Too good for fun

Before I even start, I know in some capacity this article is either silly, or ironically getting worked up in semantics as a response to people being worked up in semantics. Still, as with many of these topics, it comes from a place of bugging me for more than one time too many, and channels through with another more modern hit. The Last of Us 2 (oh, sorry, "part 2") has recently come out with a statement specifically declaring they'd rather not use the word fun. They have trained their team to respond to the dog whistle of "engaging" to avoid a sense of immediate pleasure that follows through the word of fun. In this article, the usual talking head goes on to say stuff like...

"We believe that if we’re invested in the character and the relationships they’re in and their goal, then we’re gonna go along on their journey with them and maybe even commit acts that make us uncomfortable across our moral lines and maybe get us to ask questions about where we stand on righteousness and pursuing justice at ever-escalating costs."

Which sounds nice, except before that bit, this is their reason as to why they can't say fun, but rather "engaging". Because... fun is a rotten word for darker stories apparently. Its further elaborated as...

"Our aesthetic approach to violence is to make it as grounded and real as possible, and we watch – sometimes uncomfortably – a lot of videos from the world, right? The world that we know, and trying to say, 'Okay, we don’t want to make it sexy. How do we make it real? How do we make it uncomfortable because art at times should be uncomfortable?'"

...and like I said before, if this were just a directing choice in and of itself, by all means go for it. I'm proud of that, and fine with dark, agonizing, and thought provoking games. Games that challenge your perspective, and make you walk away thinking about things, questioning the characters or even your own player-choice actions, and the things contained within the magic that is really just programmed storage space on a re-purposed computer. Games are magical in their scope, immersion, and the creative and interesting teams behind it make gaming so cool. That's part of what makes it fun, regardless of whatever brainwashing and violent flick nights go on in Naughty Dog to force themselves to call it by a different name. That's where I take the issue though, where they're brainwashing themselves into a pretentious and somewhat goofy sense of maturity, where games aren't allowed to be fun anymore, and they feel like they're committed to some higher art in the process of snuffing it out. There's a good lesson about that in a sillier place Druckmann & friends may have long lost touch with.

"Its not 'playing' a guitar, its 'engaging' it!" ~ Probably Druckmann

...though the funny thing is, for a guy who is a stickler about what to call fun, he sure throws the word 'sexy' around like it was loose as hell. Violence isn't sexy unless you've got some real dark and specific fetishes, but even then that ain't the stuff of video games. Nobody is asking for that, nor do we describe a game like Doom as sexy. We call it fun, because that's what video games, or even most of consumable media are. Its this situation all over again though, where the truth is they don't care about word play, they just want to sound arrogant and artistically meaningful. So they think of themselves as too good for fun, and bury themselves further down the pretentious artist hole, boasting about how they make "meaningful" games now instead of fun ones. Because ya'know, games are art, until we get to the next step where we're not allowed to call them games either. ...and really, games are art, but art is a fun and exciting medium that pokes at our creativity, and brings a mixture of emotional excitement, thought, and bliss into our lives whereas we just see and do stuff by our own hands. Its real, its complex, and games are a part of it, but there's a misunderstanding with all art that it must be "deep" to be of quality, and then you get idiotic ideas like this where its apparently not allowed to be fun to be at that standard.

Its not just Naughty Dog though, this issue is an odd thing I've seen more of lately around general op-ed pieces, and concerning other games or film. I often now here "Well, you don't call a horror movie fun" ...to which I reply, actually yes, I really fucking do if it was a genuine enjoyable one. As a matter of fact I'll return that with, "so you don't have fun at thrill rides?" If a horror movie wasn't fun, that literally takes a direct translation to it not being worthwhile, or engaging. The two are directly linked, but never does it mean it can't also do more like scare, provoke, or challenge me in some way. I'll enjoy the extra thoughts and depth, but I find such a depth (if done well) to be fun. I never walk away from something I enjoyed saying, "it was too much ___" to be fun. ...and this is ironic, because I must admit if there was ever a close exception, Last of Us 1 might be it. However its still fun! Its just it was also long enough, difficult enough, and story driven enough to make it not worth it to play more than once for the time being. The impact was delivered, and the fun simply wasn't in returning long enough to endure another entire journey through. Partial way, yeah, but not fully. It was still fun though. The mechanics, core health system, inventory management, survival choices, and thrills of proceeding from one major story point to the next, as well as all the exploration in-between, were quality fun. So was Dark Souls, despite its many ups and downs of difficulty and relief-to-frustration ratio, and so was my time with the crazy PT demo. These were fun.

If an emotion ever overrides fun, its probably stress from a bad game design, or a game that is just flat out unpleasant or boring to play. So its a bad game, or a bad game for me. There will never be a fantastic or enjoyable game I want to have that just "isn't fun" or can't be described as such. That's not because it was too deep, or too emotionally gripping, but rather because something like COD lacked the depth to keep me having fun. Again, I automatically evaluate fun with the engagement in a game or piece of fiction. That is their purpose, to excite and transport me into another world of different dramas, puzzles, conflicts, or person's imagination, and the act - if interesting and valued at all - is the value of fun. Trying to argue it can't be fun because "emotions!" or "we're all edgelords about it!" is like trying to tell me I can't call soccer fun because its exercise.

I will have fun, damnit!

I know, at the end of the day the reality is these guys just have a stricter idea of the word fun. They think of the more obvious big smiles all the time, grinning dudebros, and bombastic points and gamey systems overlapped in a quick hour of escapism and beers or energy drinks, or the fun in movies to be popcorn flicks. However its a strange word to get strict over, and honestly when it comes to statements like these, there's only one purpose to them. If they were going for a dark and edgy sort of feel, it speaks to itself, or they'd go more into detail about the steps taken. However instead they're just virtue signaling about what edgelords they are, too good to call things fun with this game. Instead they go around telling interviews and gaining headlines about being serious art now, as if they need to validate it for someone, or compensate for some insecurities. In the process, they might be slowly drifting away from the actual thing I would call fun, which means their game might come closer to sucking, which sucks for the whole big picture as I don't want that. In an environment where they're falling into politicized internet arguments, admitting they're way behind in making anything resembling the game only a few months back, abandoning creativity, and making pay to win multiplayers, the last thing they need to be trying to say is "we're not about fun" to keep a hold on fans. Honestly, I don't hold that against Last of Us 2 (though I'm certainly not compelled to care about it either), but rather the distinct possibility that Naughty Dog is in going to start declining or only go down from here if they don't pick up their heads a little and actually talk about the game rather than their agendas, or how pretentious they are.

Authentic tones, and divided fans...

I'm not a guy that necessarily likes or dislikes realism. I can enjoy it in bits and pieces, and sure, you can call it cherrypicking, at the end of the day I want my games to be fun. I don't care what you call that, its the point of video games. However how you arrive at that can amass in many different ways. I don't play by this idea that entertainment and fun exclusively equals wide grinning smiles. You need immersion, and enjoyment of the product, and that's a loose and broad, but very fitting approach to how to get to "fun". So with that, how do we approach a polarizing subject like historical accuracy, and authenticity? Technically the authentic route in a game with violence is to stop working the moment the player first dies. However, as games like Dark Souls and... pretty much every other game in existence stands to suggest, that's not the key to victory, and that's not what people mean when they talk about obtaining authentic behavior or realism. So... can we stop making these awful strawmen arguments?

though admittedly this was funny

What people ask for when they want "realism" varies often by a series standard, or their exact context, but its never the exact reality of the situation or else they would just dive right into it. To simulate or be even just immersed is a slight different story, but still one of noble ambitions to limit a piece of art towards obtaining the spirit and heart of the setting. Most of us don't want to see katanas in a more modern military style shooter, nor do we want the same katana in the hands of a realistic norse game, and likewise it would just look off if someone were to say... cast Abraham Lincoln as a chinese man in a wheel chair, or choose a native american soldier as the red coat in an upcoming American Revolutionary war game. Saying something isn't right, or something is amiss isn't the same as suggesting "my game now needs to stop working after I die once" type of realism, it just means you fucked up the basic level of believability for the setting, and damaged the basic point of even choosing that setting or ideal area to begin with, unless of course you were intentionally going alt-history or steampunk fantasy. ...and I have no problem with that, by all means, go crazy fantasy with this shit, just do it in your own space and with that loudly at the declaration. However if the first thing you note is "we're a Vietnam game", and then you give me katana wielding frenchmen, I'm raising some questions. Not because of some idiotic strawmen of "Oh you don't like french people or katanas" No, fuck off, I don't like it because the idiots designing the game forgot what their game was even supposed to represent.

However you think I'm probably being silly, unless of course you know what this is building up to. You think I'm just saying silly things, and there would never be such a crazy thing as a chinese wheelchair man posing as abe lincoln, or some katana frenchman in Vietnam, but yet the entire time you're laughing at these mock-ups, Battlefield V's trailer exists with a frequent energetic woman soldier flipping around in the WW2 era, jumping and shooting backwards out of an exploding house, doing fast paced combat better than most in a constantly energetic and twitchy fast-paced battleground, with a prosthetic two-piece claw arm, and just when she steps out of the spotlight for a second she comes back in on a close-up scene to save the FPS-perspective player. If you somehow stopped your brain functions and decided the only thing I noted out of that entire recap was "ew, women!" then get off the internet, do some jogging, get some fresh air into that thick skull, and come online only when you can think and comprehend thoughts again like a matured human being. That's not what I said, I am in fact pointing out how batshit crazy this "latest WW2 Battlefield" game has decided to pitch itself as with the very first trailer and spotlighted appearance. This is what they want to show off as their return to WW2 after nearly a decade. A series that has been the pinnacle of mainstream semi-tactical competitive multiplayer, with large militaristic possibilities all in a team coordinated large war field lite simulation. ...and now they choose their big WW2 game will be best represented with a disabled tenacious claw woman rushing in with assault rifles, jumping out of falling buildings, and into jeeps where she just perfectly shoots out semi-auto rifle rounds from a moving vehicle with her claw arm, and expects fans to somehow NOT call bullshit. That's without noting the gameplay implications also poked at by the same angry fans. The fast paced action and chaos, with chatty characters, was more of a strange warped fusion between COD and Overwatch than it was a sessions of Battlefield.

Look, people aren't mad here because of some arbitrary "realism" meter. The fact is Dice or EA decided the best way to pitch this game, was through the lens of the most crazy and unblievable fashion imaginable, crushing your immersion and sensibilities from the start with super badass claw english woman at the forefront. No amount of "but women and those prosthetic types were technically in the war, and-" will strike down how crazy and unbelievable the whole scene was. ...and once again, neither does it help when somebody's smug dumbass decides that asking for a slightly better and more immersive representation is the same as wanting your game to be a straight parallel to real life. Look, we get it, games can be unrealistic and are meant for fun. Media in general is permitted to do these things. We were all fine with Wolfenstein, we were all happy with the world aspect of The Order 1887, and we can have quite a lot of fun with crazy games like Timesplitters, or Killzone. Those clearly aren't real, and even their realistic inspirations are a stretch, but the difference is they made it clear from the start, and their ambitions to entertain you were as different as Candy Crush is to Portal. We didn't get Disney's Mulan as a real life tale of what really happened, we got it as a more modern american spin on an old folk tale. However when a more serious game series, established with mostly semi-accurate portrayals of wide open battles and interesting settings and events, says its doing WW2, its perfectly acceptable to find it jarring when their reveal is a tinge away from being both Steampunk action, and another less serious game franchise like COD. Many fans of that franchise were not expecting, nor wanting, that kind of game shown off there. It was bad marketing and a misjudgement of their own consumer base at the very least, and disgusting political pandering and drama-stirring PR calculation at its very possible worse, but in either scenario... its not an easy reveal for fans to take in, otherwise there wouldn't be a big fuss. Somebody fucked up.

Nobody expected a realistic Robin Hood from Disney, but Battlefield is another case...

...and look, I'm not here to rain on Dice's parade. If their message against this controversy were true, I could respect it a little. Fun and authenticity can be difficult to balance in a way. Its tough sometimes to figure out whether you want the gun jamming of Far Cry 2, or to just make the setting itself exclusively feel right while the gameplay is gamey as hell. However... most devs never reached a point of throwing Elephants in Far Cry 5's America, or giving COD WW2 a space station launched nuke. That's where Dice fucked up, in the same spot and reason the actual new Robin Hood movie trailer is being scrutinized to pieces rather than the Disney one. There's a difference between having fun, and pretending to take up a serious mold while still being sillier than even the one clearly having fun. Its not that they're some innocent child sitting over there trying to figure out what's fun, and what matches the theme, but rather the fact Dice have all but pushed the ignite switch on this controversy by including the most ridiculous thing at the forefront of their reveal. In addition to katanas, crazy fast-paced action, and twitchy weapon combat, you had a handicap claw-armed woman in an era where she was a minority. Yet here she was diving in wrecklessly, dying, jumping out of an exploding building just magically alive again, and returning to conveniently save someone else at the front of the camera. Somebody out there tried debuking this situation as "oh, you could run on exploding blimps in BF1, but we only complain when there's women", and here I stand shrugging at that, not even sure if that's possible in BF1, because the fact is Dice weren't stupid enough to make that the highlight and main point of their WW1 game. This is the first thing we see out of their WW2 effort though, and its practically just as crazy, and they're standing behind this as a virtue signaling proud moment to "represent their players" with possibilities like this. ...fuck off with that bullshit Dice, what you really have here is something crazy enough to be an accidental Bad Company 3 advertisement, except you lost any talent to make a good game worth that title. So we're left with this bullshit, and the possible first sign that your series is collapsing and doesn't know what to do with itself as EA pushes you to make the next annual thing every year.

At the end of the day Dice you have two better options to pick from with this situation: 1) Market your games better and more appropriate. Tone matters, whether you seem to actually put effort into it or not, and consumers will see and discuss it. 2) Make this a spin-off, and go all out on steampunk craziness. By all means, I am serious, and would even rather play that game than whatever garbage you had planned here. Within this perimeter you can truly do whatever, including a playable wheelchaired Chinese Lincoln. No wait, you can make it a she, and give her a claw as well. No, make that a minigun arm! It'd be far more welcomed and enjoyable than pretending such nonsense would make it into a common WW2 battle ground filled with wacky antics. You can do whatever you want without concern of authenticity, or even basic laws of nature, as long as you follow your own set world's rules. That's what makes games like Doom so much more fun than your games anyway Dice. Give it a try sometime.

Got some exclusive Battlefield 6 concept art right here

Rant

The new God of War is out, and yet so is a new controversy. However this time around it is not that bad in the game of itself. As a matter of fact, that's the only reason why I imagine there is a defending side to one of its lesser (but common) industry sins. Its a really good game, people love it, its deserved praise and I can agree with that, however they want it to be free of criticism or to just eat up any flowery explanations for it and that's where I differ, even over the small details. Even small, bad details can still hurt the game, or confuse and make the conversation around it very strange. ...and if you're wondering what's up with this article's title, well to that I say... EXACTLY!

Today we're talking about titles, or more importantly, what not to do with them. Come on, we all know where this is going, its all down to stop naming them the same damn thing after a previous entry. Stop it. Your not clever, nor is it suddenly a better "reboot" for that, and its even more obvious of a bad decision when your game isn't even a reboot to begin with like... well, God of War. On a lesser note, this also applies to Doom, but that's far more abstract since the story and cannon order is hardly as relevant or obvious. God of War though... its in the dialogue, quite a lot really. References to the old, the main character you're playing as, even where he gets "god of war" from, is all alluding to the old game cannon. Its there constantly, and developer and press alike have had to dance and prance around the fine line of this maybe kinda but not really soft reboot of a game that couldn't be bothered to come up with a half-decent name for its own identity. I'm not even asking for God of War 4, which would be the simple and more obvious route, but it could even be God of War: Norse as an easy nod to the obvious theme change. Hell, even ditch the main franchise name itself and pull a concept-idea of Modern Warfare where you just change the name to something more suitable to the successor route, like just calling it Kratos, Norse, or Bow & Axe, whatever suits you. Anything but the exact same name that would get even the main review center to tell you its literally the exact same game as the PS2 one.

"Also on: PlayStation 2" wow, gotta go dust that thing off and see how well it runs on it...

As of the time of writing, that exact error is still on Metacritic. Yet people defend this. People defend this obvious confusion, bicker back at those like me bickering to the devs, saying its all really okay, or even the best justified position. There's just no other way to apparently present a change in tone or story, rather you must name it after the exact same thing you're changing from. Its "new" now by being the exact identity of the old. Its not confusing, because you should definitely know this is the first one, but not the other first one. It's not bad marketing, you just don't get it, and all of this arguing, confusion, and people unsure if the old story counts for anything or not, is all the only way it could perfectly market this brilliant new game by being the exact old title of one over a decade and two console gens ago. Still just don't get it though? Yeah, me neither.

Look, guys, there's multiple ways to go about naming your game. Yes that includes even this "reboot" name title by just pretending the old games never happened as an excuse to rename your title after the thing that never happened. However for the most part, that idea is bullshit, and gets a lot of flak in everything it touches, even if its slightly more accepted now because we just got tired of groaning about it every time. Its so bad that many don't even know there's a Mummy movie before the mummy movie of the 1999 one, and yet laughably some have used movies as an excuse that its okay to do this kind of bullshit. Its just bad though. Other routes include generic numerical titles. That's fine, and functional, if maybe just a tad bit boring. Still it works. You say God of War 4, and it works. People are still calling this (and Doom) by the number 4 just out of rebellion. You search either of them by the number 4, and you get results for their proper game. Far Cry 5? It works, and its selling like mad, even if they had to ignore Primal from the count that came before it. Hell you can even occasionally be clever and pull something like Battlefield One did. Its a fine and good system, and so natural consumer will use it even if you don't. Then there's subtitles. Naming it as I suggested earlier, God of War Norse. This stuff is good for when you do want a new theme, or new idea at the forefront. Give your title a punch and make it proud and visible. Assassins Creed Origins was about the origins of the Assassin guild. Perfect. Far Cry Primal was a spin-off taking it back to a primal setting. Perfect. God of War... is being a stubborn pretender, acting as the first of its kind, and its just embarrassing itself by not figuring out a better title. I'd actually love games like this and Doom to treat themselves with the sort of self-respect to actually have their own name, but instead... well devs pulled a page from Spongebob, and essentially threw out the name while the public eye just rolled their eyes about it and gave it their own by either the year of release or numerically.

However the biggest concern is just how many are easily starting to accept this and fight with other people over it, even drawing and pulling contexts and words back to butcher them even further in the process. I was suddenly not only discussing with somebody about "why is this not God of War 4?" but it quickly turned into arguing over what an actual reboot is, because people were dead-serious convinced this was a total reboot, defeating their defense of the latter as soon as they said that by showing how confused they were on what the fuck they were even discussing. But its okay if you shift the goal post and redefine the reboot to include continuing the story in a new enough setting... like nearly every fucking sequel ever. Hey Drake, exploring a new temple in the next Uncharted? Reboot! Hey COD man, you shooting up a new dude somewhere slightly different? That's a reboot to. Assassins Creed in Egypt to explain stuff that happens in the future? Obviously a reboot, I mean how stupid can you be to think Egypt and England were the same, never the less their time period!? Yeah, you see the issue here? I had a guy in the same sentence as defining a reboot that proved GOW wasn't a reboot (defining it as a restart, when the game in question carries exact cannon over into its conflict from even less than an hour starting), suggest it was with it and then say "lol, how is it bad marketing anyway". ....because we wouldn't be arguing over what it fucking was genius. Even the literal show Reboot's reboot wasn't this stupid, and gave itself an actual name, despite almost no effort elsewhere!


However I'll cave a little. Because definitions, words, and titles don't matter anymore, you've been reading Rant, and this is a blog reboot since I haven't done this topic before, and this was a new article, and a literal new digital page for me.

FC5 lost something in its "open" campaign

So I finally beat Far Cry 5 recently. I really enjoyed it. Its another entry in a good series, running mostly on great mechanics, and added some additional good improvements. There's a lot to like on the general game, ranging from the open level editor, to just the intense conflict on offer in a big open world. However I've also got to bring up some criticism, especially when this comes a couple years off of a game as incredible as the 4th installment. It just.. wasn't as good. For quite a few reasons. I want to lay some of that out here right now. Most of it is in regards to its lack of "linear" campaign.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

I remember early on I heard from the team that everything was open-ended in its structure, and you wouldn't be taking on the story in a linear fashion. I... didn't know what to think of that, or to even believe it. Clearly you need a structure, and thats hard to map out in an open fashion when you've already got an open world. My assumption was perhaps this was really an even more open ended version of the choices offered from FC4. Ha, nope, that was removed entirely aside from the "secret" opening alt-ending gimmick (which really is just a gimmick by this point. It was cool in FC4, just awkward and out of place here, forced because people stroked your ego about it previously)! Instead you have one-way missions compiled by regions, and a point system that works like you were earning XP to unlock the next story point. What this actually translates to isn't an open and free environment, but rather a mindless session of converting everthing into mindless points until you "unlock" the linear story path of one of three areas (all of which must be met anyway).

The result isn't so much of a freedom, as much as it is just a step back in quality as an activity box overwhelms you and demands you grind to get the next story bit. Then everything left behind on an honestly short lived grind, becomes easily ignorable between its lesser quality, and just the fact you're done here. You're trained to go with the unlockable bits, and then it suddenly means nothing so fast for 1/3rd of the entire map, so you move on, and then move on, each time only seeing the bigger or more interesting bits on the rare linear segment that literally kidnaps you and rips you right out of the open world that is pretentiously proud about its open-ness. The game becomes a duller blur of random activities and smaller missions to eventually push open the next story piece, which is often closed up with the excuse it needed to literally grab you into it to show you something cool the rest was too "open" and under-developed to actually accomplish.

But why is this really bad, if you could hypothetically just blame it on developers for just not doing good enough quality with the optional missions? Isn't it cooler that the bad guys treat all your activities as a threat? Well... no, not to the whole picture. You see all those characters around the original reveal and trailer? The pilot all angry about his planes and family heritage, the bar tender who lost so much, and the pastor who had to compete with a more violent religion? All of those interesting characters who would potentially and easily be this game's main side cast from an outside glance, were incredibly minor blips that did nearly nothing at the end of the day, all relegated to small 2-3 missions in isolation from each other all in one region you could knock out and make useless to the story progression 2 hours in. Furthermore, you didn't even have to help them. You could potentially ignore a character, never answering to their needs or missions, and just go about punching random trucks and freeing nameless prisoners until you met the XP count to make the region's leader angry enough. By contrast, every mission type in FC4 had an attempt of a character. People had their purpose, their wants, their quirks, and you had to hear and experience them to further that element. Want to go on epic hunts? You got to know the fashion designer. Want to go into the mountains? You were probably talking with the CIA agent, developing a side arc until a big twist could unfold that you never expected. There was an entire quest line dedicated to some ancient warrior in a surreal land. Your main campaign developed a rivalry, a set of choices between the two, and even set your path up for a neat and twisting end-game, all because you actually had to talk and associate with your allies who could actually further a more well-designed mission and cause. All of that is gone in FC5, the only guys with serious character are the boss characters that must be seen on the actual paper thin linear plot buried underneath of an over-dressed XP meter. Even returning gags like the CIA agent and Hurk are relegated to potentially their most useless roles, an AI buddy like one of 11 or so, and a one-and-done side mission that advances nothing.

Big trailer for a nobody with a single (Dodgeable) mission

There were multiple characters across this game I was supposed to care about, and I can't even tell you their damn names, or why. It was just so quick, abrupt, or no care given to their development. How could they anyway, players would be able to miss anything important if they did dedicate time into these guys? Its a shitty structure to begin with! The same can be said for the twist ending, and the end-game. The allegedly cannon ending involving a nuclear apocalypse hitting, making the antagonist "right" about a major catastrophe, had no actual noticeable warning for the majority of the audience. You could maybe catch a quick blurb about a nuclear threat from North Korea on the radio, but that about it, and Ubisoft has had to come out to directly point this out to critics with players having over 30 hours into this and still scratching their heads. Then even after that major turn of events, unlike FC4, there's no trace of it in the actual post-game. You just get tossed back into a perfect boss-less world full of side activities, even missions from underdeveloped dead characters you may not have completed before they died, but hey this game was developed with their death and lack of character in mind... because you can still do them and it doesn't effect a damn thing. It has no meaning or depth, less impact, and its all just there to serve a sandbox purpose. Nothing was ever well written, well displayed, or directed, because there was no direction. 

Hell, the main guy that sets and helps you on this resistance path named "Dutch" is nothing more than a voice on your radio! I was playing the entire game, expecting a turning point where he comes out with some serious news or development, but nope... he's just there to spout exposition until he just dies before he has a life beyond that. WTF were they thinking!? Where did the Pagan Min, Sabal, slow burning twists and turns, contrast with silly and fun to dark characters all go? Its all got to be shoe-horned into seconds of dialogue that one of 25 characters might get for their 1-2 mission across the entire game's maps. ...and on top of that, we've got a voiceless protagonist, and the main antagonist only peaks in the mid-game through these unnatural black backdrops of monologueing directly to you because immersion be damned. Go back to a more linear path Ubisoft, you screwed this up.

The rest of the issues are more simple. Things like just the fact there's no weapon variety in a game that sets you up to expect it, not to mention its earlier entries had you covered. Multiple assault rifles of the past, are now just two repainted ones still with a full list of stats as if you actually had much choice. That applies nearly all around. The one SMG under the SMG category is an MP5, with the MP40 thrown in once as perhaps a sort of functional joke. What the hell happened to an actual selection range? ...or at least simplify it right, and remove the silly stats, and just give us really good weapons we can truly improve, or work with through the whole game. Instead once you've got an AK47 with one of each of 3 attachments, that's as good as your end-game. You've got more things you can throw at a guy than any one type of actual gun you can shoot at them for the entire game. SMGs, Pistols, assault rifles, all of them incredibly limited down to the same two or three. Meanwhile you've got five different boom objects, a can, a knife, a molotov, cans, and bait for throwables, even a toss-able melee, all on your person at the same time. The amount of thowables is pretty great, but you'll be spending the vast majority shooting with a "6" damage assault rifle, wondering what the point even is of that 6 point assault rifle, or its five different over-priced reskins, when its your only damn assault rifle for 90% of the game. Its even more stupid that the lesser choice also has as many over-priced skins, as if you'd choose the worst weapon to dump hours of cash grinding on out of stupidly slim selection where you can't even trick yourself into thinking its the better choice. Who the hell came up with this shit? ...and again, I'm fine with a simple arsenal, but just do it right. Actually give me one iconic awesome, super customizable and worthwhile assault rifle if you want to simplify it. Don't tack it over an overcomplicated merch system with multiple skin tones, big stat sets, resetting the attachments if I just buy a new fucking pain job, etc. Its like some moron decided to settle an office argument by giving both sides what they wanted, 10 choices for an assault rifle, but yet only like two assault rifles, and he managed to do both at the same time in an act of unbelievably terrible game design that benefits nobody and just looks sloppy. Its even a detriment to its own lame inclusion of microtransactions.

At the end of the day, its not all bad, and honestly I still really enjoy the game. Its just... I'm sensing homesick vibe of FC4, and recalling how much better that was in most categories. It had the creative arena mode, better characters, actual plot logic and consistency that lead you somewhere, better side quests, and just all around knew more about what it actually was and wanted. Outposts and stealth were more fun, whereas the AI here wrecks that, and it barely even gives you a chance half the time anyway. FC5 is well summarized by one plot point where you escape a bunker by grappling on a helicopter and riding it out as it all explodes. Sounds awesome right? Flying up into the air, looking around an explosion you narrowly escaped, except... no, it actually fades to black right as you press the prompt and you watch from a sudden fixed (but poorly done) camera angle that wanted to make sure you were watching an explosion they put together by forced point. Likewise, you can hire any average joe, and most of them will have cool stuff or side-quests to tell you about.... which sounds cool until they start to go into lock-down panic mode over a threat 10 miles away, and actively escape you even if they're a major quest giver. Its shit like that which kind of makes you wonder if they lost the same vision that once came up with the 10 minute ending out of actual cleverness, rather than just to force it as a staple. 

Still there's a lot to still like here. You don't have to go hunt arbitrary 4 buffalo for your last gun holster, gone is the obnoxious loot bag you need to fill to get more loot bag material, and the buddy system is more refined and nicer. The level designer is a tad bit more open, its nice to not have that mini-HUD in your face, or radio tower #13 to climb up. Oh, and did I mention all the throwables? Yes I did, because that's kind of awesome! There's still some smart world design as well, and they do go to some interesting places with several missions and character actions. There's little quirks and fun things that occasionally still shine through, and moments that truly make this worth the big AAA game you should be playing for this month, not to mention the series returns as one of the only console-friendly games that tells players "hey, you can actually create your own levels, because... why not, we love what you can do with our game!". Far Cry is still a fantastic series, and contrary to what some silly people will say, its far from stale for just improving over most of a working formula. Its just that it actually lost some of what worked in this entry, and all for a misguided attempt to innovate in a way that just wasn't smart, on top of many more small little misteps. Its still a great game, just not FC4 great. Its one step forward, two back, but when it started from exceptional... its still really good.

The sheep should be very afraid...

Spyro is all but confirmed to be making a comeback by now. To my honest shock, it's all three games, and even some supposed "cut content". I don't know exactly what that means, because out of all my spyro knowledge, there's not a lot of good talk on deleted stuff. It theoretically exists, but there's really not a lot with reasonable discussion to add in, short of say... Spyro 2 actually introducing a 4th homeworld as there was allegedly supposed to be one for each season. Still we don't need to talk about that, because the fact is whatever they do for "cut content", it's added stuff on top of the best possible trilogy I could ask to return. There's no problem with this, unless... like some of the old trailers, the sheep aren't going to be happy about this.

Spyro was a big deal to me, and all this news surrounding him has sort of resurged the inner hype-child inside of me over it. I went through wallpapers, music, related media, and fan projects, just generally checking up on all things spyro. As I've said in the past, Spyro was like my serious introduction into gaming. Not the first game, and not the first enjoyable experience, as prior I had my hands on things ranging from putt-putt, or Donkey Kong Country, to even... Turok 2? Seriously, I was playing a lot of different games, but Spyro was the first that truly sunk into my head as "wow, this is incredible". It was the first game that involved actual gameplay, was truly fun as a game, and I actually played until completion. Then I came back for more. and more. and more. As the trilogy progressed, I played each one dry, exhausting practically all aspects of it save for perhaps some super completitionist stuff I would only be back later for. However it isn't just nostalgia. Spyro was just all-around fantastic in many aspects. The music was incredible. The levels were pretty awesome, and often memorable. There was a good mixture of humor and charm to what it was capable of presenting, and the gameplay stretched a real simple premise pretty far and well. There was also the art style choice, which despite the crazy and colorful worlds of 3D platformers, nobody had yet to consistently make an enchanted fairlyland type theme and make it last and feel good for three whole games. That's not to of course say they were super consistent and never deviated, but whenever they did, you could believe the weird logic of these portals, and how easy it was just to go back to fairy + dragon land. It all still holds up as a generally great series, where even whiny haters of the genre have answers to their issues like camera options and a hover jump control mechanic (except the first game).

So here's the deal. If this thing actually gets announced this month, each month going forward, I'm going to try and work on a fun spyro article despite a potentially busy work schedule. I want to try and get something out there each month, or maybe two a month, and discuss the games. This can be anything from wishlist/hype stuff about the remake, to just something like the top 10 lists, or maybe even outside the main trilogy. Just fun stuff, and kind of a fun way to keep things going. Of course, the fact remains that things are still a rumor, and there's still the sad possibility this won't be happening. Still the fact is, this is the logical conclusion, a spyro remake should be on it's way. We've got everything from leaked Crash code about an intentional spyro reference, to voice actor and twitter accounts pointing us that way, all that in addition to just the sensible idea of making a spyro remake after a crash one. The more realistic concern, is if they can finally prove that anybody post-universal can make a proper Spyro model, and not butcher it to something horrible like the crooked nose LOS version, or the gremlin Skylanders guy. Just stick to the classic design guys.

Is it Game of the Year if it's not even done?

I'm coming close to a reflection upon 2017, and while I might not continue to do a real GOTY list, I might do something similar. Either way, I tend to still set some system of rules for myself. Usually they include making sure a game was released that year, and I had to have played and loved it enough that year. That's basically my two main rules, but the first one is a major doozy. Sure at first you think it just eliminates backlog stuff I wait out and buy cheap from last year, but then you begin to realize there's late ports like Dust, Tomb Raider 2, and more recently a new wave that will be experiencing Okami for the first time on the PC (like a decade or close in age), not to mention just all the remasters people may be experiencing for the first time. I've had to shoo away from so many good games I loved in he year, because they didn't release then. However this system also works backwards, as if that makes any sense. Somehow we live in that awkward but awesome time where we can play games before they're out, through systems like extensive beta releases, or "early access". My personal rule would disqualify those, because even if they technically release, they are not the end-goal product they want you to see.

Unfortunately I have to step around eggshells to explain this, because some people don't understand that. People latch onto these words like "end-goal" and "finished" and "released" and start picking away at technicalities, or pretending that major award winning games are equal to broken betas because they might still have some free DLC or some serious patch changes to rebalance things. It's not "finished" anymore. While my rules are just my rules, and I shouldn't have to defend them, I would still like to talk about the principle of this topic and address it through arguments I've actually seen, especially as of recent drama around PUBG getting nominated in places like Destructoid.

"But nothing is ever finished today! It's all patches and stuff, and there's bugs everywhere!"

Fuck your pessimism, there are full functional and enjoyable games with no serious issues. Those that aren't, naturally don't become something amazing I love and gush over to the point where it's GOTY. The new Zelda was working pretty good. Horizon was a lot of fun from the cheers of it's launch week. People love the new Crash remakes. AC:O even escaped from any mass panic. On the other hand, Prey gave some people hell, so some people really took issues with it, and I don't hear it on a lot of GOTY lists. Sad, because it sure as hell is close on mine, but I understand that. But nobody with serious credibility gave AC:Unity or No Man's Sky a game of the year. Those are the seriously bugged or just flat out missing components of a game that make something truly bad, and worth putting more on the level of Early Access. Those games release, and they don't survive to become GOTY, because unlike an Early Access game they spent their true ideal release under controversy and angry costumers, fighting an uphill battle to even get an acceptable image.

"But Overwatch is still adding new characters and balances! It's not the same game anymore, so it was never 'finished' like you want!"

Oh, okay, I'm sorry developers aren't apparently allowed to use the internet with games anymore. This is conflating additions and rebalances with fucking beta or even alpha work! That is not the same damn thing. I can just go look at screenshots of something like PUBG and tell you it's not on the level of a finished product, or an Overwatch game with a good model of continuous content. So no, I don't consider beta and alpha work to be legit award winning material, unless that award was based on potential or hype. Even if the game is amazing, and fun, and it's brought a massive smile to your face all year long, if the devs say it's not good enough, it's not good enough for the awards. It can wait it's turn, it'll have it's release year (unless it's name is DayZ), there are other games out there that are actually ready for your final judgement. Adding additional content, or slowly transforming it, does not disqualify that, it just means it's an adapting and growing online game like... well, nearly every successful online game. Chances are, if you're early access game runs like that, it will continue post Early Access.

When people usually describe an award winning "finished" game, they don't mean one that is frozen in stone, nor one that has a tag that says Early Access on it's store page in massive letters, they are referring to a game released to the main public in ready 1.0 form. Games like Cortex Command or No Man's Sky that bullshit and fudge that 1.0 form don't live very healthy lives. You might have even just asked me what the hell "Cortex Command" even is, to which I say... exactly.

"But it's so good, and breaking records, and-"

Fantastic, but it's still not ready. All the reason you need is right on the store page, and in a separate category, under a different filter even, and it is perhaps even on the .Exe file name or folder, or even in the main menu every time it's booted up. Some might even watermark it in the corner of the screen as you play it. It probably says "BETA" or "0.8b2" which all point to, NOT READY YET. It was ready for you to test, and if it's incredible, then I hope you can say the same when it is ready as a product. Do you know how many finished releases are out there and ready as normal products though? Well you can help me, help you, because I won't write out this whole list, because it's a lot. So much in fact, that it would be a shame you neglected them for something that isn't even ready (though you can weed out re-releases it has).

"But this is just the nature of releases, get used to it!"

I'm sure publishers are telling you that about lootboxes to. Anyway, like I tell them, that won't omit you from being criticized. Plus this just flat out isn't an argument, and you look silly. If a website has different rules from me and decides to nominate broken farm survival V0.64b instead of a game that's actually optimized for more than their lucky office team, so be it. But in general, I'll still join the people angry at that decision, and we'll still fuss about how you dodged real and awesome great games that were more worthy of your attention, and unlike those Early Access games, won't have a second "release" party to celebrate in. They launched this year, and their chance to be game of the year is only once in this year. I'm not going down this broken logic of handing it out to ever game that decides to patch itself, or released beta version 7 which was better than version 6, and then give it to them again when it's actually done... or vice versa, rob it of it's chance to glorify it when it's done, because I wasted my breath on praising it before it even had showed it's best card. So I'll "get used to" criticizing people with shallow principles rather than declaring a game the best of it's year before it's even had its year.

At the end of the day, it's a hollowing thing to declare anyway, but I can't take it seriously by it's own rules and logic, because it lost what little it had. There are no rules or award ideas when you begin bending it to mean anything you can touch. I guess Doritos are the best drink now because they both feel good on your tongue? No, that's stupid, and so is saying a game that loudly boasts it's "EARLY ACCESS" status (before you can even read what it's about), is a game on par with titles actively competing to be known as good and ready for anyone of it's target market to buy for fun. Games like PUBG are more for testing, reporting, and experimenting, and are not ready for such privileged places. It will be one day, and I hope all you emotionally invested fans making up weird excuses for its praise will be there for it when it's ready, and I hope it's still fun for you and a blast, but that time isn't here yet. It's not there yet. Go play Divinity, Nier, Zelda, Mario, Hat in Time, Horizon, Prey, Evil Within 2, and a plethora of other stuff instead. Hell, I'll even rather give you credit for even putting a remaster on there if you really loved it THAT much, because at least that product was in a ready state and ready to be appreciated by everyone. PUBG isn't even optimized well yet... and before you say "But X you mentioned is also broke", yeah then fuck that, and don't put it on the list either, it doesn't make the other suddenly okay. What backwards logic is that!?

A hat that fits just right

I remember hearing about A Hat in Time long ago. I took a glance at it, but was skeptical. It just wasn't too interesting at the time. A cell shaded girl in a funny hat walked around a gray town, talking to guys who mumbled stuff, and you jumped around on balloons and stuff. It wasn't so appealing in the slightest, aside from just the vague murmurings that it was a "3D platformer guys!" by an indie team. It quickly got overshadowed by news of stuff like R&C remake, Yoolka-laylee, and even other 3D platformers that are now far more obscure that I can't even tell you their name at the moment (sadly among them, one never even happened). Heck, I think Tinker was even more interesting for a little bit, and then I realized you couldn't even freakin' jump. Point is this game didn't have my attention, until the high flying praise of it's very recent launch. I stood there, looking at it on the store page, irked by the price, but I did the math and took a plunge. ...then the game started off with a plunge into a monster pillow pile on a space craft, and everything from the first few seconds of the intro has been nothing short of a constant grin on my face. I adore this game, and it's brought back not only a complete thrill in this lost sub-genre, but it's the first time in perhaps a decade I found this much joy in a totally unexpected new IP type. No mario, no familiar animal pals, and no medicre wreck of meh like Yoolka-laylee (we'll get to that later), but it was a totally new universe that somehow captured and added to the sheer childish fantasy delight that is the 3D platformer genre, infecting you with bliss from the TV screen at every new turn and level. I don't even know what's going on a piece of the time, but that just adds to the crazy adventure of constant amusement and wonder.

I can't emphasize enough just how fast it all took off. From that ugly gray lifeless town on a youtube video years ago, to somehow transforming into this game of constant cheers and positivity. It starts you off on this ship ran and made for essentially a little kid, and the whole thing reeks of a child's fantasy wonderland in space mixed with new and old tech wonders and goofy descriptions. A little TV in the lobby has a pillow for a chair in the floor, there's a giant pillow pile with a secret cubby in your bedroom, and one of the first things you can do is try attacking, bouncing on, or hitching a ride on an automatic vacuum robot with expressive digital eyes and quirky animations. As the main room fills up and you wander, you'll see him goofily bump into stuff and bounce around. Goofy little details persist like a microwave description being "a thing you use to punish bad food". As the plot kicks off you go from mafia town where dumb broken-english-speaking russian chef mobsters (that's a mouthful) pretend to own and bully everything with hilarious slogans, to a dual between a fancily dressed penguin and a Scrooge McD-like guy who are trying to make the better movie. The game oozes with charm and personality, despite the stuff I saw in the early beta builds. Everything is full of quirks and sillyness, with some of it directly carrying into the game itself, like a stealth level where you're building up silly fines for everything you do to sneak around a movie set... including "cactus assault" for knocking over a cardboard cactus prop. I could go on and on, but I've honestly already probably spoiled too many charming surprises.

However it's easy to be charming and still fail at doing the medium justice. Thankfully from right out of the gates, it's got what it needs to be a blast. As soon as it started, I loved the jumping, and that was a huge part of my near instant smile. It's not just your basic jump and double, plus running and a gimmick (in this case, hat powers). Nope, you get the extra stuff. The kind of thing that honestly divides great platformers from... well, we'll get to that. You can vault over walls for a bit, trying to either gain the extra height before you bounce off, or try to reach the top. You can also dive, which is kind of like a nice little long jump. It sounds small when writing about it, but trust me these two additions to the generic are amazing. Like Spyro's gliding, or mario's complicated flip jumps, these moves build upon a feeling of momentum and freedom that make the rest of the entire experience shine and feel like exploring and running through. It's a key component of making a game like this feel just wonderful to pick and play. Almost nothing is locked away except for the gimmicks, and the main attack function requires you to beat level 1. That's it. No slow tutorials, you don't have to buy basic crap, and it's just liberating to run across the first world and just poke around at things. It's true 3D platformer glory!

The only major negative thing that runs through my head when playing this game, is it puts down the perspective of how much more wrong Yoolka-Laylee did, and... simultaneously smacks some of its haters by being the 3D platformer of amazing glory they think was only in our rose-tinted heads, or made up some other dumbass excuse to dismiss things without real thought. Yoolka-Laylee was a trip south for the genre. It was still okay, and had it's great moments and call backs, but let's begin to tear down all that went wrong. The tutorial was slow and painful, too afraid to let you be free until you slowly picked up all the pieces to start the game. The worlds followed a similar pattern, limiting themselves and then making the excuse that there only needed to be like 5 worlds because they all could be unlocked a tad bit more, and then on top of that some of the worlds were gimmicks to begin with and just kinda... bad. Then there was arbitrary limits, and even as you unlock mundane powers, and spend currency towards them, you were trapped by a dumb system that even stunted your sprint with a "charge bar" that drained, punishing you for certain movements that should have been basic. Oh and then we can slap on those awful mini-games, the repetitive side quests, the convoluted and unpleasant hub world, the fact there was no voice acting, a $10 higher asking price, and then the fact they burned some good will in a fire by making a pretentious political move.

Despite publisher backing, veteran development, and a super funded kickstarter, Yoolka-laylee looks like garbage by comparison to A Hat in Time. I'm not just ragging on it for the heck of it, but rather these games should be compared side by side as a lesson in a genre that's very difficult to pin down other than emotional feelings of acclaim or scorn. ...oh and Hat in Time even has Jontron, with actual voice acting. Regardless of your views on his controversy, this felt like the major point that sealed this rant and said "fuck you" to Playtonic, before just as easily slipping back into the comfort that is Hat in Time. I know, Rare inspired these guys, and I'm still thankful for all their effort, it's just... it sure feels like a lot didn't go into Yoolka-Laylee when thinking back in retrospect, and this inspired game stole the reigns from those that were once masters completely. Yoolka Laylee was still alright, but it's among the many B-grade guilty pleasures people seem to forget Rare made plenty of, rather than being major B&K successor it was hyped to be. Hat in Time on the other hand, is currently on track to be in leagues with the grand classics of this sub-genre. It feels so perfectly in between the sort of love, charm, quality, and game stylings that were to be had if you fused Psychonauts with Mario 64 (honestly I feel more of that there than any Rare game), and it's just soooo good.

Hat in Time has just been a blast so far. My only two concerns now essentially include "is there another massively open level like Mafia town?" and "Does it conclude at a good pace?". After Wolfenstein this year, I can't say it'll be good until it's over, it could easily drop the credits so fast it breaks the teeth that were once smiling. However I seriously doubt that, and so far this is honest and serious GOTY contender at this rate. Perhaps the first from an indie. I can't seriously express enough just how fun it's been, even the more heavily scripted pieces of the game. Moments like the mystery case just had me thinking real fast and quick, feeling fantastic as I made it through, and still keeping a keen eye out for exploration bits. Still I'd love to see another Mafia town, where most of the level is open. I have a good feeling though there's still plenty left to see, do, and love about this game. It continues to constantly surprise me, and even turn things I'd usually hate on their head and make it great. This is just such a good game, and I seriously encourage others to go and buy it right now.

Battlefront 2's controversy is everything I've been warning against

^ How the publishers see us ^

So, Battlefront 2's release has gone up in flames, with the big spark not being the pay to win mechanics (even if those were bad and sparked deserved drama), but when close to launch a reddit post remarked how absurd the grind was, and how much it would likely cost him to get up to Darth Vader. When EA tried to respond to reassure us it was all in the name of fun unlocks, it broke the record of the website's downvotes. I could say I told you so, but... I'm actually kind of happy people have finally woken up to hating it so much, so I won't burn any bridges too much. I've mentioned how terrible this bullshit grinding is in several accounts, best one probably right here where I also predicted the microtransactions in COD:BO3 before the game launched (it patched them in like a month post-launch, so pretty far out). However this one is another fun relevant read where I lashed out at the idea briefly, and this one is a strange one that will grow some anger as I defend people who buy into the shortcut, but the massive catch is that's because I fucking despise the system now being monetized more so than the people just wanting to do whatever they can to escape it. The people I were arguing against were quite literally condemning them for daring to want things trapped behind an absurd skinner box, hating other players with a warped envy, rather than asking the developers for either a traditional unlock system ("back in my days, we would beat the game and challenges for X"), or a system that naturally respects the players time and doesn't ask insane requirements to get alternate costumes. The real problem was always in the game design, and loads of people were being idiots bordering on Stockholm syndrome, defending their captor's system whilst accusing people that use the meta-system of paying DLC shortcuts were cheaters of some sort. They weren't cheaters, just naively thankful for a way out of a dumb game design. To quote a piece where I used Bad Company 2's old shortcuts as an example, where-in people were "thanking" publishers for the shortcuts...

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.

That article was written back in spring 2015, where the systems were already well implemented and copies ever since the combined might of Modern Warfare and the sudden mainstream appeal of Battlefield, bringing skinner boxes to the trendy competitive multiplayer spotlight while people tried to pretend they were as appropriate and homely as their favorite RPG. However it was far too early for publishers to find the most optimal way to monetize it, and now here we are today... hi EA's Star Wars Battlefront 2.

EA hasn't actually changed much, which is why I don't see why this was so hard for people to get behind. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure everybody is 100% there even now. With the recent update about EA pulling out microtransactions and ONLY microtransactions, some are already sounding like we've won, completely forgetting the entire point of what makes grinding for vader outrageous to begin with... the fact you're grinding for vader. All they did was pull out the shortcut in a game designed to make it painful if you don't take the shortcut. They were aiming at potential money by making it poorly designed! That's still there. It might be fixed in the long run, but then again we thought so to when EA dropped both the grind requirements, ...and also the reward payout. This isn't fixed until it's truly fixed, and right now all we're looking at is a broken bridge where the repair man was charging extortion rates, and then left when an angry mob formed. You've still got a broken bridge, and we aren't crossing it until we get a better repair man.

Not going places with this yet

Oh, and another thing, that discussion about arcade mode locking people out after a while? Not only does Dice not know what they're doing when one guy says "it's not going to stay that way", while another is saying "it's to prevent exploitation", but the second guy I just mentioned is literally using an argument gamers themselves have long fallen into, and we do need to have a serious talk about how full of shit it is. Remember "boosters", and how terrible they were? Yeah, those jerks who go on a server and dare to... get a random rifle faster than you? Yeah, how dare they, don't they know they need to go and earn it like everybody else, by hours of corner camping and one hit kill knife throws, or by letting your killstreak helicopters rake in the points while you watch? How dare they indeed. Now they're going to get Darth Vader before me, which was almost as bad as the original Battlefront 2, where anybody could play the entire iconic cast as if they owned the game or something. I don't know who those cheaters think they are, but they better not also speedrunning games because that means they might beat them before me with a glitch, and that'd just be unthinkable! ...hopefully you guys can see I'm sarcastic, but people were really talking like this at one time, and maybe a couple special snowflakes that need their "fair" participation sticker rewards trickling down their skinner boxes still feel that way. It's sickening, and now even Dice is attempting to use it as an excuse as to why they need to curl back the offline unlocks. Except it's funny, because it makes no sense when they're also selling the shortcuts that got these elitist asshats complaining about guys akin to boosters to begin with. Now they finally stopped yelling at each other to unite, and actually see that a star wars game advertising playable jedi & Sith as a major feature... shouldn't take three weeks or an extra $80 to see Darth Vader.

Even ignoring idiot anti-booster retorts from the peanut gallery, Dice's defense on stopping offline farming is a warning sign of bad game design. What is being "exploited" by earning points? If it's not silly costumes and boosting goofs, is it legit power enhancements that would empower them above all others? Then that's bad balance and bad game design, and players will naturally "earn" the ability to not only be more experienced, but have better stuff than others for just lucking out with lootbox rewards. If it's not, then why are they farming for something worth so little? Maybe it's because you made a bad grind, and you don't want people to have the freedom to just enjoy it all, because you're exploiting them for potential money off of that grind? The sad truth is, it's both, contrary to whatever they may say. The best idea would to be either to let them just do whatever with the game they just bought, unlocking things in whatever way they feel comfortable with, or to let them just play with whatever out of the gate in an environment that is entirely up to them. Various games with offline modes and online progression systems had this radical idea to isolate them, almost as if they were separate modes... because they kinda fuckin' are!

Hey, so how's that bridge coming along!?

Look, don't let these guys off the hook here, and better yet... wisen up yourself and towards the community around you. Expect better of your games. This skinner box was a problem long before now. In the past, it was to exploit your attention, trading depth and in-game systems for a lazier design that valued quantity over quality, so they could shower you with constant participation rewards with the hope you'll hang onto the game and praise it for having a long length, forgetting that good design and integrated social community is it's own lasting power... but building that is hard work, so they'd rather give you 20 different assault rifle tweaks to work on obtaining over 40 hours, and master-sergeant-mcawesome badge status beside your name. Now they've found they can drag this out to sucker cash from it, and it's not going to stop there. Even with Overwatch, a game with amazing depth, decided to throw all extras and customization under the bus because they knew they could charge you for it through the obligatory modern skinner box scheme. It's not even nickle and diming you anymore, with easy and simple costume packs, it's a gambling game where they want whales to buy bundles of 50, and get people making stupid reaction youtube videos of them opening it for hours on end, or "testing" the probability. It's all bullshit, and it's there to exploit you, not appeal to your sense of fun. If you want a skinner box where it's appropriate and actually worthwhile, go enjoy some Borderlands. They actually give you skins to start with, have a real DLC model, and the core game isn't broken by making you pay around it but rather designed to incentivize you to play with a serious shooter RPG hybrid model that involves  number crunching grinds for quests and adventure. That's not what you get by the cheap, shallow, and exploitative nature of just participating in a shooter until you eventually get to play one of the key figures in the star wars universe. Thank you all so much for finally saying no to a game that pulls this shit, but it alone won't be enough.

Hunting rats is the real achievement, not being one trapped in a skinner box

Lootbox Surprise!

I really didn't want to talk about lootboxes. I shouldn't have to. It's easy: Yes they suck, and no you shouldn't support them. Don't touch them. If the game looks entirely rigged to them, stay the hell away and wait for reviews (especially grassroot. I laugh at the idea sites like IGN would tell you in fairness). Above all though, I stress when I say don't buy them. It's actually an insidiously good concept of bad business, where just getting you to buy even the dumbest one, and then stop, it's a net gain if they never had it at all. This stuff uses virtually no resources for them to put in, as long as they had an in-game system of rewards (thanks to idiots praising the COD/Battlefield formula for years, this is standard) and prints an ever-source of money. So stop it. Don't think about it. Not even a test one for some lame excuse. No, it's not okay with cosmetics either, that stuff should at the worst be sold on the store as a solid $1-5 costume, not a rough gamble. Lootboxes are bullshit. Don't support them. But I suppose with the subject of lootboxes, it should be an appropriate surprise that this isn't so simple. So surprise, a lot of gamers are taking this to some bullshit lengths, and I'm starting to become slightly more sympathetic with the publishers as this goes along.

With all the talk about loot boxes being gambling cropping up, it's clear this isn't the casual use of the word coming up. I call it gambling like I would taking on a risky RPG quest, it's a gamble if maybe I am or am not ready for it, or can complete it, or get the reward. It's interchangeable with risk. Well apparently people have forgotten that layman talk, and want it to be legal talk now, and say that this is legally gambling and must have all the laws, 18+ rating, and perhaps taxes associated with it. Loads of gamers don't want this to be a choice or consumer responsibility, but they want to directly bring the legal system in and pretend things will be all sunshine and rainbows... when the government directly profits off of gambling. Yeah, genius thinking there, you just told them they could get more money from gaming and incentivize it. As the rating boards, and China's attempts at Overwatch have made it clear, this isn't quite a simple gambling thing. There's loopholes, and then there's the matter of trying to attack it without burning down legit gameplay mechanics that involve risk. ...but that's not the worst part.

Often the ones wanting this to be enacted by law, are talking as if their kids are going to be rampant addicted gamblers because they're apparently dumping hard earned cash (again, kids) on loot boxes for Overwatch skins, or Fifa points. The fact this argument is being uttered by emotional gamers this time is incredibly annoying, especially when coupled with the above mentioned irrational legislative mentality. It's as assinine as I was hinting at earlier when you actually apply *gasp* logic to it, and so far in every instance I've brought this up, nobody has been able to refute it; How the hell are games to blame for your kid getting money and spending it on worthless skins? The kids that live under a guardians home, not legally able to work a paying job, not having credit cards to make direct online purchases, and I'm somehow being told by gamers themselves that they're puttin' the big bucks into gambling for that rare Tracer skin. Nevermind booster cards, and don't think about arcade games of the past, or claw machines of the present, no we mustn't stop and think with common sense, we've got to call this for what it is: the end of an addiction free generation. I know, tragic. You see how this is bullshit? And the funny thing is, there's a couple of people who almost have the sense to see this, only to somehow have an even more stupid response. Because they'll sit there and know this argument "for the children" is dumb, but they'll turn and suggest that because some parents are idiots who will try to attack games over this, that they must.... do it first? No really, they want the rating boards or the legal system to do something about it, so they're raising a fuss and being those angry parents so we don't get angry parents. I wish I was making this up.

I still hate lootboxes. I'm on your side in that regard, and I will casually refer to it as a gambling device to get more money out of us. However I draw that line with the right argument, and I think us complaining about it being a sucky system is in itself grounds enough to discuss our distaste. I refuse to defend dipshit parents or guardians who are so neglectful and ignorant that they'll let their kid get addicted to a system that naturally has quite a few obstacles for a kid. A good parent would teach them more responsible routes, or even make some example of what a bad value something like loot boxes are. ...but hell, even in those cases where parents aren't perfect saints and will watch as their kid tries a claw machine with their dollar, that won't ruin their whole lives. My own dad loves those things, but hardly gambles on serious matters, and I've only given it a try myself maybe 3 times in my whole life, and never bought a lootbox. We don't need legislation to know this is a bad value, you just need more sense. If you don't think we're a capable society of that, then I'll remind you who runs that society: The government. They're still humans, they still seek money, the spend it worse and more crookedly than any gambler if the debt and the US social security is anything to go by, and they even tax you for dying. I think I'll take my chances with the current trend, than any bullshit badly designed legislation would bring. Last I checked, Assassins Creed Origins kept it right with the time period, and lets you die with your gold.

Wolfenstein the new Colossal shrug

When Wolfenstein: The New Order came out, it was amazing. Death to the time when all we got was practically COD clones. Now we got a return to real hardcore FPS, told through a weird fusion of Half-Life and ID formulas. It was an amazing game, and stole the spotlight around the singleplayer scene, with more people than ever talking about the series for it's story. Of course there was room for improvement, and as the sequel was releasing, it looked to promise so and even more. The result? *Sigh* ...I don't know how the hell people are giving this game 9-8 out of 10s. It's not bad, but it's certainly mediocre under the technicality of the hype it set out, and I find all the praises of this game from critics to run skin deep when you see the full reality.

The first half of the game demolishes one of the biggest traits I loved, and I don't think anybody saw that coming. Everyone knows about the wheelchair bit by now, but it's only upgraded slightly, as BJ is "dying" in a power suit. Instead of being like power armor, it really acts more like just the thing that he's barely alive to live through, which carries over into the gameplay by sticking you at 50hp. That's your max. Half your health, and yes, it still partially regenerates, and the game still has enemies, movement, and gunplay that suits more of the old school mentality. This translates into a system that is just flat out broken beyond easy difficulty. You're expected to soldier through these big rooms with weapons and crazy enemies flying, hit scan shots soaking into your supposedly large pool of health, and yet you're just given 50hp. With the rate at which bullets eat up your health and fly out at you, you're reduced to nothing unless you have an overcharge.

Not only that, but you begin to notice just how flat out poorly design lots of little things are. I think some of this applies to The New Order, but I never noticed it there because the map design and core mechanics were actually working. Here you won't be finding the same working fun when a grunt in his thick black steel and iron suit is running to you at the sound of a ninja and gunning you from full to dead health before you have a chance to respond. That's not old school. Having a grenade being cooked and thrown at you to knock you down, and the enemies shoot you while you wait for a stuttering animation to let you shoot again, killing you even if you literally have full overcharge AND armor is also not old school gunplay. The crazy run and gun, circle strafing, dual weilding crazy, laser nazi killing type of fun reviews and attitude alike around this game, are just flat out not there when you die the second you peak out of the corner because your health isn't allowed over 50, and you're being shot in the back by sudden enemy closets and silent creeper. Then you have to put up with the idiots that just don't die consistently, when you use up 30 shots of machine gun on one guy, only to realize he was just tripping instead of dying, is an old annoying trait emphasized when your health is fixed at half. Then they have the audacity to put you in these terrible rooms that are either too cramped and generic hallways, or full of so many ups, downs, and turns in addition to the enemy horde that you just can't reasonable beat the thing without dying several times in a bid to luck out with where the enemies do or don't flank you. This is half of the main campaign too, going on for several levels, and a massive bulk of cut scenes and important story moments. So hope you like badly designed cover shooters in an old-school pretend skin. The first half is a more sophisticated Duke Nukem Forever, just as broken and stupidly contradicting.

I wish it was this crazy fun

Okay, so maybe it's good at story, right? Heh, this is far more subjective, but sit down and let's talk through some SPOILERS!

So the story goes pretty strong at first glance, and even in a lot of it's continuing depth. Some people hate the contrast between silly pulp fiction, and the actually dramatic and horrible nazis, but I actually like the grit and spit silliness of it all. If you can get by the fact of say... a B-grade pulp fiction head transplant as a serious life measuring tool in the same game that expects you to take death seriously, you'll be fine. I mean that, really, I am among those who won't complain at all about the silly contrasts, I actually enjoy a dark plot with some sense of humor. Everything in that vein is done really well. I was interested in the characters, I liked how many scenes and twists unfolded, there were some cool mysteries and interesting extra lore, and the cast in general was just kept interesting.

The problem isn't that the story is told pretty good in the moment, it's that the moment never has a real ending. The ending destroys everything good this story sets up so well. It's not that it's a shocking or "it's a dream" ending, but rather the lack of anything shocking or interesting, or even so convinient as to tie it up neatly. The game just flat out ends, like their budget was cut, or like the writers who actually got shit done were on holiday leave while somebody just literally tried to find the shortest way to pop the credits in stylishly. The game ends with you just literally out of nowhere, fading into the same area as your arch-enemy, and sneaking over to her where you just watch a cut-scene of BJ running and stabbing her. You then have the resistance pals take over a broadcast and shout for people to fight. Cue credits. That's it. it's literally just a sudden tip-toe to the credits deal.

It hurts the heart for all the wrong reasons

Now I had to clarify this is subjective, because apparently a lot of people liked this anti-climatic. ...and look, there's a point there, and that's fine. I get it, the villain wouldn't have suited some traditional mech boss, or some gigantic evil scheme. You were left "wanting more" in a "good way", and the resistance wasn't just done there, and that's... alright to a point. Fine, we did that, we killed that guy, I'm okay with that. The last fight they did have was cheap as fuck and badly designed, but whatever, that's not the point. I wasn't disappointed because the villain's death was cinematic, that could have been done well. I was actually really fine with it, even if a little confused at it's sudden appearance, but it was when the credits kicked in that sorrow and anger came into place. It wasn't the villain, or her end that was bad, it was the fact that the game ended and thus ended for everything around that scene. Suddenly, answers were closed, there were no more real levels that it could have gone through, and as I was just saying that made the good parts all the more shorter considering the first half was... I won't repeat it.

You had a nazi join you. Not only a nazi, but the daughter of the main villain. Her last position? She was just radioing in intel, and says nothing in the final moments. She says nothing when you murder her very mother on broadcast television. She isn't found to be saying anything. They never bring it up. It is nothing. You saw hitler suddenly a couple levels back. You left him there, doing nothing to him, and nothing was said about him. You end the game with that nothing. There was a device a few hours in, a cool contraption that your quirky smart scientist cared so much about took interest in. It was made this great deal out of, given the name of a God Key, he was so mesmerized by it, and you know where that went? NOWHERE! No exaggeration either, it literally went nowhere beyond being a mystery, and being called a god key. Nothing else. Nothing. You can't even find the character on the hub world to hear idle dialogue. It ends with nothing to that build up that you spent over an entire minute of core-campaign cut-scenes witnessing. Then there was Fergus, a character who's slightly optional under a binary choice. I played with him in it, and just before the final mission, back before it even remotely felt like the final mission, you were being opened up to a dramatic new development in his character. You had to go out of your way to find his robotic arm, which involved a five minute long flashback on his woes and why he tried to destroy it, and then you just leave once you gave it back to him, but the very reason and event that lost it to begin with... goes in the gutter. It's as important as the god key apparently. It was just filler, ending with the sudden credits after you just conveniently tip-toe to the big villain. That's just the tip of the ice berg! There's an entire character who is introduced only to disappear, amounting to nothing the whole game. Her companions were barely there as well. There's this key plot point about a ring brought up, telling you it's this big deal, but it's only wedged in a sloppy scene mid-credits like they nearly forgot about that too! Oh and several lost characters and past events, it's like they never happened. You apparently didn't do shit in the last game, and the characters that died, or were associated to your wyat/fergus timeline meant nothing! I held out hope for a mention or inclusion, even a tiny hint or call-back, but when the credits rolled in a game that felt far from over... it was all just suddenly hurried to an end and died.

Do you get what I'm saying by now? I'm not angry because of a lack of robot boss fights, I'm mad because of a lack of story all over the damn place. I'm not just angry because of the sudden villain end, which should rightfully be enough to piss off a lot of people on it's own, but I'm also pissed at all the things that just came to tease you about something that never happens. I scoured around a bit for some terribly hacked in side plots that tie in what were introduced in THE MAIN STORY-LINE, but I've yet to find anything even remotely on the subject. ...and I shouldn't have to. If you're a good writer, you don't write purple-monkey-dishwasher scenes in just to bait a stupid side-mission, you finish what you damn well started and don't make it some damn hidden side slop like it were your moldy leftovers. But even given that benefit of the doubt, I haven't seen anything. The only possible explanaition I have is that some questions will be answered by that artificial secret that is a Vault. That thing, which once enticed me as a possible surprise like maybe a new mode, is now pissing me off with the realization that the game I paid $60 for and installed 55GB onto was half-assed the whole time, and they were still fixing up a patch to finish it and are parading it as if it were some big show to be excited for. They even managed to work in a line, where you see the real vault in-game and have BJ say "What's set cooking up in there?". So they quite literally managed to work in a piece to tell you they're working on another piece, but they couldn't work in a few lines of Sigmund reacting to her own mother's cinematic death, or answer the God Key question they spent two cut-scenes imposing.

Weird shit that goes nowhere, like this guy's maps

....but this game is somehow a massive success!? Higher end of the bargain? A great narrative and action game? 8 and 9 out of 10s all over the place? Are we playing the same damn game!? This isn't hard to see, it's right in front of your faces if you actually played it to the end and paid attention, and I'm not the only person seeing the bullshit all around. Thankfully a couple others have asked where the plot went, or why the ending is so anti-climatic, but there's not enough. Googling the god key for any hidden secrets or even theories gets you no real results. Believe me, I wanted to know where the fuck this stuff goes, but the answer is nowhere. The game doesn't "leave you wanting more" because it's good, it leave you wanting a damn conclusion because it ended so terribly.

Again, I want to end this on the note that it's not a bad game. As a matter of fact, there's a lot to love. The characters and story are still going great before they end. I adore the scene that Horton is introduced in. I love what they did with dual wielding, or more importantly how weapons actually stick with you this time. I love the added replay value in hunting down nazi generals as a post end-game way to play. I also love all the potential in starting a new game and seeing news stuff with a new timeline and new mid-game gadgets. ...and when the game just goes all out crazy, a lot of it is good fun. But between the terrible opening half with the poor gunplay, and how the second half chooses to go nowhere in the story's end, the game can't seem to hold itself together. It falls miserably in one or the other of two major categories, and when it happens on the same package that you're holding on your harddrive for a whopping 55GB, you start questing how worthy this game is, or if you're just enduring the pain to get through it. This is a very flawed gem, worthy of playing for general single player FPS fans, but not a must have right now. I'd wait on it, see where it goes, and realize there's better things out there. Prey was amazing, and as for new releases, holy shit is AC:O surprisingly better than I thought. Wolfenstein had an easy path to being one of the best games of this whole year by just being a good sequel, but it choose not to do that. It's... really kinda sad. I love a lot to this game, and it's the sort of thing I stuck with and pushed through it's faults, but a lot of that pushing was spent angry and away from the fun that I love in this stuff. In a world where Doom succeeded it, it learned nothing from it, but rather fell even further into flaws than it's own predecessor.