The force isn't strong with this one...

Okay so I'm going to fairly admit this is an article working off of a rumor on Battlefront, but upon just lightly hearing it I had to be one of those guys that just says "great work detective" quite sarcastically. Truth is though I am grateful for the supposed warning, but its just one of those rumors so intuitively true to your own predictions when you put 2 and 2 together. What is this rumor? Star Wars Battlefront is broken in its last tested state, and yet its coming up just around the corner. That's also funnily on the coat tails of an article warning us about how broken games are becoming more frequent around the holiday season. However this particular game, more so than say COD, Assassins Creed, Fallout 4, and whatever else is happening is nothing compared to the line-up of Battlefront. Lets review this shall we...

• EA & Dice are behind the game. They aren't working off of a clean record here.
• Dice is stretched a bit thin it would seem. A year after BF4 and they have this game, meanwhile they've also got Mirror's Edge, and they're most likely going to suddenly announce a new battlefield game knowing their routine.
• Dice has showed a weird lack of content/quality in the concerns surrounding Battlefront. Maybe this means they've got a tight focus and polish, but I can't help but see it more like they may just not care so much about getting the product under control for fans.
• Speaking of fans, isn't it funny this is a licensed product that could and will sell by brand, timing, and franchise name alone? Do you think they'd exploit that maybe a bit?
• Oh and its been developed from the start knowing they'd have to hit a movie release date. That also just so happens to be around the big holiday time. This is basically a double lock-down for standard publisher behavior, where they will simply laugh at people who beg them to give it more time over this bug that can be magically "patched" later. ...even if those bugs are things that may actually be really tough to patch, like say Battlefield 4's issues.

Yes I know I'm being all cynical about this game yet again, but its all a textbook setup for a game that flops hard on performance, and maybe even flops hard on reception given some of the mixed notes taken already. It wont be a true flop in market terms, but that's also why it will flop elsewhere; EA knows that this thing will sell by brand, they're egotistically boasting a 10 million seller prediction! They'll believe they can get away with glitches. Also I'd like to shoot one counter-argument down really fast here. The beta is coming up, and in nearly any other situation I would just stand by idly and tell you with confidence "see for yourself" and this article wouldn't happen. About that though, Dice is the specific developer that comes to mind when people wonder if the beta worked better than the full game. Battlefield 4 had a beta. Bad Company 2 had a beta. These did not fix the issues, be it netcode hiccups of BC2, or the outright crashes and broken status of BF4. Battlefield Hardline did fine as far as I'm told, but was made by a totally separate developer... one that has much less of an issue with gameplay stability.

Guys look, please just be warned. This isn't fact, and this may just look silly in the long run. Still it doesn't take a genius to figure this is a suspicious position, and with some shady people. These are guys promising you that the game is in great and complete shape while also promising people who pre-order early access to maps that will be two weeks late of the rest of the game (free to everyone at least, but still they're literally trying to use an unfinished design as a selling point). Don't pre-order this. Don't run in and buy it day one. You can wait, see if its working, hear what like-minded gamers (NOT THE PRESS! Professional reviews rarely give proper critique anymore) have to say, and then make an investment. Meanwhile, go watch the movie instead. Its more likely to live up to what its advertising... at the very least as a functional, enjoyable, sci-fi movie. This game on the other hand is in a highly questionable state.

I'm not saying all of this just to be mean-spirited, or cynical, but rather to look out for people and to say I'm kind of tired of this trend of trashed up games. This is both a warning to think with your head rather than by impulse to consumers, and to developers and publisher a challenge to prove me wrong and do the right thing. Make a great game, I'd love to see that. As I said when I last wrote about this game, its great that at least somebody picked up this franchise and core concept, but if its done poorly all they managed to do was steal it from out of the hands of somebody that could have done it better. I don't want to see that. I'd rather see a good battlefront game, even if I already went out of the way to say it wasn't for me. I'd like to know that kids are getting this for Christmas, fans are getting this expecting a new way to participate in their favorite lore, and that movie goers have a piece of the gaming medium to celebrate with, and the end result delivers. That wont happen if its all botched by a release now, patch later format which screws up the game and leaves all those mentioned with a frown and a gut-punched feeling. Heck it might even get some riled up so much that it pushed them away from the medium. That's not what I want, but the way things are lined up... I'm forced to worry that it just might happen.

...well at least they're still good at making great visuals

Don't feed the professional trolls

A face of disappointment

You'll be disappointed if you think I'm talking about internet trolls. So microtransactions are still causing some controversy lately in the media, as MGS5, and Uncharted 4 both circulate the area with news that they would indeed have special points tying themselves to real worlds credit. Actually I started this they were, but this article is pretty late at this point, but still holds a message I believe needs to be said because of the events. People are up in arms about it, but more and more I'm starting to hear this response that its a necessary evil made to avoid hiking the prices up. In other words, they're forming this made-up assumption that you can either magically get a bigger more complete game with less outer-deals for about $80 (rather than $60 as per USA prices. I wont go into details with how the expenses are higher elsewhere). That's not some strawman argument, that's something I've seen polled by press, and within comments. It also feels really similar to what Cliff B. said some time ago when insisting that games are cheaper than ever, and possibly even too cheap. I wouldn't normally discuss this issue very much (aside from leaving it as a quick quip against AAA), but like always, its always a good number of people or the wrong message being sent that ends up stirring me into topical rants. Still I'm really shocked and a bit disappointed in the amount of people flagging for this terrible logic. They've also fallen for assumptions even developers themselves have abandoned, when they failed to attack the used market time and time again (to quote one comment posted today, "its to fight the problem where most people are buying used", which is an unbacked statistic which is nearly impossible since you'd have to essentially have most copies of all new releases circulate 3 gamers in order for that to even be true). It is all essentially a false dichotomy.

For starters, lets look at just how phony this false dichotomy is, possibly with a glance back in time. Remember Uncharted 3? It had pre-order bonuses, sponsored dealings with subway, collector's edition, game of the year edition, some DLC came along, later enlisted microtransactions and a very light F2P model which included statistic alterations in the main game (In other words, subtle pay to win-like stylings); how did they explain away the scummy online pass that harasses all players with a code to validate the very product they just paid for? "and so at some point, you know, games have to make money. " as if that $10 extra somebody buying used just might give them at some point sure seems to keep them afloat. Also minus the two editions, none of that includes the main game itself, which is of course the core purchase of the experience at a big $60 per person. This was also all on top of Uncharted 3, a core game and formula already made, so its not like they were making a revolutionary engine, or just struggling to crank out their first PS3 game. That's not to discredit a lot of work that did go on behind it, but don't think they were pulling out full force here, they were clearly making a smaller recycled product compared to their last two installments that got them their fame. Yet they still had the nerve to pass off DRM as just a way to barely survive. "So at some point, games have to make money" and I suppose it only starts after all those other ways to make money. Then we have games, who in addition to committing to most of all these crazy things, also work under multiple teams of bloated staff to rush a game out early on a yearly basis raking in as much as they can from one brand.

How'd all this consumer exploiting go for you Evolve?

Where am I going with all this? Well its an example of how broken the "Feel sorry for them" mentality is. Somehow, you want to tell me that this whole situation is so black and white that its either pay for scummy DLC practices or raise the base game price in order for these guys to make the game they made? Um, no. They get my support from making a good game and me paying for it. If they need anything more, then they should learn from their experience and decide to do a more modest experience somewhere in the process next time instead of overstepping their boundaries. How about that for a choice? How about AAA stops creating its own bubble ready to bust? How about they learn from efficient games and think that maybe people don't have to have cutting edge stuff rushed out by a staff of over 300 people and over-priced mo-cap animations? The funny thing is that back in that vote where the false dichotomy was set to be $80 + DLC, or current model, people chose the current. It wasn't because they agreed with what was being done, but out of what I saw it was more that people were looking around and noticing how many open world games were doing it and said there was already too much content than they really needed anyways, and that they like that feeling of choosing what they bought rather than having it all stuffed in one expensive package. I think that kind of speaks for itself about what AAA is doing wrong. It isn't just the fact that people are missing out on extras in games, or the industry is hostile to its very own consumer, but its also just ran by confused people that think cramming more chore work content in is a good use of their resources (which they'll then claim we need to help them make up for). I'm sure some of the same people responsible are the same idiots that have to run focus test groups to see whether or not people will accept a post-apocalyptic open world game.

We've got plenty of potential and already existing games out there proving you can in fact be more cost efficient, fun, and survive without cheating your fans. Its not just small games either, but things like The Witcher 3 (which is shocking, considering it was half-published by WB), Metro, Dishonored, Bloodborne (and Dark Souls for that matter), Skyrim, and heck I'll even personally put up Wolfenstein: The New Order. So far Fallout 4 seems to be following a similar path. We can also go back and even look at games like the first two Uncharteds, or Killzone 2, all of which were certainly not on a low budget yet still made their studios happy. Its actutally quite funny that practically all of those games did well for themselves, and later the same exact console cycle many formerly successful ones started exploiting sour practices. Meanwhile a minority (though still quite a good bit of them) of games still felt content with just leaving that stuff out. The only real consistent theme with who ended up doing good or bad was pretty much just a matter of looking at the publisher. Its almost like they just wanted to exploit new ways to get money with newer tech, and just so happened to be attached to purely the business end... oh hey, that's what publishers do and they bottleneck the distribution of games. Funny how that works. Oh and another thing? Some of these guys have abandoned a lot of their old ways, noting it got them more flak than money. You didn't see online passes anymore. You don't get exploitive microtransactions making a debute with Killzone shadow fall (the ones that came later are cosmetic, and updates have even made it possible to win free DLC). You don't need to type in online pass codes for Titanfall. When these unproven, unsure came around the launch of new consoles they needed to be sure people would buy them and look on from a nice standpoint. People also backed away from and mocked the xbox one's exclusives doing it out of the gate, and between that and its DRM reputation they had to seriously play catch-up to win people back. However its been more than a year now and MGS5 and Uncharted 4 have microtransactions in them. Coincidentally those are massive games coming later after high system sales, and Uncharted has been proven to sell on microtransactions. I'll repeat myself: its not a necessary evil that keeps these guys barely alive, its blatant exploitation to use whatever means necessary to grab money from us by dangling a part of the game we paid for in front of us.

The weird thing to is that at the end of the day, I'm not even sure I'm really angry about this stuff because of the developers and publishers who have raised it. Well of course I am upset with them, but I don't often show it anymore. I've moved passed it, and I've accepted that as long as I stick to my principles and just have fun with what I can get, I'm happy. Besides, I tend to love the games that stray from these practices anyways. Still what really bothers me is when it hits the community like some kind of weed. Suddenly principles mean less, ignorance takes hold, and then fans turn against each other to defend... oh how nice, self-destructive industry practices that wreck what we aim to enjoy. Thanks for that guys. I'm really not sure I like the fact that we've reached a stage where discussing immersive-breaking money grabs is somehow a gray area. I'd like to have hope that we'd just instead see more cases like Evolve, where the practices just kill themselves as Witcher 3 parades around thanking its loyal fans. I'd like to just think the worst it gets is pre-ordering R&C for a gun. Instead we're at this point where people really are just bending to the will of greed and saying "its not so bad if you tell yourself it was necessary". Its like watching a bunch of youtube comments lash out against an obvious troll; people are just buying one big joke of an exploit that was aimed right at their emotions. Of course that's not to say its doom & gloom, as admittedly the opposite end of this has been getting louder while stupid things like Deus Ex's tiered pre-order occur. I worry for the outcome though, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we get more Witcher 3's with a loving community, and less of Evolve with people raging and defending shady business.

A true monster slayer

Now Playing: Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain

Yup, the big one. MGS5 has released, and I grabbed it in the evening. I'm also playing Armello, but I want at least another match in before I do my first impressions on that. ...though when that match happens is up in the air, since MGS5 will clearly be stealing most of my time. Its just amazing.

Okay getting my nitpicks out of the way, the way the game starts is pretty... borderline terrible. It throws you into a hospital, and you've got like an hour full of barely interactive (but just interactive enough that you can't skip it like a cut-scene) pieces strung together. Some part of my mind, especially during a bit where you hide, was telling me it was just a tightly confined way of doing a tutorial, but no.... its just not. It does have a lot of basic elements slowly progressing, like you do hide some, you do shoot some, and you do learn to walk, but everything else is a full contrast to the entire experience. The tone, the action, the stealth, the fact that this is the first open world game, it all is just gone into what might be confused for a military FPS scripted sequence. If I was trying to introduce someone to this game who didn't know about it before, I will make sure they skip this entire piece... even if they miss a bit of the story in the process. Basically this all could have been done 10 times better in the first real level. The only excuse the hospital scene has, is its decent cut-scenes.

Now that out of the way, let me just talk about how superb everything right after that is, because this just might be one of the best games of this decade! There's just a lot to this all! As soon as the first real level happened, I was just jittery with excitement over just taking out two guys at an outpost. There's just so much to do, and as the game keeps going on even more things come out! There's one slight side of me that is kind of upset at how long some of it takes to get going. I mean I guess it makes sense that you would need a weapons expert before your guns can get customized fully, or you'll need to wait to raise the puppy to your companion, but at the same time I've sunk over 10 hours into the game already and I just want to goof off in a replay with maximum options. Still that's a nitpick because of just how much there is still left in what I do have, and I do love still earning some of my stuff.

So much chaos just waiting to be caused

I've gotten my first S rank by doing crazy stuff already. I left a cardboard box in their way, shot up an escort, stole their prisoner, and fled. Boom, bear rating and S rank. It was fantastic! I've been getting all bear ranks now, so I suppose I'm doing pretty good. Kind of weird that I have to actually look up what they mean, but with that out of the way it feels like its time to replay some missions and work on getting the fox emblem unlocked for my flag. Anyways there's just too much to actually talk about, but in basic sense this is another amazing MGS game, and this time its throwing you into a massive world to play in. They really capitalized on the strategy, and playful elements of the game, while also emphasizing this massive meta-element to the whole thing in the form of Motherbase.

Now... the story and side-stuff is interesting, because everyone keeps saying this is not the Metal Gear game you expected in that area. I can see what they're saying, but I also can't help but disagree a bit. Snake really is a bit closer to being a mute, but here it actually makes sense... and not just because the director wanted the player to feel like snake. Snake wakes up and is clearly left in a broken, murky state, yet he's put in charge of this huge operation. I think its perfectly normal to understand his silence, and his quiet attitude. He's sucking in all of his thoughts, and just tries to execute it when its absolutely necessary. The cut-scenes, while kept shorter and go into less exposition admittedly, do still feel directed by the same MGS guy. They go into these awkward dramatic pauses, get the characters to do weird show-offy stuff (shoot the blades of the helicopter Quiet), have humorous little nods to things, etc. These aren't normal or minimalistic cut-scenes by any nature. Combine that with the natural scarcity you'd have in an open world game, and it feels kind of like what I'd expect. I do however miss the in-game story that comes in the form of codec calls, and I also miss the cut-scenes that go very deep into exposition, but still we all knew those would be cut back, so I can't say I'm too disappointed. Besides, the cassette tapes still make a somewhat solid substitute and are very enriching to hear while on the field. Now its about time I just cut this short, and get back on the field. Besides, I need to earn the fox emblem sometime.

Break is over, lets go!