsets into digital libraries and... honestly so many streaming services that it's only a matter of time before someone starts offering bundles deals and we end up with networks again. Movies, just this past year, have transcended the theatre experience for the most part as folk have been literally unable to attend screenings. Yeah, admittedly this is a temporary situation and a good chunk of bigger studios are holding back their movies until they can secure a theatre release, but I'm sorry guys, the seal has been broken. There's blood in the water now, people know what it's like to enjoy a brand new movie from the comfort of their own home. I don't think that we'll completely usurp movie theatres in the same way that TV has been axed off, (that's just unfeasible) but a definite paradigm shift has been set into motion and I'm not sure that anyone can stop it. Therefore is it so 'out there' to think video games might do the same?
Gaming isn't a pass time that is inherently reliant on huge 50 inch screen and sound systems in order to sell the full experience, you just need to be able to play the darn thing. If you can pull that off on any system you can get your hands on then that's great. This is a reality I've always been inwardly accepting off, even if it rang somewhat wrong with me, and just because I opposed Stadia's approach to it, that didn't mean I hated the idea altogether. I think that the thorny issue of software ownership is still a tricky conversation that needs to be approached; in that I have no problem in buying my games provided I have the benefit of being to play them without fear of that access being deprived after the fact. (But then I suppose you could say that's an issue with or without streaming involved. Those buyer rights really need to be revised.)
But I like to be the kind of person who looks forward to the future and embraces the changes that tomorrow might bring. That is to say, I don't want to be the one 'fighting windmills' so-to-speak, when it comes to talking about Game Streaming. I think that if it's done well then I could really see a world where the art of gaming is bought to more and more people worldwide in a really inclusive manner, and though these sentiments have certainly been shared by me before, I'm just looking for that example to latch onto as a real testament for the best this concept can be. And that is actually the reason why I'm writing this article today, because I think we may be on the verge of such an example coming to the world.
Project Xcloud. I'm not sure how much longer we can keep calling it 'project' given that it's shaping up to become Microsoft's newest poster child. This is a system wherein adopters can stream the games that they want to into compatible devices. Sounds familiar and all, we know where this is going. But here's the rub, the games can be those already owned on the Microsoft store, the infrastructure is being put together by Microsoft and, apparently, there's work going on behind the scenes to make this so much more financially sensible than Stadia that it isn't even funny. I'm talking such a good deal that you would literally have to be a moron to sign up to Stadia over what Microsoft have going on. So good that Google might as well start shuttering their service now, if they haven't already started. Apparently, Microsoft intend to bundle their Xcloud service with the Xbox Game Pass, as soon as this December.
Now for those who are unfamiliar, when Stadia was first announced there was the implication that it would take the place of a 'Netflix for games', wherein your subscription opens you up to a library of games to play at your leisure. At it turns out this was not the case, everything had to be purchased after the fact with the exception of a few complimentary titles that were provided each month, in the style of most console manufacturers. Xbox Game Pass, however, was that 'Netflix' model, with a ludicrous amount of good games (the service advertises over 100 but I think it's past 150 right now) and more games get added there all the time. And know that I'm not saying this as Microsoft fan boy, I think they've dropped the ball in a thousand stupid ways these past 8 years, but I am a fan of great deals to the consumer and Game Pass is that.
With the series X launching this December, Microsoft is apparently ready to completely kill the premium price for online play, apparently, and make Xcloud available with Game Pass at no extra cost. Now when I think of a future for gaming, that sounds pretty much like the ideal to me. Paying a decent monthly subscription in order to browse as many games as I can get my grubby mitts on should be an example to all the industry, and a huge wakeup call for Stadia. Usually I find myself dreading what kind of dour new future awaits the industry as greedy corporate crap works it's way into the ecosystem, but today there's an actual win-win scenario being offered and I couldn't be more happy about it. If this is what the future of gaming looks like, provided there always remains that place for actual hardware and the ability to buy the games we want to play whenever, then I'm willing to lay down my arms and endorse it.
There only lies one more step, and it's one where Microsoft are dragging their heels. (Again, obviously Microsoft can't do everything right off the bat. It's against their nature.) There's rumour about the potential of bringing the Game Pass to Playstation and Nintendo, but Phil Spencer has poured water and that with some nonsense about 'we need to able to ensure the quality Xbox experience' or some such gibberish. Listen Phil, we're not talking about working with the Ouya or the chuckle-heads currently running Atari; Nintendo and Sony are respectable, they're not going to trash your service if they stand to make a profit. As soon as Microsoft can get their collective heads out of their rears and establish the Game Pass for the entire gaming world, the sooner we can work towards a gaming infrastructure even more united than the current TV one. Don't get caught up in the 'exclusivity' or 'console war' nonsense that the baser elements of the community do, work to make this deal compatible for everyone, before we end up on a trajectory back to square one in 5 years like the TV market currently is. The streaming ball is in your court, Microsoft, and everyone is watching.
Monday, 3 August 2020
The sad and frightful tale of Rune 2
What a wild ride
You hear a lot of strange, wacky and sad stories coming out of any industry that proposes to deal with the fallacy of hiring humans (You read me right, automatic industry is the way of the future!) and the world of game development is not in any way different. There's always crazy mind-boggling stuff happening just behind the scenes which never get revealed until years after the fact and most times leave folk like me going "Huh, I wish I knew about that at the time." There's countless weird cancellations, failed projects, unfathomable design decisions, and even the way that Ubisoft made the exact same game over and over for years on end. (Apparently that was all because of one person. Not refuting that accusation, just think it makes a convenient excuse is all. On a related note: Did that guy happen to work as the sole greenlighter for Disney movies in his spare time?) Yet recently, thanks to an article from PC Gamer, we have the tale of a story that isn't ancient history by Internet standards. It's still old, mind you, but only about a year or so. And I think that's a fascinating topic to dive into as we find out what was the deal with Rune 2, Human Head Studios and Ragnarok Game.
First off, what is Rune 2? Thank you asking, honoured reader, because I have literally no idea whatsoever. Yeah, I had to look up some reviews and stuff, so that's great. Essentially Rune 2 is the sequel to 2000's Rune, and it was a long awaited release indeed. Much as one might guess, the concept handles Nordic viking mythology where one must battle the undead, godly and whatever lies inbetween, in order to save the world, or something. So it's a third person hack and slash adventure title, with a Nordic setting. There's some crafting in the game, weapon degradation and the ability to charge into fights that you aren't even nearly prepared for. (What more could you want from your game?) Unfortunately it wasn't well received for a number of reasons, most pointedly being the fact that the gameplay gets old quickly and there's not enough to really set this game apart from any others. Oh and it looked kinda sucky for when it came out. Which was last year, by the way. Also this game launched in the wake of 2018's 'God of War', another Nordic-mythology themed action adventure title, so there's no way this game would ever look even remotely passable in comparison. (That's just the bare-faced truth of the situation.)
But why was this game not the smash hit it could have been despite the 19 years of buildup? (I mean, you could argue that no game could live upto that hype, but I never even heard of this series so the game couldn't have been too ridiculously hyped.) The typical answer in this sorts of situations is little more than 'who knows', but the game's publisher, Ragnarok Game LTD, claim to know and let off about it in that aforementioned interview. Now one must bear in mind, of course, that this is a story being told from a single perspective thusfar, and until we hear both sides a lot of this can remain conjecture, but there's still some interesting nuggets to be gleaned from all this whole tale, starting from the beginning of the game's woes; when Human Head Studios announced that they would be disbanding and thus ceasing work on the game the day after release.
Quite the shocker for the everyday fan who was looking forward to this game for so long, but even more so for the publisher, Ragnarok Game, who apparently had no clue about this until it happened. Don't feel too distraught for this sudden closure, however, because it wasn't so far into the new year that the entire staff got picked up by Bethesda in order to open as Roundhouse Studios. (Huh, that was a quick and neat turnaround for them. How fortunate.) In their wake they left behind an absolutely bewildered publisher with a game that they hadn't marketed, yet announced they would be abandoning, which certainly wasn't the most smooth transition of the game's ownership. Ragnarok's General Counsel seemed to imply that this was vindictive in his interview, saying "If you want to tank a game ... this is the playbook on how to do it." But without Roundhouse's word this is merely idle speculation, and seeing as how they've already got their lawyers out I doubt there'll be any frank illumination on things like 'motivation.' (Although, to play devil's advocate. Resorting to legal representatives certainly does paint a guilty conscious on the team.)
So at this point I'd say it would be pretty understandable for Ragnarok game to wipe their hands of the game, take the loss and try to move on with something new, but either they couldn't or wouldn't because their team struggled to do whatever they could for Rune 2. All they really needed was the source code in order to continue working under the game with someone else, but then another roadblock was thrown in their face as Human Head refused to hand it over at first. (At this point you'll likely be struck, just as I was, at how annoying it is to hear a story from just one side. Although considering the source code was still the property of Ragnarok game at the time, they'd have to have a pretty good excuse for all of this nonsense.) It was only towards the end of the year that it was handed over and the work could begin to revive this game. And at this point the effort would be going into a revival, as this game did not fare well on the review circuit. Whether it was because it was left unfinished or just because it wasn't very good in the first place, first opinions were not kind and Ragnarok would, and will, have a mother of an uphill climb in rectifying that.
What's so bizarre about all this is the fact that the way Human Head Studios is alleged to have acted doesn't make sense either for their reputation or monetary gain. On one hand the way they abandoned Ragnarok has since become widely known due to the way that the publisher had to scramble other developers in order to make the difference up, some answered the call and all now have heard some of Human Head's shenanigans. On the otherhand, as was pointed out in the interview, by leaving before the release date and running, they walked out on two pay checks totalling over $150,000. (That Bethesda sign-up bonus must be strong.) Even Rune 2's executive producer seemed bewildered by that, he himself said that they could have just kept quiet and rode out the launch, collected the money, handed off the game and still be where they are now without any of the scrutiny and a lot richer. It's just a collection of scenarios that make no sense.
As for Rune 2, well it's currently in the midst of a major overhaul from all-new developers who have the benefit of direct player feedback to work off of. Just as with other games in this age of perpetual development, Rune 2 is the kind of game looking at a total overhaul and thus perhaps there might be hope for the beleaguered title yet. From what I understand there is a lot of work to be done, NPCs to be added, Quests to be shaken-up, maybe even entire systems to be reworked, but it seems that Ragnarok have amassed a team to pull it off. Studio 369 have taken over the development of this title in wake of it's soon-to-be Steam release and that will mark the coming of a new age for the game, and I, for one, hope for the best of luck for them and their game, as it sounds like they might need it.
All in all this adds up to a headscratching tale of 'backstabbing' in the gaming industry that is somewhat unlike anything I've heard before. I mean sure, you get the endless stories about big publishers leaning their weight on the smaller Devs for whatever reason, but two small companies coming at odds with seemingly no provocation? It just comes across as wildly out of left field. Whatever happens of this situation, Roundhouse Studio are going to have this stain on their reputation for a very long time, and perhaps even worse than that, people are going to remember them for the crap they pulled when they were still Human Head. No I don't mean any of this nonsense, I mean for the creation of that artsy dumpster fire 'The Quiet Man'. That's the kind of sordid wrongdoing that no one wants on their resume...
You hear a lot of strange, wacky and sad stories coming out of any industry that proposes to deal with the fallacy of hiring humans (You read me right, automatic industry is the way of the future!) and the world of game development is not in any way different. There's always crazy mind-boggling stuff happening just behind the scenes which never get revealed until years after the fact and most times leave folk like me going "Huh, I wish I knew about that at the time." There's countless weird cancellations, failed projects, unfathomable design decisions, and even the way that Ubisoft made the exact same game over and over for years on end. (Apparently that was all because of one person. Not refuting that accusation, just think it makes a convenient excuse is all. On a related note: Did that guy happen to work as the sole greenlighter for Disney movies in his spare time?) Yet recently, thanks to an article from PC Gamer, we have the tale of a story that isn't ancient history by Internet standards. It's still old, mind you, but only about a year or so. And I think that's a fascinating topic to dive into as we find out what was the deal with Rune 2, Human Head Studios and Ragnarok Game.
First off, what is Rune 2? Thank you asking, honoured reader, because I have literally no idea whatsoever. Yeah, I had to look up some reviews and stuff, so that's great. Essentially Rune 2 is the sequel to 2000's Rune, and it was a long awaited release indeed. Much as one might guess, the concept handles Nordic viking mythology where one must battle the undead, godly and whatever lies inbetween, in order to save the world, or something. So it's a third person hack and slash adventure title, with a Nordic setting. There's some crafting in the game, weapon degradation and the ability to charge into fights that you aren't even nearly prepared for. (What more could you want from your game?) Unfortunately it wasn't well received for a number of reasons, most pointedly being the fact that the gameplay gets old quickly and there's not enough to really set this game apart from any others. Oh and it looked kinda sucky for when it came out. Which was last year, by the way. Also this game launched in the wake of 2018's 'God of War', another Nordic-mythology themed action adventure title, so there's no way this game would ever look even remotely passable in comparison. (That's just the bare-faced truth of the situation.)
But why was this game not the smash hit it could have been despite the 19 years of buildup? (I mean, you could argue that no game could live upto that hype, but I never even heard of this series so the game couldn't have been too ridiculously hyped.) The typical answer in this sorts of situations is little more than 'who knows', but the game's publisher, Ragnarok Game LTD, claim to know and let off about it in that aforementioned interview. Now one must bear in mind, of course, that this is a story being told from a single perspective thusfar, and until we hear both sides a lot of this can remain conjecture, but there's still some interesting nuggets to be gleaned from all this whole tale, starting from the beginning of the game's woes; when Human Head Studios announced that they would be disbanding and thus ceasing work on the game the day after release.
Quite the shocker for the everyday fan who was looking forward to this game for so long, but even more so for the publisher, Ragnarok Game, who apparently had no clue about this until it happened. Don't feel too distraught for this sudden closure, however, because it wasn't so far into the new year that the entire staff got picked up by Bethesda in order to open as Roundhouse Studios. (Huh, that was a quick and neat turnaround for them. How fortunate.) In their wake they left behind an absolutely bewildered publisher with a game that they hadn't marketed, yet announced they would be abandoning, which certainly wasn't the most smooth transition of the game's ownership. Ragnarok's General Counsel seemed to imply that this was vindictive in his interview, saying "If you want to tank a game ... this is the playbook on how to do it." But without Roundhouse's word this is merely idle speculation, and seeing as how they've already got their lawyers out I doubt there'll be any frank illumination on things like 'motivation.' (Although, to play devil's advocate. Resorting to legal representatives certainly does paint a guilty conscious on the team.)
So at this point I'd say it would be pretty understandable for Ragnarok game to wipe their hands of the game, take the loss and try to move on with something new, but either they couldn't or wouldn't because their team struggled to do whatever they could for Rune 2. All they really needed was the source code in order to continue working under the game with someone else, but then another roadblock was thrown in their face as Human Head refused to hand it over at first. (At this point you'll likely be struck, just as I was, at how annoying it is to hear a story from just one side. Although considering the source code was still the property of Ragnarok game at the time, they'd have to have a pretty good excuse for all of this nonsense.) It was only towards the end of the year that it was handed over and the work could begin to revive this game. And at this point the effort would be going into a revival, as this game did not fare well on the review circuit. Whether it was because it was left unfinished or just because it wasn't very good in the first place, first opinions were not kind and Ragnarok would, and will, have a mother of an uphill climb in rectifying that.
What's so bizarre about all this is the fact that the way Human Head Studios is alleged to have acted doesn't make sense either for their reputation or monetary gain. On one hand the way they abandoned Ragnarok has since become widely known due to the way that the publisher had to scramble other developers in order to make the difference up, some answered the call and all now have heard some of Human Head's shenanigans. On the otherhand, as was pointed out in the interview, by leaving before the release date and running, they walked out on two pay checks totalling over $150,000. (That Bethesda sign-up bonus must be strong.) Even Rune 2's executive producer seemed bewildered by that, he himself said that they could have just kept quiet and rode out the launch, collected the money, handed off the game and still be where they are now without any of the scrutiny and a lot richer. It's just a collection of scenarios that make no sense.
As for Rune 2, well it's currently in the midst of a major overhaul from all-new developers who have the benefit of direct player feedback to work off of. Just as with other games in this age of perpetual development, Rune 2 is the kind of game looking at a total overhaul and thus perhaps there might be hope for the beleaguered title yet. From what I understand there is a lot of work to be done, NPCs to be added, Quests to be shaken-up, maybe even entire systems to be reworked, but it seems that Ragnarok have amassed a team to pull it off. Studio 369 have taken over the development of this title in wake of it's soon-to-be Steam release and that will mark the coming of a new age for the game, and I, for one, hope for the best of luck for them and their game, as it sounds like they might need it.
All in all this adds up to a headscratching tale of 'backstabbing' in the gaming industry that is somewhat unlike anything I've heard before. I mean sure, you get the endless stories about big publishers leaning their weight on the smaller Devs for whatever reason, but two small companies coming at odds with seemingly no provocation? It just comes across as wildly out of left field. Whatever happens of this situation, Roundhouse Studio are going to have this stain on their reputation for a very long time, and perhaps even worse than that, people are going to remember them for the crap they pulled when they were still Human Head. No I don't mean any of this nonsense, I mean for the creation of that artsy dumpster fire 'The Quiet Man'. That's the kind of sordid wrongdoing that no one wants on their resume...
Sunday, 2 August 2020
The coming of the Dark- Soul.
And then there was fire.
Recently I finally got around to definitively completing Dark Souls 3, which means that I have successfully completed the entire franchise and now feel a void in my life knowing that the tale of the First Flame has come to an end. As part of my natural coping mechanisms, this means that I have to now go over my thoughts about the queries and questions that the game intentionally leave and delve into that final riddle which Dark Souls 3 leaves us with. (And who knows, it might be fun!) Of course, given the nature of such a discussion I must remind you all that this means mega spoilers will come out for the main story arc, so if you've any interest in the Dark Souls story then turn away. Unless you similarly have completed every bit of Dark Souls lore, in which case: Welcome friend, let's chat. (FYI, I'm still learning and theorising myself about chunks of Lore so bear in mind if I make a wrong supposition here or there.)
So the events of Dark Souls are preceded, and coloured by, the end of the Age of Ancients; an unformed world characterised by Great trees and Everlasting Dragons. After the Advent of Fire, creatures known as 'Hollows' were born unto the world and they sought out Souls near the light of the First Flame. With the power that these souls conveyed, these Hollows, now lords, fought and overthrew the Everlasting Dragons, thus ushering in The Age of Fire. What's important to note, is that of the four Lord souls which were taken, the furtive pygmy was the creature who came away with The Dark Soul. With this came the element of Dark into the world, which birthed nearly all forms of lesser creature, most notably among them being humans. That's right 'Dark Souls' essentially works as an off-hand to refer to humans, as we are merely Hollows imbued with that little bit of Darkness called 'Humanity'.
Now in the Age of Fire, those who claimed the Souls of Lords now assume their positions as Gods and invoke an age of prosperity for themselves. They now live in huge sprawling kingdoms with impractically tall ceilings and the like, seen to by droves of lesser beings who worship their ever move. It must have been quite the sight to see, but we'll never know as every single Dark Souls game takes place at the tail-end of the Age of Fire, wherein the First Flame which conferred all these brilliant powerful souls to the gods, thus fuelling our innovation, has begun to fade. Everything that happens in the Dark Souls series is coloured by this event, the First Flame flutters and the world begins to crumble and decay in it's wake. The leader of the Lord Souls stealers, Lord Gwyn, thus curses humanity with the Dark Sign, the curse of undeath. Under this new degree, those who die are reborn as undead, cursed to slowly lose themselves and their humanity by dying over and over again until they revert back to their base Hollow forms. The only way to prevent this, to die for seemingly good, is to seek out the First Flame and sacrifice themselves to it, thus kindling the flame. (At least that's my supposition for why Gwyn cursed humanity, it makes sense, no?)
But I'm getting a little ahead of myself. You see, Gwyn noticed the fading of the light a good time ago and he knew that he had to do something about it in order to preserve all he has built, to ensure his legacy. Thus Gwyn, who's soul had ballooned to perhaps the most brilliant in existence at that time, choose to sacrifice himself at the Kiln of the First Flame in an act that has come to be known as 'The Linking of the Fire'. He burns up his soul in order to feed the first flame and make it burn brightly once more, and if you put yourself in his shoes you can see why. Everything that was made in the world of Dark Souls was done with the power imbued by the First Flame, so it's fading doesn't just mean that magic will drift from the world or something arbitrary like that, instead everything will converge and disappear along with the light. No cities, nor castles nor any monument of old will stand. Be that as it may, Gwyn's sacrifice was still seen by some as 'The First Sin', because of the way he artificially prolonged the life of the flame instead of allowing nature to take it's course and the Age of Dark to come.
You following so far? Good, because finally we've come to beginnings of the first game and can start to talk about relevant events. Dark Souls 1 takes place as the flame is fading once again after Lord Gwyn's sacrifice. You assume the shoes of the Chosen Undead, who's tasked with gathering the brilliant souls of the Gods who fought alongside Lord Gywn and using them as tinder to reignite the fire once more. It is a harrowing journey, leading the player to explore the depths of each branch of fire, and resulting in a battle against the haggard, hollow body of Gwyn, who mindlessly guards the Kiln of the First Flame. At the end of the game the player is given a choice, either to light the Kiln (resulting in an explosion of fire as the cycle begins again) or walk away. (Thus allowing the flame to fade and becoming a Dark Lord.) Though in the end your choice is fruitless, because as Aldis, Scholar of the First Sin, explains in Dark Souls 2; there will always be one more who will choose to relight the flame at the last second. Thus spells out the severity of Gwyn's sin, there will never be a time when nature is allowed to take her course unimpeded. In a sense, Gwyn has locked the world in a cycle of endless entropy and decay.
In Dark Souls 3, events fast forward to countless linkings later. Many have gone the path of collecting powerful Souls in order to feed them back to the flame that created them, thus becoming a Lord of Cinder. The latest proposed lord, Prince Lothric, chose to shirk their duty which led to the resurrection of some previous Lords of Cinders to do his job for him. (See, even after sacrificing oneself, no one breaks free from undeath.) Once they too turn their back on the First Flame, the rejects are recalled. Those who failed their journeys to Link the Flame, resulting in the player, The Ashen One, coming back to unlife. The curious difference here comes from the fact that the very world seems much worse than it ever was in Dark Souls. In the original, everything had sunk into decay, but here it's almost as though reality itself has begun to unravel. The Lords, for example, have fled to their homes from all over the world, but converging reality moves these locations a trek's distance from Lothric. It's clear that there's something different with this loop.
What exactly that is cannot be made abundantly clear until the player manages to wrangle the Souls of the absent Lords of Cinder and travelled back to the Kiln of the First Flame. This time the flame is defended by a deific manifestation of all those who have linked the flames before (which actually informs a good chunk of his moveset) called The Soul of Cinder. After felling it and attending the fire (should the Ashen One choose to) they'll be met with a mirror scene of the first game's Linking with a rather notable difference; Instead of the roaring blaze from the first relinking, all we see is a gentle flame, not so much different to that of a bonfire. It makes sense, doesn't it? For countless cycles the Flame has been fed the same souls it regurgitated, they would get weaker and weaker with each cycle. So now there is barely anything left, and it's safe to say that this is the last cycle. The fire cannot be linked again and the Age of Dark is inevitable. The series then ends on that ominous note. (Provided you decided to link the flame, that is.)
It's a curious, yet fittingly dour, ending for the franchise and like any good ending it leaves us with one unanswerable question; what does the future hold? The Age of Dark is inevitable, sure, but what exactly is 'The Age of Dark' and what will it mean? A decidedly unreliable source, Darkseeker Kaathe, seems to imply that it will be an 'Age of Man', where no longer will nature suffer at the whims of Gods. But does that also mean an age where we get stripped of innovation, of magic, of all the grandeur of the Age of Fire? Almost certainly given the way the world literally warps and amasses in Dark Souls 3's Kiln of the First Flame. So will 'The Age of Dark' be a literal Dark Ages for the world? Or maybe something more ominous awaits, like the 'Sea of Deep' which that cannibalistic nutcase Aldrich foresaw, or maybe the rise of The Chaos which The Ivory King sacrificed himself to delay in Dark Souls 2. Or maybe just the return of the Abyss and Manus. (Though I'll admit that last one is excessively unlikely. We killed all his fragments in Dark Souls 2, right...)
So I guess the question that Dark Souls leaves us with is one of whether we choose to prolong the fire, even knowing that it's a futile act, or abandon it, welcoming in an unknowable age of Dark which may or may not spell the end of all life. It's a query that challenges concepts like legacy and the fallacy of immortality, which Lord Gwyn fought so desperately for, as well as raising more traditional questions like freedom of destiny, is a futile choice still a valuable one? There's so many layers and angles to the finale of Dark Souls that I'm just beginning to broach, and I'm sure those invested will debate over it for years to come. Whether they support the Fire or the Darkness, whether Aldis was right and a new Age of Fire will erupt sometime in the future, whether the entire plot of the game is really just about human's being exploited by Gods to preserve a world which ultimately wasn't even designed for them. I'm just scraping the surface and there's so many questions to think on. I just wanted to summarise, in words, how I think the story of Dark Souls played out and maybe if you're in a similar position this may have been a little cathartic for you too; here's hoping that From Software's Elden Ring remains even a glimmer as narratively rich and memorable.
Recently I finally got around to definitively completing Dark Souls 3, which means that I have successfully completed the entire franchise and now feel a void in my life knowing that the tale of the First Flame has come to an end. As part of my natural coping mechanisms, this means that I have to now go over my thoughts about the queries and questions that the game intentionally leave and delve into that final riddle which Dark Souls 3 leaves us with. (And who knows, it might be fun!) Of course, given the nature of such a discussion I must remind you all that this means mega spoilers will come out for the main story arc, so if you've any interest in the Dark Souls story then turn away. Unless you similarly have completed every bit of Dark Souls lore, in which case: Welcome friend, let's chat. (FYI, I'm still learning and theorising myself about chunks of Lore so bear in mind if I make a wrong supposition here or there.)
So the events of Dark Souls are preceded, and coloured by, the end of the Age of Ancients; an unformed world characterised by Great trees and Everlasting Dragons. After the Advent of Fire, creatures known as 'Hollows' were born unto the world and they sought out Souls near the light of the First Flame. With the power that these souls conveyed, these Hollows, now lords, fought and overthrew the Everlasting Dragons, thus ushering in The Age of Fire. What's important to note, is that of the four Lord souls which were taken, the furtive pygmy was the creature who came away with The Dark Soul. With this came the element of Dark into the world, which birthed nearly all forms of lesser creature, most notably among them being humans. That's right 'Dark Souls' essentially works as an off-hand to refer to humans, as we are merely Hollows imbued with that little bit of Darkness called 'Humanity'.
Now in the Age of Fire, those who claimed the Souls of Lords now assume their positions as Gods and invoke an age of prosperity for themselves. They now live in huge sprawling kingdoms with impractically tall ceilings and the like, seen to by droves of lesser beings who worship their ever move. It must have been quite the sight to see, but we'll never know as every single Dark Souls game takes place at the tail-end of the Age of Fire, wherein the First Flame which conferred all these brilliant powerful souls to the gods, thus fuelling our innovation, has begun to fade. Everything that happens in the Dark Souls series is coloured by this event, the First Flame flutters and the world begins to crumble and decay in it's wake. The leader of the Lord Souls stealers, Lord Gwyn, thus curses humanity with the Dark Sign, the curse of undeath. Under this new degree, those who die are reborn as undead, cursed to slowly lose themselves and their humanity by dying over and over again until they revert back to their base Hollow forms. The only way to prevent this, to die for seemingly good, is to seek out the First Flame and sacrifice themselves to it, thus kindling the flame. (At least that's my supposition for why Gwyn cursed humanity, it makes sense, no?)
But I'm getting a little ahead of myself. You see, Gwyn noticed the fading of the light a good time ago and he knew that he had to do something about it in order to preserve all he has built, to ensure his legacy. Thus Gwyn, who's soul had ballooned to perhaps the most brilliant in existence at that time, choose to sacrifice himself at the Kiln of the First Flame in an act that has come to be known as 'The Linking of the Fire'. He burns up his soul in order to feed the first flame and make it burn brightly once more, and if you put yourself in his shoes you can see why. Everything that was made in the world of Dark Souls was done with the power imbued by the First Flame, so it's fading doesn't just mean that magic will drift from the world or something arbitrary like that, instead everything will converge and disappear along with the light. No cities, nor castles nor any monument of old will stand. Be that as it may, Gwyn's sacrifice was still seen by some as 'The First Sin', because of the way he artificially prolonged the life of the flame instead of allowing nature to take it's course and the Age of Dark to come.
You following so far? Good, because finally we've come to beginnings of the first game and can start to talk about relevant events. Dark Souls 1 takes place as the flame is fading once again after Lord Gwyn's sacrifice. You assume the shoes of the Chosen Undead, who's tasked with gathering the brilliant souls of the Gods who fought alongside Lord Gywn and using them as tinder to reignite the fire once more. It is a harrowing journey, leading the player to explore the depths of each branch of fire, and resulting in a battle against the haggard, hollow body of Gwyn, who mindlessly guards the Kiln of the First Flame. At the end of the game the player is given a choice, either to light the Kiln (resulting in an explosion of fire as the cycle begins again) or walk away. (Thus allowing the flame to fade and becoming a Dark Lord.) Though in the end your choice is fruitless, because as Aldis, Scholar of the First Sin, explains in Dark Souls 2; there will always be one more who will choose to relight the flame at the last second. Thus spells out the severity of Gwyn's sin, there will never be a time when nature is allowed to take her course unimpeded. In a sense, Gwyn has locked the world in a cycle of endless entropy and decay.
In Dark Souls 3, events fast forward to countless linkings later. Many have gone the path of collecting powerful Souls in order to feed them back to the flame that created them, thus becoming a Lord of Cinder. The latest proposed lord, Prince Lothric, chose to shirk their duty which led to the resurrection of some previous Lords of Cinders to do his job for him. (See, even after sacrificing oneself, no one breaks free from undeath.) Once they too turn their back on the First Flame, the rejects are recalled. Those who failed their journeys to Link the Flame, resulting in the player, The Ashen One, coming back to unlife. The curious difference here comes from the fact that the very world seems much worse than it ever was in Dark Souls. In the original, everything had sunk into decay, but here it's almost as though reality itself has begun to unravel. The Lords, for example, have fled to their homes from all over the world, but converging reality moves these locations a trek's distance from Lothric. It's clear that there's something different with this loop.
What exactly that is cannot be made abundantly clear until the player manages to wrangle the Souls of the absent Lords of Cinder and travelled back to the Kiln of the First Flame. This time the flame is defended by a deific manifestation of all those who have linked the flames before (which actually informs a good chunk of his moveset) called The Soul of Cinder. After felling it and attending the fire (should the Ashen One choose to) they'll be met with a mirror scene of the first game's Linking with a rather notable difference; Instead of the roaring blaze from the first relinking, all we see is a gentle flame, not so much different to that of a bonfire. It makes sense, doesn't it? For countless cycles the Flame has been fed the same souls it regurgitated, they would get weaker and weaker with each cycle. So now there is barely anything left, and it's safe to say that this is the last cycle. The fire cannot be linked again and the Age of Dark is inevitable. The series then ends on that ominous note. (Provided you decided to link the flame, that is.)
It's a curious, yet fittingly dour, ending for the franchise and like any good ending it leaves us with one unanswerable question; what does the future hold? The Age of Dark is inevitable, sure, but what exactly is 'The Age of Dark' and what will it mean? A decidedly unreliable source, Darkseeker Kaathe, seems to imply that it will be an 'Age of Man', where no longer will nature suffer at the whims of Gods. But does that also mean an age where we get stripped of innovation, of magic, of all the grandeur of the Age of Fire? Almost certainly given the way the world literally warps and amasses in Dark Souls 3's Kiln of the First Flame. So will 'The Age of Dark' be a literal Dark Ages for the world? Or maybe something more ominous awaits, like the 'Sea of Deep' which that cannibalistic nutcase Aldrich foresaw, or maybe the rise of The Chaos which The Ivory King sacrificed himself to delay in Dark Souls 2. Or maybe just the return of the Abyss and Manus. (Though I'll admit that last one is excessively unlikely. We killed all his fragments in Dark Souls 2, right...)
So I guess the question that Dark Souls leaves us with is one of whether we choose to prolong the fire, even knowing that it's a futile act, or abandon it, welcoming in an unknowable age of Dark which may or may not spell the end of all life. It's a query that challenges concepts like legacy and the fallacy of immortality, which Lord Gwyn fought so desperately for, as well as raising more traditional questions like freedom of destiny, is a futile choice still a valuable one? There's so many layers and angles to the finale of Dark Souls that I'm just beginning to broach, and I'm sure those invested will debate over it for years to come. Whether they support the Fire or the Darkness, whether Aldis was right and a new Age of Fire will erupt sometime in the future, whether the entire plot of the game is really just about human's being exploited by Gods to preserve a world which ultimately wasn't even designed for them. I'm just scraping the surface and there's so many questions to think on. I just wanted to summarise, in words, how I think the story of Dark Souls played out and maybe if you're in a similar position this may have been a little cathartic for you too; here's hoping that From Software's Elden Ring remains even a glimmer as narratively rich and memorable.
Saturday, 1 August 2020
Dustborn
We're all going on a-
When it comes to looking at a brand new game there are I few things that I keep an eye out for, call it my litmus test for predicting the compatibility between me and the game in question. The title isn't really important because I'm the kind of weirdo into games with the most obnoxious titles, so I really have no leg to stand on in that argument. ('VA-11 Hall-A: Cyberpunk Bartender Action' anybody?) What grabs me is the style of the presentation, the intrigue of the trailer and the promise of the concept. Three simple keys to what I would consider a successful marketing campaign, at least to my little brain. Thus it excites me to say that Dustborn, another title from the Future Games conference, managed to tick a good number of those boxes.
Immediately it's easy to see that this game has taken significant visual cues from the same handbook as Borderlands, with the same cartoon-esque cell shaded visuals. Dustborn merely boasts significantly softer lines, otherwise those two titles could pretty much twins be of one another. Additionally, the actual character design behind that cell shading doesn't appear to be as loud as what Gearbox's cast of characters tend look like, so there's a little more uniformity to their general shape. That doesn't mean the characters themselves look indistinct, however, or even that grounded as there is one fellow who is quiet literally a robot and another lady who appears to have the Penguin's glass eye monocle. Regardless I think a good argument could be made for considering Borderlands a significant source of inspiration (at least in presentation) as the teaser trailer literally consists of a bus-ride introduction to everyone just like Borderlands did. (Except they don't start ghost-boxing with the camera. Strange, I thought everyone did that on long bus rides...)
Another immediately noticeable element of the game is how important music seems to be for it, in that I'd assume this were a rhythm action game if it hadn't been for the slight millisecond of gameplay in this teaser. (Even then, it still might be. This is 2020 afterall, much worse twists have already befallen us.) Practically every character shown off is teased playing around with some sort of instrument and the trailer itself even leads in with the prototypical "One, two, three, four!" that you'd expect to hear preceding the debut performance of a garage rock band. The official Steam page seems to highlight some points from the trailer too, specifically how the game is about "Hope, adventure, love, robots - and the power of words." And by 'power' they are being literal as we see the player literally Fus Ro Dah's some folks simply by throwing the cartoon text 'Move' at them. I can see how this sort of set-up is merely a hop skip and a jump away from a 'the world can only be saved with music' sort of premise that you'd see in some angst-ridden teen drama, Styx's abominable concept album movie travesty, or 'Footloose' starring Kevin Bacon. (Wait, is that covered by 'angst ridden drama'? I dunno, I liked it.)
For the story we need to look no further than that Steam description I bought up, because the teaser was a little light on the more fine details. The year is 2030, (these 'far in the future' kind of stories feel like they're getting closer and closer.) which makes it 30 years after The Broadcast. Yep that's right, it's one of those games that's going to use vague terminology and off-kilter capitalisation in order to sell it's narrative. (My favourite.) The player is essentially a rebel called Pax who is your archetypal rebel, on a journey with a cast of fun characters, who I'm guessing are all somewhat rebellious, in order to fight, sneak and manipulate against the 'the authoritarian Justice' and 'fanatical Puritans'. (Actually, the game's description says you're just transporting a package but something tells me a little bit of 'fight the man' is gonna worm it's way in there too.)
So what we've essentially got on our hands is a Watch_Dogs 2 type premise, though with a sort of road trip slant to it in the vein of Final Fantasy XV. (Yes, all of my modern comparisons link back to games, and what?) My only hope is that these developers will perhaps do a better job of inhabiting the rebellious punk-rock spirit over Ubisoft's Watch_Dogs team who just 'hello fellow kids'-upped that whole thing. As for the road trip aspect, as that looks like it'll be the main drive for the narrative, I absolutely love it, why don't more games base themselves around road trips? It forces you to naturally explore more of the world, encourages diversity in environment and can even serve as a handy tool to measure ark progression for the various personalities. I loved how it was handled in FFXV and that alone actually has me quite interested in Dustborn already. (Despite the fact that the game sounds like they exhumed their title from some ill-fated Gearbox MOBA, or something...)
Speaking of traversing the world, the design of that world in the trailer is perhaps what spoke to me the most in the "This is something I should pay attention to" category. I already spoke about the similarities to Borderlands (something only reinforced by the abundance of Desert in the trailer) but I'm also finding some of the enemy design comfortingly familiar. The Justice, for example, seem to dress in this bulky, ugly armour with goggle eyes and a gross colour scheme; just like the majority of armours from 'Outer Worlds'. (And I like that game, so being reminded of it is a positive.) The designs of the crew are great as well, there're all that special brand of distinctive where you can identify them from the silhouette alone (as the trailer itself demonstrates) and I'm already getting a sense of who they are from their little mannerisms. These are characters I want to see more of and get to know, so that's a strong start.
Now this game didn't just pop up from nowhere, and the reason why I seem to be receiving everything that it's selling so positively is because I actually recognise the indie team working on it. Red Thread Games are actually the folk behind something of an old school cult classic in the Dreamfall series. Point and click adventure games that go back to the mid 2000's (or even earlier if you count 'The Longest Journey') and go all the way up to 2017. These ain't no first time newbies to game development, is what I'm saying, and what's more they've cut their teeth on narrative-driven adventure titles, so I feel they're fully within their abilities to make this Dustborn something decent if not great. (Just, you know, as long as they don't make it last 18 years again.) Now Dreamfall is a series I've been recommended for literally years now but I've just never bitten the bullet, so at this point I owe it to Red Thread to try one of their games and where better to start than the brand new one?
In conclusion, even in a teaser form Dustborn provides just enough in style and pedigree to tickle my particular fancy. And whilst I cannot personally speak to the talents of the folk involved with the game, they've been around pretty much forever (the team that is, they worked on Dreamfall and Longest Journey under 'Funcom') so the must have been doing something right. Perhaps a bit of personal guilt, from having not gotten involved in these games sooner, has seemed into my judgement a little here, but this is my blog and I never pretended to hold myself to journalistic standards. (else I'd be a 'games journalist', yuck) So I still want to see more out of the game and get a better idea for what it plays like, but I've already wishlisted it so I'm pretty much down to clown whatever they show off. (Unless it actually is a rhythm action game. It isn't, right?)
When it comes to looking at a brand new game there are I few things that I keep an eye out for, call it my litmus test for predicting the compatibility between me and the game in question. The title isn't really important because I'm the kind of weirdo into games with the most obnoxious titles, so I really have no leg to stand on in that argument. ('VA-11 Hall-A: Cyberpunk Bartender Action' anybody?) What grabs me is the style of the presentation, the intrigue of the trailer and the promise of the concept. Three simple keys to what I would consider a successful marketing campaign, at least to my little brain. Thus it excites me to say that Dustborn, another title from the Future Games conference, managed to tick a good number of those boxes.
Immediately it's easy to see that this game has taken significant visual cues from the same handbook as Borderlands, with the same cartoon-esque cell shaded visuals. Dustborn merely boasts significantly softer lines, otherwise those two titles could pretty much twins be of one another. Additionally, the actual character design behind that cell shading doesn't appear to be as loud as what Gearbox's cast of characters tend look like, so there's a little more uniformity to their general shape. That doesn't mean the characters themselves look indistinct, however, or even that grounded as there is one fellow who is quiet literally a robot and another lady who appears to have the Penguin's glass eye monocle. Regardless I think a good argument could be made for considering Borderlands a significant source of inspiration (at least in presentation) as the teaser trailer literally consists of a bus-ride introduction to everyone just like Borderlands did. (Except they don't start ghost-boxing with the camera. Strange, I thought everyone did that on long bus rides...)
Another immediately noticeable element of the game is how important music seems to be for it, in that I'd assume this were a rhythm action game if it hadn't been for the slight millisecond of gameplay in this teaser. (Even then, it still might be. This is 2020 afterall, much worse twists have already befallen us.) Practically every character shown off is teased playing around with some sort of instrument and the trailer itself even leads in with the prototypical "One, two, three, four!" that you'd expect to hear preceding the debut performance of a garage rock band. The official Steam page seems to highlight some points from the trailer too, specifically how the game is about "Hope, adventure, love, robots - and the power of words." And by 'power' they are being literal as we see the player literally Fus Ro Dah's some folks simply by throwing the cartoon text 'Move' at them. I can see how this sort of set-up is merely a hop skip and a jump away from a 'the world can only be saved with music' sort of premise that you'd see in some angst-ridden teen drama, Styx's abominable concept album movie travesty, or 'Footloose' starring Kevin Bacon. (Wait, is that covered by 'angst ridden drama'? I dunno, I liked it.)
For the story we need to look no further than that Steam description I bought up, because the teaser was a little light on the more fine details. The year is 2030, (these 'far in the future' kind of stories feel like they're getting closer and closer.) which makes it 30 years after The Broadcast. Yep that's right, it's one of those games that's going to use vague terminology and off-kilter capitalisation in order to sell it's narrative. (My favourite.) The player is essentially a rebel called Pax who is your archetypal rebel, on a journey with a cast of fun characters, who I'm guessing are all somewhat rebellious, in order to fight, sneak and manipulate against the 'the authoritarian Justice' and 'fanatical Puritans'. (Actually, the game's description says you're just transporting a package but something tells me a little bit of 'fight the man' is gonna worm it's way in there too.)
So what we've essentially got on our hands is a Watch_Dogs 2 type premise, though with a sort of road trip slant to it in the vein of Final Fantasy XV. (Yes, all of my modern comparisons link back to games, and what?) My only hope is that these developers will perhaps do a better job of inhabiting the rebellious punk-rock spirit over Ubisoft's Watch_Dogs team who just 'hello fellow kids'-upped that whole thing. As for the road trip aspect, as that looks like it'll be the main drive for the narrative, I absolutely love it, why don't more games base themselves around road trips? It forces you to naturally explore more of the world, encourages diversity in environment and can even serve as a handy tool to measure ark progression for the various personalities. I loved how it was handled in FFXV and that alone actually has me quite interested in Dustborn already. (Despite the fact that the game sounds like they exhumed their title from some ill-fated Gearbox MOBA, or something...)
Speaking of traversing the world, the design of that world in the trailer is perhaps what spoke to me the most in the "This is something I should pay attention to" category. I already spoke about the similarities to Borderlands (something only reinforced by the abundance of Desert in the trailer) but I'm also finding some of the enemy design comfortingly familiar. The Justice, for example, seem to dress in this bulky, ugly armour with goggle eyes and a gross colour scheme; just like the majority of armours from 'Outer Worlds'. (And I like that game, so being reminded of it is a positive.) The designs of the crew are great as well, there're all that special brand of distinctive where you can identify them from the silhouette alone (as the trailer itself demonstrates) and I'm already getting a sense of who they are from their little mannerisms. These are characters I want to see more of and get to know, so that's a strong start.
Now this game didn't just pop up from nowhere, and the reason why I seem to be receiving everything that it's selling so positively is because I actually recognise the indie team working on it. Red Thread Games are actually the folk behind something of an old school cult classic in the Dreamfall series. Point and click adventure games that go back to the mid 2000's (or even earlier if you count 'The Longest Journey') and go all the way up to 2017. These ain't no first time newbies to game development, is what I'm saying, and what's more they've cut their teeth on narrative-driven adventure titles, so I feel they're fully within their abilities to make this Dustborn something decent if not great. (Just, you know, as long as they don't make it last 18 years again.) Now Dreamfall is a series I've been recommended for literally years now but I've just never bitten the bullet, so at this point I owe it to Red Thread to try one of their games and where better to start than the brand new one?
In conclusion, even in a teaser form Dustborn provides just enough in style and pedigree to tickle my particular fancy. And whilst I cannot personally speak to the talents of the folk involved with the game, they've been around pretty much forever (the team that is, they worked on Dreamfall and Longest Journey under 'Funcom') so the must have been doing something right. Perhaps a bit of personal guilt, from having not gotten involved in these games sooner, has seemed into my judgement a little here, but this is my blog and I never pretended to hold myself to journalistic standards. (else I'd be a 'games journalist', yuck) So I still want to see more out of the game and get a better idea for what it plays like, but I've already wishlisted it so I'm pretty much down to clown whatever they show off. (Unless it actually is a rhythm action game. It isn't, right?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)