Now Playing (special): Thanksgiving with Singularity

Thanksgiving day is something that probably is owed a bit more than it gets. Its basically a holiday all about being grateful and loving your family that is beaten between two holidays, out-merchandised, has their celebrations overlapping its own despite that one's past and one is a month+ ahead, and then on top of all that its being squeezed out by stupid black Friday schedules that aren't even on Friday anymore. Thankfully (no pun intended) its one of the easiest holidays to do a blog special on, and I've got the perfect thing in mind from the "thankful" part, its not exactly family related. Lets talk about Singularity.

Yes, that one.

So what's a game about time warping, zombie shooting, evil Russians, and a magical hand zapper that turns people into skeletal dust got to do with Turkey day? Well basically, its got about 70% of everything I love in a shooter, mostly on the campy B movie side of things. Actually that just might be the best way to describe it, because it really does pan out a lot like a nice looking B movie with about as equal reception as one. Its got almost zero attention in general, but sometimes a corner on the internet whispers out "That game was amazing!" before a few other people ask that guy "was that supposed to be Raven's Bioshock game or something?". I never really understood that comparison for the record, but oh well lets move on. The game puts you in the role of an American soldier sent to investigate an old secret abandoned Russian island where dark experiments took place. Weird readings are going on in the area, and its up to you and a small team to figure it out. Suddenly you find yourself warping into ghostly realities before a full time rift sucks you into the island's past. From there you rescue a man who was about to burn up in a flaming building. Really that wasn't ever supposed to happen, and that little incident ruins the entire operation and gets the island to its present ghostly condition, but your change alters so very much... for you rescued the leader. You find yourself thrown back into present (or, er... 2010) and things are... wrong. Subtle changes at first, but then you find yourself overwhelmed by monsters, only to then be pulled aside by the Russian army and get told one horrifying truth: Russia won the cold war because of this man you saved, and from then on he took the thrown as world dictator.

So by the 3 hour mark the game has basically turned into a B movie plot full of time travel, evil Russians, and evil zombie mutant monsters caused by those Russians and their evil sci-fi energy experiments, and you're the American hero who's got to stop it all with the help of a female british agent, and a convenient good guy Russian scientist. Again, B movie describes this all so very well. However its not a movie, so what's the gameplay like. Well its basically like a weird combination between Half-life 2's format, and... well something else. Its got the health packs, monsters, pick-ups to explore for, and evil science plots, but then there's the bioshock/farcry-like med pack holders, a two weapon limit, weapon lockers with upgrades, and then the TDM device which contextually alters the environment. So... its pretty solid. More shockingly, its a really solid FPS for its time period. Not necessarily a perfect "throw-back" title, but it really holds up well on a few older traits I love in shooters from the early 2000's. The narrative and world exploration is especially nailed down for that kind of game. Its just great that its also so littered full of lore pick-ups, and yet so many horrific scenery that its not horrific at all but rather just "oh, hey another room full of impaled soliders hanging on the walls." Its just good campy crazy sci-fi FPS fun.

Lets do the time warp again!

Are there flaws? Well yeah. The worst is nearly one of the very basics: two weapon limit. the game has some unusual weapons mixed in with decent military style weapons, and then you can upgrade them all, but ultimately you're told "two weapons only, pal!". This feels very limiting in a game like this, and just doesn't fit very well. However what's even worse is the layout of the game itself, in that there's no way to properly replay the game. You start a new game, and from then on you're following that path as linear as can be until the ending checkpoint. From then on, all of that work cannot be re-visited, and you've just got to start a new game. On top of all that, you can't change the difficulty without starting the game on the one you want (and now I'm playing a regretted choice of Easy, and I'm nearly invincible so far). If I were to also nitpick, the bulk of this game's monsters are visually dull as they're basically just zombies with warts and glowy bits instead of decay. The variety is still nice with phasing enemies, ones that throw items, and just generic ones that charge but can have their limbs shot off.  Plus if you were trying to find an amazing critically acclaimed story, you're in the wrong game. Its a bit silly, and the plot is very obviously tailored to convenient writing + player interaction, with things like a conveniently working little model with perfect audio recording (and oddly in English) telling you what each part of the island does. Its a silly set-up in the end, and if you want to enjoy it, you've got to be like me and embrace this sort of crazy sci-fi energy monster stuff with face-melting time blasters going on your wrist that came out of an alternative time line from the 50's.

Giving thanks...

So I still didn't exactly justify how this possibly ties in with Thanksgiving day. Its a weird game to pick at first glance not only because of its just not a seasonal game, but also because its just not a very well regarded game. Its got some harsh flaws to that keep it away from being replayed and getting the attention, BulletStorm, Mtro, Killzone, or Resistance might be getting. So why this game? Well in kind of a way, that's the whole point. Thanksgiving is all about overcoming the faults of something to see something amazing, and to be thankful that it has enhanced your life in some way... as well as just appreciating the simple things, like having the ability to eat food and live.

Singularity is a game that doesn't get a lot of attention. Some who know it, know its cool, but its as if so few do, and even those that do know of it feel like their time is spent discussing better things. Singularity also flopped on the market, not selling many copies, and helping to cement Raven Software's company behind assisting COD. Oh and speaking of it, lets not forget Activision published this... yup, my personal least favorite publisher put out this amazing game full of FPS tropes I adore. The best part though, is that this isn't the end of their story. Recently announced, Raven is allowed to make a sequel. How often does that kind of 180 turn around happen from a stingy and mean publisher? Ultimately I'm grateful for this game. I'm able to overcome my hate for this publisher to say they made a great game outside their normal triad of big hits, I'm grateful its managed to get a sequel that'll happen sometime, I'm thankful for all of its campy FPS tropes and how well its handled all of it, and I'm grateful for the good gameplay of it all. Playing this game just makes me feel great about a genre that honestly isn't quite what it used to be, but still makes me think of that time, and how good it is. All the fun monsters to shoot at, the fun and conveniently placed notes to snoop through, the crazy science contraptions, the silly supervillains, and of course gaming as a whole for just being there and being this great. So thank you Activision, Raven, Sony (played on the PS3) for allowing such a fun game exist... even if it may be an obscured one.

Thank you spooky virtual world

Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Microtransactions done... right?

I'm late to this party with the example I want to speak on, but its fairly relevant in my own findings so... Trials Fusion has microtransactions. It looks eerily close to what I see in some F2P games as well, with colorful and silly cosmetics chiming in on top of gimmicky golden acorn currency, which you buy from the store. Yeah, I know the typical response to this kind of thing...

However I actually can't say I mind... much. I mean don't get me wrong, there's still something unnerving about seeing a great game suddenly showing up with one of the most despicable and growing practices of the current gaming scene. Plus on top of that, its kind of weird to see gimmicky currency (the normal grind currency was normal $ to) allotted to costumes rather than the costumes themselves being sold at $1-4 a piece on the store. Kind of overcomplicated guys. That aside though, I can't find much of a problem, and even the currency gimmick could be considered a good thing when you see that it counts for tourney wins which means you can technically grab the best costume you see without paying a dime.

Look, Trials came out spring of last year (2014), has been under big support since with updates adding more content to the game like female riders and enhanced online features, and on top of that there's been a steady string of normal DLC as well. In the end you basically have a really well supported and enjoyable small downloadable title (with physical release supported as well, thanks Ubi), and the team has proven time and time again that they're all about having fun with creative and interesting designs and a sense of humor to their game. If a year or so later they decided to add in a bulk of costumes, and charge you for them with mobile game type currency, then that's just as normal as any other DLC for all that I care. They didn't owe me these costumes, they didn't build a game around it, and they didn't really take away anything there. Heck if anything I'd rather complain that they replaced the menu with the Awesome edition stuff, when I haven't even bought that expansion, and prefer the old sci-fi tone that fits with the actual game I own more so than the Awesome edition that looks like internet meme vomit.

Still riding off into the sunset just fine

Now that being said, I do worry that there's potential for this to go wrong in the future. I worry that this will be done ahead of the next game, and for both reasons of lacking interest and principle I still wont support its implementation here just to be on the safe side. Lets hope that doesn't happen though, and hope that we can continue to look at Trials Fusion as a good example of microtransactions.

Reminder: 7th Gen had HD, and was pretty great

Yup, not a lot more you can do here

There's a few arguments going around that consistently annoy me whenever it comes to talking consoles, technical ability, and similar things. One of them I'm late to discussing, but not at all deterred to stay silent on. Black Ops 3 brought it out quite a bit. Its probably the last COD game we'll see on PS3 and 360, stripped down lots of things to the point of removing its entire campaign, doing 30fps for what may be a first for COD, and has graphics that disappoint. In an article they discussed why the campaign just couldn't be done, and that Activision made the right move to cut out a whole mode than to simplify it down. It wasn't within their allowed memory to allow Co-op to function where you could see other player's weapons, and attachments... because suddenly being able to see a tiny muzzle on your friend's gun in an entirely optional style of play is more important than the entire single player drive of the campaign. Um... also, its not like 7th generation COD games have ever used player models with customized guns before. I mean what, you think they actually had a multiplayer mode full of customized weapons and player character models? No way man, the PS3 is too busy trying to process Nathan Drake's blocky robotically animated PS1 face for that kind of stuff, and it might fry if it dares to try and run Battlefield's tiny 4 player arena matches. Okay enough of the sarcasm, lets tackle this for real...

I'm tired of ungrateful gamers trashing the systems that gave us years worth of entertainment, and contained the foundation to many advances (although some bad, like misused DLC) we enjoy today. Then there are some people who just get upset over the very existence of them or new games for them, as if it somehow hurts them that the market gets a choice to have a 7th or 8th gen version of the same game. I know its the human mind to rate off of comparisons, but at some point its got to stop and you got to call out the BS and stop whining over something that was really fine in all of our lives. I'll fairly admit the systems are outdated (though technically, so are our current consoles if you're really looking for the best of the best), we stretched them out across a long cycle, and that we are moving forward in a great way with the newer systems. I also understand the idea that our older systems don't need the support anymore, and anybody buying a game like Black Ops 3 for the PS3/xbox 360 doesn't exactly have the best priorities in mind. However my frustration comes in from the people that insist that those old gen buyers "deserve" shoddy ports for some reason. It comes in mind when they pretend the systems were complete garbage, or are so outdated that they couldn't accomplish anything of value to us anymore. It stems from the imagination bankrupt developers who insisted they couldn't do anything inventive without new hardware, despite bottlenecking themselves harder than they've ever been in terms of variety. It comes from the gullible people who actually believe the developers in articles like the above. My frustration on this topic is inspired by those who forgot this came out just a year before our new hardware and how they sung to the high heavens that it was the best thing since sliced bread. That happened on the PS3, just as Killzone 2 and 3, Uncharted, the mass effect trilogy, Assassins Creed, the Metro and Crysis franchises that high end PC users benchmark their stuff with, LittleBigPlanet 1-3, and a little thing called Metal Gear Solid Phantom Pain. Oh but sure the tech is old and we can do better now, so kill it with fire and everyone who sticks with it, right? It just comes off as silly.



The funny thing to, is that you really don't hear this elsewhere right? Why isn't anybody on PlayStation 2's case anymore, bitching and moaning that its got so little CPU power that character models could only exist in like 8 varieties in the same area? Well because not only would they look a bit silly, but because they'd be torn apart by the fact that people got over that phase and have moved on to actually appreciating it for what it is: an era of games. Its the same reason why you can market the heck out of retro style visuals, and why something like Shovel Knight is amazing to people. Likewise why is it that the Last Guardian carries so much hype? Its because of games that were accomplished before. Its because of the fun, the memories, the values that were brought in by that area. Its due to nostalgia formed out of love and fun of a different era. Meanwhile at the transitional state, and among the first few years of a newer cycle, its somehow normal to see hatred over it instead. You see people shooting down others who haven't upgraded yet, hypocrisy as they mock those who point out poor quality in ports while doing so for PC gets the red flag and forum rage (rightfully so, but it should work the same both ways. PS3 users shouldn't have to pay $50 for Black ops 3 like it is), and somehow their words are taken at face value when developers dismiss these systems by insisting that we're finally able to do something like Co-op shooters for the first time (unless your Halo 5, in which case for the first time its goodbye to that feature). This is the same AAA industry that has used advances in systems to somehow screw up Tetris on the PS4, and tried to sell us on fish AI that isn't even up to standards with Mario 64 (enjoy this little video), and the idea that they'd to be trusted when talking about tech powers at this point is just insane.

Accomplished thanks to PS2, and HD-ified thanks to PS3 (A.K.A outdated consoles)

Then there's the header image and the subject it inspires, where we're not even at a point of taking major leaps. All that "we're being held back" crap coming out of PC elitists theoretical dream charts ended up at nothing, as our near decade of waiting paid off with mostly some resolution bumps and lighting adjustments. Sadly the team talking about how the future was in Atom tech instead of polygonal, has also not been heard from in a while. That's not because we didn't go with the impractically expensive $2000 bleeding edge stuff, its because that everywhere you look there isn't a ton of improvement beyond talk that maybe some day 4K will be standard (do you guys even have a TV for that?). Technology simply isn't advancing as fast anymore, period. Consoles didn't magically cause that, or else we'd never have the jumps to begin with, its just that tech is really strong and at a big peak now. So the difference in generational improvements is more slim than ever (we're well beyond seeing CPU improvements that reduce clones like the old PS2 days), and there really just isn't that much to improve anyways. All this bringing me to restate that this hatred over 7th gen just looks so silly. We're not even improving over 7th gen in all respects, there are still developers out there using their "vision" as an excuse to carve back a piece of gameplay that was just recently there. Again, Halo 5 isn't getting its traditional split-screen gameplay, and Tetris was hurried out in a mess, meanwhile the indie scene still needs to pick up where companies like Konami have failed to deliver on good games, and developers all over the place are still using old engines that are barely even working anymore after the recent advances and are in need of a total overhaul (see AC and Fallout 4 for the best examples). You also probably thought PC ports would improve now that consoles have easier hardware, but nope, check Black Ops 3's team that was greenlit to cheat 7th gen players, they didn't do PC users much better. Meanwhile Arkham knight was so broken they had to pull it, and Unity still doesn't work right for some users LOOOOOONG after several GBs worth of patching. Feeling better about hating the PS3 and 360 yet?

On the other hand Shovel Knight is being held high as one of the best games to come out in recent years, in its pseudo-8-bit style visuals. I think people are missing a massive point here, and that's part of why its frustrating to hear these developers talk and rip-off people like this, or hear gamers cannibalize each other over the matter of console leaps. The entire argument forgets the fun that's actually in these games. You know, the games that are made to put in the boxes we're fighting about? The games that make those $300+ investments worth something? Yeah, those are what counts. They happen with or without advanced tech, and if they can run on old tech, I don't see any reason why that one should be treated like dirt for any particular reason. Likewise, I don't see why those gamers are treated poorly. Well I'm not waiting for the period where PS3 becomes Nostalgic to appreciate what it did for us. I don't need to wait on that period to go back and enjoy it, to call some of its great games classics, or to even continue to buy games for it (I still have a few I'd like to catch up on). Sure most of those games run at 30FPS, 720P, and had worse textures, shadows, lighting, and character models, but that didn't stop me or you from playing it years ago. Neither did sub-HD pixel graphics stop millions from loving Super Mario Bros. You can and should embrace the improvements of course, but you can do so without spitting on the foundation that got you there. Actually that's exactly what a game like Shovel Knight does, using new features like trophies and new technology to technically skirt around NES limitations, while still simulating the NES style of games in a respectful manner... and people just love it. So why taking that into consideration before getting upset over the next 7th gen port? There's just no reason to get mad over that stuff. The last PS2 game actually happened last year, and you know it actually didn't cause the end of gaming as we know it.

The best 8th gen NES game to come out

Watching Overwatch, and its pricing

Overwatch has gathered a quick and swift controversy over its announced model. Everyone left and right assumed this would be a Free to play MOBA/FPS hybrid to compete in both departments, rivaling DOTA2 and TF2 at once. Then pre-order info leaked on a console version, and suddenly questions stirred, and then the announcement: $40 per bare entry, $60 for a deluxe or console starter entry. Quite short of free isn't it? Blizzard has recently issued out a statement on their decision, saying they're rather not compromise the gameplay quality by doing something like selling you the character, when switching characters is a big part of the game experience. Well, here are my thoughts...

Water without a container...

So first off, I want to debunk their logic because... its just in my nature. Sorry. No hard feelings against their logic on the whole, but it just doesn't completely float, and it bugs me to leave something like that unaddressed. This is also a good area to discuss other issues around the subject. Blizzard is competing against things such as Dota2, TF2, and that one game Gearbox is making (battleborn?) at the front. There's obviously more than that in the field, but when 2 out of 3 of the most biggest compared games run exactly under a F2P business model that doesn't compromise or charge for gameplay aspects, its a mockery to sit there and pretend like Blizzard would have to charge you for characters by doing F2P. Furthermore, they've got pre-planned cosmetic DLC for characters, which is exactly the kind of thing that Dota 2 (which also has WAAAAAAY more characters, all free) and TF2 run off of. At this angle, Blizzard are having their cake and eating it.



What are they up to?

That being said, I think this is more of Blizzard's problem than ours. Of course, it becomes our via community, but we know the risks when we put down money for an online game. That's exactly why most don't, and what I'm prodding at. Blizzard may just lose out on some consumers. I doubt it'll hurt a big amount, I mean they still pull off WOW subs and have a massive name, as well as having extra back-up in the form of Activision who somehow tricked the world into helping Destiny print money. In the end I think these guys can still sell us on a big pay to enter MOBA/FPS. I just still think they may need to work a little harder to convince people to enter at first. They have some really good competition that's free, and then will be head-butting up against Battleborn for buyers as well.


What I am worried about though is the obvious follow-up rumors that come with this report. Some people are naturally skeptical on DLC, and when Blizzard keeps dangling on that 21 character count, you have to wonder if there's a special reason. Like, oh say, DLC characters at $3-$10 a person. That'll not only invalidate their entire logic here, but it'll be because its also balance up-setting. To have a team which suddenly has more players with DLC character #3, is an obvious disadvantage for the other team. Even if that character were to be entirely balanced, they'll have new abilities, new options, and new tactics that have to be at least somewhat unique to that character. You've just created a haves and have-not uncomfortable situation among your community, have opened room for imbalances, and have gone in the F2P direction (League/Strife style) with an upfront fee like a full retail game. For the potential for this to happen on its own, I say stay back from this game for a bit and see what happens beyond the first two months. Especially if you're looking at it on consoles.

Don't spill the salt yet

Don't draw that yet!

I do not want to be confused with the many running around whining and making up their own issues already. I've strictly said that the character concern is a rumor, and I'm also addressing the competition because of Blizzard's response. I am not sitting here and telling you this game is all wrong, or that Blizzard is the evil overlord of money draining. Most of the deal here is still well within range of fair capitalism: You want this well crafted, loved, and enjoyable unique game? You pay for it. That's a very simple and normal proposal, and even if it may not be the best competitive option at first glance, it just might still pay off more for the company or even us as the players if Blizzard takes this move.

The only issues I have so far is the fact that 1) DLC has already been pre-planned and bundled. Its a mundane thing at this point, but I'm still of the old fashion idea that you do NOT cut content from the game to sell it off. They're doing this already half a year away from launch. 2) Consoles are forced to buy that deluxe edition. Kind of contradicts the last point to whine that they included the DLC in the base game, but it really is a bit unfair to force it on one market, while also giving the other market the better deluxe edition (tie-ins to their other games) for the exact same price. However if they can stay away from the rumored character DLC (or worse, map packs), this game is probably good enough in my book. Even cosmetic DLC is fine if its actually made and charged after the game. I'd be fine paying for some premium character decoration if they've spent extra time working on it, its just I'm bitter about paying for the ones they could have easily slipped in the main game for no extra charge.

At the end of the day though I see a lot of frustration running off of this game that I don't quite understand. I can see the fine point that some don't want to pay for an online only game, and can relate a bit myself. Still for those who would want that experience, its not an inhumane task to go against your predictions and ask for some money for their product. They didn't owe you this for free, and they didn't have to go on a cosmetic DLC model just to follow Valve's tail. This isn't exactly another The Order 1886 situation either where their so off that they're just wrecking the game by ignoring competitive pricing. There really does look to be a lot of worthwhile content for the price you pay, and the game wants to be unique enough that maybe you really can't find a competitor good enough. Maybe you should take a risk on its asking price instead of settling for your free Dota 2 game, which is still your same basic MOBA from an overhead view, with mundane characters, and that same old map again and again. Overwatch looks amazing to me personally, and I really hope they do make it worth the asking price. I think they can pull it off.

Keep an eye on this one