"Earth's Mightiest Heroes" indeed...

Reality is often disappointing

Success is never guaranteed in life. It can't be, else the moment would never be sought after nor appreciated. Though there are those times when success is so tipped in your favour that perhaps the more impressive feat would be finding some way not to sink that basket in the manner that seems inevitable; a sort of "Wow, you messed up so spectacularly that it's kinda impressive" sort of stance. Personally, I would consider the later to be personified in the sort of example where you, as a huge corporate entity with resources pouring out of your ears and a bevy of well respected studios at your beck and call, are granted exclusive rights to the single most sought-after and profitable licence in the entertainment world, only to somehow manage to twist things on their head and make an ass of yourself. (Maybe that's more indicative of the way that even sure-fire success is never as easy as it seems.) As you can likely deduce right now, the stand-ins for this example are 'Square Enix' and 'Marvel'. (I'll let you figure out which goes where.)

So with the rights to make an Avengers game there was little doubt that this would be the sort of game to sell gangbusters. I mean sure, we had no idea what the game even was for several months, the only footage which existed had to be literally smuggled out of the amphitheatre and Square kept teasing live-service elements before their gameplay showcase; but none of that mattered because this was 'Avengers'! The Marvel brand is a total juggernaut built by the blood, sweat and tears of countless over the past decade, surely there was absolutely nothing Square could do which would sully such a brand in the eyes of fans. And I'd argue that they still haven't. Even after everything that Square's Avengers turned out to be, and all the ways it severely let down just about everyone who shelled out for it, Marvel are so untouchable at this point that the blame seems to have landed squarely on Square's doorsteps. (And can you really blame the masses for picking such a scapegoat?)

I think that right from the moment go there were concerns about exactly what it was this game was going to turn out to be, stemming from the base that no one was quite sure what a perfect Avengers game would be. I mean it was going to have to be multiplayer of course, that was a given, but should this be a narrative based game? Perhaps a more loose open world one? A beat 'em up? An RPG? What would best allow the player to step into the shoes of Earth's Mightiest Heroes? Square basically had complete creative control over what this title could end up shaping up as, and to the chagrin of many they travelled the path that so many others had stumbled on; they decided to make a live service. But before I go on I should say something; there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a 'live service'. I think the concept of a game that you can come back to time and time again as it keeps getting updated has been alive and well since the days of early Minecraft; but the big companies have a habit of taking something charming and community building before turning it cold and uncaring. Thus was the case with Avengers.

Like practically every big-budget live service before it, Avengers launched as a mess of bugs and frame losses that one would be embarrassed to present to their audience if one had any self respect. The game just frankly did not hit consistent frames on console, full on crashed often, suffered visual and audio bugs all over the place and had trouble with networking out the gate. And those were just the unintended drawbacks. People soon found the gameplay loop to be overly repetitive, the gear system to be uninspired, the RPG elements to be undercooked and the story to be so short that they only managed to fit 3 supervillains into the game. (All three of whom they had revealed in promotion.) Behind that all was a game that at least felt fun to mess around in for a bit, I still feel that smashing the odd head together as hulk or pining people to walls as Thor still holds it's appeal; but enough appeal to cost £50 and to come to back day after day? Nah, I'll be fine without, thanks.

Of course, like many predicted the Marvel name was enough to trump many of those criticisms and bring people to the game, but it wouldn't be enough to get people to buy into the gameplay loop. Sure, everyone wants to be an Avenger when they see the logo, but actually sit them down and tell them to work this game into their weekly schedule and you'll find people move on quickly. The game was just simply lacking in spectacle, excitement, oh- and decent loot to fuel the looter aspects of the game which were meant to be the main selling point. (Have you people learned nothing from Anthem?) But how can I just sit here and tell you that people moved on from the game so quickly? Do I have insider information in the Square's play charts? Of course not, but I do have a web browser and can easily look at Steam Charts to see that the game had but 750 players in the last hour. (The game launched about a month ago, remember)

Now 750 ain't dead by any stretch of the imagination, that's about 750 more people than are playing 'Fast and Furious: Crossroads' right now, but for a multiplayer co-op title with a huge license attached to it in the middle of the day; that ain't too healthy either. When you bear in mind that this is a game that requires a full four-team of people, who pick different characters out of a roster of 6, in order to be played as intended, suddenly that 750-1000 daily player roster starts to feel a little more constricting. In that vein, reports have claimed genuine trouble landing a multiplayer session with randoms in the game, this time not due to poor networking but a poor player pool, and even the PS4 version of the game seems to mimic these issues. So what does this tell us? That people have moved onto one of the numerous free or cheaper online games that are infinitely better conceived and just plain more fun. 

For their part, Crystal Dynamic and Square have kept on a confident face throughout this all and claimed that they're not at all worried by the shrinking numbers. Afterall, they have two events incoming that will introduce the new characters to the universe; both of whom are Hawkeye. (Huh?) Yeah, in order to 'change up the roster' they're going to introduce two different characters that both use bows and, given their track record, will probably play almost identical to one another. (Yep, that'll revive the game for sure.) I'm sure this event will bring back some players, events usually do, but I have no idea why Crystal will think they'll stick around before any of the core issues are solved. What's the point of adding new heroes when the gameplay loop is still boring and tedious? This is textbook 'horse before the cart' stuff right here.

Quite honestly, I wanted Avengers to be good. I really did. I've always held an affinity to Marvel over the years and have been disappointed with the way in which quality games under their brand have been far and few between. With so much source material out there you'd think it'd be easy, but I suppose Square have come by to prove how that isn't the case. (Then again, they hardly pulled from any source material whatsoever, so maybe some of the blame does land on them) Yet it seems that the moment has come and gone and Avengers is destined to be another forgotten live service by the end of the year, providing more evidence at how this game design model isn't sustainable. (Evidence that the industry is sure to promptly ignore) I just hope this downfall doesn't hurt future prospects for Marvel games, because I'm still waiting for another great X-men title. It's been far too long.

Big moves for Rockstar

Ain't no rest for the wicked

Love 'em or hate them (and after that stunt with announcing yet another re-release for GTA V I'm certainly leaning the other way) Rockstar are probably one of the most well known studios in the world, and I'm not just talking about gaming spaces. Their antics, big or small, are covered by all sides of the media, mainstream or otherwise, all desperate to get a scoop on the studio well known for courting controversy even though nowadays their games are honestly some of the most tame on the market, when it comes to challenging controversial issues, that is. (Unless you're someone who gets really offended by someone telling you that the American dream is a lie and consumerism has taken over our lives... cause that's pretty much their schtick) Thus, when Rockstar do something as significant as buy over a brand new studio and rebrand it under their banner, you'll know that's going to raise some eyebrows before the evening's out, not least of all mine. There's actually been a couple of quite interesting developments regarding Rockstar of late, and I'm oh-so curious to see what it's going to lead to in the years to come.

Firstly, however, let's cover the story of the hour. (Or last week's hour, given how these blogs are scheduled) "Rockstar acquires Ruffian games; renames them 'Rockstar Dundee'. Now I'll admit that this headline caught my attention first because of Rockstar and second for Ruffian. 'I know that name' I thought, 'Where do I know that name?'. Well, as it turns out I know them from the amount of times I've seen it in the intro logo screens for Crackdown 2, easily one of my most played games of the 360 days. As it so happens they actually worked on some more games other than that, playing as additional help as often as they would be lead developers. This means that whilst they worked on Crackdown 2 and >shudder< 3, they also did some back-up work on 'Halo: The Master Chief Collection' and- 'Kinect Star Wars'? (Oh man, that's rough buddy.) So of course, getting picked up by Rockstar is sure to be a huge opportunity for them and I hope they're all excited, but the curious matter as far as I'm concerned is what exactly this means for Rockstar and their future endeavours. 

One of the early take-aways has been that this news likely portends to some more GTA online content, and whilst I admit that this, though slightly tongue-in-cheek, prediction might hold some water; I'm a fan of more imaginative speculation. So if I were to put myself in the shoes of perhaps the biggest developer in the world, maybe I would be taking a look around me and wondering why it is that I've gone so many years on the back of two franchises alone. Now I'm not about to ram on Read Dead Redemption or Grand Theft Auto, I own all the games in both franchises so I'd have to be some sort of masochist if I did secretly hate them, but it's got to be quite creatively stunting to some degree for all efforts to end up getting realised as either one game or the other. Other than the seriousness with which they attack their themes, they aren't exactly the most different games of all time, now are they? Both are open world titles with mission-based narratives led by fixed characters and boast plots that are almost entirely linear from start to finish. There's no need to be so rigid in your every endeavour just because the entire industry turns to you to revolutionise the craft of open worlds every time you make a game, there's got to be more to the creative process. And thus, they start buying more bodies.

Now I could be completely off-base with my wild speculation here and Rockstar Dundee could literally have been bought aboard to hold down the fort whilst the team goes full force in GTA 6 development, (That's probably the single safest assumption right now) but I have to wonder if that's all a new studio is good for. I mean for one you should ask the question; why would they even bother making a risk like GTA 6 right now? Year after year, GTA V's 'GTA Online' has made Rockstar literally ludicrous amounts of money, I'm talking "shooting a rocket into space" amounts of money, and it hasn't looked like it's slowing down anytime soon. Even with the release of a potential competitor in Red Dead Online, GTA Online has still dominated most-played games lists and raked in those microtransaction dollars, almost single handily propelling gaming into the world's most profitable entertainment medium, so why would Rockstar challenge their own superiority by making that game obsolete? I mean, sure, GTA Online 2 would probably be as popular as the last version, but what if it isn't?

Recently, Innersloth games were faced with a similar dilemma when it came to their game 'Among Us'. On one hand the code base of Among Us was hard to work with and the team would have a much easier time starting afresh with a new game, but on the otherhand Among Us had unexpectedly blown up in popularity and they'd risk cannibalising their own playerbase with a new release, and that's the sort of short-sighted business practises best left to the lug-heads over at Electronic Arts. Now of course, Rockstar is a much bigger entity than the 5 man team over at Innersloth and GTA Online is an infinitely bigger machine than Among Us, but by that same merit that means Rockstar have so much more to lose if they go about things the wrong way. (And the laws of logic don't always bend just because you're a bigger entity.) Maybe it would behove Rockstar to wait until GTA Online shows visible signs of slowing down before launching into it's successor; and make no mistake, the only reason GTA 6 would ever make it to shelves would be because it heralded GTA Online's successor. (There's no such thing as a single player-only Rockstar game anymore.)

So let's assume that I'm right and Rockstar aren't making a move to shift to GTA 6 development just yet, then what exactly are they doing? Well that's the exciting part, because in such a scenario they could be up to almost anything. I do believe that the purchasing of Ruffian is a prelude to some sort of big move on their end, there's no way one does that just to maintain the status quo, but there's any number of directions one can go in when they have the amount of resources that Rockstar has. Maybe they don't want to launch a new franchise like I slyly suggested, but even their one-off games tend to be utterly fantastic when they land. LA Noire, Max Payne 3, Bully; all of these games did something special with their time and gave the team at Rockstar something a little different to work on, (Even if Bully and LA Noire did borrow quite a bit from the traditional Rockstar formula) and I say it's about high time we got another one, wouldn't you say?

Of course, all of this comes in the wake of renewed interest in the supposed Rockstar competitor, 'Everywhere', which is an apparent game in the works for a few years now and started by three former Rockstar North Developers. Helmed under the brand 'Build A Rocket Boy Games', (Well, I dig their music taste already) 'Everywhere' is poised to be... well, we actually have no idea right now. That's right, if you think the title of this game sounds vague, that's nothing compared to the actual nothing in terms of details we have right now, but people still love to pit this game against Grand Theft Auto, and given the rising interest in this project again those are the sorts of conversations that are going to be making their way Rockstar's direction Afterall, these devs did work in prominent positions for Rockstar's head office, so who's to say what they're capable of with unlimited time and a studio of their own? A 'less restrictive' open world title? (Whatever that means.) Who knows?

Recently Rockstar lost one of it's two heads, so I think that pressure is now on for he that remains to see if changes are planned or if all is remain the same. I'd say that the best way to reassure both the company and the industry would be something special and outside the norm from the Rockstar team, but of course what I think and what ends up happening are two very different beasts. Now I don't want to be the one who says that there's an added expectation in Rockstar to perform after the departure of one of the brothers, but fair-or-not it is there, and I wouldn't think it out of the blue if Rockstar are making big moves right now in order to prepare for that reassurance show. But I'm just running my mouth like I always do and who knows what strange ideas and thoughts whirl around the halls of the big boys and girls over at the Rockstar offices? I sure don't, I just buy the games.

It's another Fifa blog

Yare Yare Daze

It's quite interesting to think about the proliferation of the Fifa brand in the gaming world considering the actual, genuine lack of effort that each one of those entries exhibit. Typically such common and flagrant lack of quality assurance would have some sort of knockback on sales or review scores, but most reputable review sites are too scared to bad-mouth any publisher with weight behind them and most regular consumers of Fifa games are too dense to realise that they spent money on the same game they bought last year. All of this would make sense if, like with American Football and basketball, there was no actual alternative and folk who wanted to play a modern game featuring their favourite sport could put themselves in a metaphorical no-win state, but even that's not the case with football. We have 'Pro Evolution Soccer' which, by most accounts, has been a superior and more accurate play experience for years. But Fifa has dominated the headlines, the IRL banner space, the team licenses and random videos on Youtube featuring actual players trying out their virtual selves. So if you're one of the ones tearing out their hair and going all Jessie Pinkman; ("They can't keep getting away with it!") they can, they will, and we as a society are enabling them.

But even when you give a company all the leeway in the world to get away with literally the bare minimum and clap them on like armies of brainwashed seals, there is such thing as a bridge too far. Every now and then even the most die hard of sports games "supporters" (see: 'shills') have to hang their head in defeat and admit that there's no defending their lords and saviours here. In times like these I can't say I find myself actually proud of these communities, because their years of dismissiveness has hurt the rest of gaming time and time again, but I do nod my head in approval that finally some vague form of reckoning has arrived. And for EA and Fifa that day of reckoning seems to have come in the form of their truly shocking support for the Nintendo Switch in the past few years. (Or lack thereof)

It's no secret that the Nintendo Switch is technologically inferior to the modern day consoles of the gaming world, that's a given. It's a smaller piece of hardware that is designed to be accessible and work with a gimmick, so concessions have to be taken somewhere down the line. Also, it is a Nintendo product, and those guys haven't been at the forefront of gaming technology for a good many years now; and that's a position I can only assume they do not resent given that they've never taken great strides to amend it. But with that inferiority comes issue in times of parity for the sorts of games that squeeze for yearly releases that forever scrape upon the latest tech; as the Switch usually cannot run such tech. Most games simply choose not to go for a Switch launch, or some, like CDPR, call upon the dark wizards from beyond the abyss to make Witcher 3 for Switch happen; what EA settled on was the worst of all worlds.

You see, all the way back for Fifa 19, EA created a separate Switch title which was inferior in most everyway but at least delivered the core experience that people were looking for. It ran on the engine that EA used before the Frostbite, (my god, they've been using that so long I can hardly remember the days before) and it looked fine considering. Not a revolution, but a step. Most Switch players at the time could probably be happy at the fact they got the game and were looking forward for the next title to get closer to the big console counterparts, but this is EA we're talking about so of course that's not what happened. Instead, for Fifa 20 the Switch players were greeted with a game called 'Fifa 20 legacy edition'. A game which, for all intents and purposes, was literally just Fifa 19 again with no added features and merely a rooster update. (Oh, and with all the microtransactions from the previous year wiped clean, of course. Got to make those FUT dollars, afterall.)

This, needless to say, was a slap in the face to literally every single person who dared to be a football fan on Switch. I mean sure, at least the game functioned, (unlike 2K's Switch Sport games from around that time) but you know there's something especially wrong with your proceedings when the best thing folk can say is "at least the game cartridge didn't literally explode in the console." Yet as the majority of sports fans didn't have a Switch but were PlayStation or Xbox players, EA just didn't care and offered nothing in the way of an apology for not even trying to make something happen. Most outlets didn't even bother review the thing, leaving it to only the most thorough of review sites to pick at with their morbid curiosity. There's no more depressing a summary of EA's modern business model.

And we are gathered here again, dear readers, to talk about the fact that EA, once again, did the same thing with their Nintendo Switch version of Fifa. That's right, this year's Fifa 21 'Legacy' is a roster update to Fifa 20 'Legacy' which, if you're keeping track, was a roster update to Fifa 19. (It's like poetry; it rhythms) This marks the third year in a row that EA have repacked basically the same game to sell it at full price and you have to start wondering if this is breaking some trade commission laws or something. (But I'll bet it isn't) This is such a blatant travesty that even IGN, a company renowned for kotowing before every powerful publisher in the industry, had a scathing review go viral for the fact that it's author pointedly decided to copy and paste their review of last year's Fifa 20 on Switch, reasoning how that is exactly what EA did with the game. (Although they did amend the score by knocking it down another point or two.)

Now admittedly, EA are big enough not to care about a single bad review for a game they didn't even invest any capital towards so it's not like IGN have put their necks out in front of the guillotine for this little act of rebellion, but any sort of vague mainstream recognition of EA's shady practises is worth praising. These are the sorts of people who actively go out of their way, year after year, to redefine what it is to be an industry pariah. (And do it with style) In light of the sheer truckloads of money that these guys make every year off of their football franchise alone there is, and let me clear about this, no ethical excuse for this level of laziness. None at all. If this is the bar of quality that EA have deemed worthy of the Switch, then Switch fans would be better off if EA released no game at all. Then again, the entire gaming industry would be better off if EA never released another football game, so I guess literally nothing has changed.

I know I rag on EA quite often on this blog, but it's just truly shocking how these people can still manage to surprise me with their lazy/greedy antics year after year. I mean the 'legacy edition' thing was expected but to make a 'legacy edition' ontop of that? I've said it before but this guys are pantomime greedy corporate scumbags, it's unreal! What makes it worse is the fact that publicly, every now and then, EA try to struggle against their perception in the public eye; whilst simultaneously pulling stunts like this that bolster such opinions. (Its maddening!) The sooner that they just give up the pretence and rename their company to 'Ethically Amoral', the better in my opinion. Oh, and for the love of god stop buying sports games!

Microsoft and Bethesda

 Sitting in a tree

So we've talked about the unexpected and out-of-nowhere move wherein Bethesda got themselves purchased by Microsoft before, right? Well as you can expect this isn't the sort of news that has just gone and swept itself under the rug never to be spoken about again, but instead become a favourite gossiping point across the Internet. "What could this means?", "How will Microsoft take advantage of this?", "What will be Sony's response?" and "7.5 Billion? Is Bethesda really worth that much!?" But at the end of the day the questions land most prominently on one specific topic: does this mean that Bethesda's library is soon to become exclusive? Well companies are strangely reticent about exclusivity, which I find odd because it's not as though public perception is ever really taken into account through processes like these. They don't make or break exclusivities depending on audience outrage levels so I don't understand why they don't just come and say things so that fans aren't left feeling hopeful for 6 months only to be ultimately disappointed. (If anything, wouldn't knowing in advance encourage people to save up for your console if they are so inclined?) But we have an industry that sustains itself on PR speak and canned statements, so we have to derive our own truths from that.

Firstly, we can go over the facts. Bethesda was bought for 7.5 Billion and that is a whole chunk of change. I know that may seem like a rather empty statement, but I'm just trying to establish for you that at the end of the day everything goes back to that number and how speedily Microsoft want to go around smoothing over that huge hole in their expense accounts. Once again, none of Microsoft or Bethesda's decisions in this matter is driven for the good of the gamer, and the more they tell you that the more they're lying. At best you can say that they hope the gamer's experience will improve through the osmosis of them enriching themselves, but the key drive at the end of the day is making that money back as painlessly as possible. (At least for Microsoft, I suspect Bethesda are just in full party mode right now.) Keep that forever in the back of your mind whenever you hear any discourse on this issue.

With that out of the way, you may have heard that Phil Spencer recently gave an interview with Kotaku in which he was delightfully vague and non-specific about what exactly this ludicrously huge purchase would mean for the future of Bethesda games on other consoles. And this is even when given direct and searching questions, something I usually wouldn't expect the Kotaku folk to be capable of, so you know this is the sort of thing that Phil and Xbox are trying to keep infuriatingly close to their chests. At one point he was even asked if Xbox could recoup that 7.5 Billion without The Elder Scrolls 6 on Playstation. Now this question could have gone a little further and been extended to all future Bethesda titles, which I would usually say is implied but with this interview you'd need to be that specific, but I commend the directness nonetheless. Phil was quick to say "Yes", before launching into a diatribe about how this move "was not done to take games away from another player base like that." But what we heard is interesting.

So according to Phil, Microsoft have considered the possibility of exclusivity and still consider it a viable option, the only question here is if they are willing to hold off on making back their investment as quickly as possible (as personally I believe that a non-exclusivity policy would be quicker) in order to win over some of that market share. Phil assured folk that this wouldn't be about destroying an ecosystem, but I think we all know that can be true at the same time that Microsoft dances on Sony's identical exclusivity policy. I think, as someone who has absolutely no business running a multi-billion dollar tech company, that the choice to go exclusive is as much about building a long term return on investment as it is about recouping at all. If Elder Scrolls VI is enough to drag people to the Xbox side of gaming, and it most certainly would be, then the Head of Xbox would be silly not to pull that switch, damned be those it would upset. But does that make any of this ethical?

Of course not, at least not in my eyes. The Elder Scrolls games have always been something of an event in the gaming world, and it really bothers me to think that soon a majority of the console gaming populace will be barred from it, it just feels wrong. And sure, in their position Sony would be doing exactly that same thing, we wouldn't even be having this "Will they/ won't they" debate, Sony are hardcore about that sort of thing; but two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, I am utterly and morally repulsed at the way that Playstation players seem to think that Dragonborn was the first Skyrim DLC (think about it people, that makes no thematic sense!) but I don't think denying them the ability to play any other Elder Scrolls is the correct response. Although if you ask the people with knowledge of these sorts of deals or merely just look at the way that products are being handled already, it seems the exclusivity train is inevitable.

The first Bethesda related product that we've seen make it's way into light since this purchase has been the Arkane bundle, which looks to package the Dishonoured games and Prey for one simple, incredibly valued, price. This is a collection that is set to hit both current gen consoles, Sony's and Mircosoft's, however it's currently only listed for Xbox Series X in the next generation of consoles. Some have said that this could have been a mistaken listing, but 'Yakuza: like a Dragon' is following that exact same model of next-gen exclusivity so this isn't unprecedented. In this light it could be argued that what Phil actually meant about 'not taking games away' was that they wouldn't take games off of the consoles that they were already on, but that they would be very situational about the consoles that those games than made it too. (Does this have the potential to hurt Nintendo too? Probably not, Nintendo plays second fiddle anyway.)

Unfortunately, I think that one of the driving forces behind this shift that we're seeing towards battle-line exclusivities may be driven by the very factor which makes this upcoming generation so exciting to some; the technological divergence. Previously both of the main consoles were attempting to do the same thing as the other, only better, which made for clear divides as to which console achieved it the best. Last generation it was Playstation, and thus they earned a lot of the accolades and sales that they needed to lead the pack. This generation, however, both consoles (or 'all three', considering Microsoft are releasing 2) have gone off in their own directions making traditional talking points complicated. Marketing departments probably don't know how to divulge the intricacies of their product in a punchy manner and thus efforts shift to something that everyone understands; putting a metaphorical-gun to the consumer's head and demanding they buy your console. (Everyone wins apart from the consumer.)

Now ultimately at the end of the day I prefer Microsoft having exclusivity over Elder Scrolls than Sony for the pure fact that, under Xbox, the game will actually see a PC launch and Elder Scrolls without PC isn't worth it. But I'm still disquiet about the fact that this choice is being made at all. It's like choosing between one's own parents, you hate to do it. In today's age of interconnectivity you'd think that concepts such as 'exclusivity' would be a relic of the past, but I suppose that the streaming age has had it's effect in re-normalising this behaviour in gaming and that sucks. It paints a sour picture for the beginning of this new generation and makes it seem like the proceeding 8 years are going to be defined by constant moments of "Oh great, my favourite game is getting a sequel! -but it's an exclusive to somewhere else so I can't play it..." Isn't that just the future that gaming deserves. 

The Road to Cyberpunk: 1 Month to go

 Substance and style?

Bit of an early video this month I noticed, and that is likely because the team have unveiled a surprise 5th showcase that's going to land at some undefined time. Given how close things are cutting, I think this means a grand finale will land literally a couple of weeks at most before the launch, a decision which I bet made the boys in marketing extremely happy. Although whilst one might imagine that such a stretching of content would lead to an issue where you run out of things to talk about, remember that this isn't a Ubisoft title where they only really have one or two new features to show off each game, this is an actual fresh faced game with plenty to dive into at minute levels. Point in case, at this last conference we actually got to dive into a topic I've been crazy about for a long while now; vehicles.

Now I'm not a car guy by any stretch of the imagination, apart from the Aston Martin DB5, I couldn't identify a single other car even at gunpoint, so I can't pretend like I'm someone who can fully appreciate the level of dedication and detail that has clearly gone into the creation of every single car. But what I can see, even as an outsider to this sort of culture, is the way in which the design philosophy for these fictional cars seems to have perfectly mimicked that of modern day manufacturers with a slight sci-fi twist. I usually loathe to talk about how "I bet this is what it'll really look like in 50 years!", but with this one I really can't help myself, the resemblance is just too uncanny! The shape of the cars, the way they sound, even the evolutions to the way doors move or how windscreen blockers function have this shade of verisimilitude about them that I cannot honestly shake. Thus it hardly shocked me to hear how that was part of their design philosophy.

As they told things, the cars would be split into several classes which inform their general audience as well as the quirks of their appearance. Economy class is probably the type of car that spoke to me the most, seeing as how they all seemed to be affordable cars from today that have been retrofitted in order to fit within the 'Dark Future'. In hindsight I suppose this is somewhat close to the truth given that Cyberpunk does have a post-apocalyptic side to it's world, meaning that these could very well be former Junkers. The executive class, on the otherhand, comprises itself of cars that look to be actual evolutions on what we see today, with the most striking commonality from the examples we've seen clearly being the 6 wheeled look. I personally also get a low-rider vibe from at least the cars we saw in the trailer, but I somehow doubt that 90's car hopping is going to make a surprise return to relevance in 2077. (Although I'd be ecstatic if it did) The Heavy duty vehicles were somewhat unimpressive, I'll admit, seeming to just be utility vehicles that look identical to the ones of today. (If it ain't broke- I guess.) Sports cars are more what I expected out of this game, although I do love the variety we appear to be getting in them. The slight mad-max vibe they give off in the badlands is especially cool to see. And finally the Hypercars is the closest we're getting to those 'futuristic' cliches that one imagines when they think about the road of the future. I particularly like the holographic windows that appear completely opaque from the outside; very gaudy and elitist.

Although it was during the talk about these cars after the trailer that I was left with a few ponderous questions. Firstly, the implication seems to have been made that some cars will not be exclusive to their classes but will instead feature variations across Night City. So that one might find a fresh version of this car in the city or a Junker version in the badlands. Or maybe I misheard that and it has nothing to do with class, but rather just geographical anomalies. (It wasn't made amazingly clear) I'm also slightly curious about the fact that cars will apparently be imparted to the player through purchase options, which got me thinking about the way that economy will be represented in this game. For most games one usually doesn't ever consider such things as the economy is usually whatever is needed for the balance of the game, but with the commitment that CDPR seem to have been possessed with towards fidelity, I have to consider these aspects. How will the expense of these cars effect my perception of this world, even with the inevitable steep discount that we'll receive having got our cars through a Fixer? For one, I think that Hypercars shouldn't even be on the market at all, given that they are supposed to be the height of expense and thus really shouldn't ever be in the pricerange of a street mercenary. (But who knows, maybe CDPR will literally offer us some for a billion 'eddies')

Another segment I found fascinating, although this just comes from my personal obsession with game design over my obsession with this game, was the one in which they spoke about the recording process for these car's sounds. The team's choice to make these cars sound like combustion driven beasts, rather than sci-fi machines, (similar to their philosophy behind weapon design) drew the team to the sort of lengths that one would expect out of a racing game. There were race tracks, cameras stuck in engine ports and up exhausts and even huge boom mics to record the sound of a car window in operation. (I'm only mostly certain that was meant as a joke.) It's honestly surprising how much effort is going into this, and it makes the other car-centric open world games out there look pretty tame by comparison.

Of course, this also opened up the potential for some product placement to worm it's way into the game, and I'm still unsure how I feel about it. Having Johnny Silverhand's personal car be a Porsche from 1977 is better than making it a modern Porsche, but I'm conflicted about seeing that brand in this universe at all. It would be like a Volkswagen showing up in Fallout, it's just a crossover that you feel shouldn't happen. I'm a little more comfortable with Keanu Reeves' Arch motorcycles finding a crossover in game because their bikes sort of do fit the aesthetic anyway, (plus I like Keanu, sue me) but watching Cyberpunk and Porsche flirt on Twitter for the past week has been pretty nauseating. That being said, I'll probably still drive the car in game because it does look pretty sweet, if misplaced.

Finally there was a showcase on the different styles of Nightcity and I'll have to admit that I wasn't in love with this section. Don't get me wrong, I understand how when creating a world in this manner it is necessary to create thematic splits between the fashion of the citizens, (with this being especially important in the world of Cyberpunk) but I just thought it made people look a little uniform and I hope it ends up being something I don't notice too much when I play the game. On the positive side, I think this was the first time that we got to see the breadth of the character creation, albeit fleeting, because the various characters riding vehicles that we saw looked very distinct from one another. (Although that could have just as easily been the developers just model swapping to get a good shot.) I really do hope that the last event at least touches on character diversity because, unnecessary though it may be, I really want this character creator to be decent.

With but a month to go it really does strike me as a little strange that there's another show to look forward to. I mean, what can we been shown that we haven't already seen so far? I suppose marketing logic would dictate that there has to be one final show full of set pieces in order set anticipation off to a fever pitch, but right now I really don't think anyone needs to see anymore to be in that headspace. Cyberpunk has only ascended in popularity over the last few months and some are even going so far as to declare 'game of the year' to a game that literally no one in the public has played yet. (We're all excited, but just slow your role there a little, guys) But I'm not exactly going to bemoan a new reason to look forward to tomorrow, so I guess a finale is the next big thing out of Cyberpunk. It's a little surreal to think we're so close now, but here we are. I wonder if it'll really be everything we want it to be?

Is there too much Resident Evil coming our way?

Do you ever feel overwhelmed?

So Resident Evil is back. I'm not just talking about in relation to the games either, it seems like we're on the cusp of a whole wave of brand new Resident Evil content to coincide with the new decade, showing how Capcom are ready to thrust their old golden franchise back into the public consciousness. We have the animated movie which purposes to tell the further extended stories of Claire Redfield and Leon Kennedy, (Something we've wanted in game form for so long it's almost insulting to see it in offered like this) the upcoming Netflix show which will tease two brand new members of the extended Wesker family; (Am I going to start having to carry a Jojo-sized family tree for this franchise?) and finally a full movie reboot which already has me puzzled as to exactly what it is they think they're adapting. They've already cast Jill Valentine and Claire Redfield as two people of similar age despite the fact that Claire is meant to be a college student whilst Jill is a veteran special police-force operative. And that's not even taking into account the fact that they've cast Claire at all considering she wasn't even invented until Resident Evil 2, and both Jill and Chris aren't in Resident Evil 2. Although on the plus side they did announce that Chris Redfield will be played by one of the Amell brothers which seems like a good choice, as long as the studio is ready to replace his actor every movie.

In front of all of this ancillary zombie content, however, is a Resident Evil game that seems poised to steer the franchise decidedly away from zombies, ironically enough. It's almost as though Capcom is pulling in several different directions with no idea which one is the right way, only just about making it work through the merit of having at least three different branches for the company to pursue; the TV licencing team, the reboot team and the bold-new direction team. To be absolutely clear; this is the kind of nonsense that got Resident Evil into the state it was in before 6, so I just hope they manage to keep things somewhat coherent before history ends up repeating itself. But enough gloom from my end, let's talk about this new Resident Evil and how curious it is.

We know the thing started life as Resident Evil Revelations 3 before being deemed so off-kilter that it needed to be promoted to a mainliner in order to make sense. For those unfamiliar, each one of those 'Revelations' games seemed to take place in a classic horror location and tried to tell a very contained story using one of the Resident Evil alumni, from the first one which was with pre mind-control Jill and set on an abandoned ship at sea (which the Resident Evil franchise had already technically done before, but nobody ever counts the 'gun survivor' games) and the second being with Claire and set in an island with an abandoned prison. (Which, again, was done before in Code Veronica.) Now we're looking at the very next Resident Evil game coming from this pedigree, and in that vein 'Resident Evil VIIIage' (as it's stylised) will take place in what looks to be a rural village full of non-zombies. (And they're releasing this back-to-back with the Resident Evil 4 remake? Things are gonna get confusing...)

That being said, retreading ideas and concepts isn't necessarily bad, and whereas Resident Evil 4 is renowned for devolving (or evolving) the series from mostly-serious to quantifiable insanity, RE8 appears to be a lot more measured in it's approach. For one, they aren't going back to the linear world design which was reinforced by Resident Evil 4 and arguably initiated from the rather linear Resident Evil 3. We aren't losing the newfound love for Resident Evil puzzles and ponderous slow gameplay; in fact, from the little helping of footage and interviews I have seen it appears as though the team are doubling down on those very aspects. One conversation I heard specifically played up the dynamism of the world that they've created in a manner that almost made it sound like players would be presented with open ended puzzles. (Although, admittedly, he may have just been talking about the ways in which players can deal with enemies.)

I, for one, am actually excited by the prospect of going back into a traditionally spooky environment like a village surrounded in woods, as there is quite a lot that a good horror director can do with that. Even a number of beginner developers understand the power of placing the player in a 'lost in the woods' position that combines the fear of the unknown with the fear of being in an almost entirely hostile environment. Mix that natural fear with an actual talent for manipulation through sound, obfuscation and a hint of actual peril for the player (as opposed to just a woods of jump scares) and this could really make for a genuinely terrifying Resident Evil experience. (Which would absolutely make up for the distinct lack of scariness that this franchise exhibits sometimes. RE3 barely made me whimper.)

However if there is one misgiving I am having, and I realise that this is quite a pre-emptive gripe to develop, it's for the concept. As far as we can tell right now, the game revolves around Chris Redfield and his new 'reformed' Umbrella, turning evil for whatever reason and becoming the antagonists of the game. Now I'm not about to raise my fist in the air and shout about how "Chris would never do that, I'm literally shaking right now", but this 'twist' (which has been practically screamed from every trailer) just oozes this contrived sense of 'good guy turns bad' which doesn't feel remotely earned. Like him all you want, Chris Redfield is hardly the most interesting and developed character of all time. In fact, he's so generic that Capcom keep radically changing his design from game to game hoping to land on something that sticks, so for that sort of undefined character to suddenly switch to the side of evil doesn't really feel like an upset as much as it feels like "Oh, so that's what he's doing this week? This guy really needs to find a hobby and stick to it."

Aside from that mild story issue I will say that the game looks great as a Resident Evil old school fan. Despite being set in a village, there is a prominent castle in the middle of the town which, as far as I can tell, seems to be where the majority of the classic Resident Evil puzzle-solving gameplay will take place. Even from the slight snippets I've seen, you can identify all the lavish and gaudy interiors that seem to be inspired by the gothic decadence of the Spencer Mansion. (Yeah, I always bring it back around to the original, baby!) I'm already loving the pristine chandeliers, carpets and bookcases; can't wait for them to be ripped apart by some terrifying monstrosity as it rips through a wall. Although speaking of monstrosities, I wonder what this game will have in store? The werewolves certainly will be a threat and the supposed vampire-lady has to be a boss, but who will be the every day enemies that litter the grounds? I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

The next generation of gaming looks to be resplendent with quality titles on the horizon and I'm as hyped about that as anyone. Seeing Resident Evil and Final Fantasy both share space on the same gaming 'stage' is literally like a dream to me, what a meeting of titans! I'm not quite as optimistic about the slew of ancillary Resident Evil content coming our way, (Okay the show seems to be okay but the movie is a hard pass) however if this bring the best out of the series than I suppose I can stand it all. Yes, I'm still hung up over the impending Resident Evil 4 remake, (you guys are making a big mistake there, I'm telling you!) but the chance to see Leon Kennedy rendered in the RE Engine seems like a risk worth taking. Every downside to Resident Evil's future seems to have a balancing force and I'm currently just breaking even in terms of excitement. So is Resident Evil doing too much too fast? Yes, and I'm certain it's going to have ramifications, but for now I'll go full ostrich and stick my head in the ground if it gets us RE8. (God I hope the RE4 remake isn't trash)

I play too much Genshin Impact

Dame da ne 

This is always the way it goes for me, you know. I find something trendy that I can't put down and then I ride it until I physically can't stand to look at it anymore. I will play until I hit the utmost grindwall and even then I will push forward, to the point where I'm not even sure I like the game itself anymore. Thus was the case for 'RAID: Shadow Legends', the only thing which stopped me was literally the game itself screwing up a pack I purchased (which was entirely in-game currency, of course) making me realise that I had so many better things that I could be doing with my time. Genshin has a slight foot over those other games, however, due to the plain fact that it is actually fun to play (Unlike RAID, which was sometimes fun to watch) and it appeals to my sensibilities every now and then. Therefore I'm going to dedicate at least a single more blog talking about the things I like about it.

I think what has resonated with me mostly throughout my time is the way that the game itself is, largely, a single-player experience. I've shared this before but I am the sort of person who very much prefers to play the sorts of games where their progression is limited only by the extent of their own dedication to it. Which is why I tend to play every game on the hardest difficulty. Yes, that means every single time I hit a hard section of the game I need to grind my fingers raw buffing my characters, or memorising attack patterns or simply learning how good Crystal Magic is against the Lord of Storms in Dark Souls 3, (I swear I read somewhere about how that damn dragon was resistant; someone lied bigtime) but the reward is that I feel accomplished on the other side. Genshin Impact operates it's difficulty by pure character and equipment level, different enemy archetypes are existent, but not exactly rich and complex enough to spell the difference between a low-level grunt and elite units. (That's mostly decided by back-end stats) Yet even then I still feel that rewarding atmosphere from slaying a troublesome group, thus my box gets ticked in this category.

Too many times I've had my potential for fun in these sorts of games crushed by the plain fact that I can't keep up with the PVP scene, which is almost always tied into the core progression arc. Maybe I'm just not lucky enough in the roles, am not willing to whale or plain just can't be asked to min-max; whatever the ultimate issue is, it puts me off the game and leans me more towards titles where my own fate is more in the control of my hands. The same goes for non-gacha multiplayer games as well; the second things turn too competitive I just get turned off. Now I'm sure someone out there could take that and turn it into some revelation about me but I'll just save you the hassle and do it for you: I don't like confrontation. There I said it. I'm a coward who prefers not to have to go through the stress of facing up against others and butting heads, that's just who I am. (Can't shame a man with absolutely no shame)

All in all, this is why I like the ways in which Genshin tries to keep it's world engaging with scaling difficulties, a modest smattering of activities and even a little bit of endgame thrown in there. I hear that the co-op play is notably lackluster, which is something that the team should probably work on in the near future for those that want to partake, but as long as I can have fun entirely by myself without having to shell out, I'm happy. For the time being that is exactly what Genshin proposes, although I do find myself wondering about the longevity of that. I've noticed the amount of resources it takes, for instance, in order to level a character up from 1-20. The sort of XP that you get from killing monsters is infinitesimal in comparison, pretty much forcing you to rely on these 'booster' items that can only be find in drops for wild chests. (Or as rewards from missions, Domains and the like) So there's potential to hit a pretty solid resources wall if things don't respawn at a decent rate. (Which is something else I think about.)

If there is one aspect that I think sets Genshin head and shoulders above it's competition, in a sort of "Won't be beaten for a good while" sort of way, it is the combat. I've touched on it before, but this is one of the few ways in which I think this game slightly surpasses the Zelda game it was 'heavily inspired' by. Functionally, you have slightly fewer actions at your disposal, it's true, such as literally having no block to speak of. (I'm not sure why not) But the versatility offered by elemental bonuses and character switching more than makes up for that fact. In some of the more chaotic fights, I'm always impressed by the amount of ways in which elements can play off each other in order do heavy amounts of damage, more so than you see in typical RPGs. Freezing an enemy and then setting them on fire, rather than doing nothing, hits them with a 'melt' bonus, wetting them and electrocuting them activates overcharge, ice and water will freeze them solid; there's so much interplay between elements that you rarely feel cornered into a certain methodology to win; as long as you have different elements to work with, you're set!

I especially like the ways in which these elements come into play for some of the tankier enemies in the world. (Although, disappointingly, not for the two bosses we've seen so far) Seeing the bigger Hillchurls with their shields that can be burnt away in order to make them more vulnerable feels a lot more dynamic and natural than the simple elemental slimes which every RPG and their mother has. I wish there was a bit more of that sort of clever weakness-play in the game right now, but I suppose given that not even half the map has been revealed yet there is more than enough time to implement more of that with future foes. If we could have flaming weapons which can be doused or electric-powered robots which could get grounded it could make for some really unique fighting strategies in my opinion.

As of right now my latest challenge, the thing that's bugging me so much that literally the second I finish this blog I'm going to attack it again, is the Spiral Abyss. That's essentially a battle arena full of enemies and various buffs which can be swapped out regularly by the developers in order to keep a rotating challenge going. Admittedly, what drew me first to the place was the potential to unlock Xiangling, but then I realised that this is actually a brutally tough challenge due to the way that most of the floors don't care if you can beat the enemy, but rather how fast in which you can do it. (I was told this wasn't going to be on the test) As someone who typically puts stock into survivability, (And has a buffed health Barbara on the team for that very purpose) this is pretty much out my wheelhouse and presents a hefty challenge to me. (And my track record of picking game difficulties should let you know what I make of a challenge.) Admittedly, it's not the most inspired end-game activity of all time, but it's the bare minimum which so many other titles don't even bother with, so I'm contented thusfar.

So at the end of the day: Yes, I spend wholly too much time playing this game and: No, I don't regret any of it just yet. I've even reached the point where the Stockholm syndrome is starting to set in and I'm actually engaging with the story and characters just that little bit. (Although that's only really because this game is actually living up to the twist that I always wanted 'Mass Effect: Andromeda' to play to.) So far the only thing that's given me substantial pause is the battlepass which unlocks around level 20 and has literally no way of accessing it's big tiers without a real-money subscription fund that's honestly pretty hefty. But again, seeing as how the game is free and the content in the pass doesn't appear to withhold any of the most coveted rewards, (characters) I can't really complain all that much. (At least now I don't need to worry about miHoYo making money off of this game.) Just give me one more week of excess and I'm sure I'll have successfully burnt this game entirely out of my- what do you mean they've just added two more characters? Oh no, I'm going to get addicted, aren't I?

Soulstorm and the quirk of marketing

I don't know what game you're marketing...

It feels a little strange to be a dedicated gamer who isn't the biggest fan of platformers. Whereas the origins of gaming trail far further back than the invention of that genre, it's hard to deny that platformers were the first genre which really set the gaming world by storm. Every single company was desperate to follow the shoes of Mario and Sonic to get their own mascot in a platformer, leading to an almost 'FPS' in the 2010s' level of market proliferation. That's how we ended up with platformers featuring Gex the Gecko, Bubsy the Bobcat and- Aero the Acro-bat? (Who the hell?) In fact, even when I was young and getting into gaming there were a bunch of high profile 3D platformers dominating that still have a reputation to this day. You have behemoths like Banjo-Kazooie, Crash Bandicoot and Sly Cooper. But despite growing up in the middle of that and even dipping my toes into it, I never really resonated with that whole scene. (Again, my earliest gaming memories were infiltrating Shadow Moses as Solid Snake)

There is one glaring exception to this rule, and that came in the original Abe Game, 'Abe's Oddysee' which broke so many of the rules of that genre that it almost feels like a disservice to compare the two. Like many of the greatest games of today, Abe was a chameleon which hid it's true nature behind the presentation. Whereas to many it appeared to be a platformer like any other, those who partook knew Abe to be a puzzle game, because every screen was a puzzle. Whereas other platformers focused on the moment-to-moment action of slaying enemies, collecting tokens and finishing courses, Abe was a lot more methodical and delighted in showing players a screen full of challenges that they were tasked with identifying and overcoming. Sometimes solutions weren't so easy or robust as simply killing the enemy, because there were roadblocks in place to prevent that, so players had to be smart in their effort to keep as many Mudokons as possible alive.

All this was of course keeping in line with Abe's lore; following an escaped slave from a race of frail-looking humanoid creatures that seem pretty docile compared to every other dangerous thing on Oddworld. Abe and his kind endured the suffering and the hardship, only really suing for freedom once Abe finds out that all their work is for naught because their corporate overlords have decided to start eating them in order to drive up profits. (Because they had already driven every other race at their disposal to extinction) Abe and his people aren't a race of buff Bandicoots or Hedgehogs fitted with speed boots, (or just naturally fast, the lore changes on that one) they are weak, typically non-aggressive, and vaguely human; they're just trying the darndest to survive. Given that context it's easy to see why Abe doesn't exactly blend in with it's happy-go-lucky platforming contemporaries; it's a story about slavery and survival.

That being said, there's still a decent amount of gallows and toilet humour in order to disperse what would otherwise be pretty heavy air. So many visual jokes litter the world that play on corporate culture, bureaucracy and industrialism for the first era of the game alone, with even a good old-fashion nut-shot making it into the cutscenes inbetween. Abe's sing-song rhythming narration lends a storybook aspect to all the proceedings and the ability to fart on demand is a revolutionary gaming breakthrough that should be present in every game. (And before you say "That was a gameplay mechanic!" That was in 'Exodus', in 'Oddysee' it existed purely for comedic value) All of that just made for helpful dressing in such a dangerous world wrapped in a hopeless situation and punctuated by some truly horrific deaths. (Literally getting grinded in a meatgrinder for one of them)

These are all reason why I'm so sold on Abe's latest adventure in Soulstorm, despite having next to no information on the game itself departed from the trailer nor even really recognising Abe's soul at all from what I've seen. A lot of people have noted a tonal disconnect from the trailers and the content of the game, and I have to admit that even I'm a little thrown off. Watch all the trailers for Soulstorm, including the most recent, and you'll note a lot of epic music, French horns, and just the trapping of your usual overdramatic trailer; but then you'll catch moments of relief like hearing the Mudokons whine at the end in humorous ramblings. In some ways it catches the duality of the game's tone, but I think things lean a bit too much into the dramatic for most people's taste. Remember, these games aren't like Yakuza. It isn't a serious world with bouts of silly insanity. It's a serious-silly world; wrapped in absurdities and packed in horrific situations. It's a walking dichotomy, and I'm starting to wonder if the team is having trouble accurately marketing that. 

To their credit I think some of that confusion may be to blame on the main-stream attention they've been getting lately, wherein this newest game has been featured on official Xbox and Playstation events as a headliner. For a game that feels so in vein for what you'd see in an indie title, it's surprising that these companies would pay it the time of day at all, but I suppose that's the sort of pull that seniority buys you. It's easy to sell something easily defined, but Oddworld games have almost never been that and so you can understand the struggling confusion. All that matters, at the end of the day, is whether the game itself can live up to it's own predecessor's example, which is something that is hard to ascertain. I've said it before and I stand by it, I think the game looks too hectic for what this series was founded on, but I suppose they could be cherry-picking those crazy moments on purpose, I can't know for certain until I play it.

One thing is for certain, and that is the fact that Abe is back to continue his journey of salvation for his race. An apparent 6-part opera which has been on hiatus for almost 2 decades is finally getting back into the swing of things, and if they keep at this rate the Manga Berserk is going to wrap up before them. (For context: Berserk officially started in 1989 and will never end) From the latest trailer alone I'm excited to see the sides of Oddworld that we never got to see, especially given that the world has expanded sob much since those original games with the release of these games like Munch's Oddysee and Stranger's Wrath. Just remembering some of the wild concept art I've seen for this game, such as the 'queens' who run this wild world and whom are destined to make their appearance this game, get's me so excited. This is a world borne from that 80's dark fantasy weirdness and I'm so glad to see that from a conceptual level at least- none of that has been lost.

Oddworld Soulstorm has been enjoying coverage on a level that no platformer in it's shoes could ever expect, and as a fan I'm as proud of it as I feasibly can be. Although with that has come a few teething pains to which I attribute the strange marketing choices. Some may argue this is indicative of an impending loss of the franchise's soul, but to them I'll simply point out how the recent 'New n Tasty' got so much right, I don't think the storytellers behind these games are out-of-touch just yet. (I'll wait until they start pitching a billion-dollar phone-only streaming service before making those claims.) A few marketing roadbumps and quirky choices aren't enough to derail this hype-wagon just yet; though I would like just a single really knock-out trailer to cherish before release, if that's not asking too much. (What can I say? I'm a big trailer guy.)

Why video games?

This is going to be a boring one, team, be warned.

The other day I was watching the very special Russian edition of Cyberpunk 2077's Nightcity Wire, it didn't hold any new gameplay details but was focused on the Russian localisation of the game. Yes, this does make the second internationally published video they've created which has catered directly to their Russian audience; and no, I have no idea why CDPR seem to lean specifically to that demographic of their audience. In the video we got somr interesting views on the people they hired to play the denizens of Nightcity and what their view on the game they were working on is. I saw how the Russian female V said she was nothing like her character, and how the Russian Male V said he was too much like his character, so it's safe to say that there was all types of folk involved in making this game. But there was one moment of the video that got me thinking, and it was when they were talking about Nightcity herself. One person described the city as 'the villain' of the game, talking about the way in which the hedonistic decadence and perfunctory lives of it's citizens created a nightmarish, if convincing, view of our future. In fact, they specifically said that would never want to live in Nightcity, an opinion with which I didn't even remotely share.

I would love to live in Nightcity, even knowing all that it represents and the lost souls who seem to wander her, and though it may sound a little contrived; that very opinion got me really thinking hard about why I disagreed so strongly. Eventually this question evolved into what it was that I actually sought out from video games and entertainment in general, and I know this isn't exactly the right time for my pre-scheduled blog of existentialism but I hope you'll permit me this hint of selfishness. For you see, I think the question of how it is that we form are favourite hobbies is right along the path to figuring ourselves out. Of course, this means that for the majority of the blog I'm going to talk about myself and the things that I like, so as such this is going to be a really stupid blog that you probably should skip. I'm only writing this to have an outlet, don't feel the need then to actually read it.

When I think of Nightcity I think of a city of lost souls. A place where the people of the area find themselves gravitating towards, perhaps even in spite of themselves, only to be drowned by the place. And though I've yet to play the game myself, I've spent long enough reading the material about this fictional city to pick up the sort of vibe it's going for. It's a city in which everybody wants more and nobody is ever happy with their place in life; from the folk who struggle everyday to make ends meet in the projects to those at the top of the corporate ladder with everything at their beck and call, except for their freedom. In many ways I suppose you could then say that it's an accurate representation of real life and the roles that real society finds itself in, so then why would I prefer living in such a place when in a way I already do?

I think one of the reasons comes in the very nature of entertainment, and specifically videogames, in the way that they tend to present the audience with a puzzle. Whether that puzzle be the plot, a challenge or an actual riddle; there is always a puzzle to be worked through either through personal effort or through the length of the story. By design, puzzles are designed to be solved, or at least worked on, so that places a level of control and relevance in the hands of the viewer/player, even in a situation where nothing may be completely solved at end of the day. I very much doubt that by the end of Cyberpunk we'll have fundamentally changed the city and rewritten what it is to seek oneself in such an environment, that just simply isn't the way that the Cyberpunk genre works, but we'll have made our mark, whether to improve things/ make them worse/ or keep everything the same; that'll be our little hint of legacy. And that seems preferable to absolutely nothing at all.

In the real world there is no doubt that the vast majority of folk will never find themselves in the position to have any baring on our world or the situations that we find ourselves in. That's just the way of the world and there's little point in bemoaning or being hung up on it. Even though I understand that fact, it doesn't help me accept it anymore. And of course, this is a personal flaw of mine, in the words of Persona I guess you could call it part of my Shadow-self, a part of myself that I don't acknowledge but is real all the same. I mean, conceptually I hate the idea of 'legacy' and 'proving to the world that I existed'; it plays into this 'trap of immortality' that so many people fall for. This wish to live forever when the very concept itself is fallacy, there is no 'forever' and yet it feels human to believe in it nonetheless. (Am I making any sense? Probably not.)

Another reason a flawed world like that of Nightcity turns out to be so alluring to me is actually quite simple; it's the idea of agency. In the world of video games there is an idea that is intrinsic, one that the best of the industry try to disguise as much as they can, an idea in which the player is the only person who can beat the badguy, solve the mystery or, just generally, complete the task. In this vein, the more messed up and twisted the world is the more I am drawn in to have my effect on this world, thus a dystopian world space like Nightcity appeals so much to me. Just to be required in any way, shape or form; even in the digital space, by digital people, helps play into the lie that I am special. So maybe that idea of being 'special' and 'needed' is something that I seek out of the games that I play; which would explain why singleplayer RPGs are so much more interesting to me than multiplayer affairs.

I suppose this particular point could be more of an individual one, because there are probably a lot of people out there who feel some sense of agency in their lives. But as this is a blog about me, that's the angle that I'm taking right now. Rather than wanting to change the world on any grand scale, this more relates to being part of it, and sometimes people can find themselves lacking that sense of belonging, but never in the world of videogames. There is a lot one could say about such a person who feels that way, that they live in an unhealthy mindspace or that they are too lazy to carve their own place in life, and that's all probably right; but having that juxtaposition of a world which, sometimes, literally revolves around them is what makes videogames worlds so infectious to me, if not for some others as well.

So with all that in mind, perhaps I wouldn't want to live in Nightcity if it were a real place, given all that it represents, or maybe I would, given the ways I could be a part of it. I understand this blog has likely come across as a back and forth rant that went literally nowhere, but such are the internal dialogues I find myself having every now and then. Gaming and the role it plays in my life is always something I end up questioning, and whether those questions end up coherent isn't always a factor of the conversation. And this right here might not seem all that much like a well-rounded conclusion (although if you've read my blog up until now and am still expecting that; I don't know what to tell ya) but I've never been the one to get to satisfying answers to my own questions. So now you know what that feels like, if you didn't already. Oh, and Cyberpunk 2077 went gold last week, good for CDPR.

Let's talk about Genshin Impact 'cause why not?

Is 'Breath of the Waifu' actually any good?

We haven't exactly gotten off on the greatest foot, now have we; Genshin Impact? When first I heard of this game I just concluded that it was just a transparent BOTW clone with anime character stand-ins; but now that it's out and has swept over 10 million players with it's frenzy... yeah, it still kinda is that. (But I retract a lot of the negative connotation that I attributed to that.) Yes, Genshin fever has hit and people are jumping into this light action-RPG experience with brimming excitement, such to the point where even I have dipped my toes in a bit. About 15 hours of dipping toes in fact. (It'd be more but I had my Persona 4 Golden to catch-up on in-between) So now with some actual time in the title I can offer a lot more knowledgeable feedback on what exactly this game is; time for a do over!

So have you ever been minding your own business when all of a sudden you get an advert for one of those bowser based money-sinks that somehow count as games? They're always full of obviously fake mock-up gameplay (that is often in no way representative of the game itself) and a truly terrible hired actor imposed ontop of it pretending that they are playing it. Every now and then you come across one of those adverts with an actual budget behind it and a couple of brain cells actually being shared in the animation department, and you'll see a mock-up that actually looks like a bit of fun. I mean sure, the actual game isn't anything like that, but at least they made it look pretend cool for a bit. Genshin Impact is basically that game. It's the lie that these cash-grab trashpiles try to hook people with. The personification of the collective fever dream that all these hack 'developers' (I loathe to even use that name for such people) wish they had the talent to create. And you know what? It's just as fun as it always looked!

Genshin Impact is a free-to-play action adventure RPG with heavy mobile themes in the way it handles weapons and characters. That means a lot of Gacha pulls and rarity tiers and upgrade materials and dailies and all that entails for a growing mobile game. Now whilst naturally that would all sound repulsive, something about the way Genshin is conceived makes me cut it a lot more slack than I normally would. First let me be clear, I am not immune to everyday Gacha games. Don't get me wrong, I typically don't throw a dime their way, (or ever, for that matter) but I enjoy the grind of completing regular tasks in a row and then rolling to see what kind of reward I can get. Maybe that love of dallies and grind was born back in my MMO days, but the Gacha spinning and rarity tiers is all mobile-influence. In fact, one such game was actually part of my daily routine for a good while now, several months actually, and I'm sure you've heard of it considering it was RAID: Shadow Legends. (I'll have a blog on that when I can face to objectively look at myself in the mirror again after all those wasted hours.)

But what makes Genshin different from all those 'games'? Gameplay. Nice and simple. Genshin actually has honest to goodness gameplay and it's literally like night and day compared to every other mobile dumpster fire out there. Whereas in games like RAID you spend hours grinding to unlock characters who you can then watch auto-battle; in Genshin you actually get to add those new characters to your party roster wherein you can play them yourself. They are all voiced, have their own stories to them, (I think) have unique elemental attacks, and are almost all fun to play. (Still coming to terms with mage gameplay, maybe I'll warm up to it.) As someone who just touched the mobile world I'm honestly quite chuffed at how much more interesting and fun this is whist mechanically being the same sort of set-up that RAID has, I can only imagine the actual religious moment that those who have only ever played mobile games are having.

Although before I lose myself to praise, let me make myself absolutely clear that the thing which makes Genshin such a welcome surprise is that it is free-to-play. The amount of value you get in this game without putting any money in is, as far as I can tell, practically uncapped in almost every fashion (with a few obvious exceptions) to the point where I'm already starting to subconsciously route for the miHoYo developers. They quite honestly made a complete-feeling game and then gave it away for free hoping that people would like it enough to pay the microtransactions, that's leagues more than you get out of most big-name game companies out there, who put so much into their product that they end up having to nickel and dime every step of the way to break even. For the 15 or so hours I've already spent in Teyvat I've had a bit of a blast without bumping into any paywalls. I mean sure, there is a grind wall but I expect that out of RPG games. (I've grown soft on F2Ps!)

Now I should probably go back to something I claimed in my initial look over of the game and mentioned again here; The BOTW clone accusations. I'm willing to walk that a bit back and call it heavily BOTW 'inspired', but you can just as easily see the inspiration of many other open world games on it's sleeve. I'd still argue that Zelda is the biggest archetype they draw from, however, as you can see it's DNA everywhere. The very art of the game looks like a different, less inspired, take on BOTW's endlessly picturesque smooth-shading; the stamina-based exploration actions, as well as the generally sprawling wilderness; the random puzzles dotted across the environment with rewards that benefit the feedback loop and simple combat that's easy to pick up but still fun to get to grips with. In fact, I'd even argue that Genshin's combat is even superior to Breath of the Wild's in some angles, (as scandalous as that is to say) although that is where the superiority ends.

The world itself is frightfully generic, with the land and it's people feeling like they've been stitched together out of every Isekai ever made; the story is fairly bare and standard with any twists or reveals being telegraphed from a mile away (I mean; it's entire continents better than RAID: Shadow Legend's story, but that's hardly an achievement) and the characters seem pretty two dimensions and paint-by-numbers; but for a game that's entirely free does that even really matter? Having to shell-out absolutely nothing does tend to put thing into perspective and makes it a lot easier to shrug and go along with the average aspects of the game. As it stands right now, I have very little I can really complain about with the game and that which I can complain about just seems petty. Maybe I've caught some kind of bug which is wasting away at my reasoning right now, but I'm totally okay with the average here. (Or maybe it's because I've got an absolutely extraordinary game to play in the meantime; it really balances out like that)

As the game is as of right now, at version 1.0 of the game, I feel absolutely comfortable recommending this game to those who want to have a little bit of RPG fun without feeling that constant pressure to whale out which most mobile games thrive off of. Of course, there's plenty of room for the game to dove tail into that abyss in the months to come, but I'm hoping that if the success of it's launch leads to a sustainable model than this game can continue being a remarkable haven in the Free-to-play landscape. A free-to-play game that's an actual game. (Disclaimer: I know there are other actually worthwhile F2Ps out there; I'm comparing this one to the vast majority) Don't expect this game to blow you away in really any regard, but maybe leaving satisfied is just enough. Keep on keeping on Genshin Impact; you're alright.