Insomniac's 20th anniversary

Well Insomniac has had their 20th anniversary mark achieved recently and celebrated with a humorous music video about how it all started in the glorious 90's. I just have to do an article on them, they have a sort of special meaning to me compared to just any other old company in gaming, but weirdly enough they aren't quite a company I can always get behind either. As I was thinking of how to head off this article... I began thinking of just how appropriate that moon logo might be along with their age. 20 years isn't exactly old age wise to us, however to a corporation it probably marks a good time and that they're here to stay for a while longer. Its a good reason to celebrate, and shows that they really have a good history, catalog, and some good experience. So its a bit old-ish in those terms. Then there's that moon.... the moon is kind of an old thing that happens daily, and while many may not enjoy the dark night as much as a bright or visible day, we all can kind of enjoy the moon's brilliant light and beauty when it shows up. Getting back to how this is relevant to Insomniac... well it just feels like those two separate things fit. Old and a colorful moon. Like the moon I don't really find myself anticipating it much anymore, and my enthusiasm is dry about their games despite the truth that I'll enjoy it when it gets here. I just sort of accepted Into the Nexus as a thing, until I played it like 3 weeks past launch and adored it. Fuse is still sitting in my backlog, and the entire resistance series was a fun batch of shooters I just got around to late but enjoyed thoroughly as they got here. Meanwhile.... the company feels kind of old in both a good and bad kind of way. They have some great history, a reason to celebrate, and have a nostalgic sort of presence and that feeling of taking care of their fans. Yet they also have that feeling of being clumsy, and crazy. Sometimes its because they say or do something that feels like they're trying too hard to be cool when they clearly aren't doing it right. Like when they try to talk about how games have to be a social thing now, despite their larger successes being in the single player route. Then we get messes like Resistance 2, All 4 One, and with what happened to Fuse. Oh and has anyone heard about overnaughts? Yeah didn't think so.

Now let me make it clear that those fumbled games aren't "bad". I had fun playing the Fuse demo, and I replayed Resistance 2 a lot and liked a lot of things despite its obvious COD clone direction. All 4 One also probably wasn't bad as a co-op game, its just that the fact is it was one of those gimmicky co-op games that furthered a franchise I like to enjoy solo. Insomniac even when bad is still good. Again... its just like an old guy kind of fumbling, you don't hate him or compare them to garbage, you just sort of feel some sort of sad sympathy for them knowing they're capable of better sometime or another. This was the Ratchet and Clank fanbase for a while, this was how people looked on at over-strike before it became fuse, and why Resistance 2 was by far overshadowed by 3 and even lasting fame from the 1st release. They weren't a bad company by any stretch, nor were their games bad, it just was there and the less said the better while people waited for the company to recover. Recovery is exactly what they did in Ratchet and Clank: Into the Nexus, and that brought tears of joy to fans and critics alike as they played it and were pulled into Insomniac's brilliant light yet again. That's just what they do... I've heard it from other fans and myself as well as the joy that IGN seemed to put into writing their history. When they show up with the right games they sort of bring out this strange sense of fun and smiles that feels a bit unique to them. Its especially easy to see this when quite a good number of their fans are fans because Insomniac served as a strong part of their childhood gaming.

Nostalgic start screen sequence, activate!

They made a huge impact on me personally because I wouldn't even be the same person without Spyro. Before Spyro gaming felt so... limited and restricted. I sort of mentioned this before when talking on difficulty, but a lot of the games I played were 2D sidescrollers on NES and SNES, or point and click games on PC. They were strictly linear down to the point where motion was nearly a binary function, and it just felt like something to toy with until you died. I never took it too seriously, and my little mind could barely grip on any of the complex rules of other games. There was nothing fun to me about puzzles, FPS games at the time felt like something to get lost in, and sidescrollers just felt like a toy. Point and click entertained me, but mostly as a movie you could toy with rather than a video game sort of thing... and looking back on it I can't see how I ever enjoyed them. With Spyro, everything was solved. Suddenly I was given full control, I was given a big open world to be immersed in, and when I wanted to proceed everything was very simple and intuitive for me to learn and understand. Plus I was able to play as a dragon, so it was a wonderful novelty as well despite the obvious differences between Spyro and.... well, this. I felt like I was able to take my mind and head and put it into a separate fictional world and interact with all sorts of silly actions. Everything was a new sense of wonder and mystery all over again, kind of igniting that ultimate spark of why we enjoy escapism. I could simply stay on top of that hill in the first hub world and roll down it all day, or I could go through the portal and start a cool adventure. I could spare the lives of those cowardly hub enemies, or I could chase after them. I ended up chasing thieves only to go easy on them so I could prolong the chasing. It was a blast to be given this feeling of control over a fictional world and have your child-like sense of wonder run with it without any consequences.

Spyro followed by another Spyro followed by another Spyro lead me from one world to the next enjoying the building cast, enchantment, and 3D platforming I loved so much in this series. I loved collecting treasure, I loved those weird abstract looking enemies that added something new to each level out of the many available, and I enjoyed seeing new abilities and mini-games taking place before me in each new installment. Each new game brought along more ways to goof around, become immersed, or gave me a brand new

adventure to go on, and it all felt fantastic. Spyro taught me what gaming was about in many ways, and after Spyro the light bulb that came on didn't ever leave. I played Gex 3, I played Banjo and Kazooie, I played Mario 64, and others that gave me a similar impression of a wonderful and adventure provoking world and a decent feeling of player interaction. I eventually moved on to other genres, more wiser on how to read and fit to rules and skill requirements, and I was able to try out new stuff enticed by the promise of a new adventure and a new fictional world to explore. I still have trouble seeing the total appeal of 2D platformers and other retro 2D games, but I can still respect and enjoy them. Simply put, before Spyro I just didn't have any reason to be excited towards video games other than the fact that it was something else to do besides watching Disney movies and Nickelodeon 24/7.

However Spyro wasn't just a starting point in the hobby, its still to this day what I would refer to as one of the better games I've ever played.They all had good length, decent story motives and fun characters, impressive visuals that still feel good to look at today (especially those sky boxes), fun level design and good collectibles that kept you looking without making it stressing, and the difficulty felt tuned just right with maybe a couple too easy or too hard (screw the Agent 9 rail shooter missions!). Oh and lets not forget the soundtrack, being one of the better soundtracks I've heard and its even good outside of the game's context. Very unique work as well, odd mixture of organ, strings, drums, and strange ambiance keeps it under some weird rock/jazz/funk influenced fusion of music. The games have withstood the greatest test of time as well, keeping me returning every year towards some game often beating it all over again in that run and enjoying every minute of it. Each new file wipes a clean slate and re-decorates one of three amazing games in tons of loot making it feel new and fun all over again even though I've ran it dry doing absolutely everything multiple times. The games are probably among one of the most replayable adventures out there full of all around high quality sound, visuals, and gameplay back by a good does of nostalgia, joy, and some fairyland fantasy novelty giving it an all around unquestionable rating of being my go to pick for any platformer ever. The only game I think I've ever come to rivaling it in pure emotion, fun, and wonder has been Dark Souls and I am working on a topic for that note similarly... but even then I'm finding myself comparing such a game to the fun I had in Spyro because Spyro was good enough to take an everlasting toll on me that makes me really remember it, even in such foreign soil as an action heavy tensely difficult RPG.

Spyro-ish skybox ahoy!

I later loved their future titles a lot as well, with Ratchet and Clank probably making a pretty solid spot on my favorite games of all time list (I'll make one eventually). That makes two of the best games ever from one company... a record I can't think anyone else has in my book, which is again why it was worth doing a special article on these guys during a recently big anniversary mark. Anyways what was so special about R&C? Well arguably its even better than spyro, because while spyro was an awesome 3D platformer with mini-games it wasn't honestly too unique considering the 90's became full of that sort of awesome genre. Plus many people found it too easy with occasional rock hard walls. Meanwhile Ratchet and Clank is something that still to this day is pretty much one of those games that exists as a genre in itself. You have Metroidvania influenced adventure patterns and a metroid health system in addition to a game that is otherwise riding heavy on a combat platformer where weapons ran on raw insanity and light RPG elements rules over emphasis on serious gunplay (heck your not even really aiming the guns), and platforming is done by more of intense strafing and precision jumps rather than traditional timing and on screen obstacles. It surprisingly all flows together, and tosses in a new game + and superb colorful cast and world to go along with it just to score in all that awesome stuff that was already at the heart of the game. Oh, and another reason its technically above spyro would certainly be the story and extras within it. You'll find in the end over 20 cut-scenes, skins, and modifiers to play with in the end way above Spyro's standard extras and simple premise.

To be honest though it didn't look all that great in the first R&C game, which actually feels more like a clumsy 3D platformer that shoe horned guns into it and left it at that. No strafing, leveling, and far more generic and uninspired level designs mixed with a weird feeling that the voice actors were kind of bored. However what the series is known for today is more along the lines of the games that fixed it all up and added to it so much better and you can debate all day which is truly the best. In the end the series has become an amazing underdog staple to the PlayStation brand name, and the majority that are into it are REALLY into it. Personally I can't really explain why I love it so much myself, its just so good and so refreshing each time you pick it up and play. I get sucked into the adventure, the story is surprisingly deep as much as it is funny and charming, and the gameplay is just so satisfying in its fast paced constantly upgrading insane nature. Its so fun that I end up going through several new game +'s on all games starting from Up Your Arsenal, with deadlocked being my most replayed linear game ever at over 20 new game + modes not counting other files I had made before starting a clean slate. I really love these games, and Insomniac clearly does to by being more happy to make sequel after sequel while they got sick of Spyro in the middle of the 3rd one. Their latest release was even a Ratchet and Clank game, although a short one. However it was not the last IP done...

Their next series was supposed to be more darker for the more mature consoles. Entering is the new series Resistance which aimed to be a first person corridor shooter with aliens. Yeah... you've seen its kind before. It was pretty generic at the time with just a psudo-WW2 spin on things to help it look different. Though honestly right now this sort of FPS is exactly what we needed, but back then it was just applauded as the most solid PS3 game because it had nothing else back then. It also had possibly the most horribly inaccurate hipfire I've ever seen, even beating out Modern Warfare's style. The cone of fire was actually outside of the gun barrel, and you could see bullets spread outside of where the barrel or even the gun lined up with. This is why Killzone and wolfenstein fans like their hipfire, it looks like this sort of crap when you go for the useless approach. It was followed up by a sequel that oddly and awkwardly remained generic but with the COD times and was a total copy cat in every direction except its stories and enemies. It even had sub-par graphics, which was incredibly weird to see out of a PS3 exclusive, especially considering the other PS shooters released at that time (Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2) were the height of the matter. I've got to admit it still was a lot of fun, and having creative and fun enemy types was a major advantage over its competition even if it was one of the only ones. Still it was a bad move in retrospect, and thankfully Insomniac admitted that they listened to the wrong people in making it... even if some gamers today still try to defend it over something as trivial as the story. As for the next one.... they did more than just redeem themselves, they made what I would arguably call the best 7th gen old school corridor shooter out there with Resistance 3. It returned to its roots, this time with actual character development, absolutely no health regeneration, and the guns could be upgraded just like an R&C game. The enemy AI, what little of the friendly AI, and the story and gunplay aspects were all amped up to be far more than what the original or the copy cat 2nd offered. For the first time in the series the graphics also matched up to decent standards, being really good without any real flaws or gripes (unless your still whining about "gritty" colors). It also gave in some nice set of extras to work based on your trophy completion. While 3 is probably the best for its slight tweaks and extra refinement, I think It might actually be a bit to do with the 2nd's mediocrity. The original hit when it was just there.... people go back and just see it as normal for its time, and it feels cemented in a generic presence. 2 released and appalled fans of the first while being dull and uninspired to anyone else. After people pointed at 2 as an example among countless of shooters that just feel cut and paste, or how tiring the same formula is, I think we were all waiting for a game above that COD formula. With Resistance 1 and 2 being both uninspired by the book shooters mocking each trend, and then R3 suddenly strays from everything in a masterful manner of an uncommon shooter formula I think it sends a message on how diversity is needed. Maybe I'm just looking too far into that

though.... either way,  Resistance 3 was in many people's eyes the best of the series, and its kind of a shame it ended there for Insomniac.

After Resistance their new IPs have been just fumbling, and even some with existing considering the weird R&C spin-offs. People are also already preparing for Sunset Overdrive to flop. Like I said at the beginning though, I can't really see it as bad as some make it though, and to some form I see it as hypocritical. They want new IPs, but then they mock it before real gameplay is even shown. Anyways Fuse was from the looks of it a solid 3rd person shooter with some decent ideas but overall execution that left it looking more like a middle tier shooter just padding out the genre. That's not exactly a pad thing, heck I wish that were happening with FPS corridor shooters so we could get some more R3-like games, but its not exactly something people were looking for and its not Insomniac's place either. For such a hyped event as their first 3rd party deal, it really was a terrible start. I'm really hoping they do better with Sunset overdrive, but honestly its questionable. It was stylish and silly in some ways, but in a way that somehow also feels uninspired and more by the book if that makes any sense. Some clues say it might be fun and arcadey taking cues from Resistance or R&C in good ways, but it might end up like Fuse.... which also looked more colorful at one time. If I remember right though it was going to be an MMO or heavily online dependent.... good luck with that. In the end though I want Insomniac to prove what they did recently with R&C fans with Into the Nexus... they still have golden potential.

Insomniac is a company that has proven time and time again to remember fun. Simple, pure, and raw FUN, and they can mix it well with violence and dark bits that the rest of the industry takes too seriously or movie-like now. They brought me into gaming through enchanted worlds and the promise of endless inspiration and adventure in a safe fun environment. Then they took me to levels of high fast paced action followed through with charm and endless originality. Finally they brought me to a territory that seemed a little too familiar at first, only to then compare and contrast to why familiar isn't bad and was in fact what I was looking for when I needed it. I suppose sometime maybe I should see what awaits me with Fused, but I guess when they give out "meh" I give it back. However for the most part, I can't think of them much in that light. They've messed up, sometimes horribly by my standards (screw you co-op gimmicks!) and sometimes other standards (Overstrike's makeover into fuse). However for the most part I feel like I owe them a lot of thanks, and that they seriously stand out to be a unique bunch of geniuses that stumble up frequently after some great starts. They're still geniuses though, and ones that effected me above the usual type of team I'm fond of. I can't exactly say I respect them the same way I usually respect a studio... like Bethesda for the many type of amazing games it publishers contrary to usual publisher standards, or Arkane for just.... being so..... them! Then there's Guerrilla that reliably makes a shooter franchise I can always depend on to be fun. With Insomniac... its just different. Its hard to agree with what few vocal principles they come out with, even when you were getting the grip on the idea that all they wanted was fun they go out and lash at nintendo in a totally nonsensical and uncalled for way. Then their games are of inconsistent quality and genres or structures (even within a single IP) to know they'll put out golden material that always suits you, yet they always seem to come through somehow to make me smile. At the end of the day though I know I do have genuine respect of some form for them... they can and do somehow get the meaning of fun through, and that backed by nostalgia of even better days is good enough to me.

Keeping gliding on

Thanks for all the good times Insomniac, and may you keep them coming to gamers of all kinds :)

Why my views on review scores have changed

I've been thinking to explain my new scoring format a little bit better, and as time went on and I heard a couple more side remarks out there for and against scoring... I've been thinking I really wanted to write about my change of position on the whole deal. I used to really love scoring systems, and used them to what I thought was the best extent, but now... I've felt the need to not only overthrow them but the entire formal and technical input of a review style. Why is that? Well its pretty simple really.

Imagine if a friend just walked up to you and said they played a good game. You ask them... how good? They give it a 7. What's that supposed to mean? How is that supposed to really tell you the whole experience they had, and their recommendation? A 7 out of nearly infinite numbers or other ratings they could have choosen? Well it makes no difference... whether its 70%, 7%, 7 out of 10, 3 stars out of 5, or C-, you can't really get anything out of that. Or...maybe you can? Most will put the score next to a "good" "average" or "poor" maybe even a deeper description that would go as far as "flawed fun". However that all loops back to that original question before the number... how good is that "good" beside the score? They are curious and pushing the information to begin with because they want to be truly informed, not given vague cryptic codes to puzzle over. Yet its strange because so many people have accepted that as their way of viewing games through someone else's opinion, myself included. People seem to be addicted to looking through and holding onto scores and grades of some sort to justify a game's value or venom. An entire $60 seems to be in part balanced not by entertainment, length, or cleverness, but instead by a scale ranging from 1 to 100 or 1 to 5.

You can't summarize a whole essay, speech, or professional judgement on anything with just a number. Neither can you summarize all the content, fun, or problems of a game with it, and I might even say developers should feel insulted that their work and effort is put on such abstract scales. I probably can't make the answer any simpler or plainer than that, and I can't go but so deeper apart from what I mentioned above with how abstract the system is. It has no meaning or value except what the popular assumption seems to be, and even then it doesn't really stand a chance. That's why you hear people being thrilled over an 8 out of 10 game, while die hard fans and haters poke at it saying that it wasn't high enough. I've heard a handful of people glance in disappointment at 7 out of 10's acknowledging that it is a good game but saying that isn't a high enough rating for their next gaming investment. Now I respect their right to spend their money as they please and use whatever methods of quality control they do, but I also have to question how ignorant they must be think a game wont be worth it to them due to a number. Truth is many 7 out of 10s have a niche or interesting value of some sort worth looking up, and they are the ones often cited as game of the year among a community of people won over by its fun values or a great novelty within the details. That is something a "7" in itself wont tell you. Likewise I've seen 7's given out because of generic elements, or ones with incredible achievements failing under a tragic flaw, but you wouldn't know that if you only knew the game by a freakin' number.

This is also an increasingly bad time for numbers as games do some weird stuff. How do you put a number on such a massively amazing but short experience like what you would get out of Into the Nexus or Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes and how does that compare to a short experience based game like Gone Home?  How can you just give a number to an online aspect that uniquely intersects within a campaign, like Journey, a special MMO tweak, or what Dark Souls does? You can't give that a number, and you certainly can't put it well under a separate mode function like I used to do with my reviews (which barely knew what to do with bot support grading). Games have advanced to do some weird and freaky stuff that surprises us, and our formal systems and regulations aren't equipped for it.

Speaking of Dark Souls... quick, think about the grade its story deserves! Can't so easily can you? That's because its cryptic and vague with clever subtly, hints, and traces that tie together to an incredible back ground that existed in the past of the game's events within a unique fantasy world full of contrasting themes and tragedy. However to appreciate it all or even understand it, you need to be actively observing and making your own steps to build the true plot, and then you'll probably need help from the guys that likely do it better than you within the community, or at the very least share some theories with other people. Countless hours of Youtube videos went into describing these world, explaining the characters, the setting, and great tragedies that took place. In addition to that the youtube story tellers often leave their own questions or feel that they can only strike up more theories that force the consumer to use their own head again. Its a 3 part cycle of the game, the player interpretation, and the community, and that doesn't even cover the actual relevance of your character within the main plot that makes up the very beginning and ending of your Journey. So how the hell would you rate that? It may look like a barebones bad plot about almost nothing to the unobserving player passing through, but others have proven it to be a complex thread of tales that form a deeper mythology than some real life cultures ever accomplished. You can't give it a straight 10, and you can't accuse the game of being lazy just because you have to use your head to make sense of it, and nothing else compares to it enough to give it a score in the middle and call it "average" or leave it at "decent". Nothing like that describes it. However.... you can give the value of it by telling people how immersive the world was, or how much you enjoyed putting it together like a puzzle. You could also talk about some of the amazing theories you worked up, or how your friend came to a conclusion that blew your mind and made you see the game in a whole new light (I just had this happen to me with DS2 and I still don't even know the ending). Or... you could just point out an amazing youtuber that has done all the work and referencing they can to pull together an epic tale. This is how you would be able to depict and give the impression of the game's story telling, and this is what a curious person would want to go by as they can tell if they would love this, hate it, or would just ignore this aspect. The story is something you can't do by yourself, and it isn't something the game is going to do for you, but it isn't something that is absent either. Instead you experience it, share the experience, and listen to the experience, and honestly... that entire cycle is how I feel games are better summarized and something a regulated system can never, ever, help you with.

Too complex for your scoring system to handle!

Now before I sound like I'm igniting some crusade against review scores, I'm actually have to surprise you and say the opposite. I actually still like them a bit, and even though I pretty much just proved how stupid the whole thing is I can still see why we fell into using it. Simply put... it can be fun. No seriously, back when I was doing reviews in my old style it was kind of fun to challenge myself to throw a level on a scale towards gaming. It was like a puzzle to figure out what to level my complaints and fun at, and then to try and measure it appropriately towards something else, and it felt good to break it down into its elements so that I could really explain a game in great detail as I'm clearly passionate about. I imagine plenty of reviewers felt a bit like this enjoying their first few reviews trying to measure their passion in a professional way while knowing they were educating other gamers. Plus its just fun to challenge your perspective of something you love, which is where we get all the technical and objective aspects from. Even though the game's true value is mostly down to opinion, the majority of reviews actually have turned to a more calculated way of seeing things, and its interesting to look at it from both sides. You take your favorite games and try to put them under some sort of number based trial... its quite fun really. Actually I'd honestly even say scores got me into game reviews, I wanted to feel what it was like to be on that site of judging games and I liked to talk and go in depth with my favorite hobby.

As people and consumers we also tend to have a habit of loving both convenience and easy labels, both covered well by a scoring system for our gaming hobby. Lets be honest here, we've all had those days where we just want to observe a game curiously and then when reviews are everywhere we want a fast and simple way to see its status in the gaming world. We can't do that with honest walls of text explaining the many good or bad experiences that may await after hours within the game, so we want some made up scaling system to give us some vague idea of its judgement. We do this with far more than games as well, just about anything with a culture big enough worth giving reviews and opinions on probably has grading thrown into it of some form. Its kind of fun to read them and take them into account as much as it is to grade it.

However as I was rating stuff and doing this myself, I just began to notice things were stumbling a little too often. I would review a game with a good story, like R&C into the nexus and then one that did it a lot more stripped down and less to tell like a Killzone or Modern Warfare game. However while those were simple it got more tricky to judge a game like Fat Princess where the story was never meant to be its strong point, and it felt so bad to review that aspect that I would often give a game like that a pass or void it towards counting, however that felt terrible when I hold most games up to the same standard of the format. So my format was pretty much breaking from the beginning, but I pushed on. It then became more challenging as a game like Uncharted 3 came out, where the production values, effort, and heart were all truly there to make an incredible story but it flopped pretty hard on the end leaving it hurting more than a usual poor story. How would I really rate something like that when it wasn't really poor, or outstanding, but not exactly a middle of the line work either? I had to make it clear that it was a terrible story by the series standards rather than game standards, and that just felt awkward in itself. Then I began to also feel bad for a game like Section 8 where all of its technical aspects were but it relied heavily on online and offline gameplay with mechanical depth to prevail, and it was an addictive and fun FPS for me at the time. I hated tearing it apart for doing exactly what I wanted to see, a middle tier fun shooter. But it really was mediocre in Graphics, sound, ok for core value, and terrible as a campaign or story driven experience. I loved challenging my gaming world from another perspective, but not when it meant removing my smile and doing some predetermined checklist full of things that never mattered to me, it began really feeling more out of character and honestly a bit deceitful to my audiences since I felt like an invisible contract was making me say everything sucked when I was having a blast with it. Likewise I've always hated the thought that my favorite games have people out there who rather than playing them are stopping to stare at NPCs and the grass to rate the textures.... kind of silly. The games are meant to be played and enjoyed, yet when you're stopping to question virtual plants and go on to blog about how it detracted from the experience, you've lost your way in the hobby you were supposed to be a part of.

I'm deducting points off this amazingly fun strategically chaotic MP shooter for this ugly chalk board

As done with Soldier of Fortune (link here) I've adopted a new format that I feel fixes all of this, and still even has a nice little convenient summary piece. It also frees my space up a bit so that I spend less time talking about average sound effects, and fancy particles, and more time about the experience that truly gripped me or what stumbled on the main game. All of that meat and depth that goes into the game gets revealed, and if anything extra is worth mentioning it'll still be there, and it will be talked about just as any normal player would notice. For example in the case of SoF it wasn't so much about the graphics themselves as much as it was about what they depicted in raw gore and bloody over the top violence. I didn't care that the characters were blocky, textures were muddy, or fog effects littered the screen. I went in knowing those would be there because it was old, and like any modern gamer it wouldn't stand out and surprise you. What would become a part of the experience is the detail of how much pain you delivered to the villains in one of the most gruesome shooters I've ever played. Likewise the story didn't matter because it was an over the top crazy shooter with just enough of a story to show its silly action movie and spy influences. There was nothing to talk about, so I barely did, and it wouldn't be a game that should be judged or played for that aspect so scroing it would have been completely missing the point. However if I kept my same old format I would feel forced to give you the run down on how dated it looked, compare to some title of its time, and I would have to give the story below average quality or go too easy on it and say it was cheesy enough to keep up with the gameplay. Either way those two aspects would have hurt the score though, or altered it in some strange warped way, yet neither of them was my concern in the gaming experience nor is it how I would really describe the game if you got my honest opinion as a gamer to another gamer. My new format makes me drop the scripted and calculated boring crap that nobody cares about, and to let out my honest experience while writing it in a deep and pseudo-professional manner. The funny thing to is that it was actually more convenient this was as well, even without a score. Its all because I spent less time writing about crap that didn't matter and you could read my review in shorter time while pulling away with the good and the bad sides of it more efficiently. I talk about the boring crap long enough to tell you its not a game about that, and then I go into what really matters like the inexcusable performance problems or the careless run and gun fun it highlights in gameplay. You can tell more out of the game based on that rather than some number or about how poor 10 year older graphics look.

Oh but what about the summary? Its still proper to leave a solid conclusion, right? Well its not a must but I agree that something should be done for a conclusion piece, but there's better solutions than grading scales. When it comes to summarizing, I made a model that stamps a general recommendation on it rather than some abstract scoring puzzle you have to solve, and I box it along with the shortest and most obvious joys and drawbacks leading to a challenge for myself to really grab the biggest traits of the game, and paste them into a form that I hope to warn away or welcome the right people to the game in question. Meanwhile I can still glamorize the summary like some do with the score screen, which was kind of fun for me to dabble into paint.net a bit and I managed to make it more personal with little decorated pictures or a colored theme that suits the status. I choose a dull faded color for ok because its a dull thing because games that get that score wont last long or warrant any special needs to go after. I think it also had a parrot because sometimes those games are only ok because they mock what they know, and I found the animal of a parrot suiting for that. I went with blue for awesome because its blue is a pleasant to look at color, and followed it up with a fox because... well as you can probably tell I think they match the term of Awesome. legendary was given its form because its bright and stands out, along side dragon motifs that symbolize something strange that wont fade from our culture or memories, even though its not quite real either.... much like an extraordinary game. Meanwhile the worst has a dark black on red color scheme that is supposed to let your know this is a bad kind of game to take up, and it goes in decorated with W40K heresy icon and skulls because... well its fucking heresy, simply put. I'm thinking of also adding in an additional rating that sort of hits in between awesome and ok because sometimes there is a game that doesn't deserve either, and instead hits a weird sort of "good but could have easily been better" that may make or break the deal for some people. For this I might add in a flawed fun category. Overall these do the service of providing information better, and I plan to follow each score card up with a commentary and summary of why it was chosen apart from the pros and cons marked within them.

Speaking of conclusions, that about wraps it up. I don't hate review scores, but I can't really stand behind them like I used to. I can see where they came from, and why people are a bit obsessed with reading into them, and I sometimes still enjoy reading some scores in addition to the page of text strung to them. If you're walking out of this article unconvinced that they're bad, then I can't blame you and I hope you continue to enjoy your score seeking. I am also sorry I probably wont be providing them anymore myself. However I think the long term benefits of a well written review truly giving a good insight into the game outweigh the short benefits of dismissing the game under some abstract label or grading scale. No you can't have both either as you might be thinking, as the thought of leading it up to a number taints the whole value of what you're going to be writing towards. I believe the effort and true focus of the written work that goes into a review stands on its own without the need of some strange score system. I've started to feel a strange respect towards Youtube reviewers that do this sort of thing without a score but instead just explain it, because they never feel like they had to summarize it with a floaty score that misses the point of everything they just worked towards. It is good to hear more out of the experience rather than some judge pannel, and I'm trying to turn my future reviews to reflect this more. In doing so it also deregulates things to a point where more open and loose or experimental games have just as much of an easy analysis as traditional gaming formats do, and there's no clutter or break in my system to accommodate it anymore. With all that being said I also hope to prove this with my future plans of a Ground Zeroes and Dark Souls 2 review, two perfect examples of games that would hurt to grade the standard old way... and I'm looking forward to telling you all about where they succeed and fail through better writing instead of pondering about what number to throw at it.

Ground zero tolerance

So I played Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes recently. Ok... wont be typing all that out for a name again. Anyways I should be ashamed shouldn't I? It was terrible. It was a crime to see such a principle take place. It was stupidly short, a cash grab, and a waste of my time and questions my intelligence as a fan as they managed to make me pay a fee for their high production demo. I was essentially getting a tutorial, even Kojima compared the experience to one. Kojima betrayed us. At least.... that's what half the internet wants me to tell myself, but truth is I loved it and I'm going back to play a little bit more of it and see if I can get all XOF patches.

Ok actually truth be told, I don't agree with this practice and I didn't fork out $30 for it. It was a rental in my eyes, and a blessing that I was able to do just so. However with that aside I can't help but ponder this hot topic, and question all sides to some extent. Why did it happen, was it worth releasing, are the fans really getting their value, and is it really deserving of this hate?

I don't know whether or not to call myself a real fan of Metal Gear Solid. I love the series, and I've sunk a ridiculous amount of hours into the 2nd and 3rd game that were a part of my early teenage years of gaming. How could I not? As I've said in the past I'm mostly a gamer that came to gaming under the love of interacting with a lot of the world, preferably through quite a good bit of complex options. MGS provides that and a fantastic cheesy psudo-military fantasy story full of stealth, tools, action, and just so many countless moments to goof around in and little trivial bits to play with. MGS3 probably deserves a small spot on a list of my favorite games of all time. Yet... I haven't came off with quite the same enthusiasm for all their games, and honestly I just seem to be huddled around the sandbox enjoyment of 2 and 3 while 4 was a nice one way type of experience, and 1 is..... nice to catch up on, but nothing more. I still have yet to go for Peacewalker beyond the PSP demo. I also just shrug off any wait to another game, so I don't feel that intense fan build up and hype, or really any enthusiasm at all surrounding the idea of the next game. So I'm not sure whether or not I'd call myself a fan.... either way though I was smiling and enjoying my time returning to the series, and although some changes are a bit bitter I'll take whatever the open world throws out over MGS4's condition.

In ground zeroes, I found myself goofing around a bit, enjoying the stealth, and finding a shocking amount of content for such a tiny spot to have it all in. It was a legit fun and Metal Gear sort of experience, despite changes and the weird condition of the game. I may have beat the main mission in just barely under 2 hours (3 according to my own time tracking. maybe progress was lost dying and restarting check points?), but I went to side tasks, went back again, re-did side tasks, went back again, and in between each mission I would sit around playing with the casset options in the menu which in itself has some content to keep you busy beyond the gaming itself. I was enjoying those missions quite a few times with all there was to do, play with, crazy stunts to check out, enemies to hold up, optional areas to break into, and then the length was extended by how time consuming being stealthy can be. Oh and speaking of action and stealth, I heard so many comparisons to other games like Far Cry, Crysis, Splinter Cell, basically everything except Dishonored. The game feels nothing like that, and save for Dishonored which is in its own league I'd say this gave me a unique sense of fulfillment in the genre that I remember growing up with from playing past MGS games. I really was enjoying this a lot more. Splinter cell by contrast felt less open and more about precision based shooting in between sneaking, while Thief is slow, strict, and light based, and Far Cry/Crysis is just about bare bones sneaking for a bonus treat dangling in front of you that altogether comes out as quite shallow (which is why they're known more as FPS and almost ignored as stealth based). Meanwhile Ground Zeroes felt like a crazy but cool uncle sort of archetype out of all these, where it was unpredictable and crazy as it was immersive and sneaky fun. Did I mention my progress tracker is still at 20% after all this enjoyment? Does it still sound like a demo to anyone?

They added vehicles to? WAHOOO!

I'd be fine if someone still wanted to try and pass it off that way (as a demo), because it is technically a demonstration of what is to come, and it really is more of a teaser than a serious entry in the series to be remembered. Its also a nice tech demo because of how awesome the FOX engine is (also an awesome name... just saying). Even on the PS3 I was stunned by how great the did with textures that really popped. I imagine Killzone Shadow Fall has a good competitor in graphics if this ends up being way greater on the PS4's hardware. However while demo accusations are a bit forgivable I'm kind of sick of people trying to sum up the value with their very first score screen's time track, because they fail to see the point. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the type of person to trade every game in the same week they buy it. Its just a sad argument that you couldn't intuitively enjoy this virtual world. Sit back, enjoy the game, fool around, see what it has to offer. Nobody is rushing you... well ok, if you bought it nobody is, I suppose I'm a bit rushed to get it back tomorrow myself though. Yet I still took my time! They didn't put all this stuff into the game just so you could skip to the credit screen blind folded, and then yell on the forums about where your stop watch landed it.

However it still is a good question about value in general. I still can't fault the game much, even though I can't agree with the practice either. Let me explain that a bit more... I don't like a full game to just slice off a piece and make it some exclusive episode for half the price of the "200 times bigger" full game. Its a lame move I don't want to see more of ever again. Imagine your favorite games ripping off the first hour and then trying to make up for it with tiny arcade bits for completionists that all add up to half the price of the rest of the game. Doesn't sound good, does it? That's what happened here. A series like MGS can get away with it a tiny bit because of the playful nature of the experience, but that's just scrapping up some kind of excuse... it really isn't all of a sudden "Ok" by any means. I feel kind of bad for the major fans that were ready to patiently await the true 5th game, only to see it get halted for a bit so they could make you a premium teaser that would have been better built into the game.

Yet when it comes to value, you can't always look at it just as a series, its also about how much it stands as just a good game for the value. That means is it fun and solid enough to invest a budget price game worth of value and time into? However the problem is much of this value gets tied to the length, which for as long as we've known this game it was screaming about how darn short it all was. To answer this a bit better, I have to refer back to what I said when it comes to prices and over entitlement, though more about the time we live in rather than the main message of that article. We have games like Torchlight 2 (100+ hour worthy masterful ARPG) in the same price range as a 4-5 maps within DLC. You can buy a legendary multiplayer FPS like Counter-strike for a bit less than Gone Home. Meanwhile we also have an amazing experiences like Metro: Last Light and Bioshock Infinite giving us less length and content for the same price as Call of Duty, yet it still stands by as an incredible game that outclassed Ghosts big time in reputation. Were they out of the range of value? Oh but wait, it gets worse! Zelda Windwaker HD and Monster Hunter Tri HD are $50 while just about every other HD piece released as a huge trilogy for much less than those cost, but we all love and praise and let Zelda get away with it. Then we have people paying for flash games and giving them high scores, while valve is giving us one of the best multiplayer shooters of all time for free. My point is this... if we keep looking at the world and market based solely on price to length ratio, our heads are going to spin until it all flies off with so much ill comparisons and inconsistencies running through our brains. I love a long lengthy game for my money's worth like anyone else does, but its time to drop the argument a bit and rely on another great factor of value instead: the question of how fun is it? Suddenly it all makes sense, and most of those above comparisons can be ignored as a "to each their own" state of mind. I think Ground Zeroes fits within that slot, because I've had loads of fun with my time in it. I consider myself very close to getting the will to buy it, and it beats out thief in my book as best stealth game in recent time. Meanwhile what would a more die hard fan think? I'm sure they already bought it, and are still grinning wide as they perfect their stealth runs, or test how long they can endure a shooting fest through the base. Honestly if people can find it valid to sell flash quality arcade games like Aqua Kitty or Jets n' Guns on steam with a well received audience, I don't see any crime in selling this short but sweat saboteur's heaven of a game that makes up the heart of Ground Zeroes.

Ground Zeroes is short... criminally so in terms of linear length. However it offers us a fun small slice of sandbox that was made to hold over die hard fans during their long wait for the new big installment. I don't agree with that and think Phantom Pain would have been better with this all in it for a better total experience, however that doesn't make it all that terrible... not in the slightest. It certainly suffered a bit from an underdeveloped story and arsenal, but the core gameplay and spirit of enjoying a good MGS game is clearly there and it all rocks. On the up side this premium teaser was also a good way to see how the new mechanics feel, and even though I'm not happy with all the changes I was able to have a blast and felt it was a step up from the supposedly perfect MGS4. I truly enjoyed this game and felt like it had more to it than I expected, and contrary to my mocking at the start I've heard some other positive voices on the internet saying the same. This is one of those cases where I actually find myself siding more with the publisher than the outcry, because the outcry has gotten quite embarrassing to look at lately and feels like they forgot the fun more so than the corporate. I stepped off of the campaign with a smile on my face only to turn to youtube and watched what was a nearly 30 minute "review" of someone just yelling about the clocked time they got, and calling it all out as a cash grab despite all the clear fun it gave. Sorry gamers, but a "cash grab" has no position to be as fun as this was. It was crafted with fun in mind, and just looking at the side missions is an obvious indicator that it had more heart than most $60 triple A titles will dare risk (seriously, look up those extras... or even the rescue side mission, its quite hilarious what kind of 4th wall breaking cheesy fun they threw in). Anger got the better of fun in a well crafted game, and all people could do was point to the freakin' clock... its just a pretty distasteful argument there, no matter how you try to spin that. It doesn't pass for a review either. Chill out, grab the controller, and enjoy the game while its here. Its not something I would have asked for, but its here and better than I imagined, all while keeping a smile on my face and reassuring fans that greatness is on the way.

Though I also want to repeat a quote... 200 times bigger, its coming eventually and will be here for a much better value in the name of MGS5: Phantom Pain. Be a smart consumer and don't just blindly dash towards this game because your too impatient. Rent it a bit, enjoy it, and then wait patiently for the real package. Even to a die hard fan I challenge you to wait... its going to be ok, you were waiting this whole time just fine, you can wait some more for "200 times" the value. Unless your just aboslutely starved for good gaming, that's my only recommendation. Yet we're surrounded by releases like the open world super power game of infamous second son, and just had Dark Souls 2 released and the work there wont be finished for quite some time. Of course there's TitanFall to if that's your kind of thing, though I think the value there might be more questionable... but as said above, if its fun enough... go for it. To choose MGS:GZ over them seems a bit insane, but I suppose if you're really certain on the fun you'll have then I've done all I can to persuade you otherwise. It was a very well made experience for something so short. It faintly reminds me of Into the Nexus,... except a little less developed, but I guess that's two totally different stories and styles we're talking about here. Into the Nexus was made more as its own thing to rather than a matter of teasing. Still bear in mind my vote for that short but sweat R&C game came near GOTY status, and I've already heard some people saying Ground Zeroes has been their favorite all year so far... so its possible. I think it holds a good chance of standing its ground as a $30 game, or even better considering its $20 digital. Just please... help yourself to a rental first just to be sure its worth it.

Do small time online only games have a place in retail?

So with TitanFall hitting shelves pretty recently, there was a surprising amount of hate popping up for it despite the past insane hype train it was getting. Some of this was just anti-hype, trying to defuse the ludicrous expectations and dreams being set on it and of course trying to dismiss it as revolutionary when it really was just a military shooter with mechs. I myself was on this side because as a long time shooter fan who's been begging for something to take us out of the genre's decline, TitanFall certainly was far from hitting that mark. However you also had the typical anti-EA bandwagon, and fanboys against Microsoft jumping onboard, but after all of this one of the guys to truly make an interesting fuss were those that questioned its price and aim as a whole. Several people began popping out to suggest they could not buy an online only triple A retail game. Before you knew it this was in pretty much every article, every discussion, and felt weird clashing with the many that were thrilled for this big market release. It did make me think a bit more though.... its not honestly as easy to dismiss as the statement that a single player game has no place. Of course it does... but then again we could technically be talking about something as massive as Skyrim, not to mention its highly traditional with a long and proven history in our entertainment, meanwhile Multiplayer has sort of always been that thing off to the side as an extra treat or for a weird sportsman side of gaming that takes itself too seriously. Its kind of funny really, as we have publishers that think the opposite and that you have to have a form of online gaming in everything, yet its not until a big $60 multiplayer only title releasing that gets people fussy... and even funnier is that this is done in an age where so many military shooters release such terrible campaigns that only the multiplayer stays relevant, but they get a pass because it still technically has a campaign for offline play. So it appears its ok to tack on a bad campaign to a multiplayer driven game, but terrible to tack on a bad multiplayer to a single player driven game. Internet logic right there folks. So is it really a big deal to have an online only game, or does it have to have some offline service even if its crap?

Approaching the topic in general

Well alright first thing is first, lets get some clarity out of the way. Things that have a much more foreign and weirder use of the sense of online compared to the usual competitive shooter do not count here. That means MMOs, Free to play games, and to those of similar effect. We're talking about traditional smaller multiplayer modes done in more closed grounds with limited lobbies, maps, and a beginning and end to each competitive match, and it has to be sold for a pretty solid price backed by a solid team. Something similar to the subject that sparked this, titanfall. So the upcoming Destiny, games like World of Warcraft, Dota, and Blacklight retribution do not count. Meanwhile when it comes to games that do count... I found it to be surprisingly difficult. Several valve games fit, but they all had good bot support and released for much less a bit less launch content. Then there's a game like Chivalry, but that's an indie game with no marketing, still cheaper, and has bots.... even though they're crap. So I found myself kind of scratching the bottom of the barrel for this one, and even trying to make up "what ifs" to fit. What if you only bought Call of Duty without any campaign, co-op, or bot related content. What if Timesplitters were to sell just on its multiplayer? Well wasn't Unreal Tournament online only, oh no wait.... deep modding of entire game creation and some of the best and deepest offline multiplayer features out there. I began to see why this struggle to justify Titanfall's online only position was a bit difficult to counter-argue. Even though it feels like countless games have done it for quite some time in the shooter genre there is no clear choice that matches up to what TitanFall is doing. Its always been cheaper, or always had some better more offline leaning piece to cushion the experience.

Personally I'm a bit split on this topic, but I mostly lean towards accepting online only as a very plausible option. On one hand, I believe a good game that does its focus well and prices itself according to the experience is a great offering. I can't really see multiplayer being an exception, some dreams and visions are had playing with other people in small competitive sessions, and they don't need some lonely story driven alternative to make that vision happen. I don't need TitanFall trying to be Half-life anymore than I need a deathmatch in Journey. TitanFall wasn't meant to be a giant adventure for you to play by yourself, it was meant to be a dynamic battle alongside other people. A detailed narrative and scripted adventure you play alone wasn't in TitanFall's character, and was not the soul intention of the developers. It is not necessary to sell you the game, and it shouldn't be. If it was, then where would we draw those boundries for other similar topic going on the same principle? Lets say not only TitanFall, but Strike Vector, Counter-Strike, etc all had nice 4-10 hour story lines and scripted events you could see through on your own. Now no matter how awful it is or how tacked on, off-putting, character destroying, review hurting, and recourse damaging this was you at least can no longer call it a multiplayer only game you'll skip on. Now what happens to other games if those compromises had to be made for multiplayer? Would Zelda need couch co-op because you're afraid you'll need a break from solo play? Would Street Fighter need 4 player support because your too unsure you'll get by only on 2 player fun? Does Final Fantasy have to become an FPS just in case you get tired of RPG gaming? You can go on and on, but overall the point is you can't ask that games compromise their vision just to cushion your desire that it'll meet all your potential needs. As sad as it may sound in writting, its actually kind of good that there is no all in one game. If there was we'd all just give up and go play that one big super everything game. Instead we have games with focuses, goals, sometimes some nice extras, and we get to enjoy what suits us. Sometimes something unbelievable and incredible even pops out of such a focused game. I wouldn't be enjoying Spyro so much if it was designed for buddy co-op with gimmicks all over the place, so many hate the idea of easy Dark Souls and I can agree, and honestly not a single TeamFortress2 fan has felt lacking in its multiplayer heavy routine. If you don't fit in the aimed niche of a game, don't buy it, its as simple as that. If you feel a game might be too niche, wait for a price drop. Overall neither of those are as bad if a game misses its niche and wrecks itself.

However as I mentioned, I was a bit more split... and there's a good reason for that. Online gaming is a little weirder than just dismissing it so easily. There's certain expectations you should live up to, otherwise it feels a bit flat. That's why so many people make a big deal on single player length, there's a certain expectation of price to length ratio and likewise I believe there are certain expectations to online. For starters, online is by its nature harder to get into because it requires a consistent and decent connection for its core value. Not everyone who has and loves games has that blessing, and its a shame when they can't get into the fun. I think this is a major reason bots were invented, and honestly some games had that as practically their only multiplayer style... like TimeSplitters, which was either bots or couch co-op. It doesn't usually compromise the vision to help out the guys here with some nice offline support to simulate the best of the rest of the game. It benefits everyone though, not just those under an unlucky situation. It gives people the ability to practice, an escape from crashing lobbies and exploitative players, and it ensures that life goes on beyond the server sustainability and community. Now I can see some games like Splinter Cell merc vs spies going without it because you just can't simulate competitive stealth vs brutal guns within a calculated script or path of scripts that make up bot play. However some games that have such stupid or total lack of bots where they should be there... but its usually ok-ish because there's usually a campaign in these games to back it up as a solo experience, including splinter Cell just mentioned. You can go through that games capaign and get a good $60 worth of good stealth action entertainment out of it, so no worries on being left in the dark if your router kills itself the day you bought the game.

Moving on from that though, there are even deeper expectations that make up the core online itself that should be functional. With online, you need to have solid servers, some good deal of options to help stretch the rules of battles, a way to link up with your friends for either competition or "jolly" cooperation, and plenty of modes to supply a good variety and keep the core gameplay up and running. I also believe in being appropriately competitive. Right now there are countless of incredible and unique multiplayer driven experience on steam that launch at around $10-$30. Although the majority are indie, they have high visuals, lots of effort and care, and meet up to these previous expectations for the most part. So when people question the price of TitanFall, I can sort of see where they're coming from, it feels like its expensive just based on what its coming from... a corporation with a big name publisher rather than guys just a small group of guys doing a game for fun. Yet that is just the tip. TitanFall fails in nearly every single piece I previously mentioned.

Looking at TitanFall's execution

I've got to admit I have not played the game. How could I? Low end computer with no desire to bother attempting an origin installation, no will to spend that kind of money on this type of game, and I don't own the consoles its releasing for either. However I've been in touch with it a good bit looking onto what other have had to say, watching plenty of reviews, studying on its features and first impressions play, and observing a good bit of its gameplay. I've heard the good and the bad, and I think I've got enough to talk about it accurately for this article. Moving on now....

TitanFall is a very bare for what its trying to sell you. This seems obvious at first through just its loadouts and the focused online aim which might be subjectively good barebone pieces, but it goes much further and starts to get pretty absurd and painful to see. For starters there was that slight controversy over 6vs6, which isn't too bad if it weren't for the fact that its forced thanks to the lovely matchmaking way we play these games now. Another good example that most critics started poking at was the lack of private games, and the lack of friend and clan play features. It goes further though. There's few modes, there's few mech options, there's almost no customization beyond male/female characters, there's no server lists, there's no effort into the story, the gunplay is weak and reflex based whenever the parkour and jetpacks isn't hiding its simplicity, and don't forget mod support is a distant wish at best. The only thing it packs well is map variety... oh and there's grinding, if your into that sort of carrot on a stick facade that keeps you away from the content you just paid for as if it had it were full of micro-transactions.

Look I'm not trying to hate on the game as it looks fun. I've heard great things from some trustable people with good taste in shooters, I hear it being considered a step in the good direction of arena shooter gameplay, the 15 map thing sounds fantastic and the map designs seem like FPS bliss, and I want to shake their hands for being brave enough to leave guns down to a barer more focused selection rather than falling for the trap of pure numbers. The gameplay itself looks like something a lot of people would enjoy and play for quite some time, despite my wish that they did better in gunplay. Yet at the end of the day this is kind of pitiful for an online shooter, never the less a $60 one that was hyped as a killer title. Its an all new low for the lack of shooter customization and user freedom, and its just sad it had to happen with a good game that had to rely on these sort of options and stability. The game is very inaccessible despite its low learning curve. It has no customization, and barely even a way to enjoy it with your friends. It was marketed to pull in and give the COD crowd something new while also trying to trick COD haters into thinking its something for them to, but instead just builds off of the lacking options and leaves some people out in the cold and its charging you the same price for much less.

TitanFall doesn't even live up to its own vision. Of many things it wanted to do and market, there was a campaign done through its multiplayer and its clear by how much it was discussed as something new and how it is required to unlock your mechs that you really should have been excited and buying the game to see this. However it flopped.... hard. Its kind of sad to because its in the way you used to expect when hearing of a multiplayer game with a multiplayer "story" tacked in there. It just slaps a special voice-over on top of deathmatch and territory themed battles, exactly like what you could have in multiplayer.  Even the slightest attempts at unique scripting, set-pieces, and character development seem to be so rushed and slapped in as a bare minimal market point that it just feels like the most primitive and least desired form of a campaign. Its actually even worse than that though.... back when these used to happen, it was in offline with bots and had a one way trip through it that just lead to credits and then you could do whatever you wanted. Ignoring it was just as fine. Here.... its mandatory if you want to enjoy the mechs, a very key function to enjoying this game for what it is. Next its online only, and nobody so far seems to be enjoying it, leading this to become a bad combination where you have to pray that someone out there in the community will keep coming back to make sure you get to play this to unlock those mechs. Oh, and then you have to do each mission twice at least because of that online bit leading to the need for both factions to use real players. This is just terrible and cruel design. This is not a smart move, this does not live up to the advertised ideas, and it does not have any soul or heart put into it whatsoever. So much for a great solo campaign. People moan and groan through it so they can enjoy the real intent of big mech and infantry mixed combat across competitive online.

So different, yet oddly familiar situation here...

Again I'm going to have to say the game isn't as bad as I'm probably making it sound. It kind of reminds me of brink (and not because of its campaing/MP hype), a fun game that falls on its face because of issues surrounding it and way overpriced because of it. TitanFall might be subjectively better because it covers brinks mistake a little by having more flexible battles and some mode variety, however it also lacks bots... so make of it what you will. Either way both games should come off as a disappointment to those sucked into the hype, and are terrible examples on how to go about an online focused title. Brink desperately needed more maps or more modes to support itself. As it stood, you had to do the same mission objectives on the same 8 maps over and over again and that was the entire game, $60. TitanFall is an online game stripped of all expected structure to it and doesn't trust its own fans to know how to have any will power or fun on their own. It also feels partially rushed according to many players and critics, and its actually kind of surprising they even bothered to make time for the ridiculous XP padding when they couldn't even get proper clans or private matches in. Oh and I just remembered that insane file size problem they had out of laziness... hope you have 50GB free because they didn't have the time to fix their files for a small game. Its as if someone made a Mario game with a terrible level design, the core ideas might be fun but one of the key expectations to getting it to suit its standards is crippled. To add it all up though, the extra pain is that its overpriced by competitive market standards even without these problems.

Sure you could try to tell me it was heavily marketed and required EA's publishing, and was made from veteran creators of a highly successful mainstream franchise. So clearly its a major triple A game deserving of the typical Triple A price tag, right? Well no, no its not. If it wasn't for EA and the marketing, this wouldn't in any way appear to be a standard Triple A game. If it was we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The typical Triple A is a heavily marketed, over-bloated, over-staffed (disorganized staff included), and feature packed release crammed with all sorts of streamlined features and expectations on engines and voice actors that are expensive beyond reasonable measures. TitanFall is a source engine game, even most indies have abandoned that for other engines like Unreal 3 or better. Voice acting is for minimal effects and it wouldn't make sense to have them go all out, and again its a multiplayer only title taking the risk of a focused mode and function rather than trying to cater to everyone. Maybe I'll be surprised to find some hidden massive budget expenses underneath of it somewhere, but for now all I see is high marketing, a familiar logo, and a bunch of corporate contracts and typical business practices like planned DLC. You know I'm almost glad this game wasn't a triple A game and they have the sense to use an old engine when major expensive graphics aren't required, and it was cool to hear of a game that wanted to just focus on online without tacking any bad excessive modes on. However that leads to expect that it will be good at what it does, and deliver a full and successful experience in online gaming. TitanFall doesn't even bother for the minimum low, it creates a new low for online features and expects us just to deal with it because it was hyped too well to fail, and the novelty of mechs is pretty great. The game has its fun side, and deserves the fans and smiles of happy gamers enjoying their fast paced shoot-outs and stylized mechs tanking around the 15 brilliantly designed maps, but for the price of a full game I can see it hurting itself with some lacking options that should be expected for that sort of price.

For the record though, some of this is fixable (private match, woot!). I also have to say that I think I'm partially being hard on TitanFall for capitalizing on an obsession of bad features other games have had as well. Its just really bad here because TitanFall really relies and focuses on its online features, which it has little of. Nearly every recently multiplatform game has terrible clan support that is reduced to 4 letter tags at best, and Killzone Shadow Fall couldn't even do that until it was patched in recently. Of course I've never been easy on matchamaking only either. However there was more to it in most of those games, and they always had at least bots or private matches. But even if I were mad at Killzone or COD over clan systems, I had campaign to be happy with, or bots to just go carelessly destroy, and COD has that co-op game type as well to play with my friends or in split-screen. TitanFall... doesn't care about any of that stuff, and it doesn't have to if it were good with its online, but it doesn't even look like it cares about that enough. Again, the consumers deserve better for the asked price. The value for a game is always subjective, but if your going to do a game a certain way you should do it right.

To conclude...

I can see some personal opinions going with a play it safe route and relying on a game to come with plenty of options and playstyles, but you can't have it that way all the time. Besides that's why there are multiple games to begin with, just swap one out for another if your looking for something different. If you want a good game you'll have to take a little risk and play a focused strong game that specializes in something.... TitanFall tries but is hard to put under that sort of spotlight successfully. Its a brilliant game for its sense of balance, high speed awesome platforming motion, map design, and yes of course there's the novelty of mech on infantry combat (even though I don't think mechs are as big of a change personally). However there are certain expectations to making a game really live up to its dream, and there's a way to treat consumers with respect, and I think TitanFall forgets that and sets a bad example up for online focused gaming. Not only is there a strange lack of bots that caused the game to be useless across certain countries and to certain gamers, but it doesn't even have standard online practices that are to be expected for a good social and customizable experience. The game's life cycle is more dated because of this, more people will be turned off by it, and its and for the asked price people are going to feel a bit hurt over it. In addition that game isn't even free of feeling a bit tacked on with a really terrible Campaign function that much like its online functions feels like its getting away with a new low in how bad it can make something.

Personally speaking I can't say I'd buy something online only myself unless it had bot support. My connections are a bit unstable, and I want my purchase and fun to last rather than die like a fad. However that's my personal preference and I've still bought cheaper online only games... heck Chivalry comes close to being the best of online gaming in my eyes. So they do have a purpose and place in our market. However I think they need to do a good job of themselves. Give us the freedom we come to expect for the price we pay rather than seeing what you can get away with. Server lists, mods, stable connection, good social systems, etc. Its not asking for the moon or over-entitlement, its about giving users true accessibility and real ownership as well as keeping up with progress. Do that, and do it at a reasonable price, or else... as far as I know you haven't earned the respect to go making focused games when they can't even deliver a solid structure under its focus. I hope publishers, developers, and even gamers start to realize this a bit better so we don't repeat incidents like these where we have a fun active and social game we can't even share with our friends because they forgot to put in the private sessions. Selling a focused game without its good structure is like a selling an expensive recliner made out of jagged stone... its not bad because its a small recliner, its bad because it forgot the freakin' soft seating.

Now playing: Dark Souls 2

I warned you this was coming... and now the darkness is here. Actually I'm later than I wanted to be with posting this, because before this game hit I started an article that is still being worked on. More on that when its done, but I got a bit sidetracked and between that, life, and being sucked into this fantastic game for 22 hours (in about 3 days of off and on play time) I guess I didn't get out my first impressions as fast as I should have for real first impressions. Well now that I'm cut off from my main file thanks to a location switch and the stupid save lock, I guess now is a good time to talk about it.... though that still wont keep me away, I'm debating on starting a cleric, tank-ish knight, or sorcerer run for my other PS3.

Anyways in case you can't tell, I love the game. I really do. I wont waste time talking about how it stands against the industry like I have in other similar articles, or how its an amazing achievement, as both of these have been already spread as common knowledge from the lovely Souls fanbase. So lets get the negative out of the way first.... I was shocked and sad to find the misery gone. Sure the game is still a sad take on fantasy, but its a more obvious charmed and enchanted fairy tale land even complete with a Dwarf more so than darkness and lost souls. The intro area is like an overgrown night meadow garden stuck into a cave, then you step out to a wonderful and bright sea shore that serves as the hub, then your first true path to adventure is along a twighlight forest with a fortress kingdom torn apart from an old war with giants. Those black and overcasted gloomy skies are gone. The world doom and destruction is replaced by the knowledge that this new world was only supposed to contain dead cursed guys like the player, and isn't doomed at all (maybe changes later, and it clearly has decay, but nothing like Dark Souls 1). I suppose overall this would usually be considered a step up as its a nice fantasy setting with more variety and more emotion. However truth is, its not as great because its not exactly as powerful. To bump into a hopeless guy struggling is like bumping into one in real life... he's there, and you either nod your head and agree with him or want to shut his pessimistic pie hole. Meanwhile when it happened in Dark Souls 1 it was because they had a reason to be sad, though to be honest the sad characters may have been outweighed by those with another attitude... because it was so dark and depressing that in order to live you couldn't let the bad get to you. Instead you were challenged to make the best of it, and it felt pretty powerful and good and the mood met up well with the progress you made along side learning and mastering the game. Now it looks a bit like Dragon Age... it isn't that bad or generic, and it feels different, but if you were to look at screenshots of all the places I had been you could confuse the worlds together.

However this is a nitpick at the end of the day. Yeah a setting change sounds massive, but still... the world is sad, the world has a troubling sense to it, and thanks to the gameplay I'm turning every corner as if I was walking on glass keeping a very tense and eerie suspense to the enchanted land. There is something unsettling, and I just know the doom emotion that Dark Souls 1 basked in will come out into this new land sometime or another. Besides, practically everything in the trailers made me think this would be a similar mood so I've clearly got some ground to cover to see all the trailer spots and the terrors previewed. There was a freakin' lava dragon demon thing, and suffering skin torn thing, and a monster made out of corpses for crying out loud, and I have yet to stumble into a single one... I'm sure the terror and misery is going to hit hard and turn the pretty world upside down. Besides asking for it to be the exact thing is too much to ask for. I knew there would be nobody to replace Solaire, and I knew it would have some setting changes.

So onto my gameplay experience... its great. I'm a swordsman who has been juggling between a good stabbing sword, slice happy scimitar, a flaming sword, and a shield. Learning from past experience, bows have their use as well and since it scales with my main trait of dexterity I'm keeping it up to power. I love the new durability system as its more consistent and streamlined in a good way compared to the older version. The old way had you guessing your durability which usually lasted you for an hour or more of gameplay, and eventually you should have checked on it at a bonfire if you bought the kits (and you should have). Now it refills at a bonfire automatically like a flask would. This gives you a meter, and balances off the difficulty in a different way where you're keeping track of it like an ammo count in an FPS. Rather than opening up a giant menu to look for 360/520 and spending minimal amounts of souls on repair every bonfire for your durability, you have a little health-like bar for your weapons always on the equipment HUD and it tears quicker leaving it a potential risk to track. However its free to restore, again like a flask. As a swordsman this makes me think smartly about what I want to use and when, and it makes long walks through places like No-Man's wharf a stronger test of good endurance and supplies. I found both right hand swords that I needed to be on the edge of breaking, when I suddenly realized a repair powder that was useless to me in DS1 and was a life saver here... and I felt great for finding it off of some corpse completing the need to explore and keep stocked items.

Now the health thing is something you get used to. Same for the leveling up with an NPC. Sure having to fast travel back to the village just to pump in on or two points is a pain, and the NPC's looping pretentious sounding dialogue is extra annoying, but it becomes tolerable and its sometimes pleasant to wander the village for a second like a break or it reminds you to see that blacksmith again. The new way the flask is done is brilliant so that your not just chugging one health potion, but have less but more varied methods of healing. So I'm really enjoying the game and need to work on fighting a boss known as the ruin sentinel when I get back to my main file again. I can't wait to see what lies ahead, and I'm excited and hoping I can complete the game sometime over the course of next week. Praise the sun!

The Revolution in Resolution News

I used to think a nice game resolution was... well, nice. It fits across more diverse range of televisions or monitors, puts more detail into our games (and is the practically definition of HD), and the demand for it has even given us some nice little re-releases for fans or guys that missed out on certain games. I also recently went out of the way to aim so that both my usual televisions are able to make best use of the PS4's power to put out 1080p gaming. So why then have I become a little sick of hearing it, and specifically 1080p, quite a bit? Well because while there are some great people, and nice things out there on the internet, there's also a loud noisy obnoxious group that tries to put a horrible spin on nearly everything... and that has taken hold of the newest console generation quite well.

The issue hasn't died down since before the new generation launch. Rumors for a while circulated poking at the power between Xbox one, and the PlayStation 4 and people were reading up on their resolution knowledge preparing to argue at each other for another power struggle. Back in the PS3/360 days the 360 just did 720p mostly and the PS3 got 1080p so rarely (lair, all-stars, majin, and I think that's it) that it may as well not be a thing. Meanwhile as PC gaming kind of rose more, more people and info got around about what resolution, framerate, and whatnot is. While consoles awkwardly tried and messed around with 3D and motion controls people were hearing and starting to expect their games to get better resolution during the next line up of consoles. When Microsoft and their Xbox one disappointed in the 1080p area and people were raging, calling it overpriced, and PS/PC fanboys were dancing around it Journalist and Developers were giving away information on how the games were formatted in each console port. This seemed like a given for a game like Killzone or Ryse where the developers love their eye candy and put a lot of work into the engines, not to mention these were good bragging games for the console sellers to the respective exclusive. However now with Thief, Tomb Raider re-release, all the ubisoft games, and way more (including indie teams) all making it a standard practice to release their format its gotten a bit old and silly. Your doing the tech geeks jobs for them, in the past nobody cared too much about side by side images when they came by, now its the developers doing it for them with simple numbers which have become like business buzzwords. It was only a matter of time before one screwed up and made an even bigger mess of things.... oh hey, welcome to the position Killzone Shadow Fall. Its been all over the news lately that its actually more like 1080i in the multiplayer portion rather than naively 1080p for the whole game. It uses some kind of weird scaling gizmo in the system to trick the screen and format to seem like 1080p (and the campaign really is in 1080p). It was only until a few days ago someone was re-analyzing it and discovered this trick out and noted it, with the developers recently commenting back saying they thought it still counted as 1080p. Clearly this is an outrage. Heads up on the sarcasm by the way.

*Gasp* it was ugly this whole time!

I got pretty sick of these resolution discussions and went on a mini-rant on Dtoid back when thief announced its format. Now, after it was practically exposed that nobody can notice this big res hype, and still people bicker about it on the same article that should have been a wake-up call, it is just blatant proof that some people in this industry really don't know what fun is anymore. News flash guys, we came off of a console period where nearly everything to us console guys was practically in 720p or even upscaled sub-720p and 30fps. Heck I could make a whole article on the BS 60fps hype, but you know now the 1080p has gotten even worse and the news is still fresh and so I'm left disgusted more with that. 1080p was never an entitlement for the new generation, it was never something that assisted your games, and even best visual quality doesn't even come out of raw resolution as much as it does the models/textures/lighting. If all it took to make your games look better was a resolution bump, then the HD collection would have been competing along our triple A games quite some time ago. Instead its the models you want to look solid and polished, its the textures that will pop out and make surfaces look nice, and its the lighting and reflections that catch the eye and even add to the atmosphere and interactions of the virtual world you see.

Considering this is fixed hardware we're talking about, I wouldn't mind if they planned everything around 720 to work better on things that were more important... and with that mentioned I'll poke at 60fps to. Its just not needed for most games and you're missing out on potential quality with that. Why do you think the PS3 could do 1080p but didn't.... because it meant the quality took a dive and we wouldn't have ever been amazed at Last of Us or Killzone 2/3. Likewise that is why the multiplayer in shadow fall isn't actually 100% 1080p, because they didn't want to hold back other things that were more important. We ran plenty of games that looked fantastic in 30fps and 720p, and still hold up well today. I suppose the argument is that its time to upgrade, but you're still getting the upgraded experience. Every console, even the Wii U (oh and the vita has more ram than 7th gen consoles), is objectively an upgrade and can and will do more than what we've been getting. However that doesn't mean its time to start running around with some snobby standard to give to the developers to act like their game needs to become fun. The fun can be had and enjoyed a lot on sub-HD gaming if it needs to be. As it stands now, pretty much every game I've loved was below 1080p and some even dropped below 30fps frequently (Hi there Dark Souls). Meanwhile Assasins Creed 4 puts out 1080p on PS4, but why isn't that a treasured achievement? Because its combat is stupidly simple, its plot strange and not in my taste (pirates just aren't fun to me, sorry guys), the naval combat is an over-glorified clumsy artillery mini-game, and the game's missions weave in and out of hate or love it entertainment. Its not a bad game, but its not as fun as the series used to be and the fancy resolution helped it none. Now the draw distance is awesome, but that has nothing to do with 1080p, I'm certain xbox one's much feared 900p captures that just as well.

 Don't get me wrong now, I'm grateful when a game can put out 1080p and I'm not here to make enemies with it (even though I'd still question what can be gained out of its sacrifice). It can be a nice improvement, and it does help with what might be a tiny bit of blur or do AA's job better than it can at reducing jaggies, but honestly in general its not that big of a deal and its not something your going to really notice all that much. So what if I turn out wrong on this? what if you do notice it and its getting in your way big time? What if the age of high resolution has spoiled you beyond being able to play anything beyond a 7th generation era game, and what if you sit biting your nails in anxious hope that an upcoming game supports your necessary resolution? Well then I must ask... what the hell are you doing on consoles. That applies to more than just resolution as well. I even have to make fun of myself there because while I stress 30fps should be the standard for console games as it gives more power to the rest, I'm still at the mercy of whatever the developers desired and honestly I knew that ahead of time and consciously went with fixed hardware on consoles. I hate it when the smugness of the PC elitists comes into play, but they really are right to have the victory within the resolution argument, and honestly that just makes me more frustrated that these format labels and bickering over them has become common practice. Not only is it all worthless, but its irrelevant and missing the point to the platforms and trying to feel good about making the 1080p landmark is like feeling good about not failing too hard. While the PS4 can finally do native 1080p standard, at least for now, there are corners of the hardcore PC fanatics that have upgraded to a massive 4x resolution. If you highly prioritize pretty visuals, fancy numbers, and are in pursuit of the best output available... you need to leave the console market and go all out big time PC.

The other funny thing this whole matter has made me realize is that I actually feel kind of sorry for the PC userbase. Yeah that's something I wont say often considering the common smug elitism that is so out of hand that even the positive and neutral PC gamers have gone around spreading myths and finger pointing at consoles to find a scapegoat for something they didn't like. However think about this... console ports and lazy developers really have hurt their industry as developers have in some ways become careless and leave the PC options more bare bones or outright broken and don't take much responsibility on them anymore. Heck even the console port games on consoles are often in bad shape to be fairly honest. When it comes to options, a great massive chunk of the industry just doesn't care anymore... and that's especially sad for PC since it requires extra care put into it. The resolution options that it supports there does matter because it doesn't just magically corrects itself to your screen like a game does regardless of your 720p/1080p console and TV set up. So its best to have a range of resolution to support multiple monitor types, and for better scaling. Then there's FOV support since your closer to the screen, there's rebindable keys since there are too many set ups for a universal one or set in many cases, and there's mod support because you can, etc. Yet while we ridiculously see resolution news noted on every single new release for PS4 vs Xbox one there is next to zero reports or helpful people out there getting the word out on how many options you'll have within a PC game. The best thing they can do is pray that Totalbiscuit puts out a video on the game, or go digging in the steam forums for some answers. That is just sad. In the same world where people are arguing, stiring up trouble, and barking demands at the developer that their PS4 or Xbox one copy better have solid format, its just sad that the people who have needed it the most still aren't tossed a bone. I'm not even a massive PC gamer, but it'd be fantastic if someone could tell me what settings are available and give me a better idea of running the game. Also yeah I'm aware of the "minimum requirements" but lets face fact and start spotting how little that actually covers or even how inaccurate it is.

THIS.... is where visuals matter

Now okay so I think I covered what should have been obvious. Resolution in itself isn't a big deal, isn't something worth advertising, and isn't something to get worked up over. However there are some interesting side arguments around this topic, both the Killzone drama and the consoles. Here's the thing with the console discussion... the xbox one has been getting the flak for its lesser output but higher cost. Now I'm going to agree that everyone has a good point to poke fun at the overpriced status, but at the same time it doesn't make the console terrible if it has something you want. If the features or games (in other words, the important stuff) are in your favor, then yeah its still a great console to go for and the price per power isn't much of an obstacle if your going to end up enjoying it. Its not worth arguing and hating over months after we've all known this whole power vs price thing. Yelling at someone for buying a game console over its power is just a bit silly. Relax about it, and grow up already. The price drops on every system will eventually go lower, get rebundled, and will hit big sales and special deals over time. Now stop poking at the dead horse and move on.

Now as for the Killzone drama, I've been told this was important because it was exposing PS4 fanboy hypocrisy and that saying "who cares" is missing the point on this opportunity. I have to say that's one of the most backwards things I've heard in recent time. For starters, this isn't some golden opportunity, fanboy wars have always been full of crap and low credit insults with no source or no sense put into them. I guess this whole thing got out of hand because it was a real number to go by, but regardless if you were intelligent enough to not get involved.... well you wouldn't feel the need to go getting involved and using this even to attack a side. Fanboys are always talking crap with little to show for it. They've never had strong arguments to stand behind, this Killzone surprise isn't anything new. On top of that... even if you wanted to poke at their hurt feelings (assuming they were ever human and had any) well this isn't working because they're still "winning" if you want to say that. They still get to gloat about better 3rd party exclusives, and last I checked the xbox one still doesn't have a Killzone grade performance in numbers. Just telling them its not as good as they thought it was, isn't exactly winning you any medals. However if you want to really hurt fanboys or stand against a console fanboy war, you wouldn't give them any attention to begin with. Instead fighting them like this is beating a dead horse by making an event out of something for people to flock to, and look at all the Xbox and PC fanboys that came out to leave crap in the comments on these articles. The guys who don't care about this resolution discovery are the ones that "get it", the ones using it as a weapon are just keeping the flames of this dumb hate fest going.

Finally.... there's one last bit of an issue this Killzone thing exposes, and this I can sympathize with a bit more. How can you trust this team again after you feel lied to? After Sony told us it was native 1080p all around, and GG backed it up only to come clear with playful wording in recent events? Isn't that a terrible thing? Well... I have to say yeah it is, but yet its a bit strange because I don't feel truly betrayed or decieved like I should. Then I kind of realized why, and it honestly loops all the way back around to what I was saying to begin with and even reminded me of how this graphical stuff bugged me even before launch.... I don't care about the numbers. Every single time they were using that magical term of "1080p" or talked so proudly on their visuals, I kind of thought "that's nice, now what about the gameplay?". I just brushed it off. Yeah it was nice, yeah I tested the uncompressed video, and when I seen it I was very happy that one of my favorite games also happened to have some of the best available visuals, but overall I would have still went for it if it was still using Killzone 1's visuals if the gameplay was kept fun. Actually I have to say that I also naturally kind of have some doubt or distrust in the back of my head for visual hype. You can't just tell me it looks good and have me invested. I can't get invested in youtube quality, I can't tell you how breathetaking everything is in some still screenshot, and just about anything else (even uncompressed videos) you can do wont prepare me for what I will see on the TV screen when it gets here. So.... yeah its the sort of thing where I wont believe it until I see it, because you are talking about a sight thing afterall and your trying to get the info through a bunch of middleman sources. You can't earn my trust that way that the game will look fantastic based on whatever twitch, youtube, or the CEO says, it just doesn't work that way. I can't see it until I'm playing it, and then I'll not only appreciate it but I'll be immersed into it as the thing I'm actually a part of. Until that happens, I could care less what number you scale it at to look great, its not great until I'm impressed with what is on my TV running off of a disc in my console. Now I did feel betrayed by the team when they built up all this talk of custom games which helped multiplayer gameplay in Killzone 2 out so much, and in shadow fall it turned out they weren't actually doing it in the traditional server list style and instead fused it with matchmaking. This sucked as I wasn't going to be able to choose my actual match, it discouraged player creativity despite teasing it, and I couldn't tell how many people would be in the match I was getting into or what region it ran off of. However I got over that and still enjoyed the game. So by comparison hearing the graphical scaling was using tricks to fool a 1080p effect exclusive to multiplayer doesn't phase me one bit. I came, I saw, I loved the graphics, you can't just tell me that was a lie because I really did enjoy the graphics and again... that's all I got out of this thing. It all looped back to how unimportant and insignificant this all was. If your trust is now shaken, that's fair enough, but I'm not quite sure you should really care that the visuals were a lie. My advice is that you should be concerned over analyzing the gameplay details and mechanics more. That is what will determine the real good side of the team, and where your loyalty is due, not a promised number that scales to your TV.

Also I've got to point out again, this lie that sounds bad on paper is actually a brilliant test of showing how silly this whole topic of PS4 vs XB1 resolutions is. Now can we please stop with it already? It seems like with each new generation and as gaming grows up, the audience or developers seem to go backwards a bit more. We've always had issues with people bickering over who has more power, but never like this before, and its gotten possibly to the most childish level I've yet to see it. I was too young to hear the crap over N64 vs PS1, I was too careless about PS2/gabecube/xbox era, and the PS3/360 stuff was just easy to laugh off once the ill rumors were brushed off, but this.... this is numbers grading games and consoles and developers feeding people these discussions and consumers egging them on and making demands over them in this area. This is beyond the regular grades of stupid in usual console wars, and its gotten out of hand and needs to stop. Please... developers, stop giving out that information and instead start to give PC fans the info they deserve to know if they can get your game. Quit answering those annoying and flame bait twitter questions on framerate and resolution, and quite sending that to journalists who should be reporting on real news. Or better yet if you truly do care about these numbers in consoles, start opening up more choices in options, as it doesn't have to be as set in place as many games make it seem. Mag runner was just fine with an FOV slider, and Bioshock and Shadow fall's V-sync was nice, more of that and less of your flame baiting please.