Where is the map of the soul to open the future?

When all our trials seem to be over, despair always awaits us.

Oh, ya'll know I was gonna talk about this! Popular Korean heartthrob boy band BTS have just been announced as the starts of a brand new mobile game published by NetMarble, the company responsible for publishing the first BTS game called: BTS World (Bleagh). It's been a while since I've done one these off-the-cuff rant blogs, but this game just instantly caught my attention from the incredible subject matter; a freaking boy band, to the beautifully pretentious trailer dialogue: "Where is the map of the soul to open the future?" I honestly couldn't be more excited to learn more about a crappy Korean game unless it was going to star BLACKPINK. (Actually, if it was starring BLACKPINK I would definitely play it. Pixellated Lalisa? Take my money.)

First off let me just freak out about something: There was a first BTS game? How on god's green earth did I not know about this? With the tsunami of forgettable trash that floods the mobile world every day, somehow I managed to miss the release of BTS World. And that's not all, this Mobile game was apparently a freakin' VN! I cannot overstate to you, dear reader, how much I absolutely adore delving into awful VNs. My very life essence is sustained through the act of scrolling through poor grammar screens and vomit-inducing cliches. Oh, and the game features exclusively real world photos? Pinch me, I must be dreaming. (Expect my exhaustive review on that at some point.)

But back to the situation at hand. What we have is a big concept reveal trailer, half live action and half animation, that is positively seeped in cheese and melodrama. (Although I will commend them for the production value, but then that should probably be expected by the studio that managed BTS' music videos.) From what little we see of the game it is hard to get a grip of what we can expect, but the animation alone just screams DONTNOD's style to me. Life is Strange: BTS Edition, you heard it here first.

For those unfortunate enough not to have stumbled into the world of K-pop, let me introduce what BTS is, to you. The Bangtan Boys, also known as BTS, are a seven-member South Korean pop group from Seoul. They are inexplicably one of the largest music artists in the world despite relying solely on tired boy band gimmicks from the early 2000's, or perhaps because of it. Subject yourself to any one of their music videos and you'll be met with 60% sensually mugging for the camera and 40% surrealist nonsense that is at least pretty to look at. (I guess that BLACKPINK is hardly any better, so I don't really have any leg to stand on.) The explosion of K-pop groups that has occurred in recent years has partially been fueled by an attempt to capture this one group's success. (And partially because the Korean music industry is scared of losing it's right to legally enslave people.)

I would be lying if I told you that some morbid part of me doesn't love the rampant commercialism that these sorts of bands represent. Something about the kooky insanity of their presentation seems weirdly more wholesome than the majority of music acts that the western world has to offer. I say this whilst acknowledging that K-pop is run by some of the worst companies to ever touch the music industry (And that is some stiff competition!) I talking about the kind of people who work their talent to the absolute bone, to the point where there are some K-pop stars who faint, out of overexertion and dehydration, on stage. We're talking about an industry so abhorrent that they are actively working their talent to death.

I'm sure the Bulletproof Boy Scouts (Christ, they actually call themselves that?) have reached a point of success where they aren't worked as hard as their peers; but that doesn't mean that they aren't being exploited some other way. There are several rumors about big name Idols (The title that is used for this form of celebrity) being essentially prostituted out in order to secure business deals for their talent agencies. Much of it gets swept under the rug and hushed up before it can become a big news story. God knows how Big Bang's scandal made it to national news, but if there is any truth to the stories then that is only the tip of the iceberg. Really puts some of gaming's controversies into perspective, huh.

Cue "What is this a music blog?" You're right. There's a game that is coming out and I hijacked the announcement in order to delve into the seedy world of K-pop, my bad. For what it's worth, I'll put the game on my radar for the next few months, take a look at what comes from the hyper-creativity behind the BTS brand. This may (almost definitely) be just another desperate mobile cash grab preying off of the rampant BTS fandom; but if it comes from the same minds that envision their music videos then it will be one heck of a trip to go through.

This might not be enough to sell me on mobile games as a concept, but it is enough to get me looking. Their agency, Big Hit entertainment, seems to be taking this seriously enough to acquire a small time game developer called 'Superb', so they may actually be willing to deliver something of value. But given the lengths I hear that these companies go to in order to make money (Allegedly) I wouldn't but a mobile cash grab past them. (God, this is all over the place.) I'm going to stop typing now before I conjure up a lawsuit for myself, but if any high ranking K-pop executive is reading this, let me leave you with one request. BLACKPINK: the video game, make it happen.

PS. For what it's worth I haven't heard anything untoward about Big Hit's conduct, so I wouldn't accuse them of any wrong doing. And I'm not just saying that to avoid any future legal hassle, I've literally not heard a peep of dissent about them. They're probably one of the good ones, for the record.

Hitman: Freedom Fighters

"This is your gift- Your gift and your curse, touching lives only by ending them.'

Here we are again, engaging in amateur discussions about the level design of IOI's maps in 'Hitman: No Subtitle'. Once again I will be going off about what works, what doesn't and try to learn a little something about world design as I go. Before I get into it, I am self obliged to warn you that I will be diving into spoiler territory in this blog. Narrative events and story points will be freely discussed so if you are unfamiliar with the game or this level then you should play it right now. That disclaimer is especially true today as I will finally be delving into the overall narrative. (Out of necessity.)

For their fifth episode of 'Hitman: No Subtitle', IOI decided to move the action to the good old US of A. I'd imagine that a certain portion of the audience must have been excited about that one, (personally I'm still waiting for a hit set in Croydon Whitgift centre.) or at least they were before we found out the level would be set in Colorado. Now, I don't want to throw shade on Colorado or anything, but there is literally nothing iconically American there. It's all mostly farmland and rural towns. I guess it's fitting then, that this particular level takes place at a farmhouse in the middle on nowhere.

The reason that 47 finds himself here is linked to the overall story of Hitman. So far I have avoided the specifics of the overarching story because it hasn't been necessarily relevant, however now it takes the forefront. You see, after 'Club 27', Diana meets with 47 in order to discuss a trend developing over his recent hits. Each of them were perfectly legitimate contracts but each client was incentivised to hire the ICA via anonymous hints from an unknown source. It wasn't until the Jordan Cross hit, after which his famously reclusive father was kidnapped at the funeral, that the ICA started to see the writing on the wall. Seeing as how the ICA is neutral, and that's the reason they they can operate without getting spitefully outed, it is against their best interest to continue being pawns of someone else's plan. Therefore the board has sanctioned 47 to track down this 'Shadow Client' and enlighten them about the agency's displeasure. (Everyone still with us? Good.)

 ICA's army of capable white hat hackers (that the ICA has for some reason) manages to track the anonymous data packets back to one Olivia Hall; brilliant hactivist and hoody teen who looks like she just missed her casting call for 'Mr. Robot'.  The ICA followed her 'Digital trail' back to a small farmhouse that looks to be some sort of militia training ground. Scouts have managed to place the leader of the militia as an already registered target (That's convenient!) called Sean Rose. One of the ICA heads, Erich Soders, has immediately called for the man to be executed alongside three of his lieutenants; former Mossad interrogator, Ezra Berg, Ex Interpol agent, Penelope Graves and prior assassin Maya Pavarti. Diana is a little bristled by this hasty decision and so orders 47 to conduct some extra-curricular snooping in order to get to the bottom of this militia once and for all. That leaves you with 5 objectives, time to put 47 through his paces.

You may start to see the problem that most people have with this level: you are asked to do far too much. 47 is tasked with the eye watering prospect of handling four individual targets and is also forced to do some excess infiltration before he is allowed to leave. There are no freebies here either, each target is regulated to their own corner of the map, each requiring different disguises in order to successfully infiltrate. This is an excessive workload that makes repeat playthroughs, a staple of this Hitman game, an absolute chore. This is doubly annoying as in the original 'Hitman: No Subtitle' you were required to fully complete a level in order to register the completion of a challenge. (I don't even want to think about the amount of times that I went through the elongated ending cutscene.)

But that is only the icing on the cake when it comes to people's grievances with this particular level. You see, Colorado is unique amongst 'Hitman: No Subtitle' levels as it is the only that demands a full stealth playthrough. Sure, this makes sense in the world's fiction, you just rolled up to the training grounds of a secret militia, it would be weird if they did let the bald stranger mosey on around; but Hitman has always been a game that held itself up on the weight of it's social stealth. Admittedly, you often spend your time infiltrating no-go areas, but you also have those targets who wonder about the safe areas and require you to solve a logistic puzzle to neutralize them, rather than a stealth puzzle.

Colorado's targets require you to get a militia disguise off the bat and also make sure to keep that outfit updated (By choking and stripping more people) as you move from person to person. Penelope and Sean have the common decency to a least wonder about a little, giving the player a variety of approach angles, but Ezra keeps staunchly to the high level security area by the manor house and Maya spends most of her time training in the barn for another smash-and-grab job. Usually this would present a diverse challenge that I would find exciting, but given all the other jobs that this mission has you doing, every extra level feels like a fresh needle in the face.

That may sound like an over exaggeration, and it is, but I only resort to that analogy because I was one of the fools stupid enough to attempt to Silent Assassin/Suit Only this map on the master difficulty. For those who don't know, the extreme challenge of any hitman map, and one consideration that must make designing these levels a nightmare, is the task of completing a level without donning any disguise and raising any alarms. This means that players need to find their targets without getting seen, by people or cameras, kill their target in a way that doesn't raise an alarm, by either making it an accident or hiding the body, and do it all without removing your signature suit. Quite the challenge alone. But coupled with master difficulty, a mode which is eye-wateringly tough, and you are in for a doozy.

Colorado's Silent Assassin/Suit Only master playthrough broke me. Something deep inside me will never be the same after completing this task. Usually, these challenges require a mastery of the level and exploitation of that knowledge in order to reach your targets. Exactly what you would expect from an end-game challenge. Colorado's iteration of this task pushed this to a whole new level. In order to sneak through the entire map without being spotted you had to essentially know where every NPC would be in every second, exactly when every conversation would end, how far everyone's sight/hearing range is and how many seconds it takes them to investigate a distraction. Once you start getting this deep into mechanics, the game stops being immersive and you enter speedrunner levels obsession. You no longer see guards and start seeing ticking time bombs as you plan everything to the nth possible result. Some people may enjoy this level of challenge but even I, self proclaimed video game masochist, draw the line at this level. This was literally the third most distressing video game task I ever had to go through. (I should likely tally up my top five for one of these blogs sometime.)

Difficulty is mostly self-imposed, however, so I'll return to more universal gripes, like the inferior thread of narrative. You might remember how in previous Hitman blogs I praised the way in which IOI managed to marry the backstory of the targets with the gameplay opportunities you have with them, allowing casual fans to figure out who what sort of person their target is without being forced to read their codex entry. (Take notes Bungie!) But Colorado is sorely lacking in this department. I suppose it should be expected with twice the amount of targets as other levels, but it is still a shame to see these characters be mostly one dimensional. The most character-driven opportunity is the one in which 47 messes with the clock's hands and Sean's pencil organization in order to set off his OCD, but this feels more like a exploiting a character quirk rather than delving into who that person is.

What else haven't I talked about? Oh yeah, the visuals. I wonder why that could be? Hmm, perhaps because it is set in a farmhouse in 'the-middle-of-nowhere', Colorado. Graphically I suppose it all looks pretty enough, but there is only some much that a world designer can do with the prompts;  Rural, American, Farm house. I suppose the militia fortifications are supposed to be the element that makes this location unique, but even they seem rather lackluster. The Militia didn't even bother to set up makeshift guard towers or barbwire fences. (How do you expect to keep out bald headed men with these pitiful defences?) Overall the map is visually uninteresting and forgettable.

I know it sound like I dislike this map, and I do, but I won't tell you that my experiences with Colorado was totally devoid of enjoyment. Some of the Elusive Targets were fun and the escalations allowed players to forgo that annoying ending cutscene. I even got some sick sense of relief once I finally conquered the SA/SO master playthrough, but that might be my masochism talking there. For the most part, however, people disliked this map and hoped for a complete shift in direction for the future, luckily that is exactly what they got for the Season 1 finale; Which we will discuss next time.

P.S. I will grant IOI credit for being good sports about the general dislike of this map. They even went so far as to dedicate an entire Easter egg to OutsideXbox's Andy Farrant for his complaints about this level. I think having the humility to laugh and learn from their mistakes speaks volumes for the kind of company that IOI is. Okay, this is getting too mushy, I'm outta here.

Oh, and I have no personal images or capture from Colorado. Go figure.

How not to deal with a backlash. Starring: Respawn

Why are you all booing, I'm right!

Yesterday I penned a blog in which I went over the recent controversy that was raging across the fanbase of Apex legends. At the time is was all; extortionate price points, greedy tactics and empty apologies; but as bad as all that sounds, and it was bad, for my money it was the response from Respawn Entertainment that really caused the damage. Before I do get into this, I would like to let everyone know that I have great respect for developers, especially the Respawn team, they have delivered fantastic games for as long as I can remember and rarely receive the credit they deserve. I was happy to see them finally have a hit in Apex Legends and wish them all the best going forward; that being said, my respect does not blind me to ugly mistakes or deafen their honeyed words. Over 24 hours have transpired since the last development has been issued in this matter and so I think I'm clear to discuss it today.

For those who are unaware, Reddit is one of the most vocal Internet forums within which to discuss fandom. They call themselves the frontpage of the Internet, rather pretentiously, but given their relevance you could argue that the title is an apt one. This is because Reddit offers access to thousands communities on a platform that is, ideally, unbiased and without an agenda. Many casual fans (Or those with communication difficulties, like myself.) find it difficult to engage on official forums as they appear to be rife with overbearing reverence and rarely any critical thought or analysis. Therefore these people tend to head to neutral ground, like Reddit, in order to share their thoughts. (Unless you are a Star Citizen critic, in which case, no forum is safe for you.) Due to this, many community managers for companies know that Reddit is an important place to focus their attention to get an idea on what the community thinks, they may not be representative of the entire player base, but if your going to get unbiased feedback anywhere, it'll be there. Now that I'm done unintentionally belittling your Internet acumen, let me get into details.

As I mentioned before, the Apex Legends subreddit was in quiet the tizzy over the pricing of items in the Iron Crown event, and many were very hostile in their criticisms. Things died down for all of half an hour when Respawn proposed reparations but quickly flared up again once people realized that the studio had completely ignored the crux of their ire. Those who looked at the Reddit at that time could find a slew of posts urging compatriots to neither spend on the event nor let up on their criticism, believing that if they don't speak up then nothing will change. (Which is often the case with the additional caveat that: things usually get worse.) 

In all this fervour there were a few posts and comments that crossed the metaphorical line. Death threats and personal attacks are clearly undeserved and hyperbolic, but are also issued by those unfortunate individuals that most usually ignore in the community so as not to muddy the issues at hand. Clearly no one told this to the Respawn team.

During all of this discourse, comments started popping up from accounts belonging to a couple key members of staff; namely Executive producer, Drew McCoy and Community manager, Jay Frechette. Now, when developers of this calibre take to the discussion you could be forgiving in expecting some high tier damage control in the works, however that isn't what happened. Drew, who penned that apology that everyone tore into for being disingenuous, made several regrettable comments that did not help their case. Most notably would be the message in which he expressed. "I've been in the industry long enough to remember when players weren't complete ass-hats to developers and it was pretty neat. I forged a bunch of long lasting relationships from back then. Would be awesome to get back there, and not engaging with toxic people or asking 'how high' when a mob screams 'jump' is hopefully a start."

 Now, disregarding the way in which this comment completely ignores the issues at play by simply labelling the backlash 'Mob mentality', (Because customers are too stupid to be disgusted on their own.) I do believe that Drew had aimed this comment more at those unfortunate individuals I mentioned earlier than at the majority of folks. The problem is that, since those people go ignored by the majority, all anyone saw was the comment that Drew made which, contextless, reads as tone deaf and pretty awful.

This tone persists throughout the responses with Drew making seemingly asinine comments in response to posts that get lost in the horde. He also went onto to calling someone a "Dick" (Who left a pretty passionate, if profanity laden, paragraph), then boasted about how he only read the first sentence of that message and the last, not unlike how a highschooler would. Jay came to Drew's defence by issuing nothing but pure sarcasm, enraging the community that he is professionally obligated to manage.

This all looks pretty damning for Respawn's part, but I will come to their defence in that I can understand where this is coming from. This team have worked so hard to create Apex and they care intensely about everything they do; so when they start to see their own community descend upon them and start ruthlessly admonishing their direction, it's difficult from them not to take it personally. Unfortunately, it doesn't help that the actions the Jay and Drew were standing up for are frankly indefensible. You can publish all the apologies and denials that you want, but actions speak so much louder than words, and Respawn still are yet to act.

There have been a few that have come to the defense of these practises, including some influencers (A few of whom are financially tied to the lootbox community.) The arguments generally follow the same lines; "the game is free, be grateful!" or "These prices aren't for you, they're for big spenders." Drew shared similar statements when he claimed that their these price points don't affect the majority of community, uttering the much-memed words "Most of ya'll are freeloaders, and we love that!" I find that discourse in this issue tends to get derailed so I want to express my opinions on that particular matter.

Before I do, however, I would like to address the controversy behind Drew calling the fans "Freeloaders." Reddit exploded at this comment, accusing him of belittling the fanbase for not ponying up, but I have to say, this is the point where I get off the outrage train. Given the context I just shared, you can clearly see that he awards the title in a joking, irreverent way; to call this an attack on the community is frankly absurd. The man made a joke, some could argue it to be in poor taste given the backlash, but that doesn't make you right to take his words and run with them. If anyone wants to convey a message of stern disapproval over Apex's pricing structure it is imperative that they don't get distracted from the issue with silly tangents like the "Freeloaders" comment. Besides, that doesn't even touch on what is truly wrong with this message.

You see, Drew and these influencers seem to operate on the assumption that just because these heavy price points are not forced upon the general community, that makes them harmless; whereas I would argue that this is not the case. Firstly, I'm not sure when it became acceptable to ignore the ill effect something might incur just because it's more likely to harm someone other than yourself. Sure I'm not the most empathetic individual in the world, but I still can't stomach it when I hear stories of people financially crippling themselves from microtransaction's and addiction or children flushing their parents money on lootboxes. (Like I covered a few weeks back.) I'm not sure how Drew or those YouTubers can stomach it either.

Then there is the assumption that these actions do not affect the wider audience. But they do. Because of a little word called: Precedent. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was one of the earliest games to overload their digital marketplace with micro-DLC for a negligible price. No one realized what this system was and thus didn't push back against it. COD raked in huge swaths of money and now we have microtransactions in every game. Same thing with Season Passes, Lootboxes, Timed offers, timewalls/paywalls and Sequel-itis. It takes an outright rejection from the consumers (Like with Battlefront 2's lootboxes) to affect lasting change.

After all of this chaos erupted, CEO of Respawn, Vince Zampella, issued an apology on behalf of his developers. Whilst he claimed that he would always stand up for their right to push back against abuse, he acknowledged that a few of them crossed that ol' proverbial line and promised that communication would be more respectful in the future.  The sentiment was nice, but the seeds of discontent have already been sown into the community and sown deep. If people were upset with Respawn before, they still stuck up for the company because most just assumed "Hey, it's probably an initiative from EA. They're hands are likely tied." After this response, however, the community are downright mistrusting of Respawn, now they understand that this ugly monetisation scheme represents the vision that the studio have for the game going forward.

This situation reminds of similar debacles between developers and consumers such as No Man's Sky, Anthem and Fallout 76. They all underwent similar backlashes and found that when attempts were made to quell the storm, no one listened. Ultimately, this may be a response to the way how the gaming community have grown mostly immune to corporate speak in recent years. It has been abused by companies (Who shall remain nameless) so frequently that now it actively enrages people to hear such canned platitudes. It was only when the teams behind games like NMS and Fallout 76 started to prove their sentiments through actions that people actually started to listen to them. (Anthem is still working on that part.)

Recently, Shaun Murray (CEO of Hello Games, creators of No Man's Sky) shared his opinion on what game's companies can do in the midst of controversy. He claimed that the best choice is to go radio silent, because otherwise you only serve to make things worse. Some would disagree and say that this is the way you make people assume that you've abandoned the project and moved on. I find this particular back and forth fascinating as it delves in psychology and the relationship between the artist and the consumer. So many factors go into both sides of the argument that you could literally hold this debate for hours. One thing all sides can agree on, however, is that whatever you do, don't respond like how Respawn did. 

Apex Infamy?

You either die the hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian.

Back when 'Fortnite: Battle Royale' first released, I was the one of the earliest adopters for the new game, partially because it was free and partially because I was interested in getting a glimpse at this new 'Batttle Royale' trend that seemed to be starting up. Since then, I struggled to recognize any other game that had managed to push the genre forward from what Fortnite had to offer. Radical Heights was a buggy clone of Fortnite, Blackout relied on it's COD routes to build a competent shooter but still felt too arcadey to dominate for long, and Firestorm was dead-on-announcement by merit of being thrust upon the completely wrong target demographic. Nothing really caught by attention until early 2019 when Respawn Entertainment (Creators of the spectacularly under appreciated Titanfall Series) debuted Apex Legends.

The game featured the same nail-biting intensity that this genre demands with the iconic solid gunplay one might find from Call of Duty and a revolutionary ping system which mostly eliminated the need for verbal communication. (The worst thing about multiplayer games for people like me.) When it first launched, Apex was nothing short of a craze. Every one was playing it or streaming it on twitch and it wasn't long before the fledgling game was awarded the lofty title of 'Fortnite killer'. It was polished, fun and free; how could it possibly fail to beat out Fortnite? And yet somehow, that is exactly what happened.

Ask anyone and you'll find conflicting reports about why they dropped off from the game but the underlying message would be something along the lines of how the game felt incentiveless. That generally isn't a problem with fully-multiplayer titles like Overwatch, but Fortnite had revolutionized that dynamic with their Battle pass. (For better or for worse.) People no longer binged these games in order to build up their level cap but with the goal of snagging some sweet new skins. It wasn't long before everyone had got all the cool Apex Skins and Respawn didn't have the staff on hand to develop new ones. I suspect this may be because the game had blown up much more than even their most optimistic estimations anticipated, meaning they spent so much time trying to ensure that infrastructure would hold (Whilst battling against the slew of cheaters who descended upon the game) before they could work on creating new content.

Whatever the reason, the effect was that Apex had a huge drop off and Fortnite remained on top of pop culture until the Minecraft renaissance later in the year. (Although I suspect that Fortnite is still the top earner of the year.) It took a while for Respawn to get Apex in a state where they could start adding content; it wasn't until June that they started teasing their second season. (The first season having been pretty lackluster.) "This would be the great revival that bought attention back to Apex", they hoped. There would be a new character, new map areas, and a new mechanic in these lumbering beasts that would hang around the map. Fans received these new additions well and although Apex seems to have already peaked, they managed to build a somewhat stable fanbase.

Fast forward to August. Things were looking up in the world of Apex Legends and even I was thinking of picking the game back up. (After being coerced into doing so, but still.) Then in a flash the entire community turns ablaze in a goodwill-burning event that Respawn called: The Iron Crown. So what happened? Well, The Iron Crown was a special event for season 2 that was supposed to show the breadth of what Respawn can achieve with their events. (Season 1's 'Legendary Hunt' was as forgettable as the season itself.) One way they sought to stand out was to utilize a strategy that many monetisation-dependant games do, event specific cosmetics. So far so ordinary. But that wasn't all.

Those who really wanted to grind at this event had the promise of a very special item from the event; a Heirloom-tier rarity axe skin called 'Raven's Bite'. In multiplayer royale games like these, cosmetics take paramount importance in establishing a player base's social hierarchy. Skill and talent is one facet, of course, but if you want to establish your superiority at a glance then decking out your player in the rarest and coolest gear is the way to go. Developers of these products realize this too, which is why they feed progression through the promise of cosmetic rewards rather than improved equipment, like from the heyday of Battlefield V. Hence, this 'Raven's Bite' would certain work as an incentive for player's to grind through this event.

There was only one problem. 'Raven's Bite' couldn't be obtained by playing through the event. The skin was locked behind the collection of all other 24 items the event had to offer. Fair enough. In fact, that is a really good way to make sure that player's stick around for the duration of the event. However, things aren't that simple. You see, all the event specific items could only be acquired by earning them from randomized lootboxs. (Ouch, not a good look Respawn.) Additionally, playing through the events challenges would only reward the player with 2 lootboxes, all others had to be purchased with real-world money. But it gets worse. Those who have their eyes on the grand prize of Raven's Bite wouldn't unlock the skin by gathering all other 24 items, oh no; They would only unlock the ability to purchase that skin, for even more real-world money.

Due to the obfuscating nature of premium currencies, working out how much all this would set you back requires a little bit of math-work. (Thanks pathetic marketing strategies!) Luckily, Eurogamer did that math for me. So, each event specific crate has a cost of 700 'Apex coins' which translates to £5.59, meaning that one would have to acquire 16800 coins (by spending £134) in order to get everything in the event. (That's 15400 coins for £122 if you earnt the two challenge lootboxes.) That leaves you with the ability to buy Raven's Bite which costs 3500 Apex coins (around about £25 depending on which fixed value coin pack you purchase.) That means that in order to acquire the crowing jewel of this event, one would have to drop at least £147 on microtransactions. (What great value.)

As you can imagine this did not go over very well with the fans. The official Reddit rang with people absolutely astounded by this lunacy, upset not just by this incredibly insulting price tag, but the way in which the team had managed to mess-up yet another event. The precedent set by this plan was one wherein only whales (People who spend exorbitant amounts of money in these products) would ever have anything worthwhile to get out of these special events. No one would deny the fact that Apex is dependant on it's microtransactions to function, but these paywalls and heavy price tags pushed far beyond that desire to make a tidy profit into undeniable avarice. Not to mention the fact that Apex has actually been doing well financially according to EA's last earnings call, so why risk that with such a greedy push?

Thankfully, Respawn did not operate completely out of the loop from it's fans and they noticed the budding discontent from the event. Consequently, in an 'apology' post they came out to announce to fans that they had missed the mark and endeavoured to improve communication for the next event. (Okay?) They also let everyone know that they would be making changes to the event post-haste, by allowing player's to buy specific pieces from the 24 items, and that inventory would be stretched out over 3 day intervals until the end of the event. Some players immediately put down their pitchforks with a confused "I think that's what we wanted." Then, in a few hours, they realized "Wait. This fixes absolutely nothing at all!"

This time the vitriol was darn near apocalyptic. Not only had the Apex team pushed the envelope when it came to pricing their items, but they had feigned remorse and done nothing about it. Some even pointed out how the way Respawn implemented the individual purchases, (Splitting them up over 3 day intervals instead of just allowing to buy them all whenever you wanted) is eerily similar to the way that microtransaction hell-hole games like to put time-offers on their items in order to encourage impulsive spending. Not only had Respawn failed to address the issue, they had literally made things worse in their attempt to make amends.

All of this chaos occurred over the space of a week and has driven many people, including myself, far away from the game. It is hard to say what affect this will have on the game over the longterm, but for the time being it has certainly managed to sully Respawn's reputation. Believe or not there is actually more to this story, but that is still in the process of unfolding so I cannot bring it up yet. (Also I'm still deciding how I want to tackle it seeing as it involves the response of the developers themselves.) All of this has me wondering just how far is too far when it comes to microtransactions? Apex clearly stepped far over the line but I'm just curious as to where that line is. They have had skins that retail at £40 before which is actually more expensive then Raven's Bite, (Not including the +£100 paywall) so why is that okay when this was not? Then there are games like Elder Scrolls Online who retail their Manor homes for up to £200. Where is the middle ground in which we are happy to support developers without feeling like we're being taken advantage of, and can a game like Apex survive with such price points?

Hitman: Club 27

ICA is neutral, always has been.

Another day, another Hitman map. This is series in which I go through the level design of the maps in 'Hitman: No Subtitle' and take an amateur look at what works, what doesn't, and perhaps learn a little bit about world design as we go. First comes the stock disclaimer: I will be going into story narrative and gameplay spoilers, so if you don't want to have something spoiled go pick and play the game for yourself (It's worth it.) Today we will approaching a map that I have something of a controversial opinion on. (I should probably preface this blog with the 'This is my opionon' disclaimer, but we all know there's no such thing as subjectivity in this day and age.)

For their fourth map, IOI decided to play hard into fan nostalgia by hearkening back to a Hitman staple, the hotel level. Hotels are very interesting world spaces to explore as they are a collective of lived in spaces all stuck together under one roof. Every individual hotel room should contain a slice-of-life of the occupant, feeding the voyeuristic hunger that us stealth fans seem to foster. Take a look at some of hotel levels in games like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, Mafia 2 and Splinter Cell: Double Agent and you'll see brief moments of insight into the lives of that world's inhabitants. This is the reason why IOI have come back to Hotel levels time and time again, and why they picked up the concept for designing the Himmapan Hotel for 'Club 27'.

Set in an incredibly gorgeous corner of Bangkok, the Himmapan Hotel is clearly a destination for the elite tourist. It is abundantly apparent for the player to see, from the opulent lobby, the manicured gardens and the giant gold plated elephants flanking the entrance. Everything screams 'expensive' and 'privillaged' before you even get the chance to step in the doors. It's here where I have my first issue with this map, it all seems like a facade. Despite all my talk (For which I parroted IOI's own statements.) about the level of personality that one can find in these Hotel levels, 'Club 27' feels conspicuously devoid of such affects. Once you check into the Hotel and start immediately breaking into the other guest's rooms (Just like I always do.) you'll start to notice just how plain and homogeneous they all actually are. You'll find no strewn suitcases, no personal wall posters or questionable items of clothing, just another immaculate room that might have a single utility tool . (Like scissors.)

When you think about it, this actually makes a huge amount of sense in the fiction of the world. You are never explicitly told how much a stay at the Himmapan costs, but it doesn't take a government audit to tell you that those indoor fountains ain't cheap. This isn't the kind of 'live-in' hotel that people hire out when they have nowhere else to go, this is a tourist stop (And another makes three.) for the rich and affluent to stay at for a week before moving on to the next location of their fabulous holiday. These aren't the kind of people who will decorate their living space to reflect their personalities (Most of them likely don't have enough personality to decorate a wall, anyway.) so it comes across a little odd that IOI focused so much on this aspect in their previews. I suppose I was little disappointed after having my expectations set up, but once I saw the briefing for the level itself I did manage to spark that ol' excitement train up once more.

In 'Club 27', 47 is tasked with taking out the lead singer of the indie rock band: The Class. This man, Jordan Cross, has entered the ICA's crosshairs ever since his former girlfriend; Hannah Highmore, fell to her death from his penthouse. Her family refuse to write it off as a drunken accident and are sure that he was directly involved, the only reason he was never charged is because of the influence thrown around by his billionaire media mogul father, Thomas Cross. Additionally, they want 47 to eliminate Ken Morgan, legal fixer and the Cross family lawyer, for his pivotal role in the cover up. As Diana says in the official briefing; "The system might be powerless but the ICA is anything but."

Jordan is an interesting target, and not just because he dresses like your prototypical silicon valley hipster. (With Jared Leto's face, oddly.) This was the first time that players had the chance to target an individual who had actually been mentioned in previous levels. Being an up-and-coming indie rock star, it makes sense that at some point in your travels around the world you might have heard of him, but to actually realize that in the gameworld created this fantastic connective tissue between the game's levels. I still remember the fervour that spread around the community when he was announced as 'Club 27's target, suddenly everyone was scouring the earlier levels to try to get the bead on future targets. (Little did they know that one of Hitman 2's future targets just straight up appears in Paris.)

Fans were also happy with the level itself. After the confusing layout of the previous map, people were hoping for something that was a lot more compact and easy to come to terms with, and nothing says 'easy-to-understand' like a uniform hotel layout. Everything was easy to reach and required little in the way of travel (If you don't mind scaling several sets of stairs, that is.) The mission targets also managed to take up the full level space this time. Ken Morgan filters about the grounds mingling with hotel guests whilst Cross and his considerable army of band mates have taken over an entire wing of the hotel, which is where the infiltration comes into play.

Moving in on your targets in not quite as difficult as some of the previous levels. Jordan Cross' makeshift recording studio in the king suite has little in the way of guard presence; all you really have to worry about is finding the right disguise to get past the couple of bouncers in your way. Morgan is practically a cakewalk. Pulling him into somewhere secluded requires a few simple string pulls and he'll be off to the linen room to make a private call, he'll even send away his personal guard himself.(It's as though he didn't expect to be gutted by a serial killer with a fire axe, or something.) What I'm trying to convey is the fact that Bangkok was not a particularly hard level by any stretch of the imagination. (Unless you decided to complete it 'Silent Assassin/Suit Only', in which case I offer my condolences to your sanity.)

The narrative thread can be rather fun to follow, too. Just like with Silvio in Italy, you have a main target who's story is embroiled with a mystery; those who are interested enough can keep digging in order to find out the truth behind the Highmore girl's death. His other opportunities revolve around exploiting his crippling sense of inadequacy (Stemming from his desire to outgrow the nepotistic coddling of his father) and his desire to strike out on his own. Deliver him a birthday cake that was sent by his father and watch him burst into a rage, orchestrate events so that Jordan bumps into Ken (Whom is there by his father's instruction.) and watch the past play out again. There is even one opportunity thread you can follow wherein you discover his intentions to go solo from the rest the band. His paranoia regarding his father is so inescapable that he is willing to abandon all of his budding success in order to distance himself. Once again IOI did a fantastic job bringing the concept character to life in the game.

I may not be the biggest fan of this map (Especially not on Master difficulty...) but I can respect that a decent amount of the Hitman fanbase are. When I put the map aside, I do think that Jordan is one of the better 'Hitman: No Subtitle' targets and I love some of the opportunities that this level presents. Also, this level ushered in the unlockable Krugermeier 2-2, so that instantly forgives all possible wrongs. At least the next level is one that all Hitman fans can band together and agree is... not all that good. But that'll be covered next time.

Big Series/ little mobile

It's only me...

Yesterday I voiced my concern about the recent news that Splinter Cell might (read: without a shadow of a doubt.) be making it's way to mobile in the future. This might come off as a tad elitist without any context, so let me share the reasoning behind my furrowed brow and disapproving tuts. Firstly, I have very little against the platform of mobile gaming, in fact I love the concept of being able to take games on the go and play them wherever and whenever you want. (I won't openly admit to engaging in emulators but let's just say that I've used my phone to keep myself up-to-date with my Pokemon fandom for a while now.) What's more, I find it heartening to think how far mobile gaming has seeped into the public and furthered the reach of the industry. Statista estimates there to be around 2.3 billion mobile gamers in the world this year, just imagine what heights that could reach a decade down the line.

So my problem isn't with the concept of mobile gaming, nor am I driven by some hipster-esque distaste for the popular; my issues stem for the fact that the actual games themselves are an embarrassment to the industry. I have written an article on this specific topic before, but just to recap, the vast majority of mobile games are some of the worst excuses for entrainment you could subject yourself too. Most are passionless, devoid of ingenuity and creativity and absolutely dripping with microtransactions and anti-consumerist practises. Some may wonder where the concepts of obfuscating premium currencies, moneypit lootboxes and intimidating time-exclusive offers, first came from; well, most rose to fame from the humble market of mobile. With the player base being so big and the community comprised of mostly casual gamers, (Who are more likely not to question the money grubbing, assuming it to be the norm.) small developers manage to rake in silly money using these tactics and so it was only a matter of time before the industry grandfathers caught up.

"But these mobile developers are usually small developers." You may argue. "Surely a big studio with experience behind them, manpower, capital and, most importantly, a reputation to uphold, would endeavour to make their mobile debut worthwhile." And you'd think that, but remember, money is the be-all end-all of the corporate world; why put effort and passion behind a project when you can simply follow the path of least resistance and get the same rewards. It may sound like I'm being disparaging, and I am, but it does make sound business sense to invest as little as possible for the most returns. ("Don't hate the player, hate the game", I suppose.)

Because of this, we are starting to see a trend amongst big games companies wherein they drag in the rotting carcass of one of their beloved, dead franchises and stick it on the mobile platform for all to see. No, I'm not talking about adapting the gameplay and mechanics that made the franchise great whilst porting it to more accessible systems (That would actually be pretty cool.) I talking about crafting a pathetic archetypal-mobile game clone and slathering it with a familiar coat of paint. I'd imagine meetings go something like; "Oh, people seem to be sinking a lot of money into runner games. We have a mascot famous for running don't we?" and then we end up with the Sonic Dash games. (Yes I said games.) That isn't the only example we have of nostalgia baiting either.

Electronic Arts have appeared so much on my blog that soon I'm going to have to start giving Andrew Wilson an assistant writer credit; but trust me, EA earns their place in my daily word-count with gusto. This time I'm dragging them back under the 'shame' spotlight in order to verbally lash them for the mess of a game that they called Dungeon Keeper. For those who are unfamiliar, The Dungeon Keeper series ran back in the late 90's and allowed players to assume the role of the overlord/architect of an expansive dungeon system. Players had to set up traps and defences in order to hold off against plundering humans and righteous heroes that seek to confront you. The whole concept was a fun subversive look at medieval fantasy and carried the delightful dark humor that one would come to expect from the same developers who made Theme series: Bullfrog Productions.

Of course, things changed once EA got more involved with them. Dungeon Keeper 3 was cancelled and Bullfrog were moved to working exclusively on the more profitable Harry Potter franchise until their complete assimilation back in 2001. This left EA with all of the licences and none of the responsibility to uphold their quality, but at least they waited until the game got nostalgic before going at it with a hacksaw. In 2013, EA and Mythic entertainment announced that they were creating a mobile game that would be a "twisted take" on the Dungeon Keeper franchise, and I cannot think of a more deliciously ironic statement that has ever been uttered.

2014 saw the release of one of the worst "reimaginings" to ever grace gaming. Final Fantasy 10 fans may complain about how their remake sacrificed artistic integrity for the sake of a higher resolution, but Dungeon Keeper fans get to top that with a game that was such a corporate cash grab that the British Advertising Standards Authority had to clamp down on EA for "misleading advertising" in claiming the game was free. In this Dungeon Keeper, players had to build their dungeons in real time, with every tile taking days or weeks to be mined out (Creating a cavern could literally take months.) But, not to worry, because you could speed up the time that each action took with a little bit of premium currency. Imagine the marketing techniques of Clash of Clans on steroids and you get 2014's Dungeon Keeper. Whereas in the original games you could set up your base and engage in raiding in about 10-20 minutes, here you had to make it either your life or your bank account's work in order to even reach the actual gameplay. That is assuming that this game even had raids, I don't think anyone managed to stick around long enough to find out. Needless to say, this was the last Dungeon Keeper game.

That isn't even the only time that EA pulled this trick, just the most well known. The Sims suffered a similar fate with Sims Freeplay. That game follows the exact same structure as Dungeon Keeper, with actions costing precious time or even more precious premium currency. Then there was E3 2018. That was the E3 in which EA did the apology tour for Battlefront 2 and ramped up excitement for the upcoming Anthem with a sizzle reel of uninteresting action. (In their defence, now we know the history of Anthem's development it is amazing they had anything ready for this E3 at all.) But none of those were the real focus for EA, judging by how they devoted the most conference time to their new mobile title, 'Command and Conquer: Rivals'. Just as strategy fans were begging EA to give them a new C&C, they turned around and gave us a 6-minute snoozefest of a presentation about this husk of a game. Now it's out, I can confirm that the thing isn't as desperate for your wallet as their previous mobile attempts, but it's still embarrassingly basic to be considered the follow-up to the most storied real time strategy game of all time. Guess it just cost a lot less time and money to make a mobile game

The other big mobile event of recent years would have to be the botched announcement of Diablo Immortal. This game was another 2018 casualty, announced by Blizzard at fan celebration event: Blizzcon, and suffered a brutal public execution. Diablo fans had been waiting a long time for the announcement of a new game since the last one, 2012's Diablo 3, failed to live up to the hype of the franchise. Fans crowed into the amphitheatre all excited to get a glimpse of their next obsession when the reveal was made that this new game would be a mobile entry. (Cue the sad trombones) Things were not helped when that poor foolish developer, after reading the iciness of the room, joked "What do you guys not have phones or something?" (Hire that dude at EA, he's got the foot-in-mouth routine down pat!)

Diablo is a very storied franchise that birthed a whole genre around its gameplay style. (I'd even argue that it birthed the looter shooter genre, but I'll save it for another blog.) It is a game that built it's community among some of the first hardcore PC gamers and has always been sure to cater to their origins. Then Diablo Immortal was announced, with it's re skinned characters, outsourced workload and identical gameplay to the last, critically panned, release. It should come to no one's surprise, least of all Blizzards, that one fan approached the mike after the show to ask if this was all just some "Out of season April Fools prank." (That actually happened by the way.) Blizzard have since come out to defend the decision, claiming that it was done with the intention of 'expanding the franchise' or some such corporate rot, but it doesn't take a genius to see the truth: There's a lot of money-pie on mobile and Blizzard thought they were due a slice.

Recently we've had a few classic series go the way of mobile fodder. Bethesda, ever keen to assassinate their decades worth of consumer goodwill, took time out of their E3 conference to announce their mobile remake of Commander Keen (See what I did there?) Square Enix recently announced a follow-up to their archetypal-mobile money sink Final Fantasy Brave Exvius. And Nintendo recently broke their promise about staying away from microtransactions in their mobile outings with the pay-wall ridden, Dr. Mario World. Not all of these mobile outings sound the death knell for their respective franchises but they are an affirmation to fans that quality is no longer the primary area of concern for these specific brands. And that may just be even worse.

So perhaps you can now see why I find myself scared for the future of Splinter Cell now that Ubisoft have aimed it at the mobile market. Things are only worsened by the fact that this E3, Ubisoft announced: Tom Clancy's Elite Squad; a crossover mobile game between all the Tom Clancy brands that looks to be another archetypal-battle game. Just seeing their low-polygon rendition of Sam Fisher makes my heart sink to think about what dire straits the Splinter Cell franchise could, and likely will, end up in.

Recently there was a little bit of hope for Splinter Cell fans in the form of a surprise cameo from Sam Fisher in 'Ghost Recon: Wildlands'. (I may have even picked up the game solely because of this cameo.) He was even being voiced by Michael Ironside again, which had players bouncing off the walls with excitement. "Ironside it back! The next game's announcement is merely a formality at this point!" However, the next E3 went by and all we got was this foreboding snippet from Yves about what size coffin he wants to bury the series in- I mean, how "There will be new types of experiments, but on more different devices." And it got me thinking to that crossover itself.

There in one scene in which Sam is talking with the player's CIA handler, Karen Bowman, about how he is a relic of the past. Sam refutes that claim and mentions how there was another guy, "Army infiltration- he wore a bandana or something." to which Karen replies "I heard he finally retired." For those who don't know, this is subtle reference to Metal Gear and the fact that, after 'Survive', the series is now dead. These franchises have acknowledged each other now and then throughout the years, alongside Gabriel Logan from Siphon Filter, so it feels strange now to think that only Splinter Cell remains. Sam shares these sentiments when he remarks "Then it's only me..." with a pensive stare.  I bring this up because, in someways Splinter Cell is the last gaming link we have to the golden age of stealth games, those others might be gone but Sam is still around to hold the torch. But I fear that may be in peril once he is relegated to a low-effort currency farm mobile game and the franchise is hung out to dry. It may just be the end of an area, and I find nothing more sad than thinking of the once proud stealth genre going out with a whimper instead of a quiet chokeout like it deserves.

Splinter Cell: My past and their future.

Are you gonna say monkey?

At this point I feel that I have established my fandom for stealth action games. But for the record, it is likely my single favourite genre of games. (with my favourite sub genre being immersive sims.) I love the prospect of roleplaying a stealthy voyeur who is so good at their job that they can move in and out, execute their objective (or their target) and alight without anyone ever even knowing that they were there. With all the 'power fantasy' gaming experiences about the player character becoming some world renowned hero, it feels far less garish to take the role of the one that no one ever celebrates. (That's part of the reason that I love the narrative structure of the Thief games, but I'll get more on that in another post.)

In the past I may have mentioned how much I adore the Metal Gear Series, but that isn't the only popular military stealth franchise that I have gleefully explored during my many years as a gamer. There is in fact another, much more American, stealth franchise that some would say even manages to surpass Metal Gear in some facets. (They would be objectively wrong in saying that, but the praise is still noteworthy.) I am of course referring to Ubisoft's stealth action darling; Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. (With Tom's name attached you automatically know that this is a serious franchise.)

My history with Splinter Cell doesn't go as far back as my journey with Metal Gear, (For those who don't remember: playing Metal Gear Solid is my earliest gaming memory)  but despite that, the series has managed to worm its way into my heart. The games star Sam Fisher, voiced by acclaimed actor Michael Ironside, who is a highly trained operative for NSA offshoot: Third Echelon. (He later takes command of his own unit called Fourth Echelon.) Each game Sam finds himself faced with a threat to national security and must go on some clandestine spy adventure in order to beat the bad guys and save the day.

As you can likely imagine, the stories of these games are nowhere near as complex and intricate as what Metal Gear has to offer, but in that relative simplicity is an accessibility that Kojima's games don't always have. That being said, remember that this is a 'Tom Clancy' game, so within the parameters of the 'save-American-democracy' archetype the writers do manage to put together a few thrilling tales. I often give Ubisoft a hard time for decorating their AAA games with plots so weak they hardly keep your attention for the run time, but I must say, even the worst Splinter Cell games never had this problem. If there was one particular franchise towards which Ubisoft's development departments were sinking all of their narrative talent I'd put my money on it being the Splinter Cell team. (Perhaps all that excess development time going towards crafting a plot is the reason why we haven't heard from the franchise for 5 years now.)

I first entered the world of Splinter Cell a couple of years back when I acquired the collection. (Thank you, Steam summer sale.) The game I really wanted to check out was 'Splinter Cell: Conviction' (As I still remembered the marketing game for that game when it first launched.) but by weird obsession with 'knowing the whole story' made me go back to the original. I didn't have too high hopes for the first Splinter Cell game, I still had memories of going back to the origin of the Hitman franchise and struggling with an unfocused and unfriendly game. However, despite very much resembling the original Hitman, (to the point that I think they may have used the same engine.) Splinter Cell was a great game with a laser focus and what it wanted to be. The stealth action was on point, the story was pretty exciting and the linear level design ended up influencing many of the games to follow.

I moved onto the next game very much excited about what it would have to offer. Due to some licensing concerns, Steam shoppers are unable to buy 'Pandora Tomorrow' meaning that my next game would be the legendary 'Chaos Theory'. This was a game that I had heard about even before I knew anything about Splinter Cell, it was widely considered the swan-song of the series, and once I played it I understood why. Almost everything about Chaos Theory was drastically improved from the previous games, the atmosphere, the gameplay and, of course, the mission layout. Chaos Theory was the first game in the franchise to design it's levels with an open plan. (and the only game to get it right.) You weren't shoehorned from area to area, but put into a level, given your objectives, and expected to figure out your avenue of approach. This may not seem all that groundbreaking to fans of immersive Sim games, but for Splinter Cell this was a world of difference from what the series was used to. Even now, no Splinter Cell game has been able to capture that same level of tactical freedom that Chaos Theory did. Future games would feel more like sequels of the original two games and their rigid design philosophy, making 'Choas Theory' a beautiful aberrance for this franchise.

Double Agent sucked. I would get more into here but the amount of hatred I have for that game deserves it's own in depth blog. (Oh god, that means I have to play through it again, don't I!) I forced my way through that game and onto the one I was waiting for: Conviction. Oh, Conviction... why can't I give you up? 'Splinter Cell: Conviction' is universally lambasted my fans and critics alike for being 'barely a Splinter Cell' game. They are all absolutely right. (and that's kinda what makes it so brilliant!) Up until Conviction, Splinter Cell was all about working within the confines of your operating procedures in order to get the job done. Heck, before Chaos Theory you had to wait to be granted 'Fifth freedom' before the game even allowed you to shoot someone. Tom Clancy's direction meant that the games were grounded in something resembling reality and so Sam Fisher, who works for the NSA, remember, couldn't go around the world dropping bodies or he'd end up causing an international crisis. Tell that to Conviction.

'Splinter Cell: Conviction' piggybacks off of the incredible crappy driving plotpoint of Double Agent (Save it for the blog...) and delivers a totally unique premise. Stop me if you've heard this before: so Sam Fisher, unsung American hero, is framed for a crime he technically didn't commit and must go underground in order to- what do you mean that's the premise of every Hollywood action movie of the early 2000's? (Also 2019's 'Angel has Fallen' for some reason.) Yeah, this plot thread absolutely screams contemporary Ubisoft writing standards but bear with me as I say... this game is absolutely hilarious because of it. Let me explain why.

Straight away the game jumps the shark as it orders you to murder some random street thug in order to complete the tutorial. Let me try to convey how monumentous that is for this franchise. I already mentioned how Sam needed direct permission to take a life previously; well even when he had free reign in Chaos Theory, the player was still incentivized to keep things bloodless. Throughout the games, Sam kills less than five people without the player's involvement. Yet Conviction opens by telling you to go sicko mode on this poor nobody in the middle of the street. And that isn't even the best part, from this point onwards the game refuses to let you move from area to area unless you neutralize every single person on the map. ("Previous games championed the player's ability to sneak past people unnoticed? Screw that noise, let's drop bodies!") There is even a story plotpoint that is capped off with having Sam go on a bullet-time massacre through his old workplace literally wiping out squadrons of highly trained operatives for no other reason than; it looks cool I guess.

I can understand why diehard fans absolutely hated this game, but honestly, all this just makes me love it more. The game had the guts to throw all of it's realism out the window to be a schlocky action movie for a single game and I played the everliving heck out of it. Sam Fisher went from being a highly disciplined and amiable operative to becoming a deranged mass murderer who mostly communicated in monosyllabic grunts. I'm honestly shocked that the US department of defence had any staff left after the sizable 'downsizing' that Sam headed up. Oh, but don't worry about the morality of all this; they were all corrupt. (Really? All 3000 people that Sam kills in this game were corrupt? Wow, I guess Splinter Cell took a more critical stance on American politics then even Metal Gear did!)

The final Splinter Cell game was the incredibly sound: Blacklist. This game gets a lot of slack from fans claiming the story isn't up to par with the franchise, but personally that just makes me wonder what franchise they're talking about. (None of these game's had particularly memorable plots. Except Conviction of course.) Gameplay-wise 'Splinter Cell: Blacklist' was fantastic; blending modern day stealth AI with an array of new gadgets, robust levels and a gorgeous presentation. (Shame that Michael Ironside couldn't reprise his role but the new guy did a good enough job.) If you are looking for a foothold into the Splinter Cell franchise and don't suffer from the same 'must-play-every-preceding-game' neuroses that I do, this is the place to start. And end; because 2013's Blacklist is the last game to come out in the franchise.

"But why are you talking about 'Splinter Cell' today" you may ask. "Surely it can't just be because you feel the blog needs a break from Hitman coverage. There can never be enough Hitman!" Well, remember when I said that we haven't heard anything from this franchise in 5 years? That's because earlier this week Ubisoft came out to give us a little teaser about Splinter Cell's future with them. And the news isn't good. Ubisoft CEO, Yves (Steadily-dropping-off-my-Christmas-card-list) Guillemont spoke with Gamersky about where he sees the franchise going from here. "There will be new types of experiments, but on more different devices. So, we are working a lot on the brand today to come back at one point." Let me cut through corporate speak for a moment and speak plainly. He means mobile. Plain as day, no other alternative. Ubisoft wants to bring Splinter Cell to mobile.

Perhaps you cannot understand why this news is so depressingly huge that I wrote an entire retrospective blog on the franchise as though I'm penning a eulogy. And if so, don't worry, I intend to elaborate soon. And by soon I mean tomorrow. I think it might muddy this blog a bit to go into my issues with Mobile games right here, so I've decided to save it for a whole concentrated effort. Plus, I just started playing 'Hyper Light Drifter' and I really want to get back to it. This topic shall be concluded on Sunday, see you there.

p.s. This is the first time that I managed to fill the blog with entirely mine own pictures! Yay! Forgive me if I got a little crazy will placement.