PlayStation minus?

Now before I start I feel the need for a disclaimer. PlayStation plus has been a service I've found worth investing in. As a PS3, PS vita, and PS4 owner I'm able to get plenty of great stuff with it. I've been enjoying things, as you may have noticed by my Tower of Guns review, and generally just my return to the service should be enough to say I like it. I've gotten 3 of my favorite PC games ported for free there, tried awesome games I didn't think I would like, and I've gotten a few games I wanted but wouldn't put out money for. Oh and the PS3 line-up can surprise me pleasantly sometimes, like the Sherlock Holmes game I wanted to try just showing up suddenly. I can't argue that its a decent service... for me at least. However in other cases there's been a growing tug-of-war happening about the quality of it, specifically around the PS4. The recent line-up hasn't done anything to alter that.

The tug works like this. A line-up of indie games hit both the Vita, and PS4, maybe even cover the PS3, and then people complain about their new system only getting indie games (sometimes with degrading adjectives in for good measure). The crusader of the underdogs then swoop in and proclaim the haters to be pathetic and cannot be reasoned with as they're mere COD kiddies. Yeah the internet sure is subtle and persuasive with their arguments.

Look from my perspective, I've sort of jumped ships. I see where both sides are kind of coming from now, and the thing is I think both can be quite carried away. Back when the PS4 was first out, I laughed at those who were going all dramatic over the line-up. You had freakin' outcast, some interesting little niche indie titles, and later got Dust for free, quite your whining. They can't just give out brand new AAA games for (almost) free! That newest Assassins Creed game isn't going to just walk right into your collection on its own over night. However that was then, this well over a year into the PS4's life cycle and we haven't even seen knack... or driveclub + edition for that matter. Its time to actually consider that position a little bit. On top of that, its hard not to be a little suspecting that they are trying to take advantage of the PS4's online restrictions and spread the service a little thin. Instead of Uncharted 3, Bioshock Infinite, LBP racing, and Tomb Raider, we can't even get a piece of a triple A game promised to us months ago, and they feel no rush to discuss better options.

Looks like someone lost the keys

Now realistically I'm not expecting that sort of PS3 line-up anytime soon on the PS4, but c'mon throw us a bone. The only triple A game to touch the service was a re-released fighter game; A 2D fighter game that honestly is just another small game with just a bigger budget. That's part of the key word by the way, a bigger game. People, at least the rational ones, don't hate indies, we just don't like being flooded with them anymore than the overly defensive indie fanatics do with mainstream "me to!" junk. Not everybodies taste is in the same category, and when the service lacks variety and diversity then its a given that some gamers aren't going to be as happy as others. Some people want bigger games, or something they can sink their teeth into. On that note, Outlast and Dust might be the two biggest games we've got on the PS4 side of the service (yes even with Injustice and maybe Infamous's standalone in mind), and its still easy for someone to say no to a horror or metroidvania game and still be well within reason. They want at least one bigger quality product that they can count on to make them feel awesome for getting this service, and for many... that game hasn't come and they've spent a whole year and then quite a bit more on the service. Consistently over and over again they've felt anticipation fading as they see the list, and see yet another small game on their hyped up fancy PS4 console they put $400 down for.

Heck with the upcoming line-up, even indie fans might feel a bit gypped as they're re-releasing Guacamalee even though another version of that was already on +. Why is there a problem with other gamers again? Look at this point, gamers have been putting down good money for the service. Like any product or service that they fine unsatisfactory, they will feel frustrated with it and discuss their anger. Back when this stuff started, some people played that card way too early and came off as impatient ungrateful haters, but at this point some reasonable comments and people are coming forward and finding things to be lacking. I don't see why that's bad, or why its your business to tell them they're "pathetic" (to quote an actual top comment rallying against them). Some do take it overboard, but then again so are some of you guys that think everybody needs to have the same tastes as you. Here's a reality check: they don't, and your input isn't really doing anything valuable for anybody. If you want to give the indies a pat on the back and show your support and thanks in contrast with the hate, talk about how much you love their game, or how excited you are for the line-up. Don't sit there and just be another hater, the only difference is you're going friendly-fire on other gamers. Instead tell people why a game is good, get them excited to play it, and show your gratitude rather than thinking you can beat it into other people.

THANKS SONY AND HUMBLE HEARTS! :D

However to play Devil's advocate to most of this... I'll still say that to those being all down about the service, it really isn't the end of the world and you're not getting horrible offers either. It would be great if people didn't judge some of these games a week or so ahead of time just because they're small. Some games, like say Tower of Guns, can provide more fun than just any AAA game. Oh and do I need to speak on behalf of the other PS+ stuff? Most of this article just addresses the PS4, and that's for a good reason. Outside of that little bubble the argument falls flat. Freakin' Dishonored was just out there on PS3, and Killzone Mercenary for the Vita. I'm sorry but if that doesn't satisfy you combined with the other deals that have gone on out there, you need to stop being so picky. Between all the indie games, the past values, and those two games, you can't sit there and pretend like PS+ hasn't given you something of value somewhere down the line. Not everybody may have all 3 consoles, but a lot of those that are complaining seem to know a lot about the older values available. They're still coming, its just that its still where its always been at. The very least you can do though is to drop the hateful tones on general indie games. People don't put their work, soul, and hours into these games so that they get bundled into a collection you deem is "indie garbage" just because you didn't see your wishlist game in there.

Is it okay to be cynical?

A cold world...

So I'm glad I'm not the only one to feel this way with the battlefront reveal, but this video really motivated me to talk about it. Yeah I know I seem to usually refer to jimquisition, but its not even my favorite youtuber, its just that he's a great reference point for some of my discussions. In this case he helped me wonder more about how cynicism helps or hurts the industry, and on the heels of the MKX controversy, but during the same happy 'ol 2015 year its a perfect time to discuss it. Oh and E3 still to show.

Simply put I think it comes down to basic capitalism principles, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me talk a bit about my own feelings on battlefront... I don't care for it. Oh, not the entire series; I grew up loving and playing the heck out of older battlefront games. However I loved them because of that primitive sense of comradery and war tactics that was so unique to it for its time. I loved wide open battlefields full of soldiers fighting for land, and bumping into idle friendlies and commanding them into charges as though I were running a 3rd person tactical RTS, and sometimes making up my own little stories in the process. I would command a medic, and a sniper, and charge across an empty field on Hoth (or dodge through the tunnel system, loved that little area) with my sniper friend picking off distant targets, my medic supporting me, and when we got to the thick of the battle I'd dismiss them and let chaos sweep us away and enjoy the crossfire for as long as I could stand. If I survived and got bored of the battlefront (pun not intended) I would run around to desolate and empty command posts and repair their droids, preparing the world for the fact that at some point enemies would be there, and we would be geared up and ready. Modern day shooters shatter every piece of that and then some. So when Dice and EA were the chosen successors to the long dormant series, well after I felt done and sick of their current handling of Battlefield, you can imagine my lack of enthusiasm knowing the series would be resurrected by the guys that basically give you more work to do in a $60 retail game than a Free2play title.

Gotta catch 'em all!

I will say this to EA's credit. I'm not trying to come off as too ungrateful for the work on this game. It still takes effort (mostly from Dice just to be clear), it still is going to entertain people, and its still a good thing that this game series is being picked up on somewhere by someone who knows how to make a team based shooter. Likewise to those truly hopeful with less picky expectations, well I hope you enjoy the product and I don't want my nagging to get you down. As long as this game isn't damaging to anything else (and it probably wont be), its a good thing and I'm grateful that its a new release coming out. The battlefront series I love is still here in my very house and that's not going anywhere, so I'm not exactly losing anything. Of course I still want my idea of Battlefront 3 which simply improves over what was brilliant before, probably the one Free Radical was doing before it was shut down, but at least the gaming industry is getting something out of the series once more. Its just that I'm not in any way interested or trusting that they'll produce something I like. So I will still occasionally add some reasonable skepticism into everyone's hype (because I still think constructive feedback is better than google eyed cheers), and I will say that I for one do not trust this game is worth my money. Overall though its a good thing that this game exists though, and I hope it makes people happy if its a quality product.

Back to my main message though and where I get darker in my ramblings, I picture it as this... Regenerating health, over-complicated classes running off of perks and 15 guns + attachments, no bots, and an obvious change-up or lack of modes (already confirmed that space battles are gone). Some of these are assumptions and I welcome the ability to be proven wrong, but so far these are very likely cases looking at the modern gaming field and team in question. Of course that was even before I also realized there would be aggressive DLC, it was going to be pushed with the upcoming movie stuff, and it was confirmed that my favorite side of the Star Wars universe and all their related battles that I loved to watch as a kid would be gone. On the bright side though, I was actually wrong to assume bots wouldn't be here, but they could be using weasel words at this point by putting them under a "missions" co-op sounding mode, which is nothing like what I'm asking for. If real bots are involved "instant action" style, this is instantly a thing I need to buy eventually but I'm still not quite happy with what it will probably become. Of course that's not even taking into account how damn weird they're being with the reveal trailer revealing absolutely nothing but how much they love in-engine cut-scenes and pass it off as sorta like the real thing. Oh and lovely, they're begging you pre-orders at the very end before showing you the actual product you're being asked to buy. I actually only noticed that after watching The Jimquisition video because my mind just censors and blocks out the commercialized ending of videos like this, that aren't effectively selling me because they're so robotic and unrealistic to the actual product. When my only "on the bright side" note to the pre-order is that "well at least they didn't also advertise a season pass", something is just wrong because that should really be a given.

However it also kind of pains me to discuss this stuff with enthusiastic people (some of which even believe the in-game is true, which will probably lead to this ridiculous situation again, but again Dice is free to prove me wrong if they really can pull the reveal visuals off), because I really hate being that guy in the room that sits there preaching doomsday while foaming at the mouth. I'm not like that, and I hate it when others are. That's not to say I'm always an uplifiting person, people who read this blog commonly may know better, but when I fight for something I'm usually doing it with because there is even something positive underlying my anger. Like for example the recent instance where I'm fussing about Uncharted's Nathan Drake being called out as a killer; I sound livid and pissed off but that's because I'm defensive about a fun thing and I'm shouting at those who are turning gaming into this hyper progressive "lets be dark, edgy, and real and not have anything fun". I'm fussy and mad about issues like that because I'm making a point that gaming is a good and fun thing, and there are other people out there pushing political lead agendas to demonize entertainment and sub-cultures. In general I still look at life, entertainment, culture, and the very matter of existence to be something awesome, and a lot of my anger comes from passionately defending those in some form. However with this case in battlefront, standing against a wave of unconditional excitement, and telling you all that I just know this game is going to be run-of-the-mill military shooter schlock with premium fees attached that I'm tired of, I'm just being a cynical guy no matter how you spin it and that pains me to say that. Sure I'm kind of fighting against bad practices, but the fact of the matter is I've experienced this part of society so much that I'm actually predicting them on it and dismissing the hope already. That's cynicism at its very core, and I know it so well that its a constant guilt trip whenever I hear the name "battlefront" brought up. I don't want to be this way, but its been trained into me by the very games people have hope for. I'm not the only one with this mind-set either, parts of gaming have sort of earned it from people who are just able to put basic logic together. So... is it okay to kind of be a cynic at this point?

Though the thing is, is that I'm not a total cynic. Sure I am on battlefront, and for that matter any FPS Dice gets their hand on around this current time of events, but I'm not a general cynic and that's why it feels so wrong against my usual habit to be this way about battlefront. Its not normal for me. I still appreciate a lot within the medium of gaming. I'm still excited for much of the upcoming stuff. As a matter of fact two of my most anticipated games, Ratchet & Clank, and Doom 4 have absolutely no footage of gameplay or even a screenshot. They're absolutely mythical aside from their name and some details, yet I just have so much excitement built up for what little I do know. Oh and another anticipated title, Metal Gear Solid 5, is just something I'm ignoring the hype on. I trust them so much that I think the fun of their game and being surprised is outweighing that of the possibility of them going horribly wrong. Of course like Battlefront, I'm open to the idea that they can prove me wrong and be something entirely different from what I've come to expect. I'm cautiously optimistic. That's because of reputations. Some games, teams, or ideas have earned their place. EA and Dice have earned a reputation and place of not desiring their shooters, while Bethesda have proven themselves capable of putting out the exact opposite and get me excited for an older ID themed shooter. After all this is right after the year in which Wolfenstein tied with Far Cry 4 as my Game of The Year. Oh yeah and I still love a few games from ubisoft, if I can manage that I'm fairly sure you can see I still have some strong sense of enthusiasm left, it just depends on the area.

So is it okay to be cynical? In general, I'd say no, but like all things its a case by case scenario. With gaming, that case by case deal works like the very common fundamental idea of capitalism. If you put out a good product, work hard to sell it, and have put smiles on many faces, then you earn all the trust and care you get. If you exploit people for money, and try to take them for fools, or simply make a product they don't like, then you have earned people who look in on your work and tear you to pieces and they may not need anything more than an educated guess. You make a good product, and you keep people happy. EA and Dice haven't been able to do that for me. Their record and history, as well as how it compares to similar situations, has made me doubtful. They've made it so that even if I see an upcoming brand that I've been asking for across many years, and something that has kept my childhood entertained for months, I still don't trust them to make me happy enough that it is worth the value they put on it. That doesn't mean I hate or distrust everything though, it just means there are people working harder than others for what I want out of gaming. There are people who have products far more valuable to me, and to them I say good job and here's some cash I've been saving for you. Please don't let me down.

I know ratchet, I'm excited to.

April article special: The Gex series

I ended up missing any inspiration during the window of time I had to work on and publish and article around April Fools day or Easter. Of course I'm never committed to doing holiday specials (co-op for V-day, or horror games for halloween simply don't work for my style of gaming), but April is full of holidays where I feel games can be brought into the situation. One's about laughter, comedy, and tricks, and the other is about resurrection and spring, both of which could be loosely translated into something gamey. However simply missing those days isn't going to stop me from one subject I had in mind... lets talk about Gex for a bit. Its a series that I tend to ignore a good bit, yet one that actually meant something to my very early days of gaming. Whenever I felt like the Spyro magic dried up, and before I had access to M64 or banjo & kazooie, there was a 3D platformer on the Nintendo 64 I loved to turn to called Gex 3: Deep Cover Gecko. Then there were also just some bored weekends or summer days when I was scrambling for something to play, and might also pop-in the very original Gex on the PlayStation. Its both one of the more comical game franchises out there, and yet a lost series that might potentially be seeing a fresh return in the upcoming years, so I figured it was a good subject to talk about it before the month is over. Oh plus I was also playing the first 3D gex on my Vita on Easter day, so there's that to.

Origins of a smart alack

The franchise started out as a 2D platformer with an attitude meant to star on the 3DO consoles. He was praised as essentially the Mario/Sonic of 3DO by one critic, but we all know how that kind of went. 3DO Sunk and the good games on it moved on to other platforms. Gex was put onto PlayStation, PC, and the Saturn. If you wanted to, you could buy up-to-date versions of the Playstation and PC formats on their respected platforms (through GOG on PC), though be warned they probably still run off a dumb password save system. Gex lived beyond 3DO on other platformers and gained a cult following. However I really do want to know what it would have been like if Gex actually lived on as a major mascot. Comercial ideas, spin-offs, and a long line of sequels spin in my head at that thought, or maybe it would just wind up like Sonic and burn in a constantly arguing and frustrated fanbase as normal people mock every release. Getting back to reality though...

Original case, back when K-A was still a thing

The thing that made Gex standout was two-fold: He had a pop-culture television theme, and his platforming made use of his character through wall climbing. He wasn't just another guy trying to be sonic like some seem to remember him as, he was actually trying to appeal to TV fanatics and the kind of people that love spewing one-liner quotes (written and voiced by comedian Dana Gould). That's not exactly aiming high of course, but it was something that gave him just enough attention to be where he is today as a cult classic that pops up from time to time with some fond nostalgia from the.... 100 or so fans that see the article. Personally I really loved this character as a kid. A lot of his humor flew over my head, and I was terrible at playing the game, but the acting and style of it just made me laugh regardless. He was also weirdly relatable considering at the time I sort of yelled out quotes from my own favorite shows or actors. Looking back... some of his jokes still go over my head (because that's just the way pop-culture works, its either in the know or not), but I get more of where his smart aleck, sarcastic quips, and style comes from and I kind of appreciate some of it more. Of course a couple things fall flat now that I'm able to seperate good comedians and humor from jokes that simply reference something and refuse to do much else, so naturally a pop-culture fueled guy has his hit and miss moments. I also kind of miss being that guy that shouts quotes at the game myself. That doesn't sound like a good trait on paper, but its far more enthusiastic, "fun", and lively than silently sitting and playing. Gex kind of makes me envy my former self in that weird kind of way, and I wonder if I'm getting old and less energetic already, or just more serious.

Gex didn't have a ton of other qualities than this. He was a platformer that for gameplay did gecko things like eat fly power ups and climb walls, and did Television theme stuff for aesthetics and humor. Its not a lot, but it was pretty fun. Actually I might go out on a limb here and say that after Donkey Kong Country it might be my personal favorite 2D platformer. Of course that's not a glowing recommendation, I'm not much of a 2D platformer guy so its probably the gimmicky feeling of it that appeals more than any super special design choices, balance, and whatnot. Of course though for the $6 you can get it now, its certainly worth a shot for those interested.

3D TV

Nah we're not talking about those weird multi-colored 3D glasses, but rather Gex's introduction to the 3D platformer space. I suppose we could say he ripped off somebody here, flying on the Mario 64 bandwagon of going 3D collect-o-thon mode. Now to be clear I actually skipped out on the very first entry for most of my life, while the 3rd game in the series was actually the biggest childhood memory of the series. Unlike the 2D gex, or the game I didn't get until this year, Gex 3 Deep Cover Gecko holds memories of an adventure. Jumping on a row boat through the hub world and crusing around with the help of a turtle friend. Running through the snow covered christmas land to fight an evil santa. Running around a mansion in a Sherlock Holmes costume while dodging cartoony bullets that had a mind of their own. Discovering a vampire costume power up. Blowing up a city (made of suspiciously repeating brick textures) in a tank. I could go on and on, and I'm just starting. Gex 3 held a ridiculous amount of levels, big open hub world environments, a great number of themes, and some really strange but interesting obstacles and power-ups. The weird thing I cannot tell you is whether or not it holds up, because I haven't had my Nintendo 64 plugged up and running for a good while, and I haven't bought it digitally yet either. Its been at the very least 5 years since I've played it, but its probably more like a good 8 years or so. If its anything like Enter the Gecko, it might actually disappoint me a bit.

Gex 2 as I'll call it for simplicity, was the first step to going 3D. Gex got a secondary voice actor in the form of Leslie Phillips for the british version, but Dana Gould would return for everyone else (and personally speaking I'm glad Dana was the version I was stuck with, Leslie really just sounded too slow for the character). He still cracked lots of jokes, but this time the platformer was entirely changed up. Instead of climbing walls, and worrying about the limited space, different textures, and fighting secrets, you had things M64'd up. You were now worrying about basic 3D platforming, fighting a camera, more creative enemy designs, and a different change up of secrets. There were still climbable walls, but it was practically a limited contextual design you sometimes found rather than a major part of the core platforming. You had to collect remotes to pass and open up certain areas in a hub world that is honestly pretty much the most boring thing I might have ever seen from a platformer of this era. The 3D platforming gave levels a more opening feeling and some added and used this to great effect while others might as well have been 2D levels. Some like the toon channel, and the limited view of the horror channel, made for an amazing effect with the 3D level design and seemed to fully embrace an interesting world. Meanwhile the kong-fu channel, and technology world use so many repeating textures and tight spaces that they were only good in 3D by mechanical design. Going to this game after the 3rd, I can see many places in which the franchise improved from its first 3D release.

The 3rd game gave the series more creative level pieces. It handled bonuses, and mini-games a lot better. For the first time levels were not only unique and well built, but stood out from each other and covered a wider variety of themes. Instead of having 3 horror levels as one of six themes, you had one good one to go alongside 20+ different themes and levels, each replayable for secret remotes and side objectives.

from the 3rd game

This is where Gex was probably at his height ironically. It wasn't the thing meant to sell consoles that worked, but rather a full blown trend riding leap onto another format where Gex found some following (and what gets references most, I'm sure some people never even knew a 2D gex existed because of how often Enter the Gecko is presented as the big debut). Sadly its also where he seemed to have died. For whatever reason Gex just hasn't been revisited beyond his 2nd 3D game. Crystal Dynamics was goofing around with some other platformers, Legacy of Kain, and then ended up becoming the go-to team for Tomb Raider stuff somewhere down the line. Sadly with the massive change in tone in the industry to be taken more "seriously" and go with ridiculous budgets, it seems Crystal has embraced that style full on and will probably not touch Gex anytime soon as they focus on Tomb Raider's pretentiously edgy (although still fun, don't get me wrong here) reboot series. So with that in mind and a hiatus that is closing in on a two decade period, will gex get a new season or is he stuck on re-runs?

How a revival might work...

Well the thing is time doesn't hold still and technology certainly doesn't. Gex could use this to a pretty interesting advantage. If he keeps a television theme, as he should, he could not only update himself with the current trends but also the decline or competition of television. Back when Gex was around the internet was barely even a thing, and "Satelight" TV from people like Direct TV and Comcast was still a developing piece of the landscape. Now not only are they being pushed back by youtube, netflix, or just general hobbies like the rise in popularity of gaming itself, but even channels are actively moving into less TV-like routes with things like HBO go happening. The entire industry is changed if not at risk to the point of scaring companies into doing some stupid crap to try and hold onto their once glorious entertainment empire. TV isn't just something you could reference, its something that is actively changing and may not even exist as we know it in the foreseeable future. Besides if nothing else, just look at Lord of The Rings. That supposedly changed TV and culture to be accepting and loving of fantasy on the whole, and that's just outside of Gex's timeline. When you think about it, did Gex ever even bother with fantasy beyond some greek myth themed level?

Gex could go about this in his normal way of referencing Television and just updating his folder of references (Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Super hero stuff, Walking dead, stream service related jokes, etc), or he could actually go on an adventure to save or progress the cycle of tech that may or may not be happening. The villainous Rez, leader of the TV dimension, could be ruining Gex's subscription plan to [Insert netflix spoof here] and he needs to go stop him. Or maybe Rez is running netflix and Gex wants to stop him from crushing the Television he knew and loved. Heck if you really want to get meta, maybe Gex doesn't even represent TV on the whole anymore. He might actually stand for video games, has become addicted to MMOs, and suddenly find cable company lobby groups attempting to ruin his medium and decides to save gaming and fight TV with a mixture of references to both mediums. I... actually really love that last idea. It'd also show Gex to be a more flexible guy, instead of just being a TV addict he turns out to be kind of a general geek that gets easily absorbed into any passion, and can go beyond a previously assigned theme without being too lose. Besides, Television, gaming, and comics are all fairly close in some way or another. What's to say he can't be a comic style hero and complain the TV show "ruined" the plot? Or that he's playing a level clearly inspired by a specific movie and mock how bad licensed games usually are? If nothing else it would just be great to see his taste in parody and humor stick around games just as much as it does TV. Of course maybe I'm saying that with a slant, being that weirdo that never keeps up with popular shows.

Plot twist: He's geico gecko's half brother!

Gameplay-wise... well I'm not afraid to apply "if it ain't broke, don't fix" logic here. I love 3D collect-o-thon platformers, and I'd love to see Gex return to that format. They can change some stuff up, sure. You can fix the camera by this point in time for a start. I'd also like to think it'd be great if more walls were climbable, or it wasn't even contextual anymore (which would be difficult to pull off I admit). Whatever you do, just make sure he can still jump and don't pull another auto-jump crap like a certain other game did. However for the most part it'd be great if Gex was just an updated 3D platformer. Better cameras, controls, graphics, and a modern theme for the cultured lizard. What else would you rather do? Its either that, or throw him into the over-saturated (by indies admittedly, but still over-saturated) 2D market with less fleshed out themes. I really can't see him going well into anything else. Open world is a demanding budget, shooter simply don't fit, sports and strategy don't make any sense, and an RPG is.... well why would you turn him into an RPG? He was born and well fitted for a platformer format and that's probably the best place to go. The only major change you could probably commit to is if the style of 3D platformer changed, like how it did for the PS2 generation where it became more about a linear adventure than a collect-o-thon style. That could maybe work with Gex, but I of course have my bias towards the same style that held Spyro and Mario 64.

However if you hadn't heard the news I just sound like a blind hopeful guy poking at the sky for a wish. Thing is though Gex actually does stand a better chance of returning in the upcoming 2-6 years than he has in the past couple of years. Square Enix, holders of the property, have announced a desire for teams to get behind some of their older IPs with one of the headline examples being Gex. The bad news is this bit...

“If the response is good, then it’s into crowdfunding, which no doubt begs an important question: Why ask gamers to pay for a game to be made if it’s using our IP? Well, because it will still be the responsibility of the independent developer to build the game – and the developer will still be the key beneficiary of its success.”

However this is still generally good news. Remember when I said the 2D market was flooded by indies as a bad thing? Yeah well chances are this will be very much like an indie-ish game, so my hope is that a solid team can still get in there and crowd fund a 3D platformer to break the mold. Its not exactly new, some potential 3D platformer types are being worked on from crowd funding, but I do have a slight concern that they'll go the budget route and do a 2D gex. Of course I don't want to sound ungrateful, a 2D Gex would be better than nothing. This also makes me wonder if they'll be able to reach out to the right voice actor, or simply need to find a replacement. It all comes down to whether or not they can get the fund, support, and right ideas to line up and bring back this gecko.

Mostly the money

Well I suppose that concludes this topic at hand. If you wish to learn more information or check my facts, I'll leave a couple basic sources to give you a head start.

Gex wiki article

The sequel

Gex 3 article

One weird gameplay ehancement...

Now despite what this entire blog is built around, I've went out of my way to warn against getting too involved in gaming culture. Yet before this post you're reading now lies an article that sort of showcases the stress and frustration with it. Clearly its hard to learn this lesson. However I think it'd be a nice change of pace to bring about one of the perks. Of course there's many like guides, tricks, and reviews, but lets discuss one a little outside of the box: ever hear of podcasts? Yeah they're basically little radio shows streamed or downloaded from the internet. Some are actually visual affairs, but most are made (if not only in) for the audio and this is actually a very accessible medium to work into with other activities. Exercise, chores, or maybe something productive like video games.

Basically its just something kind of fun to go with, and I'd highly encourage it as a rather pleasant side effect of gaming + internet. Find a podcast you like, start probably with your favorite youtube gaming channels as many big youtubers are a part of one (one of my favorites is the co-optional podcast). If you can't find anything there or don't want it to be about gaming, I'm sure you can just google [subject here] podcast and find what interests you. Listen to people talk about news, current events, politics, other mediums, or just something you enjoy. Have that at the background of a narrative-lite game. I emphasize narrative-lite of course. Multiplayer games, replaying a game with skipable scenes, or open world games where you can just play side activities are all encouraged as good examples. If you try this with a brand new story driven game you might be having issues hearing both at once, or find yourself pausing the podcast sporadically whenever a set-piece or cut-scene flashes up.

Its not only great as a way that gives you two sources of entertainment at once, but it honestly sort of helps you focus on the game at hand. It fills the gap that might be left from a game without a story. You're getting a story and something to listen to, but you're also accomplishing tasks that would otherwise feel possibly dragging or grindy. You're able to collect AC feather # 47.5 without boredom because you were laughing alongside two hosts while exploring the city. You're pushed to practice just one more online match because the last one ended before the podcast did... and you can't simply have a podcast moving on its own. Or you may simply feel better listening to it while aiming for that platinum trophy, even if you would have still worked for it anyways you just got more out of it by going in with a podcast on your ears. I find myself doing that a lot now and its just kind of an amusing type of multi-tasking.

Not the stressful multi-tasking of course

catching a killer

So this happened again. I usually expect better from PS lifestyle. They usually have better writers who generally speak with more common sense and don't fall into this weird resentful trap that a lot of journalism is turning into. Heck they even used to have a series that delved into criticizing other outlets for it, and informing the viewer on how things worked from the journalistic end to explain mindsets, goals, and methods of internet journalism. To be fair, I don't recognize that writer and maybe that's the problem, a new staff guy that got rejected from Kotaku or Polygon (the sort of site you'd expect this junk from). However lets not make it about them so much as this issue I've had (and probably stated somewhere in a smaller piece) about a small portion of hatred towards the core mechanics of a genre. You know, like calling action heroes murders because they... do actiony violent stuff. Yeah its kind of like complaining that a race is fast, or that carnivores aren't vegans, or that ice cream is cold.

Now often I've been a little critical of some of the crap that comes out of Naughty Dog's PR area, like their resentful tone on imagination, or their terrible claims on framerate (which look more like a PR lie to sell you a remaster and then turn around and claim its okay again to do 30fps when they need to sell you on Uncharted 4's graphics). However they aren't all that bad, and sometimes they say something brilliant like even giving this terrible article an answer ahead of time. I really appreciate them attempting to silence the naysayers, but it would appear some just don't get it. Back then I wrote this in response.

"Finally, its about time this response was given from a developer. I'm really tired of the argument that games are somehow primitive or have automatically terrible stories because of "mass murder" gameplay. Its a part of the conflict and fun that comes with a shooter, that's all there really needs to be to it. Asking for that to stop or rework itself is like asking that sports games can only be playayable in sync with events, and we might as well kill and bury turn based games because those certainly don't tie in with stories or realism. Sometimes game rules or fun traditions set up silly little premises that go unanswered, but that's just fine since they have a fun purpose or mechanical significance within their existence."

 And now it looks like this in the recent article:

"Ugh, I will never understand this sort of topic. Even if it were not for the self-defense argument, it still doesn't matter that much. Its a game based on fun summer blockbuster style story presence. Its mechanical drive is better with you killing a small army because that's what 3rd person shooters are good at, and it kind of feels right with the story being that of an action adventure flick. You don't stop a JRPG to complain that the story is void just because time has this weird thing of stopping for turns during combat, so why are some shooters being pegged down because they *gasp* have lots of shooting in them? You can sit there and try to say "but the story must include EVERYTHING to be good" but at the end of the day there's a reason Uncharted actually does great. It strikes a perfect balance of great gameplay, a fun story, and an adventure many people can come to appreciate. That's not to say the stories are flawless, but this is not one of their primary problems so much as underdeveloped villains, and smaller plot holes."

Oh and of course that well established self-defense argument posted by another (not me):

"People who argue that are the flawed ones. In DF drake is stranded on an island with crazy pirates. You never in the entire game initiate combat. In fact every encounter in that game seems to be wave defense . In the second Drake and flying don't kill the guards but simply put them to sleep. Drake and sully are ambushed in borneo and are forced to get outta there by force.. hell in 3 they Brawl their way outta the bar.. instead of going guns blazing. When drake fights the pirates he uses non lethal methods up until you get to the open area and again are put into wave defense . Drake isn't a blood thirsty killer neither is joel from the last of us. Kratos on the other hand is."

...but you're still a monster Jason, because the writing says so to be edgy

The thing is while the self-defense argument is a good one and one that is almost always present in games (with AI that will kill you or fail you if you don't react well to it), it shouldn't be the necessary example. Of course its going to be self-defense, but that's because the game needs to set it up so that you mechanically have an obstacle to conquer. Its for the game, its for the fun, its for basic mechanics like resource management and conflict. Its to establish a conflict. Do you really want to play a game where every single kill is contextualized with the guy having a major background, family, and then a therapy session for your character as he's having trauma effects? Does every shooter suddenly need that now? Does development really need to focus on the life of every virtual guy it makes and worry about overspending their already bloated budgets there rather than gameplay? No!While certain strides in that area are appreciated from the nemesis system in Shadows of Mordor, to the horror segments of MGS3 or Spec ops, its ultimately something that would be tiresome and unwanted in every action game. It simply doesn't fit for every shooter out there, or even the narrative. Its not even desired in other mediums. Did we need Indiana Jones to stop after sword fighter scene and cry about the possible family he just effected, or pondered if that guy had the solution to cancer if he had lived? No, we just laughed at the funny anti-climax of the scene and enjoyed an action flick which would become known as a classic. That's something these preachy drama queens can't seem to get about the entertainment industry. They seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the conflict, plots, and proven fun formulas. Unfortunately that and a series that has earned over 10 million dollars isn't enough though. Because its commited the crime of being fun and popular its holding back the medium. Read this quote if you can stomach it....

"Knowing the deeply flawed character that Nathan Drake is makes his role as a heroic symbol for Sony incredibly hypocritical. Maybe even damaging to the medium as a whole, for this is a character that’s supposed to appeal to a broad audience and is even one that many new to games encounter first. Many other games, and specifically shooters, have much smarter stories than Uncharted. Heck, even Naughty Dog’s own The Last of Us hinges on its main character being a killer. The reason that game works so well is that its gameplay is tied to its narrative in a way that makes you empathize with the main character, but know that what he does isn’t necessarily morally right. It’s a game that cares a lot about what you do in it.

Uncharted though, doesn’t seem to care at all, and that is a problem if you want to see game stories mature and grow to resonate with more people. Characters like Drake are reminiscent of what games were, when they were not expected to be much more than entertaining toys where story was secondary to fun, visceral experiences. A lot has changed since then and it’s going to take much better icons than Drake to keep pushing forward."

Yeah I know, I feel this way to

Oh and keep in mind this came out of a series known as "inventing an icon". Yeah, sounds more like this guy is obsessed with fear mongering around it instead of covering why its a good icon. Uncharted by its very existence is not holding back or damaging anything, its instead giving us another choice. People like it because its a damn good choice to make. People buy it because they love it for what it is. It keeps them entertained, it relieves them of stress, it has got people who aren't even gamers engaged in a great adventure, and it has been one of the few examples of a massive Triple A developer and publisher keeping high enough quality that they don't have an angry mob waiting for them (even if I am quite critical of ND personally). How the hell is it holding games back? I guess by this logic Terminator 2 stopped movies because it didn't emotionally touch people and elevate the medium? On no wait, we've enjoyed years and years of movies and have had quite a few masterpieces since its time. It didn't need to pander to anyone's pretentious idea of forced morals and over-emotional story segments. You want to focus on something that is actually holding gaming back through? Greed, terrible business decisions, a struggling field of reporters who still barely hold a basic grasp of ethics, and those that are harassing creators into censorship. Those are problems that cripple games and fans of all kinds, and generally hurt the medium going forward. Instead of any of those problems being addressed, this guy is hating on fun because apparently its not good enough to just settle there.

Its pretentious progressive babble without a real goal or direction. I'll give a pleasant direction, actually multiple directions: Gaming as it is. Where there are many different games with many different goals, choices, and messages. Gaming where mechanics give you purpose, and a story sits besides you to amuse you in between the fun. Communities and people of all different types coming together to find a solution in a cryptic horror game puzzle, or to help you figure out what that weird dude in Dark Souls actually meant. A place where when real life stressed you out, you can safely excuse yourself for a little bit and entertain yourself in a different world with different rules and results. People are even making it their sports and TV type entertainment now. That doesn't need to be taken away and forced to be bottled up in some hyper realistic drama about why killing people is wrong in an overblown PSA message, or turn every light hearted action romp into a dramatic Last of Us type "violence is so serious that our wallpapers are in black & white" scenario. If you do want Last of Us, great that's out there and you seem to love it. Now leave Uncharted alone because a ton of people also love that, and unlike some people they seem to have a basic understand of telling fact from fiction and can tolerate a bunch of pixel people dying without needing immediate realistic story context.

I want to think that this year will be amazing with so many potentially impressive titles of all kinds, but when this stuff happens its just... depressing. Its not just this one person I'm upset with, but rather its one of a growing minority that is strangely coming in and demanding change where it doesn't belong and it doesn't even make much sense. For example a solution is never actually addressed, its instead just convictions that this game is secretly terrible for being a more light hearted action adventure. I'm really just sick and tired of the blind progressives at this point, and its worrying that they're into everything from loud vocal press sites to being on the actual writing team and screwing up stuff by worrying about a morals over quality.

This is the kind of thing that makes me say stuff like I did for awesomenauts, sly cooper, or R&C where I talk about how good it is just to have a shameless fun and awesome gamey experience. Its because of guys that talk or make games with this progressive holier than thou mindset that resents the very act of gaming and treats it like a toy someone grows out of. I wouldn't put Uncharted within the same tier as shamelessly gamey fun stuff, but its still kind of around that area and it clearly doesn't need that much changing when so many people adore it, and yet this person actually equates it with toys. I don't force it to change and I love that big cinematic but dumb fun games exist, I just personally prefer more sillier stuff. I wouldn't want somebody to force them away, or to sit there wag their finger at it and make up silly nonsense about how its holding back gaming by being... well, a game. Uncharted still puts a smile on peoples faces. Its aiming high with that big blockbuster mark and the audience says it hits it every time, and contrary to this article its obviously doing well. So I say to Naughty Dog and Uncharted... thanks for providing a lot of entertainment, not just to me, but to everyone. Don't let critics like this hold you back from producing high quality and exciting content. You don't need to explain why Drake kills, those with common sense know enough and don't expect you to stop to mourn generic enemy #34. As for PS lifestyle... well it could be worse; this guy could be working on a Nintendo site!

Holding back gaming since 1985

So with all that venting out of the way, I guess we can leave on a good note. Its earth day and I guess it'd be nice to show off a funny video of a Pangolin for an ending.

Now playing: Awesomenauts

I love this game. I've tried to make an article like this before, but just wound up stopping myself and playing the game until tired of it. Perhaps I'll actually finish this one and still get plenty of time in. Thing is though this game keeps reeling me in over and over again. I'll play it for like a week, or at least half, stop for maybe a month, and then return and each time I feel totally re-energized and immersed into this game. I love its theme music, its intro, the characters, the gameplay, the support for it, and how accessible it is. I can just boot up a match at any given time, and have a great time winning or losing against a team of bots while listening to a podcast in the background. Its just great.

So how does it play? Well for those that don't know, its basically summarized as a MOBA sidescroller for consoles (although with a twist the PC version is dominant after requests and bad publishing deals lead it there). You have all the MOBA basics in a 2D platforming format. You push on towers and work beyond creeps, play as a character that is earning RPG-esque abilities, and whichever team of 3 pushed into and destroys the base first wins. It was developed for consoles through its simpler control & ability system, and with help of trading the RTS perspective with a platformer type of course. Personally I'm not too big into the MOBA scene, but I very much see the appeal of it and can enjoy its type of gameplay from time to time. Awesomenauts is probably the most accessible and enjoyable one I've dabbled in.

A chaotic 2D MOBA style game

If I were to name just one complaint I have with the game, well aside from matchmaking and random bots, it would be how routine things can be because of the MOBA style. Every so often pushing the same turrets, fighting the same creeps, and playing on the same limited map range all gets a little dull. Then you get a new ability combo idea in your head for your 2nd favorite character and decide you've got to try that in another match! MOBA is essentially horde mode for me. It puts you on a basic loop that you'll be doing over and over again, but has depth in the right places to pull you out of a droning feeling and put you right into your comfort zone of hardcore gaming. There is a ridiculous amount of strategy, learning, and trail & error gameplay at hand with just the way the characters work under the routine layout. Sure after my 5th match of playing as Penny Fox and running down the same lanes I'll be feeling a little tired of the game, but every single match you're restricted to pick down to 3 abilities per row of your total power and its up to you to bring up a new pattern when an old one gets stale. The truth is despite how ridiculously routine this is, no match is ever really the same once you throw in the variables that every character is just like you in being able to command and re-arange power variables. Maybe one match you'll be a fast fox with regen health and fast claws fighting poison spewing rivals, the next round you'll be a fast fox with more health and a temporary range attack trade-off fighting a tank-like rocket robot with life sapping powers and that's two cases of re-using the same character.

However I can't help but list off the gimmicky charm of this game. Its not just that its a ridiculously fun game. If this was just another DOTA type game with generic fantasy elf blood knight I'd probably feel less inspired to stick with it. Instead here I am enthusiastically yelling at my screen "Who's ready for some awesomenuats!" before the theme song blasts with an animated short that could have come straight out of the 80's. The internet knows it as an 80's cartoon style, a dev said its kind of like Earthworm Jim meets Ratchet & clank, and the theme song just re-affirms that its just plain awesome and worthy of calling itself Awesomenauts. The characters are crazy, they're loaded with their own silly (sometimes homage-like) tunes, the battlefield are well colored with a great soundtrack playing, and plenty of characters have great lines and dialogue. Its also worth noting some internet celebrities from a podcast I listen to also voice act in the game, which is a nice novelty as well even if they were intentionally given ridiculous out of character voices to act on. Generally its an appealing asthetic and such a great style that I'm kind of disappointed its only some indie game and not its own Television show, merchandise line, or at least more to the story and characters within the game. Its just one of those games where you just want more of it in your life, and I'm not sure if any other indie game has been able to make me wish that (other than the fact that a 3D/FPS cortex command would be amazing). Its worth noting to that ironically in doing things like copying the gummi bears theme it somehow comes around to feel like

one of the most true and heart-felt games out there. Its just so full of fun, cheesy commercialism, and sillyness that its a great place to turn to for just some care-free enjoyment and a good break from the progressive "serious art" games. Sure a lot of it is really more in line with 80's toons, but its so fun in its homage to them that it kind of stands on its own.


Combine that with the fact that the game has been well supported for about 3 years and is still going with a community and its pretty great. There's actually a flash sale with the game being priced at about $2.50, the price of its own cosmetic DLC. I not only recommend it for that steal of a price, but I also say go ahead and grab the cheap character DLC, and come back for a costume or two once you think you've found your favorite character. Of course this is coming from a stingy guy who still needs to buy skree and sentry. If nothing else I personally recommend getting Penny Fox and Ted McPain, who are awesome characters (penny's my favorite out of the game, while ted is by far the funniest). I'm waiting on the eventually upcoming Nibbs DLC, and I'm excited to see what might be next. The only messed up part of the updates is how slow everything is to those outside of the PC community. You might as well wait an entire seasons at the very least if you're on PS4 (and I just found out xbox one still hasn't even had a release yet), so I'll be expecting to play Nibbs maybe around summer, or maybe even longer if they decide to release it bundled with an entirely different character (the characters seem to come in pairs on PSN).

I'm getting a tiny bit worn out right now (which sounds ironic for a "now playing" thing, but its not the first time I stopped shortly after publishing), but I bet I'll figure a way to refresh things. Worst case scenario, I'll just end up returning with Nibbs' release. I love this game and seem to return back to it a good bit, so its certainly not over for me. This is probably the best $10 I've put on the PS4, and alongside shadow fall its just one of those games I'm actively returning to and enjoying again and again. I'm not even playing it right and doing active online fights. I really should, but I usually just do bots. Regardless, its been a fantastic game, and its what's been currently played as of late. Keep being awesome, awesomenauts.

And give me more stuff like story while you're at it

Buying your rewards

He's hungry for your money

Some people out there say you can't buy your way to happiness, success, or fame. If the past few years in gaming have been weighing in on this idea, they seem to be of the opposite opinion. Ever since at least Bad Company 2 I've seen scenarios in which DLC has had a route to go in which lets you unlock content. Online this triggers disputes and hatred towards people who don't deserve their unlocks, and to the company that allowed such to go on, meanwhile... the real world continues to not really raise a finger at it, or may even give in and buy stuff. You wont hear people actually hating each other for this kind of thing, and... well I'll get back to that point in a moment. Now we're seeing Mortal Kombat X possibly pulling one of the weirdest shows of this: Buyable fatalities. Yeah... that's just plain weird. Personally speaking, I sit with mixed feelings on this whole subject, but lean towards that area of never buying this junk. At least not in cases like Battlefield. However its not because people with money and a busy life suck, its because of a much bigger problem I see in the industry and one I'm kind of disappointed in people for not being more vocal against it.

Now in theory I don't have a problem with people buying unlocks. That's their business and I want that to be as clear as daylight. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you that you must throw money down to unlock cosmetics instead of beating it the old fashion way. That old fashion way is there, and unless its clearly done in a pathetic grind (which is happening and I'll get to that later) there is no reason to fuss at Micro-transactions. And what if you're worried about your friends or other players? Well I'll put it this way: you're not their mother. You have no business telling them what to do with their money or how to play the game they bought. Not everybody interested in sub-zero's classic costume, or that final tier scope of their favorite sniper rifle in Battlefield, has the time to master whatever challenge it requires. Some people surprisingly want to play the game for fun, a concept that seems to be surprisingly foreign to some gamers. Sometimes unlocking is the fun, and sometimes its just a chore, and if there's a way for the player to make that call and dodge the chore then I say "good, more power to you!".

This situation of buying unlocks isn't anything ground breaking either, there used to be entire businesses based around selling you a way to unlock your games or make them do weird stuff that put you in a position of unusual advantage. I knew them by the names of GameShark, and CodeBreaker (which I will state is a bit different than selling DLC cheat codes, which I dislike). I also discovered from some gamers, like a little guy known as the Angry Video Game Nerd, that such things have existed since the 80's era of gaming. Is he suddenly less of a gamer for using it, even though he's famous for gaming related video content? Does that disqualify everything I did here, and all my enjoyment in gaming, because I decided to goof off with infinite ammo in Killzone? Does that really effect your life in any negative way that some random guy has decided to buy a Fatality coin and use it in some match for a nice ending flair to a victory? I'd hope the answer to all of those questions is no. Going back to what I was saying earlier, you don't see people treating each other badly for this kind of thing because the person that does it looks like a complete idiot (on top of coming off as a control freak and/or elitist). In the real world, gaming is just what it is: Its an entertaining and artsitic form of media. Its not something to be taken so seriously that you convict and degrade people over it.

Well this was quite nostalgic for me

I come very much in with a mindset similar to what this video says about PvZ:GW. I wasn't always in that mindset though. Back when bad company 2 did this, I looked at it as an offering, something that wasn't there before. Now after many games with various branches to grind up, large amounts of guns with trivial stat tweaks dangled in front of you as "rewards", and a combination of better or crazier degrees of this going on, I can safely say I see that the problem was from the very base of the game's design. Instead of thanking Bad Company 2, I want to condemn it and many of its brethren for installing a ridiculous F2P type system in a retail game. Unfortunately its well integrated and this point, and you're more likely to see backlash against a game without progression than the other way around. Progression systems are deemed a welcome standard and are considered to be at the heart of a modern AAA shooter experience. People love to chase their carrots on a stick, and when they get tired of it they become those that fall into the gratitude trap mentioned in the video.

However I want to ask, in what way is it at all different from a F2P grind? You can name some small differences. There's a rent system for free users in many F2P games, where as an unlocked gun in COD is kept. However that's probably the most significant, well that and the fact that F2P will always have purely premium content and most retail games will let you grind or "earn" your stuff in some way without pay. However outside of that its the exact same thing. You're spending hours and hours and hours chasing after those points to get some weapon you may not even like in the end. Then on top of that you usually have minor contrived achievement pieces. Its hours of work and dedication to grind up certain things. None of it is about skill or that feeling you get when you used to discover something in an older game. Its not like beating those challenge modes in timesplitters, it more like the rate at which you get them per the time you spent on the game. That's yet another reason why I mock those who act like its a criminal offense to buy their way around the system. They sure love making it sound like they actually achieved something and other guys are just free loaders, but the real fact is all they're doing is running a hamster wheel that was built into the system. One that was later offered a way out by money, and I'm not sure why its a crime to say "enough with the wheel" and get off it. When F2P guys do this, they intentionally build the game to make it less desirable to sit and wait, that's how they get their money. So why on earth are people protecting the unpleasant thing while degrading the artificial answer? It makes no sense. This is IMO wrong for a retail market and I'm personally fed up with it and refuse to support the practice. Under that case, maybe I will ask that those buying these unlocks stop and consider what they're doing.

He "earned" all his BF4 guns though! Now for the attachments...

I will say I'm slightly more lenient to those games where the unlocks are done in a normal old fashion style. I loved unlocking the shortcut piece to modnation racers because there wasn't a grind but rather a real and frustrating challenge to get the content, and I didn't want any part of that. While I'd have preferred a free cheat code, its nice that I at least had an option there and yet the game wasn't exactly going F2P on me. Completionists could still freely run after their stuff without paying, and good job to those who get everything and truly earned it. Like-wise, I still love well paced or well spread normal cosmetic DLC. I already discussed that stuff here. That... I'm totally fine with. Its just I'm done with full on and shameless grinding. I actually like playing and experimenting with what the game has to offer, and not having to work for it to the point of frustration or boredom I don't want grinding to be there to begin with, I don't want extra money to be pressured in order to play the basic game, and I don't want people to demonize each other over their own preferences and play styles. That's really not too much to ask for considering older shooters and pre-microtransaction days went along just fine.

Many are bringing up the idea of a dreaded gaming crash over this idea, and I can't really blame them. There's a lot of things to be tired of that this one particular thing brings up, and when consumer fatigue hits on a major scale that's when a crash forms. I'm hoping that's not the case, but maybe its what is needed to fix this mindset that grinding and premium fixes just so you don't have to work to have your fun are somehow the norm. I know that personally I as an individual am finished with this particular nonsense. The last game I played with this kind of thing (actually PvZ) was free, and before that maybe The Last of Us (PS3 version) which has an interesting take on this DLC issue, but still a bad one I didn't put a single dime into. I haven't financially supported a game, nor the DLC, for a while and I am actively raising some skepticism for the upcoming Battlefront because of things like this. As things go on, I'm finding more and more justification in being excited for the simple things like R&C, the remastered Legend of Kay game, or catching up on old games like the copy of Jurassic The Hunted I have coming in the mail. If it wasn't for things like those, well I don't know what I'd do. Gaming has become more of a minefield for this sort of thing, watching carefully for what you do and do not want to work through or what principles you hold closer, and eventually its possible that enough people will look at that field and decide its not worth even bothering to touch.

Or maybe parts of my childhood are just coming back in weird ways...

Tower of Guns review

With April came a fresh batch of PlayStation plus games, and I've got to say its a good thing this was on there for the PS4 because the idea of "don't judge a book by its cover" is right at home with this one on multiple accounts. Its not what you'd think of with a name like that. Instead of another generic tower defense indie game cashing in on a dead fad, its another generic rogue-like indie game during a living fad for that sort of thing. However there's a bit more to that, otherwise this review wouldn't really be here.

The first thing you notice is the presentation. From the very main menu I loved ToG's music choice. The central theme is this slow electric guitar piece kicking in with a steady industrial beat at the undertone. A lot of the core music takes a similar tone, which works with the industrial looking setting (even if its a rather cartoony one). The game's visual design is sort of a loosely cell shaded look, kind of like borderlands if you took out some of the black lines and just designed a world that was better used for the style. Its not exactly breaking any record or trying to look too stylish, and honestly even feels like it could work as you see it on the PS3, but everything has a solid and consistent look to it that turns out well. The one thing that isn't consistent is the performance, which is a big deal here. In the middle of all the hectic combat, you'll be faced with random slow downs and stutters that can mess with your movement. The game shouldn't be very taxing considering it looks like a PS3 game running on a PS4 system and has little going on other than just lots of guns (the rooms are bare and textures fairly flat). That's not to say it looks bad, just that it should be running efficiently.

In Tower of Guns your main goal is to progress through stages and take on insane automatic defenses within the tower facility. You have one fairly crazy gun yourself that works on a small scale leveling system (and de-levels under too much damage), and you run through these stages collecting loot, blasting things, and moving on. The game is actually more about platforming than it is shooting. The turret guns work in a mostly projectile way more so than the usual hitscan style you'd take in a modern shooter. You have sometimes entire rows of guns all shooting slow moving cannon shells at you at one time, and you'll find yourself dodging them and either firing back or fleeing given the proper timing and precision. However that's just the common type as your enemies come in at all types, so you'll be worried about different ammo types, mini-drones chasing you, laser walls, flame throwers, etc. On top of that you're worried about minor level details, sometimes total hazards like lava floors, and other times just about how you're maneuvering. Meanwhile your own way of shooting matters very little. You have 1 gun you pick at the start, and that gun shoots as advertised with no other distractions (not even ammo). Its just pull the trigger and aim with the gun you choose. That's not a bad thing, just a warning that this isn't the FPS rogue-like you might be looking for if you want it to specialize on the "FPS" thing. You'll be thinking with full platformer mentality: timing and reflex instead of resources or enemy balance, its just that you so happen to have a gun which helps you destroy your platforming hazards. Personally though my strange love of 1st person platforming felt right at home here, and its a blast.

What about the rogue-like/lite/whatever part? Well you see once you die, you're dead for good and pushed to the main menu to start the game clean again. Each run you make is a randomly generated run where rooms, bosses, and the way turrets and items pop in are all different. Even the story is different every time, as there is a pool of really sill stuff it chooses from to contextualize your trip through the stages. That can range from a burglar breaking into the tower with his dog, to a hobbit spoof, to name just two examples. Back to the gameplay though, there thankfully isn't a lot of luck in the rogue-like system. Your luck set depends on the pick-ups you run into, like whether or not you find 8 health upgrades on one run. You'll also frequently see difficulty themed pick-ups and might accidentally stumble into a run where you beef the difficulty up an insane amount. That's where most of the luck is though, and as long as you avoid the bad pick-ups you can usually have a good run with the luck given to you. It can also help or hurt you to get good active powers, or the right gun enhancements, but that's just an extension of the power-up system. As you have the common sense to say "no" to the ones that are worse, you'll be fine. If you really want a more luck based game for some reason, try dice roll mode where ever room throws a random (usually painful) effect at you. The level design shouldn't screw you over in the general game either, as while its supposedly random it keeps things possible. I'd even almost argue its a little too safe; while I'm glad the levels always work (Just don't run into this hole), I've run into times where the levels were identical, even in jump pad placement.

The consistency is within the general format. You go through about 2-3 rooms, the boss stage, then the visual level theme changes slightly. Some story then drops during the before & after stage sequences, and you move on. You have secrets that can be found hidden away in tight corners, or invisible walls. Moving up in the game and accomplishing certain tasks will unlock guns and starting perks for the next run, though personally I'd strongly recommend just keeping the perk at the default starting one. Having the ability to triple jump at the start of the game is amazing! However whatever perks you don't go with, can pretty much be earned as pick-ups later in the game. Sadly when you look to shake this general scheme up a bit, you wont go far. You've got normal mode, dice roll, and endless mode, and that's it. Those are essentially the same modes where you'll be doing the exact same thing with just a tiny alteration on the outcome. The entire game cycles around you shooting and platforming through hazards, and you'll soon start to look for a good tweak where there simply isn't one, so things are just forced to blur together into an overly simple game. It doesn't help when you consider again that the levels kind of feel samey after a while. On top of that, you may want to start a run only to become tired with it half-way and then realize there's no way to back down peacefully. Quit game is labeled "give up" and there's no such thing as a save. You're either playing the game for at least an hour to try a single run, or not playing it at all because you know it wont save anything. Playing the PS4 version means you can suspend the game console, but that's no good if you just wanted to switch to a bigger game. Its up to you to decide whether or not that's okay, but personally speaking I'd have felt a bit cheated if I put down the $15 for a game this simple.

Final thoughts & Verdict



Originally I made plans to review Never Alone, but screw that game. Its not absolutely terrible, but it was a frustrating chore to tell myself to experience it, and then I decided "lets give this 'Tower of Guns' freebie" a try. Never Alone hasn't been played since (although I'll force myself through the rest of it eventually).

I really enjoyed the 1st person platforming nature of this game, dodging through so many crazy traps and weapons only to blast them to bits when I get the chance. I also enjoyed finding power-ups that modified my own guns into some crazy stuff. Its a very simplistic game, but one that kept a smile on my face for a while (especially with the shotgun unlocked). Unlike most rogue-likes, luck isn't the gameplay, instead its the spice to the gameplay, and that gameplay is great fun which is what keeps it above the rest. However its still very simple. You can only blast and jump but so much before you just get tired and wander onto something else, and that's when the game just falls down a bit. Your best bet for extending the game beyond simple runs is to look up obscure secrets online and try them for yourself during the normal runs. I really want to love this game because it can be a lot of fun, but at the end of the day I can't say it does much. Its one of those games that is just perfect for killing some time doing runs while listening to a podcast in the background. After your very first few runs with the game, it serves almost exclusively that sole purpose. Its a great little escapist game you play in between your other games, and if you embrace it as just that then maybe I'd also add that its one of the best rogue-likes available. However its not anything greater, and just gets by with a decent rating. Its right at home as a free PS+ game, but otherwise I'd recommend at least a 30% off sale.

I should probably go finish Never Alone, but these hugbuts wont let me.