Will Konami start licencing?

 Give it back! This isn't right, that was ours!

The great stone wheel of the rumour mill is stirring up a little late this year, at least in regards to what many expect out of the 'gaming even of the year' this time around. E3 probably underwent the best announcement it could have recently, after deciding to not host a show in person for the second year running, although that's more in response to the on-going global caution rather than actual acknowledgement of how much better last year's event was to their usual garbage. Several weeks of coverage spread out for people to digest, great free demos to try out, a distinct lack of existential cringe to recoil at; E3 last year was straight unnatural for many reasons. (But in all the best ways) And perhaps that distinct veer from the usual, that clear indication the humors of the world's body are no longer in alignment, has effected the very soul of the industry as we know it. I say this because people are starting to suggest- nay, to speculate- that Konami's next botch-job is going to be the licensing out of one of their core franchises.

But why am I even talking about Konami in the year 2021, you might be asking, theirs is a clearly fallen company who have no baring in the modern landscape of gaming. The last game I remember out of their studios was that mobile Castlevania game which- oh right that shut down, didn't it? (After a year in operation. Poor form) They've still kept up with their annual PES releases though, because I guess they need to keep the lights on, but apart from that their studio has gone completely radio silent since they torpedoed their own reputation in a fruitless battle against a beloved industry icon, and then ruined their own reputation as competent creators by trying, and utterly failing, to supplant his life's work. (Oh my god, Metal Gear Survive still gives me nightmares some nights. Until I wake up and realise- real life is the nightmare where this game exists in; the night terrors were the escape.) But it's fitting I should invoke the name of my favourite game series of all time. (that favouritism is really directed towards specifically 3 but I think the gist carries all the same) For you see, folk believe that Metal Gear Solid is the game getting licenced.

And to be honest I wouldn't be too darn surprised with the way that Konami have treated that franchise in recent years. (I mean beyond their efforts to actually make a game for it; that deserves it's own special place in hell) On one hand you have the, still inexplicably not cancelled yet, Metal Gear Movie said to be staring Oscar Isaac. I'm told he's a solid actor, but casting anyone as Snake is a damn crime to the source material no matter who's wearing the bandanna. Also, the very concept of creating a stealth action storyline for the cinema is asinine to me. Where will the tension of sneaking around come from? I've never seen a movie shoot a stalking/sneaking scene with even an ounce of the amount of investment that a game can create over the same situation; and Metal Gear was the original king of tension pop moments. I think the project is so wrapped up with the conspiracy storyline and bombastic villains that it totally forgot how the meat of the game doesn't really translate over all that well onto the big screen. Unless they want to take a 'movie Hitman' route and completely forget what the source material was about in favour of mindless action. (Wait- this movie, despite getting greenlit from Konami, actually has Kojima's seal of approval? Hmm... well then I guess I disagree with my favourite game director; I wonder who will have that laugh last...)

Then there's the biggest crime that Konami have ever done to any one of their series', which they then committed several times to their other franchises, and I'm of course talking about Metal Gear Solid 3 Pachinko. (You utter, utter, monsters.) I will literally never forgive Konami for that. The absolute exuberance of seeing your favourite game of all time rendered with the love and care of a high-quality remake only to have it be all for mid-game eye candy shoved onto a Pachinko box; was truly heart-breaking. I may never love again. Actually, I did go and watch some proud Diamond Dog out there who uploaded themselves filming evert cutscene onto Youtube; so I have technically cathartically benefitted from this betrayal in the long run; but I wouldn't have needed that closure if Konami hadn't actually stabbed me in the heart to begin with. (The reanimation was great by-the-by. You can tell the creator really respected Kojima's famously solid scene placement and timing and did their best to match that perfectly, as opposed to the Twin's Snake remake.)

In light of that catastrophe, it might make a little sense why Konami want to distance themselves from any future delving into the Metal Gear series. They have no more creditability themselves and any move they make will be instantly killed by sheer underperformance, the only sort of accountability that these people care about. That's not just a reflection of how loyal Metal Gear fans are, but also how clueless Konami is about the series. They took a stealth action political intrigue thematically heavy-handed series and turned it into a zombie survival game that takes place in an alternate universe. There's no sensible words for how far off the mark you need to be in order to miss the execution that badly. With how the industry works, where the next game suffers from the failures of the last, it would literally be burning money for Konami to sell another Metal Gear. (And Survive did poorly enough anyway) But is their solution really going to be licencing out the franchise?

On one hand it really had done wonders for some series' to have a plethora of different creators come in and have their own swing at things. One of the most iterated upon series that I can think of, Warhammer, has literally every single game genre under it's belt that you could think of short of a racing spin off. (Although there's always potential. The Speed Freaks table top game is just waiting there to get adapted!) But on the otherhand Metal Gear is such a hyper specific series it's a wonder that any other developer could consider approaching it for a one-off entry. The lore is intricate and entwined, the canon and validity of the supernatural differs drastically in relation to however Kojima is feeling that morning, and all the characters know each other intimately; so slipping in another one there will just feel cheap and contrived. (Trust me, I know. They tried that twice with 'Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain')

What makes far more sense is the rumour that Konami are looking to straight up sell Metal Gear; because that's the only way the K-gang are ever going to realistically see decent profits out of this series ever again under their leadership. (Their company badge might as well be profit-kryptonite right now) Plus, if anyone is going to come to this series they'd need to attack it with gusto and commitment; especially since all the loose ends are firmly tied up right now, so a new entry would have to start a fresh branch of the Metal Gear story, and that's no easy task. I mean sure; I know of several great jumping off points for new storylines, but I'm a megafan who's literally had years to ponder this, you'd need that same level of dedication to formulate a new series yourself. (As well as a new suffix to Metal Gear. Again, I have a perfect one. Not sharing. At least not today.)

I am absolutely, unequivocally, all for this rumour being willed into existence by the sheer force of the Internet. Metal Gear, Castlevania, Silent Hill and just about anything of quality needs to divorce itself from Konami if they've any chance to be good again. Some complete hopefuls out there even hypothesis that, with this move, Metal Gear could feasible end up in the hands of Kojima productions! (Could it be coming home?) But I think that's a stretch beyond the pale. Even if Kojima is in those talks, like it's said that he is, I can't understand why he'd go back in his career at this point when it seems he's committed to exploring high concept art games from this point onwards. Mixing art and action to that perfect degree would be JOJO levels of brilliant, but I've suffered too much disappointment in my life relating to this series to even entertain such a notion. But unhooking Metal Gear's reins so that it can gallop free around the pasture? Heck, I'd say that's a good enough compromise for this lifetime. Come on Konami; do the right thing for once in your miserable lives!

Growing pains over at Epic?

 I'll make a profit one day, mark my words. Or my name isn't J.R.Steamrip-off

Here we are again. Pawing over the legal hang-ups of Apple versus Epic; a grudge match where no one's the underdog and everyone is a loser. In one corner you have the Apple-lites who are ever eager to maintain their stifling dominance over the phone economy and on the other hand you have Epic who are eager to go to bat for the sake of making more money whilst pretending they care about making everyone else a big buck too. Honestly, I have to say that I was surprised at Epic for picking a fight with Apple, a subjectively bigger entity, wondering what could possibly be the incentive. They wanted a bigger cut? I mean that tracks but there has to be a deeper reason why that bigger cut was so important to them. Why now? Was it just because they were starting to get big now and wanted to flex their spending muscles? Maybe- or maybe it had something to do with the figures that Apple has recently splayed all the Internet about how, after 2 years of life, the Epic game store is still operating at a loss. (That discovery act- it'll get ya everytime!)

Yes, the Epic Store which has been Epic's pass into pre-eminency hasn't been without its costs and tribulations. Say what you will about Steam, but it has served as a pretty huge deterrent for any small-time PC game retailer to get a foothold in the market, because why would anyone favour what you have to offer over what Steam can. After their flash success with Fortnite, Epic knew that the gravy train couldn't last forever and that their best bet would be to leverage the Fortnite success into something even more sustainable, thus I think it makes absolute sense for them to sink that runaway hit's fortunes into launching the Epic Store. The only problem being that with the loyalty of Steam customers and GOG customers, bigger plays than usual would be required to stick that foothold into the slamming door of the industry. Thus came the exclusives, the advertising and the plethora of free games shoved down everyone's throat, desperate to gain an audience. And you know what, it's working. Plenty of start-ups try the 'sink-money-in-and-it'll-eventually-work' stratagem to pathetic returns. (Just look at Quibi) But to think that Epic have managed to get themselves on everyone's lips in the space of two years is impressive; and yet in the eyes of Apple, who probably mostly care about making Epic look desperate, the opinion seems to be 'close but no cigar' and that's what they want everyone to think too.

To be clear, I'm no fan of Epic. In fact I hate their practises. Exclusivity culture is the death of accessibility and, as Playstation have handily proved with their recent death-sentence for legacy infrastructure, game preservation. But I hate Apple just as much, so anything they try to feed me is instantly going to cause suspicion out of me. And, although this is to a much lesser extent, some part of likes the fact that Steam has not just an alternative, but a direct competitor coming for their throat with policies that seem designed to be direct digs at Valve's old guard baby. Higher cuts go to developers who publish on the Epic Store, exclusivity deals are designed to cover any potential development losses and soften release risks for smaller studios, and Epic specifically go out of the way to flaunt the fact that their store front actually has a moderation system so that trash waste doesn't accidentally end up on their shelves. (Steam is pretty much 90% 'floating junk-town' at this point) But none of that is going to be enough to make Epic profitable, and until they go to work on the fundamentals there's literally no way they'll make it to the heights Steam is at. (And you just know that's what they're aiming for)

Right off the bat there are the quality of life features in order to bring this service up to some sort of parity to Steam, which after two whole years is still lacking! I know the excuse off by heart now: "But Steam had years to get where it is today, yada yada iteration, yada yada give us time". It's all just deflections and smokescreens. Steam had no major competitors at launch (barring, I guess, Battle.net) so it had time to learn the sorts of ideas and tools that people want out of a launcher, they learnt alongside the console platforms and thus their development went somewhat in tandem. Epic is coming after that great learning journey, but that don't mean they have to start at square one! "Only a fool learns from his own mistakes- I prefer to learn from the mistakes of others", listen to Von Bismarck; my dude Otto had his head on straight! Or does Epic want us to believe that we should just wait 20 years for the Epic store front to be where Steam is at now? (Meanwhile Steam is 20 years onwards in improvements.) At least they've finally put in some achievements. That's a step. (But it ain't nearly the whole cake)

Then there are the missing community features, and this is the stuff I don't really count as 'quality of life' because at heart they are distinct from what's needed to run a successful launcher. Having customer reviews adorn titles so that people can read the voice of others to inform their decisions, a trusted-reviewer section; things of that nature. If Epic are serious they need to start getting on this so that their platform can go beyond just being a place where people game and become a place that people return to in order to hang out, or share mods. In that vein, what about an integrated forum with the launcher so such activities can occur without having to tab off onto other windows? I don't think I'm asking for the world here but it would go a long way to transforming what's on offer.

Also, and this is a big personal one; Epic need to make it easier to buy games from them. The system they have right now is the bare minimum basic, but again; no prizes for hitting the bare quota. Right now you can buy games by entering your credit card info onto Epic, fair enough; but literally every other major online retailer has alternatives. Vouchers, codes, just anything else to let more people in. (Not everyone has the ability to throw around credit card details on frivolous gaming expenses.) And I know this isn't a matter of Epic lacking the scale to accommodate for such a system, because you can literally buy Fortnite V-bucks codes off of any store corner. Literally just do that but for your storefront. That way people won't turn around and go "Yeah, but it's less of a hassle to buy off of Steam."

And whilst we're out here making suggestions, I might as well go and say something that I'll hate myself for saying; but the free games and all- I think they should probably tune that down a little. Don't get me wrong, I love free things and the selection of games that Epic Games has offered is insane; (I've taken advantage of almost everyone) but this is one of their biggest source of costs for the platform. Now I'm not saying be rid of the program; it's a great way to establish the superiority of your content over Steam's (Again; thank you basic content moderation principals) but I've got to wonder how many people aren't even sticking around to actually buy something because of the genuinely great products that are being handed out like candy. In fact, some of the times they don't even do the bare minimum and ensure the game they're offering has unincluded DLC so they don't lose out totally. That's something Xbox and Playstation figured out years ago, man, get with the age!

But finally and most importantly, I have a plea that stems from the financial and the moral argument; STOP with the exclusives! My god, it's sickening to see the single way they win over interest is by spending millions on exclusives instead of, I don't know, making a decent platform? And again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't have exclusivity for games that they fund, I think it's a disservice to do so but in that case it's their game, they can do what they want. But nicking games out of the mouths of other platforms purely so that you can lure customers your way like some creepy white van stalker? That's a bad look, Epic. It makes people not want to root for you, or see the good beneath your flaws, because you're so insistent on becoming some toxic slug on the community rather than a pillar of it. And, calling back to those figures Apple flaunted, it sure is straining on the ol' coffers, ain't it? 

Despite everything we say and what Apple says, I'm sure Epic will keep doing exactly what they're doing and getting the best they can out of it. Epic are positive that they're experiencing the growing pains that any new entity has in the tech world; years of unprofitability. (Remember Twitter only turned a profit in 2018) And maybe they're right, who knows what sort of figures that Epic is holding behind those walls, but maybe they're blowing smoke out their rear ends and pretending everything is fine while the office burns down. (It sure wouldn't be the first time in this industry) All I can is regardless of marking black in the ledgers; Epic will never become the Steam disruptor it wants to be without rising to that task in a bigger way then they're doing right now, and waiting to do it a decade down the line isn't exactly going to cut it with me. (Early impressions tend to stick- you know) I want to like Epic, I just wrote a blog about a classic game of theirs that I truly adore, but the guys have got to meet me, and the rest of the gaming public, half way at the absolute least.

Edit: Scrap all of that; Epic just got a group investment of a billion dollars. They'll be fine.

Why does Gears of War still hold up?

 "Wha- are you kidding? You are the support!"

You're trudging across the war-torn streets of a fallen world, trading mud covered lead with monstrous bullet sponges, lost irrevocably in the haze of sweaty action, and then you stop and think: it's 2021, why am I still playing the original Gears of War? So many times I've come back to Gears of War from 2006 and everytime I treat is as my personal time-capsule moment; a chance for me to take a nostalgic look back at a game which once ruled my days and nights. Of course, I'm only looking for a single night- and then before you know it a week has passed and I've beaten the campaign again. I'm being serious, it's a legitimate problem of mine, so many other games I can appreciate for a quick play session but never Gears. It gets me wrapped up under its spell, and it's not even as though it's a particular personal favourite game of mine or anything, in fact it's not even in my top 10. And when I look at it objectively, every aspect of the game should repel me from it given the many advances the 3rd person shooter genre has gone through which should all render this game moot. And yet somehow, against all odds, Gears of War still holds up; and I'm itching to know why.

Gears of War isn't just a third person shooter action game, mind you, it's the third person shooter action game; the one which was so influential to the genre that many of it's quirks and features became staples of the genre that still get replicated by the few third person shooter games that are still made today. (However, it's so difficult to nail a good feeling third person shooter that there's not actually that many modern examples to contrast against.) So many features owe their direct genesis to Gears that even a lot of the now redundant aspects (or just abandoned ones) of the genre came from here, a fact which should inherently make this a ridiculously dated game. But it stands out despite all of that. Cover based shooting, vaulting, swapping between cover; we're talking fundamentals here that would not be possible without the hard work of the folks over at Epic Games, and despite over a decade of reiteration and improvement there's something special about the way the original Gears handled it. Something earthy and primordial that may have been improved upon here and there, but never whole-sale supplanted. 

Exploring Gears again has made me realise that there's actually a plethora of features and ideas in this game that don't work in the modern landscape, and yet they kind of do here. One being a trademark not so much of the future but the upgrade in technology for the time as a consequence of the new Console age. People never can get enough of playing with the shiny new toy and they, gods willing, never will. So forever will we see games that throw in something that doesn't really help the gameplay or benefit the aesthetic, just because they can today and they couldn't yesterday. Point-in-case; motion blur. A stand-out of the age that has become so disparaged in the years to the point where it's genuinely bewildering when you play a game that has is turned on as default. Why? Because it's just ugly, hides the graphics of what you're playing, makes the frames look like they're chugging, and is just stupid. 

And yet Gears pretty much pioneered motion blur during gameplay back in the day. Every time you went to do the iconic Gears ground-sprint; the camera would zoom in and blur the surroundings as you hoofed it; but for some reason it works. I think it comes back to the in-your-face attitude of the Gears world and the way they try to bring you as close to the mud and dirt of the battlefield short of making it first person. (No idea why the series never went First person as an offshoot for this franchise, I think it'd really work.) The blur is supposed to bring you into the moment, and it truly does. Of course, mechanically I think it also works because the sprint brings the camera so close and into the butt of Marcus that you literally cannot see the world around you, thus you can't dwell on how ugly everything looks. Sprinting in Gears is never really what you do when you want to cover a distance (definitely not with the tanky handling) but more when you're closing in for the kill; so visual information doesn't need to be imparted all that much and the developers focused more on heightening the intensity of the moment. A sublime idea, that quickly got lost in the plethora of imitators. (Did The Nintendo Wii's 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' need motion blur for sprinting around the Hogwarts Campus? No. It didn't.)

Here's another aspect of the game that's been criticised into the ground and back again: The visual stylings of brown and grey. Back in the day there was a perception that as video games were approaching the visual complexity to look 'realistic' that meant they had to embrace muted colour palettes in order to match that aesthetic. This of course aged badly as a concept so that even other developers would point and laugh about the fact anyone actually thought this way. Uncharted 2 famously featured a 'Next Gen' filter which just desaturated the screen in mocking homage to this period. Gears sort of spearheaded this movement once again except, again, it actually kind of works for Gears' world. Remember that Sera is a world living in the aftermath of an almost total fallout-event, it's a fallen dead world. So a visual that lacks the colours of life we're so used to seeing; (blue, green, etc) matches the story of the world that's being explored. Does this make the screen less appealing to look at? Yes. But is it uncalled for? No, I think it's rather fitting. Just a shame so many other games of the time decided to copy it. (Even Gears started to adopt more colour as the games went on, realising that otherwise the games would look dull.)

Level structure and gimmicks is something else that has moved on vastly since the first Gears game, and as such we don't really see many action-game story beats like the mine-cart level. And there's a good reason for that being phased out; sitting in a box and having to shoot enemies as they come to you is never fun. Movement is important to action adventure video games for reasons so fundamental it isn't even really worth listing them. Sticking them in any sort of forced turret section is already iffy, Gears 2 just about get away with a limited movement section right at the beginning only because the whole set piece is so cool. But getting thrown into a minecart and carted around is dated and feels like it only really exists as everyone's attempt to homage 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'. Here's one I actually cannot defend, I do not like the minecart level, but it doesn't bring down the entire game and it functionally serves as a bridge between a rather slow-paced ambush-centric part of the game to an upcoming more heavy action event. So I can say it's purpose is at least functional, if nothing else.

And then there's some features that most of the industry have left behind altogether, realising how bad of a turn the developers did them. Such as half-hearted squad command features like Gears has. You know what I'm talking about; games wherein your AI teammates need to be commanded around the battlefield like dolls, although the heart of the game clearly isn't in it so the commands you have are ludicrously limited or prohibitive. (I'm talking: 'Stand here' 'Go there' 'Wait' 'Follow me') Yet again, Gears did it to begin with, and in fact Gears is still doing it to this day. Whilst other games have acknowledged that such systems work better in the hands of tactical developers, Gears still insists on rudimentary squad commands so that they turn around, stick out their tongues, and insist they have tactical cohesion in their game. Honestly, these systems can be forgotten about in all but the most trying times, so I don't find them too annoying. It's just endearing, really, to see this slightly mismatched mechanic in a game that doesn't really need it, but the attempt is earnest at trying to enrich the gameplay. I like that.

My respect for Gears of War in today's day and age is more than a little nostalgia seeped, and I'm not sure if I would even recommend anyone try it out if they've never played the series before and are curious. But I'll be damned if I'll throw that game under the bus, file away my happy memories and label it a bygone relic. Much of what Gears represents is a time of gaming where the art of some of the most homogenised genres was still being written, and ideas that are now so very tired were once fresh and celebrated. That alone imbues this vitality into a game that shouldn't rightly have any left, as though you can feel the sense of "We're doing something special here" that the developers baked into the foundations of this product so very long ago, like the spirit of a time capsule. It may be inexplicable, it might be illogical, and you may not have understood a single opinion I expressed today, but despite everything I affirm that Gears of War 1 is one of the most enduring games of it's kin for the modern age. And that's a respectable accomplishment in my book.

 

Crossover Week

 Whoops, I slipped into the upside down timeline it would seem.

Who doesn't like a little bit of crossover action in their video games every now and then to break up the monotony? I mean you've got to get sick of staring at the same old mugs in the same old worlds all the darn time, why not switch it up and stick Batman in the Ironman suit? But moving away from the whole DC/Marvel crossover concept which I know riles some people up to even think about, what about when game franchises get to pop over the fence and see what their fellow series' are up to? Well, we get some of the coolest cross-over franchises of all time like Marvel vs Capcom, Kingdom Hearts and Super Smash Bros. It's a great way to envision otherwise rigid character roles in vastly different scenarios and set-ups wherein they can interact with others in ways that you might never have thought of in your wildest dreams. For example, who'd have thought that Goofy and Donald Duck would make such great battle friends in the war against the heartless? (Hmm? They're from the same- no way!) For me, I always love a little bit of a crossover time because it shows studio creatives shaking hands with one another and there really should be more of that across the art world in my opinion. However, that being said, even I have to admit that this past week has been a bit too much.

I'll never bemoan throwing franchises together every once and a while, but some sort of devil's bargain was pulled of these past few days because it's as though the magic boxes which contain all our favourite universes have just crumbled away and left us all in chaos. Not so long ago I thought that the most imaginative new crossover project I would see in modern years be the Final Fantasy XV crossover with Assassin's Creed. And to be fair that was absolutely wild, for a series that at least masquerades as being alternate history to crossover with a purely fantastical franchise, but I think some of last week's antics might be threatening to give even that the ol' run for it's money! I like to imagine the people who don't keep abreast of every development in the gaming world, like I do, and who might perhaps even be unfamiliar with the franchises being referenced. I'd love to see the reaction of a laymen to the Assassin's Creed Origin event where a fancy dressed Anime man teleports his way into a pyramid only to be chased out again by a gigantic flying knight with wings made out of swords. ("So which Egyptian myth was that again?")

Yet even with that sort of precedent, I myself am quite a bit taken aback by the event coming towards 'Power Rangers: Battle for the Grid', not least of all because that game was such a rudimentary fighting game easily outpaced by any of it's rivals that I didn't think it was worthy of receiving any support. I mean sure, the devs were going to take advantage of the lack of Power Ranger's games out there, mixed with the rabid fanbase, to fleece some overpriced microtransactions or two, that was a given. But why would any self respecting licence holder agree to having their brand associated with that sort of game/scheme? What's more, why the heck is the fighting game of the industry doing the crossover? That's right, Ryu and Chun Li from Street Fighter are actually suiting up as Rangers to get in on this game! (Hear that Jezebel? That's Chun Li from Street Fighter. Not Mortal Kombat.) This isn't even just skin jobs either. Both fighters have been given their own custom Ranger suits, which is a pretty big deal for fans, and their movesets are reminiscent of their Street Fighter appearances. Scrub my mouth out- but this actually looks like a well-executed Crossover coming to a game which may not deserve it. (How utterly weird)

But it get wilder. Because just as the gaming world was slowly trying to come to terms with the fact that was going to be happening and how we as a society failed to stop it, another crossover with a seriously questionable concept was announced. And I'm cheating with this one, because this isn't actually two gaming series' coming together at all. (Which does, in honesty, make it just a bit more odd.) For some incomprehensible reason fans of Rainbow Six Siege are getting Rick and Morty style skins added into the game. No, this wasn't announced a couple of weeks back on April 1st, this is apparently a real Collab. And want to know the worst part? One of the skin's is Pickle Rick. Oh god, the fifty year-old executives in the decision-room just learnt what memes are, but they're two years behind the curve anyway! That's right, the operative Smoke will be getting the Pickle suit (with Rat head) and a portal gun attachment whilst Sledge gets a Gromflomite uniform. Genuinely don't know what that second thing even is. Don't know if it's from a series I watched or if it came after I stopped watching because the community is the worst. (I should really finally catch up with Rick and Morty now that I'm reaching the end of Golden Wind- damn it, the crossover advertising worked!)

Yet of course that's not the end. Because what sort of 'Crossover week' would this be with only two crossovers? Pitiful numbers I say; Muda! What we also have to throw atop the pile is a crossover that at least makes a lot more sense, both conceptually and in timing, but still stands out to me because I just assumed this had already happened at some point in the past. Resident Evil announced a crossover with Dead by Daylight during their news blowout from the last week, but they've been pretty scarce on actual details like who's actually getting ported over. Now Dead by Daylight is actually no stranger to crossovers, with 'Stranger Things', 'Nightmare on Elm's Street', 'Halloween', 'Left 4 Dead', 'Evil Dead', 'Scary Movie', and 'Silent Hill' already in the rooster to boast about. Resident Evil might be seen as an inevitability. However, the question is what creature is coming this game's way to represent RE's finest; because there's actually a fair few to pick from. Mr X would be the obvious choice, given his reputation as the unstoppable stalker, but Nemesis certainly looks a lot more monstrous. And, if we really want to advertise the new game, may I suggest that perhaps Lady Dimitrescu and her glove/knife hand might make an appearance? Hey it was just a suggestio- what's that dog doing with that hammer? NO! Don't send me back to Horny Jail! I won't g- >Bonk<

And finally, to cap it all off, was a crossover which isn't really a surprise to anyone given that Fornite still holds the rights to crossover with literally anyone they point their fingers at. But even then, it's not as thought they announce a new crossover every week, they had to choose this period of crossover madness to reveal their 'Horizon: Zero Dawn' character crossover. Which served as a reminder to me that Sony are very willing to sell their character rights over to Epic, yet are desperately reticent on letting the actual games themselves get to the wider gaming audience. Yes, I did just turn this, otherwise unrelated, conversation into another complaint about how badly I want Persona 5 and Final Fantasy 7 Remake. Let not a week go by without my stating: Screw Sony. 

So that is at least four crossover events that all were announced at in this random week midway through April, and I can't be the only one scratching their head thinking there's some sort of Holiday I missed, can I? I mean, there's also the recently announced crossover with Dragon Raja (An MMO I've never heard of) and Evangelion, (A classic Anime that's getting an inexplicable resurrection soon) but somehow that didn't pop as well. And Illusion connect is crossing over with Zombie Land Saga- what the heck is going on! Am I crazy. Are hundreds of crossover events happening every other week and I've just never noticed it before? I feel like that can't be the case but all this is just too big of a coincidence, isn't it? The anomaly must originate from me!

I do love the idea of joining characters and franchises together in crossover events, even when it creates a godawful affront to god like that Pickle Rick skin. (I don't need to see that thing ever again, thank you very much) Where the stiff barriers that form our worlds of fiction broken down a bit more, I think it would make for a much more varied and inclusive eco-system where creators aren't forced to do wild things like steal a bunch of characters from other indie games under the knowledge that they'll never come after you because you're untouchable now. (I'm 90% the person who said that was joking when they did; but just in case they weren't I won't name them and let you look up for the quote for yourself.) However, I know that the sanctity of story telling and world building means that fictional worlds needs to contain some consistency to themselves, and so these crossovers must be rare and inconsistent. Unless it's this week, in which case they're freakin' everywhere.

The House of the Dead rises

 The damn Dead won't die!

Seems this has been the week of the undead recently, as the one topic of entertainment that I thought we'd all, as a species, collectively decided had been milked to ultimate death reared it's head one more time. Why are zombies literally everywhere right now? What more is there seriously to say with the rotting corpses of the deceased? We've already done the 'consumerism' parallels, 'end of the world' and 'the breakdown of society' tends to work better in more focused settings, and I don't not what 'Dead Set' was supposed to commenting on, but it was made and it's real. (Can't remember if that show was trash or not. I should rewatch that.) But despite that we've got zombies coming out of ears this year! We've got the Resident Evil 8 game speeding towards us like a bat-out-of-hell with that recent showcase event from not too long back. That really generic looking 'Army of the Dead' Movie that Zack Snyder has shot out propelled by the recent fervour since his cut of Justice League dropped. (After watching all four hours of that I have to say: my god someone staple an editor to this man's forehead- he needs to know how long a shot is acceptable to be) And then there's... I mean I saw an advert for another IOS Walking Dead game... If you wanna count that...'Stubbs the Zombie' is getting a re-release. Oh, and 'House of the Dead' is back.

Wait, really? That 'House of the Dead'? The seminal blockbuster movie by visionary auteur Uwe Boll? (I'm being facetious, of course. Mr Boll and that movie are both hot garbage) Actually this is in relation to the video game that movie was based on, if 'video game' is even the right descriptor because despite the plethora of ports it's had in the years since (Count three) I remember this title as adorning the arcade machines in the pier I used to visit sometimes as a child. Not that I ever played it all that much, I was kind of terrified of zombies back then. It's actually quite interesting to me just how absolutely petrified I was of rotting corpses despite being a huge fan of' 'Tales from the Crypt', a show literally hosted by a skeleton. I was a child of contradictions, apparently.

If you're at all familiar with Time Crisis and the whole 'light-gun' aspect of those games then you already know what House of the Dead was about. Basically it was a game wherein you went along rails and tried your best to keep the hordes of undead off of you whilst juggling ammunition and aiming, only this was on-the-rails back in the day when that wasn't a dirty word and those games where still somewhat fun. Additionally, House of the Dead went the Resident Evil route of brining really crazy mutated bosses to shoot down at the end of stages so that the whole thing didn't get too monotonous. (And it released before Resident Evil 1 so I can't even throw around a frivolous plagiarism accusation like I want to) The game also borrowed from it's future inspiration by having just some of the worst voice actors to ever touch a microphone. Good lord, everything sounds so bad. And unlike RE, House of the Dead somehow managed to pick up worse voice actors as the series progressed. I don't even know how you do that! It's like the rest of the industry just squeezed these guys out of the business and sent them packing right for House of the Dead's door, whereupon rested the sign "We take all comers; as long as they accept payment only in 'Shakeaway' coupons."

They were very robust and straight forward games, and that managed to win them a nigh-on cult following as the years went on through admiration of their raw fun factor as well as transparent flaws. What's not to love about a first person zombie horror game where the gameplay actually benefits from taking the controls out of the hands of the player? I've mentioned this when talking about the original Resident Evil too, but when you as a player cannot reliably decide the location of your character in a moment of crisis it makes you feel vulnerable, which heightens tension. In this regard I'd say House of the Dead actually has one up over on Resident Evil, because it purposefully induces this feeling of hopelessness, rather than achieving it through rocking a fundamentally poor movement system.

But despite all the fond memories and heartfelt applause these games received, they were still a product of their time being on-the-rails shooters in an industry that was spurring them like the plague. So it made sense that this series couldn't be perpetuated forever. Nowadays it has mostly lived on through nostalgia fuelled ports, and that one ingenious idea of turning it into a backwards edutainment game with 'Typing of the dead'. (I literally thought that was a fan mod for years until I looked it up and found out they actually made arcade cabinets for this thing! Cabinets with keyboards!) Honestly, this wouldn't be one of those franchises that I'd say was killed off too soon at all. What with four games a special and... an arcade game in 2018? What the what? I know that arcade machines are still a thing in Japan, but I never knew they made another game? (Does that mean the original's are now fair game to be ported into a minigame for a future Yakuza title?)  But what I think about the state of this series is irrelevant, because what better time to bring back a series that's had it's day from a genre that's long decrepit than now, in the age of remakes for any old thing people can dig up the rights too.

Yep, some intern over at Sega tripped over a stack of papers and rediscover the intellectual rights to this franchise, it would seem, because someone's bringing this game right back with the impending release of 'House of the Dead: Remake'. Yes, apparently this Polish company called ForeverEntertainment is publishing this game on behalf of Square Enix, who I guess owns this series now? (Rights management is a mystery to me) MegaPixel Studio, who remade the first Panzer Dragoon for Switch last year, are working on the development so that should be something of a relief to fans who fear they might mess with the formula in this remake. These guys are making a name for themselves in singlehandedly reviving the rail shooter genre, apparently. (So thanks for that guys... woo) All this to remake an arcade game. One that never ever got a Steam port, amazingly. (Apparently a PC version does exist, it just takes some digging to find.) Is this really what fans of these games want over just a touch up of the originals? I guess so...

But how is the Remake actually shaping up, seeing as how it's coming to a relatively modern system in the Nintendo Switch? It looks fine... I mean I understand that there's been a direct attempt to copy the style of the original in order to keep that fan base, but I just see the label 'remake' and expect a little more, is all. The zombie models look like playdoh and there's a cartoonish atmosphere to the whole thing, although it does look undeniably improved from the original. I just wonder why we couldn't have been given a remaster over this. Plus, and this is my gripe time, I don't like all of the faux arcade elements they shoved in such as a the 'hold your fire' splash text. I know, it's classic and was in the original, but it just has no purpose in what is supposedly a straight Nintendo Switch game. (Unless someone intends to port this to some cabinet down the line.) But I will give the team some credit for somehow managing to rerecord voice lines with a performance just as cheesy as the original. (Although not quite as bad, it would seem)

I'm not really someone who has rose tinted glasses with this franchise, I never played the entirety of a single one of these games. But I did used to know someone who was all about these games for a while, so I do feel kind of connected to them, if by osmosis. Honestly, I find myself a little intrigued at getting this game now it's finally accessible by reasonable means, and if this game is going to have new content (which it will) then I suppose that makes this remake the upcoming definitive article. Oh, and you rest assured that the team have already announced their work on remaking the sequel, so Resident Evil and House of the Dead are literally stepping on each other's coattails right now. And now that we have the Last of Us remake on the horizon? Whew... seems like someone up there just sat down and decided to remake the entire zombie genre. (When's my Dead Rising Remake?)

What even is Frog Fractions?

 Who needs psychedelics? 

Yeah, I mentioned it yesterday which means it's now my duty to talk about it today. Talk about what exactly? The in-depth litany of differences between the varying wingspans of continental dodos? It would be as inkeeping to the spirit of sensible discussion as anything surrounding the enigma of a project known only as Frog Fractions; because good lord let me tell you that if you've no idea what that game is and are curious I have but two things to say to you. Firstly; the game is actually free on Steam right now so go and pick it up for yourself, there's literally no reason not to. Secondly; go in with a mind wiped both of expectations and presumptions about what it even is that makes a game. I say that because Frog Fractions is simultaneously one of the interesting and impenetrable games that I've ever laid eyes on. I both want to crack it's hard shell to glean the treasures beneath the surface and cut my power cables and roll up into a ball under my desk to cry. (Unfortunately my Desk is also my dresser, so I can't roll under it. Thus I'm stuck talking about this enigma of a game.)

What can you say about the game that has everything? How about a good old; 'All that glisters is not gold' and nothing is ever quiet as it seems. Or perhaps everything is exactly as it seems. Does it matter. Does reality exist? Do you or I? None of these are questions proposed directly or, I think, indirectly by Frog Fractions; and yet these are the thoughts I come away from. I think that's actually just a consequence of a title both ludicrously high concept and intentionally directionless. I know, completely conflicting ideals. That concept I described doesn't even make any remote sense. And trust me, neither does Frog Fractions or anything to do with it. And that's perhaps the beauty of it, something with so much effort clearly put into it, yet dedicated showcasing pure insanity with an utterly straight face. There's something to respect in that commitment, if nothing else.

So first of all you might be thinking "Frog Fractions? Is that an educational game?", to which I will immediately strike with a "Yes! Well, actually no." You see, Frog Fractions absolutely presents itself in the exact fashion of those old school, and terrible, education games that we all like to pretend we were never subjected to in our youth. I mean there is one educational game that I played the heck out of and still attest to this day is a classic, but thankfully I never have to directly address that bold claim because there's no way I'll ever find it after a quick google sear- (Oh my god it's Dinosaur Adventure 3D. I found it. My nostalgia is almost making me tear up right now. give me a second. Wow, that was a wild derail, back to the blog.) In Frog Fractions you sit on a lily pad as a frog and use your elongated tongue to swat bugs out the sky that are trying to eat your apples. Hmm? Where's the educational part of that? Oh, each of the bugs are worth a fraction of a score which adds up in the corner. Which... I mean I guess that's kinda educational... If you bother to pay attention to the score... look, the point is that's just the cover of this game; there's so much more!

So before I go any further I'm going to stop myself and reaffirm; you need to play this insanity. Right now, before I ruin it's secrets for you. Here is the link to the Steam Page where you can pick it up, I remind you, absolutely free. As god intended. Twinbeard Studios put this up as a free browser game all the way back in 2012, and the recent death of flash prompted them to move to a more easily accessible form of distribution. (Because I'm pretty sure I'm one of perhaps three other people in the entire world who actually has the off-browser version of flash installed) So now the Game of Decade version sits as a monument throughout time for one of the greatest mock jobs that ever lived. Once more, there are no excuses. Okay, now that's out of the way can I go through the hilariously insane way this game managed to go off the rails? Because it starts in a world of colourful innocence. A bright and happy pond scene with dubious educational value wherein you, a poison dart frog I think, have the highest pixel count of anything on screen by a decent margin. It's a simple world, eating insects, protecting fruit, and furrowing your brow as the score meter rapidly solves your most simple fraction in regards to score without ever sharing with an integer. And then you start upgrading.

Makes sense for these sorts of static 'protect the thing' style games. Upgrades make the experience more fun. So you get a lock on, turtle-back lateral movement, and then- a cybernetic brain which turns the score from fractions into decimals? That's all it does. And the decimals are oftentimes needless power-ofs that are actually overcomplicated from the decimalisation! (I know I'm the only one who cares about that, but there it is.) You also have the option to: uninstall lock on because 'chicks don't dig cyborgs'? The entire premise of this Frog Fractions adventure, is the idea that you start off with a simple concept and pile on absurdity after absurdity until the original idea is completely unrecognisable. It's this fantastic game of compounding silliness that strikes humour in the same way that a lot of modern absurdist comedy does; by lacking coherency and almost mocking those who seek it. Oftentimes this is, rather disparagingly, labelled as the humour of the 'meme-generation' and 'millennials'. Seen as low effort or bargain-bin jokes. Some of which is certainly true, but most of which is the point. The impressiveness, as I see it, comes in the extent to which you commit. And Frog Fractions commits to the absolute bitter end.

Once you turn your lateral movement turtle friend into a dragon, capable of moving in any direction, suddenly the insects that are invading your pond start shooting projectiles at you. Yes, this has now become a bullet hell game, just like that. Your mission to protect 3 or 4 apples per round to pay for meagre upgrades also hits a snag once you realise that the next upgrade costs 25 000 fruit. 25 000. And you make maybe 5 a round. How in the hell are you supposed to- oh, and then you find a secret hoard of fruit under the water that takes your total up to, and I quote, 'Like a billion'. Completely invalidating the whole game you've been playing up until now and reinforcing the fact that this game is going to keep messing with you, just for the giggles. Of course, if you had any doubts about that, they'd be wiped once you actually buy that 25 000 fruit upgrade and are suddenly thrown in a Star Fox inspired space shooter. Because that is what has become of your edutainment game and that isn't even the weirdest turn.

We're talking about a story that has turns of text-based adventure, decision-based interrogations and even an elongated documentary-style rewriting of the history of boxing as a sport wherein two pugilists enter a ring and "regale each other with stories monotonous for days on end until one of them fell to the ground of boredom or exhaustion." Unless... is that the real history of boxing that we never knew until the historians over at Frog Fractions dug it up? Seriously though, I think everyone must have their favourite 'joke' in this gaffe filled extravaganza of a game, and the boxing history is mine. I love how overly developed of a narrative it is, going into the names and histories of everyone involved in the 'history of the gentleman's game of Boxing' in a pitch-perfect documentarian's voice bolstered by a lavishly dry documentary-style script. There's obviously so much more to this game, but it would be a disservice for me to just walk you through it. Again, you need to try it out. Seriously.

I can always appreciate a artist who isn't above telling a joke, even throwing vast amounts of effort and time into layering a magnificent cake of jokes for all to enjoy. And though the creator has done so for free, for those who really appreciate the game and want to see more, alongside the Steam release of the game, Twinbeard included a paid hat-wearable DLC which not only goes towards supporting the creator, but carries a secret within it that is well-worth the small asking price. In an industry of storytellers that always seem to take themselves just that tad too seriously, even when they're making a joke, I present to you a product pure, unburdened and just silly. Don't you want to loose yourself in something just silly for an hour or two? Frog Fractions, everybody! Have yourself some fun.

Why indie horror is so effective

Where do you go when the mainstream just doesn't kick anymore?

A lot my personal thoughts and feelings come out on this blog simply because I feel it serves best to be some form of honest when I write these, as such I don't always cover as wide a range of games as I feel that I should. This is something that I've sought to work on, simply so that I'll have more material to draw from, and that's allowed me to really get a lot closer with some of the weirder side of gaming that I was mostly ignorant to before. And let me be clear that when I say 'weird', what I really mean to say is 'non mainstream', because gaming is such a hard to pin-down form of entertainment that anything outside of the mainstream has a good chance to be wild in all manner of ways; some of which might have you confronting exactly what 'entertainment' is even supposed to be. Just look at Frog Fractions. (No seriously; look at Frog Fractions. Nothing I could say will do that thing justice.) And this retrospective of indie titles all across the land has drawn back two conclusions to me; one: that a lot of Indie games are horror titles, and two: that they usually end up being way scarier then AAA horror games.

Now don't get me wrong, I still think that horror has a place in the mainstream market; just look at Resident Evil and my rather transparent love and respect for those games and that franchise. I think the original Outlast is one of the most terrifying experiences I've ever gone through, nearly sticking me with emergency heart bypass surgery; and recently I even got around to a playthrough of 'Amnesia: The Dark Decent', which was a masterclass on atmosphere that I honestly wasn't quiet expecting. But those last two examples I offered, whilst undeniable horror classics, were not AAA games. In fact they were both Indie. AAA games tend not to go after the horror market too often, but instead prefer to make games that are horror adjacent. The only real exceptions I can think of from the modern age would be 'The Evil Within' (Which I like but a lot of people don't) and 'The Medium' which seemed to be pretty lukewarm from most reviews I picked through. (A real shame too. I had faith in Medium) 

So what is it about independent horror games that hit differently from their AAA departments? And why is it that the only active horror series from a big studio in today's day and age is Resident Evil, and there's a franchise that specialises in Action Horror, not pure horror. I don't claim to be any great psychologist with his finger on the trigger of societal opinion, but I personally think that a hint might lie in an example from the entertainment industry in the past. Only a different platform for entertainment. In fact, I have an example from my very own home country of England, and the sort of hysteria that fuelled the video horror market over here in the 1980's. What I of course refer to is the phenomenon known at the time as 'video nasties'.

Now 'Video nasties' is a term popularised by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association (Now known as Mediawatch-UK) and was used as a flag under which to hunt down and prosecute video media that was considered to be 'immoral'. There's some extra details around here about how some of these videos couldn't be properly rated in order to keep them out of impressionable hands due to workarounds regarding early video rights ownership laws, but that was about the high and low of it. And in the manner of all things like this, once these sorts of films were given the red stamp and told to be frowned upon, that merely sparked the early video watching audience to seek these films out to discover what they were missing. As you can imagine when we're talking about the hitlist of a morality toting activism group, a lot of the movies they targeted were explicit horror movies, and so these were the sorts of films that became in demand during this time. Eventually people went around sharing poorly ripped and overplayed versions of these low-budget gorefests, the shoddiness of which almost fed into the allure, the illusion if-you-will, that these horrific affairs could be real. And of course they weren't, everyone knew that; but seeing films existing outside the accepted constraints of the mainstream helped conjure up a false verisimilitude, even when the actual quality of what you were watching would be obviously limited thanks to the scope of the budget.

Now I think the way we look at horror in the gaming market isn't exactly one-to-one with that so to speak, but you can see the resemblance. A genre of storytelling that relies on being shocking and unpredictable, constrained by a set of rules and stipulations that some can interpret as holding back the art form. In terms of 80's movies there was a certain level of visual gore that the ratings board wouldn't touch, and in terms of modern gaming it's more that there's just a whole level of obscure directions and arthouse twists that just wouldn't be appealing to enough people to warrant the investment. And when the mainstream can't cut it, that leaves a primed stage for the indie scene to step up and take the glory. Of course, that's just one connection, I think there's another.

Just as with the illusion and mystery of swapping under-the-counter banned movies, there's a certain thrilling sense of danger that comes in seeking out these sorts of games where you wouldn't normally find them, and what these sorts of titles might contain. It's a bit silly to think of Itch.Io as some wild frontier full of the unknown, but to someone who only ever gets their games off of Steam or storefronts like that, it can feed into this question of 'what am I really installing on my computer?'. This is something that can really be exploited by a certain breed of horror which is almost unique to the indie market; meta horror. Now I've mentioned Doki Doki Literature Club before in this vein, but if we're really going back to the roots then maybe a more apt game might be IMSCARED. That was a rather straightforward horror game that managed to do the impossible and send it's atmosphere outside of the 'magic box' of the game world and into the real world. How? Simple; it just created files. Simple text files. But the sort of thing you were encouraged to find on your computer in order to unravel more of the mystery. Think of how crazy of a forth-wall break that is! That transcends anything that the movie market could possibly pull off and anything that the AAA game market would have the nerve to pull off; it made the danger feel real.

And then there's the other aspect about the unregulated market: actual danger. Now I know that a lot of this is melodramatic and drummed up for effect, and no one gets excited about the prospect of downloading a virus instead of their game, but I'm talking about the sorts of legendary games for their depravity. (So when I say 'danger', I more mean 'mental danger') Whether I talk about a game that touches on topics too uncomfortable for the main stream (like actually playing as a man who murders his entire family) or even a mythical game that goes beyond any limit of taste and apparently features actual snuff. (Something which I'm absolutely not in support of, and thus I refuse to even name the rumoured software) Where there's the thrill of actually screwing oneself up by seeing something scarring, they'll be an audience for it. Just look at me; I actively seek out the most evocative games I can, even when it's gut-wrenching, just so that I'll feel anything. It's a real addiction.

The best thing about indie Horror in the light of everything I just discussed; is that it doesn't need to cross any of the lines that I laid in the sand at all. Great indie horror can go just as far as normal mainstream horror, but still come away hitting harder all because it could have gone further. I mentioned it in other blogs, but Horror is fuelled more by your imagination about what's around the corner rather than what actually is, thus Indie horror benefits most by reputation above all else. All this I say despite, bizarrely, not actually liking horror all that much. I think it's telling to see the ways in which modern horror has started taking cues from the indie market, rather in contrast to almost every other genre out there, and just goes to show you where the real scary experiences can be found. So if you ever find you becoming bored by the mundane same-old-same-old horror stories; maybe it's time you angled yourself away from the established, and further towards the whacky world of the lawless. That's indie developers, I should clarify, not bank robbers. 

Outriders- 8th times the charm?

 I wonder if the word 'looter shooter' is getting as boring to read as it is to type

Egads! Scatter all ye mere mortals for a new behemoth has entered the ever cluttered pantheon of online looter-shooter live service extravaganza game thingies. A genre of game that absolutely has not been milked to ultimate death and has already pretty much presented everything it can in the way of success, ingenuity and prestige. Okay? They absolutely did not hit their utmost limit years ago and have been chasing that success ever since... so stop saying that... No, rather these sorts of games have become the golden hen of the game's industry, comparable in their folly to 'cinematic universes' to Hollywood or trying to seek a favourable trade arrangement with those notoriously avaricious Martians. (They'll haggle you out of house and home every time!) They all want a little taste of that sweet good pie though, don't they? The promise of a captive audience who'll drop everything they're doing to stare up at the sky for 2 hours for a painfully slow live event to drop. Who'll go nuts over spending on those low effort recolour skins that get popped out every two weeks or so. That'll support this game so that the devs can breath a little easier for the next few years. But how often does that work out? And how likely is that to work out today? Man- I don't know.

To be clear, though this is the first time I'm addressing Outriders in a blog, (with it being the main focus. I remember dropping their name in a list at some point) I've been looking at this game ever since it's first reveal. That's over a year ago, and yet I never bought it up once on this blog. Let me remind you, that this is the same blog where I construe entire thesis' on the most insignificant of topics, even going so far as to attack a topic for no over reason than to make as many covert Jojo references in there as I could. I'm not exactly choosy. And yet I didn't feel the desire once, the tug, or even the slightest of niggling, to turn my attention to Square Enix's newest entry to the looter shooter genre. Why? Was I just sick to death of Looter Shooters in general? Kinda, yeah. But there's a much more pertinent reason. Because the game just looked so gosh darn boring.

I mean, wow. How can something that gets published by freaking Square Enix, the kings of visual overcomplexity, look so drab, derivate and just dull. The story just follows some colonisation efforts on an alien planet which, surprise surprise, is hostile. Players take on the role of 'Outriders' who job it is to; charter a new alien world in hopes of making sure it's habitable for a colony ship? Sooo they're Pathfinders from Mass Effect then? Only with a new name that doesn't really make any sense. 'Outrider' sounds more like an outlaw/bandit kind of thing. (Maybe it's justified in the story. £20 on it not getting justified in the story) This quickly descends into a war against the inhabitants of the planet Enoch and if that sounds at all interesting to you, don't worry it's presented as generically as possible. Dialogue is cheesy side of lame and seems to directly contrast with the gritty 'realism' vibe that the visual department was going for, characterisation is non-existent (Although in fairness that's entirely through lack of trying rather than failure of execution) and the guns look mostly generic as heck. And yet despite all that; people seem to like this game.

Heck, from the threads I've read some people straight up love this game, and I'm still trying to reconcile that adoration with the dull game I briefly touched during the demo stage before concluding that drinking paint thinner would be a more constructive use of my time. And in a point towards the game, I think that my problem might have been that I was just personally not suited for this sort of title. Most seem to agree on one stipulation you must meet in order to enjoy this game. On back-door deal with Hadraniel you need to solve in order to make it past his gate into the realms of fun. You have to have friends. Whoops, guess that disqualifies me right off the bat. Fair enough, thanks for trying. What do you mean I have to socialise? I come to video games to escape people; what kind of topsy turvy backwards logic is this? (But seriously, no one says this game plays best alone.)

Actually the range of discourse I've heard surrounding this game is some of the most divisive I've ever read; or at least, coming from people who all still seem to be of sound mind and aren't lost in the cycle of 'must justify the money I've wasted'. There are folk who call this game a gallery shooter with unimpressive abilities and a pitiful selection of cool weapons to spruce up the mundanity. There are those who call it a refreshingly straightforward adventure with rare, yet tantalising endgame loot to keep players coming back for more with that sweet addiction. And then, here's the really confusing part, they praise the powers for being so robust and making the different classes play unique. Yeah, all those other points where just distinct viewpoints on the same subject but when talking about powers folk are straight contradicting each other. Who do you believe?

In fact, some people out there even love the corny cheesiness of the main character's dialogue and derivative set-up, citing a comfort from the familiarity of it. To this I can actually start to see people's view, because I understand exactly how it is to step into a new world and sigh as you realise there's a thousand new stupid names and races that the devs want you take utterly seriously in order to be invested in this world. (Even worse when they want you to download a third-party app in order to read all this stupid lore to begin with; Destiny 1) But then there are other's who are praising the great world building, so I really can't pick up the temperature of this game. All I can add to the conversation on my part is that I had a little bit of time with the pre-release Beta and could not have been less interested. (Okay, that's no entirely true, I also played the beta for Homefront Revolution which endures as the single most mind-numbing beta experience I've ever endured; but if this game is even reminding me of that dumpsters fire, that's not exactly great company.) I suppose this really is a 'see it to believe it' situation.

Wherever the matter takes you, there's one point of contention which absolutely is not up for debate and that's the roughness of the online capabilities; because of course. In today's day and age you haven't made an online game unless you've hooked it up to a tiny server room under your kitchen sink, and then subsequently freak out when that cannot hold up to the sheer wave of newcomers. Do you sometimes wonder if these devs ever bother to go through the basics to prepare? Don't they hire some stress testers or keep some extra server providers on speed dial just in case? I just think it really helps you make that first impression, and honestly that's still the impression that matters. There's folk out there who'll argue until their blue in the face that No Man's Sky is amazing now; (Last time I played it was alright, I'd be surprised if it's improved that much) but general folk still remember the terrible launch days. Months from now are people still going to remember the constant server drops that attacked the Outriders servers for these initial weeks? Maybe not, because it's not as serious an issue, but it's still an inherently bad look.

And then there's the loading screens. Yes, if you know what I'm about to talk about you're likely scrunching up your nose to say "Oh come on, is this really that big of a deal?" And yes; it is to me! So this is a game wherein every single none shooting and walking action that you take, opening a door or jumping a gap, will send you into a brief cutscene. That's two fade to blacks whilst your character is shown doing a simple two second action. The excuse for this being that it's a rubber-band system that keeps co-op teams in the same play location without surprise teleporting them. So that means we have a game that can't load entire play areas, which sort of sucks given the new generation we've just entered, but also one that wastes just that little bit of time everytime you play. I know what you're thinking: "it's two half-second loading screens, get over it". And if that were it, I would. But we're talking every time you want to move to a new map, again and again. It's that small death from a thousands cuts that'd drive someone as neurotic as me literally batty.

People Can Fly are no strangers to sweaty action, having helped make 'Gears of War: Judgement' , so I have no doubt that the moment to moment shooting is as exhilarating as they can make it; so if that's what you're looking for out of a looter game then have at you. I'm just dubious to the rest of this game and whether there is truly enough incentive to attack this title for months on end, feeding off of every content drop for sustenance, or if half the fanbase is still in the honeymoon phase of the relationship. From where I'm standing I will say this; all those looter games that fell off did generally have much more negative general reception than this, so who knows; Maybe Outriders might be the one to go the distance and join the leagues of Destiny and Division as games that take a ludicrous amount of effort to keep alive and are just about worth it. (Keep shooting for those stars, guys.)

World's End Club

 It ends with us

One reason I never find myself missing a Nintendo gaming event, whereas I skip a Playstation and Xbox event so I can see the highlights, (or skip a PC one altogether) is because the range of games that'll grace their line-up is never boring. You won't be looking at a collection of identical looking action shooter from a Sony event or endless multiplayer snore-fests like from a Microsoft event; you'll get a range of interesting titles, the likes of which wouldn't even qualify for stage time under the other's stipulations. In fact, I often wonder what rules actually dictate which new project makes it to Nintendo's special events; it feels as random as pulling names out of a hat sometimes. Perhaps it's just the company recognising that their machines can't keep up with the rest of the industry and thus they must embrace some of the more 'out there' titles that don't rely on the tip-top of processing ability. Maybe it's just reverence of their culture and the types of games it spawns. Maybe it's just plain JRPG fatigue. (There's a lot of those buggers.) Whatever the invisible rule set may be; it's given us World's End Club.

Now to be clear, World's End Club isn't exactly a new game despite getting big billing at Nintendo's Direct event. In fact, the game actually launched back in September of 2020; but now its been marked for Switch release coming sometime in the summer. Curiously this actually marks the first home console that this title is coming to, having been exclusive to mobile and PC up until now. (And Apple smart TV, for some reason) I find it funny, in a way, that in this instance Nintendo appear to be the most accessible of the gaming platforms when previously nothing could be further from that truth. Nintendo have almost always been renowned for their iron-like grasp on the third part content which enters their storefronts, but the Switch really has been a turning point for them in many ways. Of course, at the end of the day we're not talking about some super bloody controversial game, so Nintendo still works within some confines. But at least they're willing to embrace the third party a little more.

If we look at the sort of games that populated the recent Nintendo Direct there's a rather impressive number of non-standard titles which, bizarrely, should be an example to the rest of industry. (Nintendo setting examples? Being the cutting edge of trends?  No- that can't be right) I mean, the biggest Indie game to show off wasn't anything to really blow up about, in Outer Wilds, purely because it had won a slew of awards and thus was obviously destined for the Direct spotlight. But then you have the revival of Famicom Detective Club, which I spoke about previously; that one-man-team game Neon White, which I found to be cool-looking; a remaster of freakin' Stubbs the zombie, of all things; and even that horrifying DC Superhero Girls game, which still gives me nightmares to this day. It may be a belaboured point, but the more audiences that these gaming shows cater for, the more communities they'll bring together in the common love of gaming. Maybe someday we'll get to the point where strategy games will share screentime with the next blockbuster Activision title and those fans might start cross pollinating! But for right now we have an experience aimed right at those malnourished Daganrompa-style fans out there. 

And what will immediately get most of those fans interested in a game such as this would actually be the pedigree of the team involved. You see, we're talking about a title from Kotaro Uchikoshi and Kazutaka Kodaka, who boast a pedigree from Zero Escape and Daganrompa, go figure, respectively. That's something you can kind of see that in the very face of the game we're looking at. Afterall; this is a game about kids being trapped in a theme park and subjected to a "Game of fate" which will have them facing all kinds of strange and intimidating challenges. The only difference really being the fact that the cast of this title, 'The Go-Getters Club', are actual children instead of adults who act like children. (No shade, Daganrompa.) Yet the cast still has the aura of personality and interesting characterisation that you can pick up on instantly. It's just an innate talent of those who specialise in these sorts of ensemble cast stories, I suppose, but that's not to diminish the role of the art.

As I've mentioned before, when it comes to art and character designs these are the sorts of titles that tend to go all in and bring out lavish personalities in the faces and clothing of their protagonists. It's a trait shared to some degree amidst most RPGs and party-based games, but I only really see it accentuated to such importance in Japanese games. And, to be fair I do understand why; when you have a cast this big it helps to be able to look at one person and not only recognise them but know who they are as people to some degree, creating that instant relatability. Of course, with World's End Clubs distinctly more cute visual style compared to Zero Escape or Daganrompa the designer went with generally more expressive and child-like features. It all works really well in the comic-book aesthetic and actually makes me surprised that this game didn't start out as a Switch game- it seems to slide into that library effortlessly. The only let down is the resolution of assets which look to be lower than this artstyle really demands.

But if I'm talking about this game and summoning it's spiritual predecessor in Daganrompa, than there's obviously got to be something more than a pretty looking screen getting my attention: and yes, that's because this is a puzzle game. I don't know what it is about me that has just drawn me to puzzle titles recently; perhaps it's a subconscious desire for intelligent but comprehensive solutions to complex dilemmas, or maybe just the old ego-boost they supply upon figuring things out; but I've really been obsessive for them recently. World's End Club features bouts of adventure gameplay moments where players are asked to explore the environment and figure out their way through tasks. (With a rather ominous timer hanging over your head, I notice.) And there's even some elaborate puzzle-boss moments to accentuate the exploration gameplay. It looks like a well rounded and even charming little experience.

Perhaps in my blog you might have picked up on something, that whilst the game does look interesting to me by some degree, I more support what this title represents over what it actually is. (Besides, if I do end up picking it up I'll do that on PC. My Switch is running out of harddrive space anyway...) This here is proof that even the less prominent divisions of video game fandom can have their day and be worthy of a spot in the advertising blog. Of course, it's a little cynical to call something 'worthy' because they made the advertising slate, there's plenty of brilliant games out there that would never get a look in from the main three console developers; but it's a step towards general recognition and maybe even acceptance. 

World's End Club looks to be a fulfilling romp where children are forced to undergo a potentially deathly game of cat and mouse with a floating doll thing. In itself a very simple premise that I'm sure will become twisted and memorable in the manner that these writer's tales often do, one that'll certainly find a solid home with the Switch. Now with the death of the PSV and the shelving of the 3DS, The Nintendo Switch is the sole home for dedicated handheld gaming, so maybe for a while we'll start to see more and more ports make their way this neck of the woods. I can only hope this leads to a uptick of cool smaller games like this one, over the deluge of other kinds of game that usually frequent the phone storefront. (I may support gaming cross-pollination, but even I have limits.)