Portkey Game's Hogwarts legacy

I solemn swear someone in the development team is probably up to no good.

I may sound like a bit of an ingrate for saying it but; It's about darn time, don't you think? I've personally been a huge fan of Harry Potter since I was a child, I grew up on the thing. I remember that the only competition I ever won was for the complete collection of Harry Potter books, (Which at that time only ran up to 'The Order of the Phoenix') and I read those books to tatters. Absolutely destroyed them with how much I read and re-read those stories, enthralled by the world of Harry Potter and ever hopeful that one day my owl would show up at the window. Well, needless to say that never happened and now we're living in an age where many kids haven't even heard of Harry Potter let alone read the books or watched the movies, so it almost feels as though the moment has passed to get a darn good game based on this franchise. Even the loyal fans of my generation are starting to feel their goodwill ware thin after countless self-assassination attempts by the book's author J.K.Rowling and those two abominable prequel movies her and Warner Bros. spat out. Thus it was wonderment, shock, awe and any other emotion I could drudge up, that I saw the promise of a proper Harry Potter game coming our way through 'Portkey Game's Hogwarts Legacy'.

Now, of course, this is by no means the first Harry Potter game, just the first with any actual potential to be worth a damn. Back in the day there was a pitch by Nintendo to turn the Harry Potter books into one of their notoriously well-made franchises, but Rowling and her team opted to go for EA instead and what we got was a deluge of movie tie-in games that ranged from 'average' to 'what is this abomination and how can you call yourselves publishers after making this!?"  It's stunning to think that these games literally got worse as they went along but they did! It defies all logic but they absolutely did. Would things have been different if Nintendo got the deal? Who kno- actually, scratch that: Yes, things would have been so much better. But we don't live in that reality so we had to wait until just a few days ago to see something worth getting excited over. An actual game, that doesn't look like it's just leveraging the licence in order to get away with half-assing a game. (Looking at you, Avengers.) This here's what's called a promising title!

Far from the straight adaptations that we've been forced to swallow in the age of EA's Harry Potter, or the crappy mobile titles that have dominated the first few years of Portkey's Games' existence, Hogwarts legacy is a brand new story that promises to take us all to the, as-of-yet unexplored, days of the late 1800's. Of course, Hogwarts being Hogwarts this doesn't mean a great change for the aesthetics of the world we'll be entering, but it does mean an entirely fresh cast of teachers because these are the years before even Dumbledore or Professor McGonagall were part of the staff. Could we still perhaps be privy to a visit from Albus or Grindlewald as students? I don't know, can't be bothered to do the maths, but I'd imagine they'll be room for Easter eggs here and there. Especially as this title is reported to be an open world game wherein the whole of Hogwarts will be explorable for the first time ever!

Now the trailer that we received for this dream potter game was, to but it mildly, pure fan service goodness. From being welcomed into the iconic grand hall (Which, to be honest, looks smaller everytime I see it) to wondering the every reforming staircases, walking past the living portraits and exploring the grounds, to partaking in potions lessons in that dungeon which will one day be Snape's, herbology classes and, undoubtedly everyone in the school's favourite, defence against the dark arts. But where the concept truly started to stand out for me was when they spoke about going beyond the school and we saw glimpses of Hogsmeade and even just general country fly-bys on the backs of Hippogriffs; I don't know if we can actually be that free with our exploration in the game but that's a pretty heavy-handed promise to not live up to, Portkey Games, you'd better deliver! My only gripe with the trailer was the way we saw the player wearing School robes even when delving in deadly dungeons and facing traps, (don't they have travel clothes) but beyond that I was bouncing off the walls.

What makes this especially as cool for me is the way that there does not appear to be some boring fixed character for us to follow which will only make us wish we were still following Harry. (Sorry, Newt Scamander, but literally the most interesting thing about you is that oddball name.) Every single action shot from this trailer featured a vastly different school member which means either this game has a hardcore permadeath system for it's students or there's a character creator coming our way. (I'm going to assume it's the latter but I'll leave the door open for the former) Finally, after all these years I can just make-believe that I got my arrow and am living it up in Hogwarts in my house of choice- I don't remember. (I've literally been picked for every house apart from Hufflepuff, god knows where this game will place me.) I did note that every single player face in the trailer looked particularly lifeless, but I'm hoping that's just a quirk of early footage and not the first signs of the possibility that this game will be another low-effort nightmare like Portkey Game's other titles. No, that's out of the question. Those were mobile games and this is a real game... right?

I suppose what I'm trying to underline is my chief concern with the way this game appears to promise so much without any of the credential to back it up. I mean I hate to beleaguer a point, but Portkey Game's Mobile outings were so bad, and so derivative, that I can't help but wonder exactly what they have in mind with an apparently unique story and concept for the series. What's more some of the wording in the trailer and the screens active some dormant warning gland in my brain that hasn't sounded for a while. Something about the way they decided to show off 'outside the school' with one recognisable location in Hogsmeade, and then a unidentifiable ruin with very generic looking traps. And then there's the name, 'Hogwarts Legacy', very nonspecific and doesn't appear to hint to a situation that the game could possible cover in anyway like the book titles do. In fact, all of these little quirks together sort of sound like the warning signs that we might be looking at... god I don't want to say it... a live service. (Egads! Say it's not true!)

Of course, we have no idea as of yet what in all the world this game will end up shaping like, and I tend to be the apocalyptic type when it comes to predictions, but then I did predict that Avengers was going to be a live-service mess so it's not like my predictions are without any merit. Whilst I want to smile at the very idea of a open-world Harry Potter game, I'm just so used to getting absolute crap out of this franchise that I physically cannot accept something wholesome and good being presented to me without sniffing it for poison. Why wouldn't Warner Bros. and the Rowling pin be interested in milking the most profitable entertainment medium in the world with their highly recognisable brand? I'd honestly be more surprised if it turned out that this game is entirely on the level and doesn't have some super exploitative plans on the horizon.

But I'm fretting over nothing right now, all we have is a trailer that looks positively fine to gawk at and dreams to weave in the distinct hope that they don't get crushed come launch day. In the spirit of positivity, I will say that I hope this a single player RPG will oodles of freedom, but I'll take an MMO like some rumours are claiming that it is. If this turns out to be little more than a slice-of-life wizard simulator through the HP world, I will be chuffed beyond compare. (Although it's almost certainly going to not be that. Can't wait for this story to reveal how there was yet another Dark Lord before Grindlewald. It is Morgoth? I bet it's Morgoth...) I suppose all that's left is to enjoy what we've seen and live in bliss for the next few months until more info starts to trickle out. (Fingers crossed it's good news.)

FNAF Security Breach

He always comes back

Five Nights at Freddy's, how is it that I've never spoken about this franchise at length before? I mean I've mentioned it in passing but there's never been that one excuse to just sit down and go into exactly what it's all about for the blog. I suppose, that would dictate that I have to start from the beginning, but it almost seemed redundant to go into the history of one of the biggest indie success stories of all time. Then again I'm always astounded by the amount of people who've never even heard of FNAF, so maybe it makes sense for a little recap. This goes especially true since these games have ballooned to such a height wherein the latest game got itself an actual trailer in the PS5 showcase! I mean how cool is that for ol' Scott to rave about!? If I were him that'd be the kind of thing I'd never shut up about, getting his game out there in possibly the single most mainstream manner possible. I mean sure, it was arguably the most bait-ey and eye-rolling trailer of the entire conference, but at least it was there, you know? And though we've very little information to go on for the moment we've still a decently solid idea about what this game is, so let's get into it.

But first, a history. Scott Cawthon was a animator in the early 90's who started to get into indie game development in the late 2000's. He made a few games which were published through the Steam Greenlight program (wherein users play games and determine whether or not it should be continued in development or something, I forget the specifics) but not every title he put out made the cut. In fact one game, 'Chipper and Sons Lumber Co.' was ridiculed for it's lifeless-looking character design which made the beaver protagonists look like animatronics. As the legend goes, which I'm fairly certain is played up for effect, Scott was a little upset with this feedback, along with other issues in his life at that point, and so he promised himself he'd make one final game before putting game development behind him for good. But rather than just forget his past failures he decided he would leverage them, by taking that "They look like animatronics" and "These 'cute characters' look horrific" criticism and turning them into the point of his newest game. Thus was born, Five Nights at Freddy's.

The basic premise behind the games is... well, basic. You are the night security guard in a pizzeria for kids based on Chuck E. Cheese (RIP), meaning that it's aimed at kids and features a cast of animatronic mascots who operate during the day in order to delight the children and bring their restaurant experience to life, or something. (I never got the concept behind Chuck E. Cheese, it's all a mystery to me.) Now life as a night security guard should be pretty boring except for one thing, according to the voiceover the phonecall you get each morning (that provides your orientation because no one here believes in training days, I guess) the Animatronics themselves have a tendency to turn themselves on and wonder through the halls at night. (As you'd expect from ostensibly lifeless robots.) What's more, they have a 'failsafe' built into them that if they happen across anyone in this wander state they will assume they are an animatronic exoskeleton outside of it's suit and thus forcibly try to force that person into a animatronic suit. (Suits which absolutely do not have enough room for an adult human to fit into without loosing a lot of vital organs.) Huh, this lazy night job turned into a survival horror real quick...

So the basic gameplay loop which all the games have come back to for the most part (I see you, FNAF World, you RPG abomination upon man, you.) goes a bit like this, the player must observe the animatronics from the security office over the restaurant's cameras and close the door to their office whenever one comes too close. Although you can't just close all doors and ride it out because the building runs on old electronics and you'll quickly run out of power unless you ration it correctly. (Oh, and apparently the act of looking through the cameras drains the generator. These guys need a decent technician, I swear!) So this is a slowburn survival horror scenario defined by resource management and punctuated with jumpscares when you screw up. Throw in some curious mysteries, a threadbare storyline and a background about murdered children possessing the animatronics and hunting for victims, and you've got yourself a multi-million dollar franchise.

Fast forward through what feels like a decades worth of sequels, spin offs and whatever the hell FNAF World was meant to be, and we get to the game announced (officially) during the PS5 conference 'FNAF Security Breach'. Cue a creepy trailer taking us through possible the most extravagantly 80's location ever made by man, ending with a supremely ineffective jumpscare (seriously Scott, even your games have better jumps than that) and there's the most mainstream debut of the series right there. A niche title touted as a system seller, who'd a thunk it? Okay, to be fair I can name a least one person who legitimately jumped to this trailer, but amidst all of the other indepth announcements this one stood out as a supremely underexplored trailer. Only God of War Ragnarok was less informative but that was just a teaser.  Still, as I said, we're not entirely in the dark.

Just as the history of Hyrule was also the history of Calamity Ganon, the story of FNAF coincides with the life and times William Afton. Will is one of the co-creators of Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria (the franchisation of Fazbear's Diner) and a lifelong child murderer. I don't know what his motivation is, I don't even know if Scott even bothered to think up a motivation, I just know that William has a history of killing kids and stuffing them in animatronic suits, even long after it became apparent to him that doing so was what led to these suits becoming possessed. (How many times does a guy gotta screw up to learn his lesson?) This time-jumping series has covered his long serial killer history as well as his successful robotics career, and the way that his entire family ended up becoming victims to him in some way or another. Now with Security Breach it seems the series may be stepping forward from him for the first time. (With heavy emphasis on 'may')

This 80's inspired- (you know I don't what this place is. A diner? A disco? What is going on?) was teased first during the run of FNAF's VR game, a game which introduced a new character killer going by the name of Vanny. (Who was a VR character that escaped to the real world through your body or something, I dunno; this franchise is freakin' odd) Vanny, as she is definitely called thanks to the merchandise of her already making it's way to shelves, is dressed in a bunny rabbit suit and will allegedly seek to start a cult in the name of the original killer. How that pans into what sounds like menacing a small child in an empty Fazbear location is beyond me, but there's your backstory.

Ultimately, I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what this game was doing in an event about the PS5. FNAF games are usually best at home on the PC and even then they don't have a reputation for being particular lookers or even being that well made in some early titles. Again, even the trailer was pretty ropey for this title, and I'd say this trailer stuck out next to FFXVI and other games that I've yet to talk about. Yet, I have to concede and say; at least Scott managed to get his indie title to the mainstage. (If it still counts as an Indie game at this point, I'm guessing not.) You can poke holes in the presentation, concept, writing, scripting and everything else of the games, but you can never take that away from them. Good for you, Scott, Good for you.

The Road to Cyberpunk: 2 Months to go

"The grass ain't greener anywhere else"

Crazy to think how long it's been since the first Night Citywire event, huh. When we first got an indepth dive into the world of Cyberpunk accompanied by actual hands-on impressions by members of the media. I remember the excitement bubbling around that event and how truly pumped the world was to see exactly what it was we'd be getting our hands on, what we'd waited all these years for, what we'd preserved ourselves for. That was months ago, almost 3 of them in fact, and now we're practically in the home stretch. Hell, it feels like a lifetime has passed since then, and we've spent that lifetime stuck firmly indoors. (Sure, why not.) Now, ahead of schedule from when I expected it, we're getting a 3rd dose of goodness regarding game details and I'm deathly excited to consume it all right this very second. Unfortunately, this first paragraph is being written approximately 7 hours before the event so I'm going to have to use the 'wait' function. Over to future me-

Thank you, past me, so 'Videogames'; the medium of the future. Through this most engrossing of platforms we can delve into experiences beyond the average imagining, and in no manner is that greater symbolised than in the humble video game worldspace. (Like our very own Isekai moment.) Thus it was nice of this episode of our regularly scheduled update news to focus on the distinct districts of Night City, the gangs who pollute and rule those streets, and an update on how the OST- wait... I'm hearing that they cut the OST segment after having announced it just a few hours earlier. ('Kay, better luck next time I suppose.) I'm not too bummed, more time with the city I love is enough for me and we have another final Night City Wire in, I guess, about a month, so no harm no foul.

The thing I was most interested in, however, was the promised tour of the city because; can you really blame me? Nightcity appears to be this wondrous achievement of design that I totally buy with just about every facet. I mean, someone I know did point out how there appears to be no one under the age of 21 in the city, but I think we can all agree that's for the best. (We don't want morality crawling in the way of our inevitable massacres, do we?) As it would happen this tour took form of an introductory trailer to the city where the team went out of their way to justify the 'Dystopia' tag on their Steam page. They detailed a city of huge disparity between classes, massive unemployment, exploding crime rates, and a city life ruled by chaos and carnage. Even the few shots we saw of police trading fire with gangers across streets that look like blown-out warzones was sufficient enough to get across the message; Nightcity is not for the faint of heart. If you wanted a more traditional tour, however, like I did; then you can actually visit that website they mentioned on the trailer 'www.Nightcity.Love' (Yeah, it's real.) It makes for a chuckle worthy parody of the tourist sites of the future, complete with pop up advertisement windows featuring such wonders as holographic samurai bed-watchers. (A must have!)

Again the standout feature here is how real the city looks and feels, to the point where you can make out the versatility that the developers tout. Hanging walkways, gardens, public-use elevators, there many examples of the way that this city is stacked up upon itself and overcrowded, of course paving the way for a lot of the societal problems with contextualise the crisis state of Night City. Additionally, looking at the different districts that make up Night City really highlights how different they all feel and look, rewarding the inquisitive explorer. They spoke about how they've labelled every street, not just for narrative consistency but for genuine navigation too, and even how the garbage littering the streets is handplaced. Do you have any idea how insane that is! These world designers must be literal psychopaths, there's no way you handplace an entire city's-worth of ambient clutter and don't lose your mind.

Next up was their exclusive piece about the many gangs who populate Night City and this was the trailer in which we got ourselves a very in depth look at the fantastical and grounded big players that we'll undoubtedly become familiar with in the story. Unlike in many other open world games, the gangs here don't just serve the role of whack-a-mole badguys that you have to shoot down for every mission. (I mean, I'm sure they are that as well, but there's also a little bit more too them.) V, being a mercenary, has the tendency to work with whoever has the money to pay him/her and, like it or not,  gangs tend to have a lot of capital to put towards merc work. Basically this means you'll likely be working alongside, or for, these gangs just as often as you'll be shooting them, making the act of learning about them actually very informative to the folk we'll end up choosing between in the actual narrative.

Of course the most visually alarming of the pack is the Maelstrom gang, which is essentially Cyberpunk's version of Deus Ex's Harvesters, only a lot more hardcore. We've seen them in several trailers before and they always stand out due to the way they've modded themselves to the nines with cybernetics. (Visually, one of my favourites I have to admit.) But even though they stand a bit out compared to their slightly more grounded peers, that doesn't make those gangs less interesting. The Latin-inspired Valentinos, Haitian Voodoo boys and Japanese Tyger Claws reinforce the cultural clash you'll find in a city as big as this one; whilst the 6th street, Moxes and Animals represent the clash of extreme ideals. It makes for a solid formation for interesting and potentially complex relationships to be formed between the groups in question and V themselves. And that's not even taking into account the two big Nomad tribes that I haven't even got a clue about just yet when it comes to motivation. (Except, of course, how big they all are on Vin Diesel's favourite word: "Family".)

So that's everything which was covered in today's Night City Wire. Not a great deal but then, we've another finale to save for next month. Besides, Night City Wire wasn't the only info dump we received due to a heavily overlooked Q&A from a few weeks ago which bore the title; "Russian Community Developer Q&A" (You can see why people didn't pay it the most amount of attention.) So no, it wasn't a translation of previous interviews like one might assume, but a brand new Q&A on new topics in which the questions just happened to be in Cyrillic for some reason. (The man even answered in English, I really didn't get the Russian themeing at all.) Here we learnt about some of the steps the team took to make the city more immersive, such as dynamic street population depending on the time of day, place in the city and certain events in the story; the way food can be used to provide bonuses to stats; how aesthetic gear may provide small stat bonuses, but at the end of the day they're there to offer visual choice; how you can't kill everyone you meet; (The Outer Worlds, style) and actually a lot more. It's a really indepth video, I'd recommend watching it if you're as helpless addicted to this game as I am.

Just like any addiction I'm getting to the point where I can barely be sedated with these slight teasing glimpses anymore. I want to really delve into the heart of Cyberpunk with something substantial or the game itself; in fact, if this next Night City Wire will be as tame as this last one was, I may just prefer they don't have an event at all. Just to be clear, my excitement for this game isn't wavering, I'm just getting to grips with it, I'm managing the urge to bounce up and down like a lunatic every moment of everyday. (Getting hard into Jojo helps with that quite a bit.) I don't have much more to really express on the title aside from the fact that I'm really digging the OST so far and genuinely loved that 'Hole in the Sun' track they released, can't wait to hear more. 61 days to go and counting.

Call of Duty Black Ops: Cold War

Sure that title's long enough Activision? Just checking...

You know what I haven't played in an absolutely obscene amount of time? The sort of game that everyone and their mother has heard of in some form but I can't seem to bring myself to pick up? It's Call of Duty, and I just can't explain why. Perhaps it's because I fell out of love with that generic gung-ho military fiction which the series built itself on, or because the quality of the games themselves began to noticeably sag, or the way in which their success threatened to suck all creativity out of the industry by forcing every big game to be a pale imitation of it for a time, or maybe just the way in which COD served as the in-road for many of the abused and overused monetisation tactics of today such as Season Passes and Microtransactions. (Can I just rant about how the term 'Season pass' doesn't even make sense outside of Sports titles? 'Season' implies that it lasts for a prefixed period of time, but that period of time can mean literally anything the publisher and developer are willing to invest in the gaming world. When you buy a Season pass in any other context there is as least a rough understanding of everything you receive, whilst in gaming that's almost never the case!) But I digress, there's a new COD and I thought I'd give it a looksee.

'Call of Duty: Black Ops: Cold War' is yet another example of the slowly dawning truth that Activison have run out of titles for their games. And concepts, apparently. This manner of going back on oneself to 'remake the hits' as it were, it getting a little tiresome I must admit. I miss the days when people could be excited for something new and unexpected from their favourite franchise, but maybe I'm just saying that as someone who was just crushed to see that the new Prince of Persia game is a freakin' remaster. (Of one of the three games in the series? Are we really half-assing remasters now, Ubisoft?) Although, to Activision's credit this game does appear to have unique characters and a new storyline, but then again Mason's tale was so beloved one might wonder why they didn't try another take on that one. (Maybe they're waiting for the sequel)

From the trailers we've seen released so far there is one thing abundantly clear about the direction of this new COD; it's framing itself to be a cautionary tale that has some sort of reflection on real life events. They tease the dissolution of unity and trust within America and view it through the lens of orchestrated events from a real-life Russian spy master who was deployed to America and never caught. His is a legend that as been speculated about forever and now the COD writers are going to try their hand at it alongside providing an 'important' life lesson. And if you think I'm exaggerated about the self-imposed importance that the team have placed on this game, remember that the teaser's tag was 'learn your history or you'll be doomed to repeat it!'. Sure, Activision, teach me about the dangers of unchecked power, literally who else would know better?

The story trailer didn't drop all that long later and it was a little bit more specific about the stories it wanted to tell. As it turns out, this will be a title that takes players from Vietnam to the United States in an international race against the clock in order to- wait a minute; this is literally the plot of the original Black Ops. (If there's not a Russian Prison level I'm gonna riot.) In fact, with all this preamble about the cold war potentially becoming hot I'm almost getting the sense that this is the junior's version of 'Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater'. (Though somehow I doubt this game will even a fraction as well crafted or memorable.) Ah, but I'm being a downer again, let me at least commend the Black Ops folk for getting an actual President to feature in their game. (Reagan's never looked more plastic.)

As the headlines have all touted, we're essentially talking about a game wherein the President of the United States permits you to commit crimes on American soil because some ultra-patriot pinky promised that it was necessary. (What a hero) That means a whole lot of shooting up folk, blowing up planes and all the other things that counts as 'commentary' in a Call of Duty title. On the more positive view of things, this does mean the return of great COD stables such as the RC car, pre-2000's era weaponary and bandannas on protagonists. Speaking of the protagonists, I have to confess that I never realised that a human's face could be over designed until I saw these characters. They look like a mix up between jaded veterans/diehard super patriots/and surfer dudes trying to look cool. (Okay, maybe I'm getting a little confrontational again.)

Now I know that no matter how confused the tone the trailer comes out like, the final game itself will likely have one heck of a fun campaign. That's one thing Call of Duty can always be relied on for. Even at it's worst when the narrative turned into literal crap and all the characters were parodies of themselves, that raw gameplay fun never truly vanished. (Actually, saying that I never played 'Ghosts' and people tell me that one is the absolute worst. So maybe it did for a little bit.) I think that Activision are certainly overestimating their own storytelling worth with their heady trailers but I say it's their right to sniff their own farts if they want to. And hey, who knows, this game could turn out to be really thoughtful and provocative in a ton on unexpected ways. It won't- but it could- and isn't that what matters in the end?

All that's left to go over is the only thing COD fans care about at all; the Multiplayer. Here I'll come clean and admit that I'm more of a Battlefield fanboy here, but I understand that COD is slowly picking up the slack in this neighbourhood. (Made all the more possible by EA driving the Battlefield franchise off a cliff recently) I just love the more tactical affair that can be defined by half an hour of impromptu night-sniping in the woods as by those moments of hectic chaos, COD never quite achieved that for me. Call of Duty is, however, more traditional with their deathmatches and thus have them down to a fine art, and now that they've got vehicles in the game it's almost as though a sliver of Battlefield's ghost is alive in it's competitor. As for the multiplayer tease we've got, I found it a little weak I'm not going to lie. All the maps they showed off felt uninspired and mere biome swaps with the exception of 'Miami', which I just don't like the look off (too dark and cramped) and 'North Atlantic' which, to be fair, looks like a genius stroke of concept and execution. Yeah, 'North Atlantic' looks fantastic, I cannot take that away from the trailer.

So what do I ultimately make of Call of Duty's latest outing? It looks fine. We're a long way out from the days where Call of Duty was the bastion of cutting edge game design, but even then these trailers did look impressive enough to win over some fans, I'm sure. I think the concept is a little under-explored in gaming and if the game defies it's trailer and turns out to live up to the espionage-esque potential of a narrative like this, I could even start to get excited myself. I think that the message the teaser trailer seemed poised to send is a little muddied by the other trailers, alongside the very nature of Call of Duty as a 'death and destruction first- morality later' series, but I appreciate the attempt to hint at something grander from the storytelling. All in all- I mark this a C+ effort in marketing from the Activision teams. (Yes I'm rating marketing campaign's now, it's not like I'm actually going to buy the game; Cyberpunk comes out this year!)

Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity

So is Breath of the Wild a brand now?

I don't think I've really ever been invested enough to really pay attention to the sheer rate of Nintendo announcements before now, but I have to say: They move at crazy speed. First there was the Pokemon DLC reveal event which literally happened less than two weeks before launch, then 'The Origami King' which was less than a month out, and now a full blown prequel to a game we only thought was getting a sequel. I thought the whole 'announce the day before you go gold' strategy was Bethesda's patented routine. (But then again, since saying that we've only seen their main team release one bad Fallout game, so maybe their example isn't one to ever be lauded.) Either way, I must say that this is the most exciting announcement I've heard this year out of Nintendo and that's because Nintendo are heading my favourite among their brands, Zelda, to my personal 'best' of it's iterations, Breath of the Wild, to flesh out important events in this prequel: 'Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity'.

The Hyrule Warriors franchise (As I guess that's what it is now) goes back to that forgone relic of history known as the 'Wii U'. (Archaeologists still argue over what exactly that piece of antiquated tech was to this day.) Then it was an attempt to supplant the world of Zelda and transpose it into the same sort of game type as a typical Dynasty Warriors title, with their patented '1000 vs 1' gameplay that they go on about ad nauseam. Basically that means gameplay wound up being a hero unit turning around battles through the grace of their sweeping attacks and clever utilisation of magical powers. Honestly, this always did ring hollow for me whenever I played the Dynasty games, because I never liked the way that the sacrifice of hundreds constantly got whittled down to the efforts of one 8 foot man. (Never understood why the generals had to be so oversized either.) In the world of Zelda, however, this does make a lot more sense given the nature of Moblins and the heroes who defended the nature, so I honestly shocked to say that Hyrule Warriors does the genre better than it's namesake. (Unfortunately not many got a chance to play it because it was on the Wii U.)

Age of Calamity hopes to replicate that, but instead of use it as the grounds to tell a unique self-contained story, (which I think fit into the 'Twilight Princess' timeline if I recall correctly) this promises to go back and tell the climatic events of 100 years prior to Breath of the Wild; and I for one couldn't be more enthused. The legacy of Zelda is always played out as a reiteration upon the same formula with the reincarnations of the same people. Link and Zelda are reborn as different versions of the same characters destined to relive events for all eternity. (Or until Zelda gets her act together and disintegrates Ganon's primal form.) Now while this works great for being accessible, it does make it hard to build up a journey and development over multiple adventures because the characters always end-up invariably getting reset. What Age of Calamity, along with the upcoming Breath of the Wild Sequel, portend is a change upon that formula where this one Zelda and Link will go on multiple adventures and grow as they do, making for more satisfying arcs in the tales to come.

For those that can't quite remember Breath of the Wild's plot; that game took place 100 years after an event known as The Great Calamity wherein the kingdom of Hyrule was invaded by the ethereal force known as Calamity Ganon, who turned the might of the Sheikah technology against the heroes and used it to take over the kingdom. This ended with Link being severely hurt trying to protect Zelda and thus having to be stuck in a rejuvenation chamber for a whole century. (Damn, who made this chamber? Naminé?) The war was a time of heroes across all the nations coming together to fight for time as their Princess struggled to meet her destiny, (In vain, as it just so happens, because she would take another 100 years to get there) and the battles they fought against the armies of Ganon must have been legendary. Thus to get the chance at experiencing those legends is truly something to be excited for. (I so am.)

But with that excitement comes a little bit of bittersweet uncertainty, because I must stop and wonder if the very existence of this Age of Calamity doesn't invalidate the entire narrative of Breath of the Wild. One of the weakest parts of that masterpiece was it's plot and the way that Nintendo chose to tell it, not because it didn't have depth but because it focused itself on telling the events of 100 years prior thus robbing the present moment of urgency. It's only really once you face off against Calamity Ganon himself that you enter into the moment and feel like you're fighting for something, but that's literally at the end of the game. The mystery of uncovering the past was, then, the draw of the narrative, but if there's due to be an entire game living in that past then this plotline becomes redundant in about 2 months. (Perhaps evidence that it was weak plotline to put their weight on to begin with.)

Then there's the issue that I'll admit is a lot more of a personal gripe but I still feel is valid to bring up. When that trailer for Breath of the Wild 2 first dropped, as did my bowels, there were quite a few elements that blew me and everyone else away. There was the creepy factor to it all, the backwards singing, the fiery-haired corpse, the sheer excitement of a sequel, and the fact that this was Link travelling alongside Zelda. Finally! This would be the first time we got to play as Zelda (No, those games didn't exist; shut up.) But, as you can likely deduce, Zelda will be playable in November's Age of Calamity and she has the Sheikah plate moveset from the Breath of the Wild main game. It's not a huge point by any stretch of the imagination but it does rob some of the allure from getting to play as the Goddess' heir. (Yes I know she was playable in the original Hyrule Warriors but again- Wii U. IF a game is released on a Wii U and no one was around did it ever really release at all?)

Though on the otherhand I do like the way that having this game creates a Breath of the Wild trilogy in which we'll get to experience Link and, more importantly, Zelda at ever point of the character development. Link as a young prodigy and Zelda as a failing priestess destined for greatness but unable to bridge that gap. Then Link, still as a prodigy, and Zelda at her breakthrough moment battling Calamity Ganon for a century and living up to her birth rite. And then, in the hopefully not too distant future; Link as, yet again a prodigy, and Zelda as the adventurer she always wanted to be, finally reaching her dreams. (Huh, I'm starting to think we need a 'Legend of Link' game to flesh out our silent hero. He's hitting a little one-note lately.)

Age of Calamity excites me to a frankly unreal degree right now. I shouldn't be this pumped about a prequel to a genre that I don't even like that much, but I just adore Breath of the Wild so much that I cannot help but lose my mind at the chance to experience that beautiful world once more. (I literally just started replaying the game the week before this announcement; is that serendipity or what?) I am ecstatic for the precedent this sets for the Breath of the Wild timeline, and I know this is going to ultimately just make the wait for BOTW 2 absolutely unbearable. Dammit, Nintendo! I was angry at you last week and now I'm chomping at the bit for whatever you've got ready for us... I'm too weak...(Why can't I quit you!)

XIII

I live my life in cell-shades

Have you ever heard of the game XIII? Even in the dreariest recesses of my darkest subconscious, my memories of this title are hazy at best, but they do exist all the same. I remember a game that rocked a cell-shaded aesthetic in a time when every single game looked like a pretty ropey attempt at photo-realism, (The tech wasn't really there yet) I remember a James Bond-type experience that felt a lot more freeing than any of the other Bond games of the day (or since, to be fair) and I remember, distinctly, the campaign feeling really short. That last one is peculiar too, because I wasn't really the sort of person who finished games at the time when this game was a thing, so either I made an exception for this one game or I got regularly stuck at one point which I convinced myself was the end of the game. This title literally launched so long ago in my life that I cannot remember between the two. What I can remember, however, is really enjoying my limited time with XIII, thus it was with surprise and a hint of exuberance that I saw the impending re-release due in literally no-time flat.

For me, I think the most enduring shade from the recess of my memories comes in the art style which was an absolute triumph of concept and execution. Many games go for the cell-shaded style as it's very loud, somewhat interesting and depreciates a lot slower than other aesthetic themes, but for XIII the cell shading carried a purpose too. You see, the story of this game was born out of an adaption for a graphic novel of the same name, one which delved into conspiracy and intrigue throughout it's comic pages, this it makes sense for XIII (the game) to literally ape the style of the comic book. In gameplay, this literally meant moments where cutaway panels would spring onto screen to act a dynamic camera, proving fictional and attributing to the artistic vision simultaneously. There are also cut-in dialogue boxes, dynamic pop-up sound-effect text and Metal Gear reminiscent head punctuation. (God, do I love a game with style!) 

Which isn't to say that none of the rest of the game was fun to play, in fact I do remember spending a good amount of time playing XIII with my friends in days past, and I'd love to spark some of those memories again now with this. From the screenshots already available you can see the substantial ways in which the art alone has improved, with a simply ludicrous upgrade in the detailing and much softer outlines. Additionally, it would seem that the Multiplayer which I loved so much is also making it's way to us, though whether it's still the same couch co-op from that bygone era is unknown. (Doesn't really effect me either way if it is.) As far as the age of remakes goes, I will definitely put my foot down and say that from everything I'm seeing this appears to be the way to do it in a manner that preserves and old cult classic whilst making the wait seem at least somewhat worth it.

The story is, lo-and-behold, pretty cliche off the bat. It follows a man who awakes on a desert island without a name or identifying mark beyond the tattoo of the number XIII by his collarbone. He knows nothing about how he got there nor how he attained the reflexes of a trained assassin; although maybe it has something to do with the recent assassination of the President of America. (Who knows) So yeah, this is pretty much a Jason Borne story though realised through a game that isn't total garbage like that movie tie-in was. Personally I can woefully say that I don't actually remember the ins-and-outs of the conspiracy in question which means I can feasibly approach this whole thing fresh. (Although I vaguely remember someone commenting that this game ended in an particularly unsatisfying manner, so that should probably be something to watch out for.)

One aspect I do wonder about with this new XIII (Which doesn't actually have a subtitle to differentiate it from the original) is the marketability of this new title. Nowadays the game is considered a pioneer of it's time, and in many ways it did revolutionise how video game presentation could be rendered. Before them the biggest step forward was probably from Voxel characters to proper 3D models, a substantial graphical and conceptual leap, no doubt; but XIII flipped that 'race to look the best' concept on it's head by just looking unique and unlike anything but itself. Although in today's age that isn't quite the status-quo upset as it used to be. Plenty of games have their own visual flair and, in fact, some have even pushed the cell-shaded genre forward in this game's absence. Take the 'Prince of Persia' remake for example, which was lauded for it's visuals. Or the Borderlands franchise which ruled with them. XIII still has it's comic book references, but I don't know if that's enough to stand out at a glance, and that's a real shame if it means a great title will get largely looked over for a second time.

The cult status of the original game may just be the only thing that is really going for it in terms of visibility. And I say that as someone who only happened upon the game himself because he was looking at the 'upcoming games' section of the Microsoft store in search of something to make fun of and literally did a double take. Of course, in the years since the original, word of mouth will have dripped out and folk may be more aware of this title than they once were, but this is a very busy year for games at it is so there just may not be room for this November 10 launch. Heck, I'm actually someone who's super interested in trying this out and even I can't find a room for this game in 2020. It breaks my heart to turn down a game remake that looks so good!

Of course, at the heart of the issue this stirs a little deeper than my nostalgia for a good spy game. The era that this game is from, alongside the boxart, reminds me of another game that was similarly a cult darling but to which I owe a much bigger chunk of my childhood heart. A game I fear may be subject to the same poor treatment for it's time to shine. A game that I don't think I've ever taken the time to talk about on this blog. Have I ever told you about, Timesplitters? Now I know the comparison is somewhat tedious, but you can't in good faith deny the similarities are there. Cult game, FPS, hugely influential, dissipated from the public eye, due a remake. And now the rights are with... (THQ Nordic, I think?) there's a distinct possibility that dead series from my childhood could see the light once again. I'm smelling those necromantic juices in the air, and it both excited and worries me.

I know it's a little weird to hope for the success of one game under the weird belief that it will effect the success of an entirely different (not even announced yet) game, but that's where the heads at right now. Sue me. XIII is, if nothing else, a great game with a decent mystery at the heart of it which may, or may not, decide the fate of off-kilter cult game remakes in the future. (No pressure, then.) I hope it'll keep all the charm of the original, and even if it doesn't it has to be better than that movie/TV adaptation from the 2000's. (God that looks bad)

EA and tale of the Ads that will end us all

HeY wANna wAtcH 'THe bOYs' On AmaZOn?

Not a big fan of ads, not gonna lie. Don't get me wrong, i understand their necessity as it pertains to maintenance of entertainment properties. It's sort of a 'sad truth' sort of situation. I just hate their style or general lack thereof that we see in the ad
erts of here and now. In the days of old it seemed like adverts styled themselves around exaggeration and showmanship, which one could argue was misleading but at least that made them entertaining to watch. Nowadays it seems that we have a mix between either throwing a famous face in our eyes to imply "Buy this product and you'll be successful like X" or propping some charisma-less lifeless mannequin up on a stick and tell me that they're an ordianry person like me. (I mean, I'm not gonna lie and say that's not accurate, but that doesn't make them any more worth my time.) So the very concept of ads sneaking their way into my daily life, whether that be through watching content or just straight browsing, pretty much leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So if that's the case, then you can understand why this latest overreach of the marketing arm pretty much sickens me to my core.

You've heard of UFC, right? Course you have, respectable fighting tournaments where folk at the peak of physical fitness try to grapple each other into submission. Real erudite stuff. Well do you remember the gaming series based on UFC? You might be forgiven for missing that due to the fact that it's one of the few sports series that don't get inundated with yearly releases in order to keep up with the overwhelming demand of an army of lobotomites. I'm not even sure why. Maybe it's because UFC just isn't as popular amongst gamers or maybe these folk just aren't as receptive to EA's machinations. Oh that's right, the UFC game series is published by EA. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't. They've got their eyes on becoming the defacto publisher of every sports franchise into the world so that they can homogenise each sport into being dark mirrors of one-another. (Lucky they haven't got Basketball yet, that sport is being whole-sale slaughtered by 2K instead.)

But how do these two topics come together, you might wonder. Or, more likely, you've deduced already and am starting to develop that sickening feeling you get whenever you're watching a show and are fairly certain the scene is about to reveal the death of a character you really liked. For you see EA, in their infinite wisdom and completion of their scared duty as total bastards, have a new grift they want to unleash upon the gaming world, yet they decided to beta-test it in a sports game like they always do. That grift being, the introduction of real-life ads into the full price UFC 4 game. Oh yeah, you read right. In the middle of a match you could, for a time, expect to see a flash of an advert for Amazon's The Boys, or see a little banner pop up at the bottom of the screen in the middle of gameplay. So quick that you may even think you're hallucinating. But they're there, they're real and it's time we make some really serious discussions about what this means going forward.

Firstly, we need to address how shadily these advertisements were implemented into the game. For you see, absolutely no reviews ever mentioned real-life ads, and if they had you could imagine that having a knock on the final score. (Afterall, it's just distasteful.) That's because EA made the decision to throw in these Ads weeks after launch and all the reviews in order to circumvent those criticisms like the truly irredeemable scumbags they are. This actually gives me flashbacks to the time when Activision bought out the microtransaction store for 'Crash Team Racing: Nitro Fuelled'  after the fact for the same reasons. We need to start preempting these sorts of moves from companies and implement dynamic reviews which respond to these gross tactics. Let these companies miss their review margins for the crap that they pull, they absolutely deserve it.

Secondly, we should look at the response from EA themselves, because yes, they did respond. As it just so happens it wasn't too long after the fact that Ads were hastily removed from UFC 4 and 3, (because they got retroactively added to that 2 year old game too) alongside some hasty message accepting little to no responsibility and spouting some crowd-pleasing nonsense about how 'The fans come first' and 'they didn't like it so we removed it'. Let me make one thing absolutely clear; fans have never and will never come first at EA, don't even let them entertain that lie for a moment. And as for the implication that the negative response which the UFC audience rightly threw at this practice, I hate to burst everyone's bubble but there's no way in heck that had any baring on this marketing cycle, that makes literally no sense at all. Decisions like this never happen in a vacuum and EA would rather burn down a puppy orphanage than break an advertising contract. Clearly they wrote a contract for a limited ad campaign which they completed and now are acting as though they're the selfless heroes. It's a lie, like literally everything anyone at EA says.

The natural response to this has been a user revolt, mostly on the site Metacritic wherein the user score is currently 1.8. But seeing as how Madden's user score is currently 0.2, I don't think EA's going to be losing any sleep over bad user experiences. (Remember, this game's not for the player; it exists to be ground zero for whatever scummy move EA want to pull next) But that revulsion with the game isn't just from this one horrifying overreach on the team's part, no. Apparently the game itself is a buggy and unbalanced mess too, which just makes sense with this company, doesn't it? They can't even put together a half decent game with two years to make it, maybe there just genuinely cannot be a well made sports game under EA's supervision. Perhaps it's a universal law that quality can never enter an equation that starts with 'EA Games title'.

Oh and this has all been going according to EA's plan, by the way. Lest anyone smile and think that we've won in dunking this game to oblivion. As it so happens it appears that earlier this year AT&T and Warner partnered with EA to distribute three ads for the 2018 game, UFC 3. (Which is why no one noticed.) EA were mindful, throughout that time, of a potential player backlash and were ready for it, so that when the proper test began, with UFC 4, they'd have the prepared statement ready to go. These people are schemers, through and through, and the more we give them the benefit of the doubt, the more they'll use that to take advantage and set another gross precedent in the gaming world. I've been thinking back on every moment of Ads making their way into games, like when Capcom did it, and yet this feels like the start of something horrible and I feel it in my bones. (Dark clouds are on the horizon for us, I fear.)

The worst thing about all of this? I don't know if there's anything that we can ultimately do in order to stop the inevitable deluge of advertisements in our games. This is the point where companies like EA will start to think it's their right to own the time we spend in the games we pay for access to, and monetising that time is their right. What recourse could we have? I shudder to think where EA could go with this but rest assured, your worst nightmare won't even compare. I know that it's a cliche at this point to paint EA as the stereotypical 'evil greedy' company; but oh my god they so absolutely are! It's like they're so avaricious and gluttonous that it almost tips out the other side and you wonder if they're actually that bad; but never forget who you're dealing with and never let them have an inch of ground. This was your regularly scheduled reminder that EA is a cesspit, please come back next week for whatever crap they're up to then.

Marvel's Avengers

Avengers- congregate?

It's here. Hollywood's most profitable brand has taken on Entertainment's most profitable medium: through proxy. That's right, instead of opening up a studio, securing talent and starting a competitive games studio within which they could ensure quality just like they do with their movies, Marvel decided to go the cheap and easy route of just licencing out their brand and hoping for the best. (Or maybe that was more Disney's prerogative, it would fit their absolute fear of taking even the most remote of risks) But who needs on-hands development cycles and quality assurance when you can just take advantage of that one Square Enix relationship you've had for the past 18 years without any real idea what the hell they were doing with your product? (I bet literally no one at Disney has even watched a trailer for Kingdom Hearts) So that, in a uniformed and largely judgemental nutshell, is how we ended up with Square Enix's Marvel's Avengers. (How'd that turn out then?)

Well let me first start by saying that no, I do not currently own Marvel's Avengers, although I have played large parts of it and observed a lot of coverage. Each time I saw anyone else cover it my hope was the same; 'There's gotta be positives right? Someone talk about the positives!' But almost each time they were drowned and outweighed by overwhelming negatives. Now this underlines one of the core reasons that I'd be interested in this game; I love the marvel movies and think that they're great. I also love the idea of an ensemble cast game and hate how they're nearly never done in modern day gaming. I'd also love to see a high-quality game with Iron Man in it because outside of Marvel Ultimate Alliance, we've never had a chance to play as the tinman whilst having any sort of time resembling fun. (Yes, I remember playing those movie tie-ins every now and then. In my darkest nightmares.)

And let me start by saying that my initial feedback regarding Marvel's Avengers is that it was fun for what I got to play, even if some of the tedium started to set in before I'd done with my 10 or so hours. Quite basically the game is a simple beat-em-up style game where players assume the form of one of the Avengers and lays into armies of robots and enemies for 20 minutes bouts. There it is, that's your gameplay loop. And for what it's worth, the game pulls that off fairly well. If what you're looking for is some mindless fun then I would point you literally no further, because Marvel's Avengers has mindless fun down to a fine art. Jumping into a mission without even looking at the debrief and just stomping on enemies as Hulk or throwing your giant hammer around them as Thor is pretty much this game at it's zenith. You cannot beat the freedom of mowing down AIM bots and soldiers without a care in the world and revelling in your own power. (When that's actually feasible that is, but I'll get to that later)

The problem is that this style of gameplay isn't exactly unique; not even slightly. Many games, mostly in the 'looter', 'live service' field serve themselves up in the exact same way, and sometimes with a little more going on too. Just look at 'Destiny', 'Anthem' or 'Division', each of those games are defined by their casual play and mindless loops with the added bonus that two of them have better networking infrastructure. (In all my time I only managed to connect to one other player who quite before the game started.) So when you look at Destiny, a looter which is actually free right now, and compare it to the $60 tag attributed to this game it's quite easy to see the shortcomings of the Marvel game and lose you sense of it's value.

Take the gameplay for example, which as I said is fun for Avengers, when everything is working out. The act of smashing low level enemies into the dirt is fun, but as you get to the higher levels it isn't long before your facing up against swarms of enemies who can't be tossed around, eat damage like it's going out of style and stagger the player with every step. CC abilities aren't particularly plentiful either, as this it's a team-based action game where no actual effort was put behind the cooperation aspects, making large crowds (which makes the entirety of the late game) a slog to get through. This is in stark contrast to Destiny and Division, who are both absolute powerhouses of their respective genre, I still attest that Destiny is one of the best feeling FPS games ever made. So if Avengers can't even rate with top-tier third person action adventure games (Ghost of Tsushima and God of War literally eat this game for breakfast) then what does it have going for it?

Well then there's the narrative storyline which honestly didn't really have that much of a draw for me personally. I spent most of my time doing the random missions, in the knowledge that these made up the majority of the game, but when I did dabble there was some similarities I noticed between this game and the old Marvel classic; 'X-Men Legends'. (Which is the progenitor for Marvel's Ultimate Alliance, by the way.) Both stories focus on a newcomer to this world of Crimefighting (or Mutants) who serves as the gateway for the player to be introduced to these legends and eventually end up joining them. And both games handle this premise rather well, (though for nostalgia's sake I'd have to recommend picking up 'Legends') though it's beyond that in which the storytelling becomes a little rough.

Marvel's Avengers attempts to follow the same formula as Civil War (the comic book not the meh-movie) without any of the context which made that story pop or the background which formed the emotional connection between these characters. Marvel's Avengers relies entirely on your background knowledge of these characters to form your emotional connection, despite the fact that this specific iteration of the Avengers is distinct from the movies or the comics, so how can I compare them? Also, the narrative has absolutely no stakes behind it because the writers were cowards and went the Hollywood route instead of the actual weighty comic route. For specifics I'm going to have to get a little spoiler-y so be-prepared. In the comic book the catalyst for the Civil War event is caused because of the plethora of Superhero teams that are unchecked within the universe and allowed to run rampant.

The story starts off following a team of F-tier heroes that are on a reality show in order to make their fame, going up against a group of villains that are way out of their league. The result? Namorita corners one outside of an elementary school only for him to go nuclear; wiping out half of Philadelphia. That established actual consequence that was the fault of unchecked power. Both the movie and this game, however, try to hit the same emotional points through an incident caused by a villain that the heroes either fail to stop preemptively but still ultimately save the day (the movie) or just get blindsided and lose. (This game.) And somehow, this ends up being their fault. Did you see what the writers did there? They made it so that the inciting incident was not in anyway the heroes actual fault even remotely so that the audience can feel absolutely no contrasting opinions about them. (Because complex emotions are bad?) This makes the reason for the breakup feel forced and dumb, the years apart feel like a waste of time, and the inevitable reunion feel unearned. Good job, Square Enix, you just wrote a bad storyline. (Sorry, I know I got off off track there but you have to understand; Storytelling is literally my jam.)

So when it's all said and done you have a full priced Avengers game which is alright for mindless fun, but outpaced by a lot of cheaper rivals, bad in storytelling and did I mention buggy? I crashed 3 times during my playtime and had progress wiped after the first crash. (All progress, by-the-way, I had to start fresh. Apart from marketplace items, the game remembered that I owned them, for some reason.) I didn't play enough to notice the apparent lack of meaningful loot by the endgame, the ultra generic character designs or the fact this game only has 3 actual supervillains in it, (And I fought 2 of them!) but others have made those points abundantly clear. So what can we say about Marvel's first outing in gaming as a serious endeavour? (I count Spiderman as Sony's outing) It's a solidly average game, completely unremarkable and unfitting of the, now-prestigious, Marvel logo. For my money, it's a game that is absolutely worth about $30 at most (I would seriously recommend this for 30) but right now you'd be a lunatic to reward Square and Crystal for this ill-conceived and reportedly unfinished mess. But that's just the two-cents of someone who doesn't even own the thing, what do I know, right?

Controlling the Narrative

I did it! I did a pun. And you thought I didn't have it in me anymore...

Have you ever been screwed over? I'm being facetious, of course you have been. Everybody has, at some point, tasted what it feels like to have one straight trick fly under the radar and catch you unawares. It's hardly a pleasant feeling, but once it happens to you enough one reaches the point where they can begin sensing the very next grift from a mile away, either that or they become so jaded and mistrusting that they push away everyone and become something of a modern day hermit. Maybe both, I can see both. And when it comes to the entertainment industry, specifically in gaming, customers have become very well acquainted with what it feels like to have a PR team mug you in broad daylight whilst telling you that they're in the middle of cutting the finest deal imaginable with you. We've seen it all, which is why it's so baffling that the critical darling of last year, 'Control', seems to be in the middle of a blatant money grubbing scheme whilst everyone involved is acting like we're the crazy ones.

Control, if you don't remember, is a title that basically adapted the premise of the SCP Containment Breech game and turned it into a narrative adventure title. Helmed by Remedy, the team behind many a  'love it or hate it' style game like Quantum Break and the Alan Wake games, (Does 3 count as 'many'?) Control completely swept up with the critics and even was in the running for Ultimate Game of the Year. (Which, as I recall, ended up going to Sekiro.) However, these guys are cursed to make the sorts of games that never really translate over to crazy commercial success, so whilst I don't believe Control was a flop by any means, it wasn't a resounding hit either. That's a fact that fans lament as many have argued that it's easily Remedy's best title yet. Which of course paints the picture as to why the publisher would be in the market for shoring up profits with a little recycle job, now wouldn't it?

But enough beating around the bush, what exactly is the problem with Control and 505 that everyone is going on about? Well it has to do with the next gen. With the jump to a new generation of consoles there's a big conversation to be had about backwards compatibility as well as up-scaling from one generation to the next. The games which can nail this post haste are going to be essential for those first few months of the next gen's launch as a good chunk of exciting next gen titles aren't due out for a long while. This spurred Xbox's free upgrade program which allows for many next gen versions of current gen games to be automatically redeemed by their owners, and for companies like EA to wantonly spit in the face of that ideal and charge a ludicrous amount of money for an upgrade to an inferior package deal. (It's a long stupid story, I don't wanna get into it.) But perhaps the most befuddling is what's happening with Control right now.

Control has pretty much run the majority of it's life cycle right now, with the game having been released and post-launch DLC having filled the months since. There was even a 'deluxe edition' re-release of the title which bundled everything together neatly. Basically, there's not really much more life in this development cycle. Thus it makes the perfect title to port over to the next generation for people to play in it's entirety, and that's exactly what's happening; provided you're willing to buy the game again. Dubbed 'Control Ultimate Edition', the next gen upgrade will not be provided to anyone who purchased a previous version of the game, nor will they be able to buy it as an upgrade for a discounted price. Previous owners are subject to the full price alongside new comers. What's more, the price for Ultimate edition is actually 2/3rds of the full price which the deluxe edition of the game is still being charged for; thus punishing early adopters of the title and rewarding those that came to it later. Needless to say, this ruffled a few feathers.

If you want to really upset a fanbase all you have to do is mess with their money, ask them to pay too much or mess with their perceived value of something and you're practically spitting sparks into a tinder box. Whatsmore, folk don't like the idea of having loyalty and fandom punished by being asked to buy the game again for the benefit of some upscaled visuals and a frame-rate that's probably not that much better than you can already get on the Pro or One X. That's right, this new release offers absolutely no new content beyond the upgrades, which makes the 40$ asking price ridiculous for current owners. The really sad part about all of this, is that it erodes the trust between the consumers and the developers, even though it's highly likely that Remedy weren't involved with any of this nonsense beyond maybe working on the upgrades. (though they could have just as easily been outsourced) No, this is 505's web of confusion that they're spinning, and what makes things even more headscratching is the excuses that they have.

Up on the official Control website there's a little blog on the matter entitled 'Control Ultimate Edition- An explanation' which just sounds like the most ominous title in the world, doesn't it? It sounds like you've been caught cheating and decided to pen an entire power point presentation to pseudo-apologise whilst really trying to subconsciously suggest that your partner is the bad one for being upset in the first place. In this blog they confused the hell out of me, at least, by revealing that whilst Control would be backwards compatible on both new consoles, 'Control Ultimate Edition' would apparently be an entirely separate product and the only purchasable version on those console's stores. Apparently the intention was to provide an 'easy' and 'convenient' way for the entire game and all of it's content to be bought. (Okay, I'll give you 'easy' but I don't really know what's 'convenient' about this from the perspective of current fans)

And then they launch into victimising themselves. Yes, I'm being serious. These guys straight-up try to argue that they are the one's who tried to be the good-guys here and offer upgrades but they just couldn't, no matter how hard they tried! "We spent several months exploring all of our launch options for Control Ultimate Edition and no decision was taken lightly. While it is challenging bringing any game to next gen platforms, we quickly realised it was even more difficult to upgrade our current user base to next gen with full parity across platforms with our year-old game." Yes, apparently that thing which every other high profile AAA game is doing? It's really hard to do with Control because it's one whole year old. (Wow, this new tech must be space-age if resolution updates and optimisation is a noticeable headache.)

As someone who has never tried to code a game on the scale of Control, I'd have to defer to their better knowledge of the subject matter here. Let's assume everything they say is trustworthy, then here's the kicker. "Every avenue we pursued, there was some form of blocker and those blockers meant that at least one group of players ended up being left out of the upgrade for various reasons. As of today, we can’t offer an upgrade to everyone, and leaving any one group out feels unfair." So with the merit of going into as few specifics as humanely possible, the Control team are claiming that there was no one-way to upgrade all 3 versions of the game (for both consoles and for PC) which should have been obvious. For months we've been hearing how distinctly different these new generation consoles are, so it makes sense that working on games for them will be different, but somehow this hasn't stopped other games, like Cyberpunk 2077, from offering free upgrades.

You see, the problem here (and forgive me for accusing this blog of strawmanning a bit) is that the angle taken here seems to arguing that the tech isn't there, but this isn't an argument about tech, it's about policy. When Skyrim Special Edition was released it was using a very updated version of the engine which the original game ran on, making it a new SKU. But that didn't suddenly mean that Bethesda's hands were tied and they automatically had to charge owners of the old game full price to play this new one, the upgrade was free on PC. That wasn't the case for consoles, however, and I think that is what 505 is driving at, claiming that said quirk of the console marketplaces makes it difficult for them to provide an upgrades path for games with a different SKU. Kinda understandable, I guess, if warped beyond feasible comprehension. But then the other shoe drops.

505 screwed up with the launch of Ultimate Edition, they put out pre-orders but owners of the Deluxe edition of Control ended up automatically receiving the new version out of nowhere. What's more, they could launch this new version and it would open up the Deluxe version of the game. The SKU was the same, 505's excuses are starting to grow a little thin, huh? And so it seems that Control Ultimate Edition very much could have been offered to owners of the base title but actively was not in order for a quick buck. And just quick: even if that wasn't a possibility, they still could have pulled a Bethesda and made the update free on PC. This argument that "It's unfair, thus we must punish everybody equally" is so unfathomably dumb that it's hardly worth a retort. So that, if you were wondering, is what it feels like to be screwed over by a publisher. Hope you all enjoyed, as 505 are very unlikely to be the last who try something like this.

Pokemon France

Let them have Kalos

You know it's been a long time since anything new has actually touched the Pokemon franchise in terms of it's actual structure. No, I'm not talking about the periodic addition of 100 or so new Pokemon, that's regular enough, nor am I talking about the odd gimmicks that the games have married themselves to now; Mega evolution, Z-moves and Gigantamax. I'm talking about a fundamental change to the way the game markets and sells itself to the fanbase, that's been static for practically ever. Of course, I've talked about it before, but Sword and Shield marks the first time that the Pokemon Company and Gamefreak have actually gone and made full blown DLC for their games to continue the adventure after the fact, and it's been a really strong way to prolong the lifespan of these games to the point where fans haven't just forgotten about the title in their hunger for the next one. The first DLC, The Island of Armor, gave a whole bevy of quality-of-life improvements which made the traditional endgame a lot more fun and the second DLC stands to offer it's own endgame entirely.

But the real question right now, for those with their heads in the future, is what will happen to the Pokemon cycle after the Crown Tundra DLC. These packs were all that was promised in the DLC bundle pack that was sold at the beginning of 2020, but as Nintendo are a company well renowned for having all their franchises be behind of the industry trends, this could just as easily be a prelude to a new DLC bundle pack at the start of 2021. (And if you don't believe that's a possibility, just look at Super Smash Bros. Ultimate wherein the game keeps getting new fighter packs announced even when some key members of the staff are reportedly eager to move on entirely from that project.) So the end doesn't necessarily mean that end and Pokemon Sword and Shield's lifespan could be artificially inflated even longer. This would definitely be in The Pokemon Company's best interest too, as Sword and Shield is their best selling game since Gold and Silver, (And the third best selling Pokemon game of all time) so they'd be crazy not to want to capitalise on that until the well runs dry.

So then with that knowledge to mind and accepted, what could the future possibly look like for Sword and Shield DLC? This is something that I'm particularly curious about, because I always imagined there would be more DLC for the pure benefit of bringing the entire National Dex into the modern game. (Which even after the Crown Tundra, they'll still be 200-odd Pokemon out from doing, not including Mythicals.) How can Gamefreak frame these DLC packs in a way that doesn't just look like booster packs for the current lacking Pokemon roster like they kinda are? So far they've offered a training island to the east and a legendary island to the north, logical reasoning would dictate two more DLC in the south and west. But what if in actuality the team were to go South of Galar, and push a little bit further? What if we were to go so far South that we were no longer in Galar anymore, but hit a whole other landmass? Why, then the question would have to be what that landmass is. What's directly South of England, the landmass that Galar is based on, afterall? Why that would be France, or as it's better known in the Pokemon universe, Kalos.

That's right, Pokemon X and Y bought players to the far away land of Kalos which was clearly based on France, and since then people have been wondering just when they'd get to return. Kalos did have some unique characters and attractions to it, such to the point where it's even directly mentioned by an NPC in Wyndon, the capital of Galar. So this is a location that Gamefreak definitely want fans to remember about, and bringing us right next door opens up the possibility for the most ambitious piece of Pokemon DLC ever to occur. (Which, again, isn't saying much as the practise literally started this year, but I'll take what I can get) Now this doesn't exactly come out of the blue or my head, rumours have started to spring up about the possibility of a trip to Unova for an extensive endgame DLC and I'm left pondering just how likely that is to be strictly from the clues left by Gamefreak themselves. So let's analyse.

Firstly, let's start by saying that it wouldn't be entirely unprecedented for a Pokemon game to feature an entire previous region as an endgame. Just look at that Gold and Silver game I mentioned. As the very second generation of Pokemon games that was a title that certainly had a lot to live up to, and they decided to handle that by introducing original Kanto region in it's entirety to this game's final act. This was complete with references, Pokemon, and adventures, all topped off with a closing climactic battle against the protagonist of the first game alongside a level 100 Pikachu (in a thinly veiled reference to the anime.) Now am I saying that I'd expect that same level of endgame content in a modern Pokemon game? No; because honestly we deserve more at this point. But I'd take another retread of an old area, especially if it's done in the style of Sword and Shield which would be vastly different from Kalos as it appeared in X and Y. (Familiar and new, a good combination.)

There is even a reference in the recent DLC itself that hints at collaboration with other regions, even if it doesn't ultimately pan out. (This is spoilers for Honey's questline in The Isle of Armor) One of the later rewards for dishing out Watts to the dojo Mom, Honey, is that she decides to get in contact with champions from other regions in order to be sparring partners with you. This sounds super exciting until she gets distracted and ends up having to reveal her own Pokemon battle competence which results in her scrapping the idea of other champions and deciding to be your sparring partner herself. Kind of a bait and switch there by Gamefreak and one which didn't really make sense to me at the time. Why imply that there'd be some connection with the wider Pokemon universe only to renege on that at the last moment? What does that benefit you, the story or the player? Perhaps it was truly meant as a prelude to the big DLC next year? Yes, I'm grabbing at straws but so help-me I don't have a choice!

Finally there is blatant speculation! And I'll admit that while the rest of my points have been things that I've thought up or had pointed out to be in the past, these tidbits are simply what's been doing the rounds recently. (And, not-so-recently, in some cases.) Firstly, Pokemon X and Y were 2 games that are infamous for being somewhat unfinished at launch, which resulted in there being a lot of unexplained threads and a whole redundant train station in the game which never led anywhere. Then there is the aesthetic similarities between caves in Kalos and Galar, to the point where they almost look like parts of the same the same cave system. (What do you mean 'creative laziness'?) And then there's some small stuff about Matsuda posting pictures with a french train or something to Twitter, I dunno the thread got a little too conspiratorial at that point.

So these are the rumors going around for the past week as speculation rises, but you wanna know the funny thing? These were the same rumors being drummed up before Pokemon Sword and Shield launched, a whole year ago. That's right, none of these points are new, and even the Reddit post that's been doing the rounds is post launch. Now people are arguing that the points were so good that plans must have been shifted for this endgame to be pushed into DLC, but this just all reeks too much of "Zombies DLC for GTA V" for me to get any level of excited for it. It's hardly uncommon for a rumor to pick up speed and feed upon itself long enough to seem like a forgone conclusion, but I personally see no solid evidence and so am forced to put this whole conspiracy of an impending mega-DLC in the 'very unlikely' folder. (Really did the full 360 on you there, didn't I? Bet that change of heart caught someone off guard.) That being said, I'd love to be wrong Gamefreak.