My Plants vs Zombies dilemma

Before I get into the main details I want to go over something I find a bit ironic. Its been a while since I felt truly enthusiastic about an EA published game. You often hear about that from people that talk crap about EA, blame this publisher for killing a handful of studios (or just shifting the blame from dev to publisher *cough* Mass Effect 3 *cough*), and then they'll pretend they'll boycott everything from EA. Then suddenly Battlefield is released and everyone continues celebrating, the sports titles are still quietly hitting massive sale numbers that I dare anyone to make sense of, and EA continues being a massively successful publisher because they actually do have some quality game under their name. Point is: People are often with EA even when they claim not to be. I used to be that guy out there being more honest and suggesting the realistic truth that it isn't possible to avoid them, that they own too many good series. Then I actually did stay out of it myself without even meaning to. So much for that statement of mine. Where was I? Well probably sucking up to my favorite publishers Bethesda and Sony while also being punished beautifully by Dark Souls and playing some obscure or old games in my down time from that. Even if I wanted to go around to EA I've got a mental mini-list of older EA games I want to get rather than new ones. Deadspace 2 or 3, Fuse, Syndicate, Crysis 3, and.... some other game I've probably forgotten. I'm pretty sure Crysis 3, Fuse, and Deadspace 3 were all games I was looking at and thinking about back when I made that old statement, yet I didn't even get those. They're on my list of games to get because I found myself managing without them for a long time. EA's stuff just isn't all that interesting to me anymore.

I lost interest in their current catalog, or worse: they look kind of like the types of games I've come to resent in many cases. Its not even for Publisher practices in most cases, its just the way they themselves are built. I experiences their biggest series, and most feel like they're lacking personal appeal and have issues or just follow lame gameplay trends I know to avoid or already have a better alternative to. Especially Battlefield, which went from a really good game series to just being so troubled, inaccessible, and frustrating for me to enjoy. I've had enough, and I'm holding even StarWars: Battlefront to skeptical predictions because I simply don't trust the pairing of EA with Dice. I'm not "boycotting" EA over anything, but Battlefield has to do something to prove itself again, even in Visceral's hands with the newly announced cop spin-off. Heck most of their games are fighting an uphill battle to win me over in my thoughts. That is until Popcap comes in with Garden Warfare. Not even PvZ2 as I feel like the game just stands too well on its own, but this spin off fascinates me. Just... look at it. The advertisements, the art style and use of the engine, the fighting, and the enthusiasm. It just has a lot of heart, and fun that clearly went into it. Team strategy, fun interesting classes, silly customization and weapons, a sense of humor, the XP system is replaced with stickers and a card game or something like that. Its a game trying to seriously tackle TF2 without looking too much like it, and instead just being a smart formula with good design choices. Its the epitome of fun! Again, just look at it!

Awe, I think he's smiling!

Then I'm reminded the obvious risk: Its multiplayer only.

...And now the face of evil is smiling

Fine I get it. The game is meant to be a multiplayer game, and I can respect that. That's where the fun, values, and interest of it all come together. However as I think I said back when I had some harsh criticism of TitanFall, you really need to go in well suited for that sort of thing. Bots, server lists, the right content, all of which I know this doesn't have or is up to question. Also will the player base be there? How long? I hate to be that guy that says you can't do an online only package (unless its an MMO), but I can't help it. I appreciate a focused game, but this is the kind of thing I'd expect out of a focused high quality game. Its been done for as long as Unreal Tournament and probably even before that (like the campaign counter-part "Unreal"). You can have an online focused game, but its less accessible than saying the same for single player and you need to be held accountable for that. Bots, server lists, friend friendly features, and preferably a reliable publisher that wont divide people with DLC. Thankfully that'll be handled in the PS (and presumably PC) versions as they will come with DLC, but I wouldn't be surprised if another hit. Even if it did absolutely everything except bots right, I'm taking into account my own habits and learning from them. I wish I had played Starhawk more... but why not? Well because every time I was even remotely interested in something else, or thought a bit about playing I told myself "what if lag happens" or that time where I got a crash as soon as the level started "oh no. Well I probably wont be able to get back into that same server, and that match loading takes too darn long." I would find the easiest reasons to excuse myself to some other, more reliable game that had a back-up plan. Even if it meant playing a much lesser online game like Far Cry 3, or COD, but there I knew I would have and be ready to move to an offline function if I wanted to. StarHawk... it had server lists, amazing gameplay, and even a campaign, but because the campaign was tacked on and multiplayer was exclusively online with no sign of bots it was better to just walk over to Killzone or COD where bots were ready and waiting if the servers were having a rainy day. Even in a life where I'm not rushing anything, I enjoy my games, and I can find myself well connected usually, I just don't feel like I can bother with a game that tethered somewhere else when I can get an experience that offers the whole world of entertainment without that tether.

Yet the truth is I still don't regret anything about starhawk other than the fact that I didn't play more of it. I also was addicted to vanilla (and pre-bot) TF2 for quite some time when I was younger. Then there's Chivalry which I can disregard the bot mode because its horribly dumbed down and yet I still adore it and consider it one of the best PC games to exist. The same enthusiasm and love I had looking at those games is there in what I see of Garden Warfare. It just looks like so much damn fun. I've put up with horribly backwards matchmaking for hours of entertainment in Killzone 3, some of the COD games, uncharted, and more, so I can do it here. If I could do that, I could also connect fine. So.... I arrive at my dilemma. Is the fun worth the hassle and inconvineinece? Will the good times and refreshing multiplayer actually be something to stick by, or will I abandon it for games that function 24/7? Still I feel like I shouldn't have to come to this question. EA, Dice, popcap, and really any publisher and developer pair overall... get your act together and be prepared to come out in full when you do an online focused game. Please. Its better for the players, better for your sales, and better for the game you have staff putting days worth of heart, talent, and effort to making it a great experience. Don't limit it with a silly expiration date or issues that do not need to exist! Epic knew better than that back in the late 90's, why can't you guys figure it out now in 2014!? Anyways I'll think it over, and if I turn out to buy it I hope it stays well active and is a blast to play.

Lets talk about WatchDogs, FarCry4, and Open world philosophy

First question is why is ubisoft obsessed with their open world games? They've got like 4 of them coming out in one freakin' year. To be honest though its actually kind of cool. While most people attack the trends by being them, Ubisoft seems to know how to invent their own sort of trendy COD-like release pattern with games that use different mechanics while still being accessible and familiar... and really capitalize on triple A. Ok real question is what is it about Watch Dogs that gets people excited? I see it as two things. 1) That awesome original E3 trailer... it was both really impressive and didn't have much for competition during that show. 2) New open world game for a new generation... even if its cross-gen multi-platform. Apart from infamous you don't really have much competition there..... and heck no I'm not counting AC4. Damnit ubisoft, you're everywhere with this stuff.

Ok but in all seriousness I've found it a bit interesting that Watchdogs has been doing so well. It was a nice new IP that has a nice twist about it, but in the end I think people aren't exactly wrong to associate it with GTA. Its not that it is a clone, because honestly GTA is one of the founders and its kind of rare we see anything truly differ a lot, but honestly... it just looks like another open world game. Don't get me wrong now, I don't think that's necessarily bad. I'm not exactly the type of person for it all the time, I really end up taking more in and enjoying the ride more within linear games. However there's also a specific reason open world really doesn't as good to me, and honestly I think Watchdogs may fall into the problem. It goes like this... follow quest, drive from A to B to get something done, go to next quest, do what it says and get some good exposition. After that you sadly need to do something you really hate... like trailing someone, or escape the cops even though you do that ALL the time when you're not in a mission. next quest and... well this is familiar, this was the same objective as the first mission. Put it on loop and you have the normal open world formula IF you go straight at the core. If you do not, well there are side missions.... like taking territory by killing specific people. Or racing. Or a side quest that is exactly like one of the repeating mission sequences. And there are like 10 of each type of those side quests. Then you have a sandboxy open world to play in. Out of that the latter sounds like the only real fun one. This is kind of the problem I have with a lot of open world games, its a straight and obvious repetition. As soon as I seen a trailer of Watchdogs where you can only hack an area after you clear an area, I think we all knew what kind of a grind we would be in for.

Only 7 more areas to go!

Now you can say the same about linear games to a small extent, but truth is the depth of a good one helps it avoid this. In Half-Life 2 you had to solve physics puzzles, shoot zombies, shoot combine, solve physics puzzles, shoot combines, talk with friendlies, then shoot more zombies... yeah you get the point. However the difference here is the level design. Yup its linear, but each area you walk into was custom tailored to be balanced specifically right, give you an interesting variety of choices, has its own set of textures and secrets, and the game progressively escalates. Open world games have so little if any of that. The world is huge, but shares a lot of the same resources, is built in larger inaccessible quantities rather than small details and quality, and you have access to a lot of it for the whole game meaning you need to be comfortable with it to really enjoy the rest of the content. Meanwhile the linear world surprises you with each new step, and even if you need to revisit an area like Dishonored's hub world its been made to expect you to return and to reward you with new collectibles, optional character dialogue, and fine details to prepare you for your next mission whereas an open world game does this through audio only or a quick cut-scene.

However to its credit the open world games have done one major improvement to help themselves out here... that escalation problem is mostly fixed. At least half the games now have a long list of buildable, upgradable, and interesting powers or perks that increase over time. While XP and progressions systems are almost by definition a grind (as well as an overrated plague on multiplayer games), it actually fits so well within open world games. By doing just about anything you're getting XP, and you get a lot of it for doing missions and putting yourself up to tasks, so you're actually being given new and interesting stuff as the game urges you along. While a linear game brings up new enemy types and high end weapons in a late linear game, Saints Row 4 is about to let you rank up to being able to use a special Ice blast and complete that elemental collection of powers. It feels pretty equal as a quality surprise to find myself running into without feeling like I'm grinding for it. By the time I've been able to get all the powers, the game has been finished or wrapping up and I feel satisfied and end my progression on par with where the game wants me to while keeping this energy with me that felt enthusiastic. Admittedly that's when it starts dying down and nothing is new, and all missions are complete, but by then you can be able to say a game is done... so its all good, and if anything that's where the open world aspect shines because you can call it done on your own terms. Sort of.

You know what never had a lot of these problems though.... Far Cry 3. Not 2 though, that was the exact opposite. 2 might as well be the very essence of repetitive open world gaming. FC3 tied up really good and fun FPS gameplay that had tactics, good inventory, and customization then mixed it in with an open world setting that felt fresh, had objectives that usually involved going into otherwise inaccessible areas, introduced interesting character as it went along, and allowed you to upgrade your abilities with a tattoo themed XP system. You still had some feeling of grind to it with repetitive side missions, and a two step territory system, but honestly that was fine when the rest of the game stayed so fresh, compelling, and fun. When you pace things out right it becomes so much less of a grind. I'll be glad to take a break from the main part of the game to go and eliminate 3 outposts in a row if the rest of the game is so well paced and interesting. When I actually did get around to finishing the main story line, got 90% of the tattoo filled, and got anything I could want with weapons, it felt like I had reached the ending. However rather than the end of a grind that just lead me to feeling like I had to toy with stuff until full boredom (saints row 3 comes to mind here), it felt like a satisfying and complete ending. It also lasted me triple the length of a regular game, and it still feels good to come back from time to time. I truly believe Far Cry 3 stumbled onto a formula that set the bar a bit higher for certain open world games. So... its kind of awkward to see a game like WatchDogs and wonder how I'm supposed to be as excited.... especially when Far Cry 4 is now coming out in the same year.

So far the only true info known is that its set in a new mountain-like setting, has a civil war conflict going on, and that the main character sounds like he has a far more promising plot than FC3's protagonist that jumps from frightened to bloodthirsty within a couple of lines. Oh and elephants are like vehicles now... yay? Ok in all seriousness now I can really be excited for the general concept of this game. FC3's formula in a less explored setting, new mechanic adjustments, a promising story, and everyone should know what the official artwork looks like by now and its is really well detailed. Also as a mega-fan pointed out when looking into details, the FC3 multiplayer developer is not contributing to this project, meaning we might be seeing a better more inspiring multiplayer this time around. If Far Cry 4 really were to just improve... I'm truly more excited about that more so than watch dogs. Maybe it'll also help the whole open world style if yet another one makes itself such a big hit.

Now again this is all my opinion and from the point of view from someone that just naturally prefers linear. Heck with Far Cry in mind the original is my preference even over 3. Still I can respect and enjoy open world games, and I can see why they appeal to some people. To some people an open world game is the difference between full interaction, expression, and fun while linear is just a hallway with an arrow. However I do think its time we started seeing more open world games stray away from the repetition within the main gameplay line. I get that it will often exist in the DNA, I don't expect them to develop every sidequest or goal by its own philosophy and story line, but what can happen is higher quality main storylines that compliments the rest of the world and player interaction. I hope WatchDogs turns out fun for everyone that's excited, but I'll mostly be looking forward to FarCry 4. Speaking of which I think its time I go back and relive some of the fun from FC3. Maybe after my uber run on Wolfenstein.

Now playing: Wolfenstein The New Order

Duh you would have seen this coming if you read the blog lately. I wrote 3 FPS themed articles based around my excitement for this game, and its been my #1 anticipated game of this year even above Dark Souls 2 which I knew would be superior overall. Now that its here and I've sunk several hours into it and will likely stick till the end its time for a different type of article for the game. The one about first impressions and thoughts. However there isn't really any easy summary to this game out of what I've experienced. To be honest my first thoughts was this game is just damn weird. I started really getting into it, love its combat, was blown away by the level design, but it didn't stop the first 3 levels from leaving me with this surreal sense of "how can this be!?" sort of attitude towards the game. Probably around the time where you're in a prison level, I finally started letting the game just sink in, and just enjoyed it blissfully and unquestionably. Yet I still remember and understand why it was just so off for those first hours of playing it. To just call the game old-school is an understatement. I'd say about 80% of it feels ripped directly out of 2007, slapped in perks and higher end story telling, and was marketed as a brand new game. That's not a bad thing at all though.

It all starts in the intro and one of the first things I'm sure most will think is that the graphics just aren't what you'd expect. Nothing is exactly bad about it, but it just looks so far away from anything flashy, good, upscaled, "next gen" worthy, or artistic. There's not really any real depth to the visuals at all, it just exists, its clear, and it functions. Objects and people have enough polygons to be very clear and decent but nothing more, most textures are just flat and solid things that are there and look ok with text just out of readability, and of course the game meets 1080p and 60fps but that also means nothing else is at its best potential. It brings me back to what I was saying before, it feels like I'm looking at high resolution, and better lit alterations towards early PS3/360 visuals... in other words 2007-ish graphics brought up into a 2014 condition on a brand new system. ...Or it also sort of reminds me of the upgrade resistance 1 did for PS2-3 leap, except this time with 3 to 4. On the positive side though this is one of the first games I've played in quite some time that has next to no graphical instabilities. Everything stays clear, solid, and well made 100% of the time. No pop-ins, no jagged edges, and just about everything is on par with each other so you wont find yourself running into any black sheep textures that hurt hard by contrast. Even though the visuals are generally kind of bland, they are so solid that you really get used to it so fast and its really awkward trying to talk about them again.

The gameplay itself opens somewhat like a WW2 shooter. You pretty much fight some planes, end up crashing, swim through water, and do what the guy on the radio will tell you to as you go through trenches and bunkers in a corridor shooter fashion using machine guns and pistols. The big catch that mostly separates it from usual WW2 stuff is mostly the dual wielding and your silly commander/pilot. When the castle stuff pops up the game get more into its true routine where you begin seeing alternate path, get rewarded with a weapon upgrade if you go off the main course, have a clear stealth choice alongside 3 enemy types to go against, begin work on most perks, find collectibles, and it all ends up leading to a solid plot point that you interact with. This is pretty much the game mixed up with old-school base mechanics. Oh but that leads me to another ancient catch. You pick up ammo piece by piece. Its weird, but you get used to spamming pick-up pretty fast and it isn't like looting in skyrim or anything that bad.

As I'm going along the game suddenly opens up into a hub routine where you do some smaller level finding and story building in between the usual violent missions. Similarly the game itself isn't really as focused on gunning as much as critics and the previews made it seem. There's a lot of puzzle-ish elements, wire cutting, I just got out of a big underwater segment, and each level resets your weapon wheel often altering your style up a bit sometimes for a mission that feels like its required. To describe the true intentions of the game would probably result in something as long winded as: Its an old school corridor shooter story driven adventure game. Playing it at times feels like you're in some action adventure movie, and at other times like you're in a cliche 2005-7 fps. Of course saying "cliche" is like trying to tell someone an endangered species was overpopulating 3 years ago... now the cliches of this game stuck in the past is today's breath of fresh air.

When the game is doing the former bit of just feeling like a shooter, it does it really well (and with a good amount of terrain destruction), and its really fast paced. Sometimes its just a tad bit too fast paced, and I can't plan my moves out so well, but I get by even with some trial and error if it needs to end that way. By contrast the other segments are really, really slow. I keep reminding myself of that "quiet time" pacing that great games do. Its great to see yet another shooter that has those moments, and breaks things up so its not just raw action or gimmicks. Beyond that there's also the fact that objectives aren't so obvious. Sometimes there's a marker that's highly transparent that pops up to indicate where you should be, but there's no rush or urgency and there's a lot of times when that marker just isn't there. The game lets you really sit back and think for yourself. I've actually been stuck for about 5 minutes, and it actually feels kind of good instead of the dull "follow me" sticker or super convenient arrow finding of other games that just encourages you to prod along unquestionably like some zombie on a leash. Likewise the game lets you have your fun, even if sometimes it results in stupid stuff. There are parts to platform on that result in getting nowhere useful, there's a giant walker robot you can fire on with a cannon but do nothing to it except piss it off, and you're well able to charge up to a brute soaking up bullets only to have him punch you into your grave. Much like with the fan cry for Dark Souls, its actually kind of fun to just watch yourself fail hard or do stupid things. Its better to find yourself doing dumb things on your own terms than being forced into the correct things because the game expects you're too dumb to actually play. The game really lives up to my hopes of it kicking the modern military shooter trends hard.

Oh and the story? Well its there and its good, and pretty entertaining. I really don't have much on it to say though. I live in the moment with it and enjoy the characters, scenes, their choices, and even some side bits I didn't expect like an optional cut-scene with a lunatic named Telka. The story manages to work in objectives with characters well at times, but for the most part the story is just an amusing action plot that like I noted earlier has this adventure action movie feel to it. However while it is technically one of the most "advanced" and built up parts of the game, it never comes off as the central focus or anything I can really explain much away from the game. Now that I'm talking about it, I can't really recall much because... well I'm just on a computer talking about first impressions and memories of what I just experienced on a game rather than helping solve the ending or anything. The story stops when I do, that's sort of how I've always felt about gaming unless it leaves me with some giant thing to decode. Its good though, worth renting at least if you're a story gamer, but if you don't care and ignore it you wont be missing out anything revolutionary.

There are moments where I stop and just stand in the moment of this game... and it just feels so good. I  know it Should be a sense of nostalgia mixed with entertainment value, but it doesn't exactly feel like that. Alpha prime is a blast of Nostalgia, SPAZ was a nostalgia link towards another game, even Rage induced a warped sense of nostalgia, and obviously playing R&C HD and Serious Sam was a great throw back of joy with a splash of nostalgia.... but Wolfenstein leaves me feeling it in another way. I'd rather call it relief. I've been waiting for over a year of a shooter that just does things the way I remember and like them, does things familiar and fun, and provides a fresh new experience in what I really love rather than what trends and focus groups are telling them to bleed dry. I'm playing a shooter that truly decided to throw trends out the window and give me something that feels more at home. It doesn't feel Nostalgic because this is something new using a formula I'm well versed in. Actually... I'll go back to the home metaphor, because Its literally like coming home from some bad vacation you never wanted to be a part of... the home isn't exactly nostalgic, its just very comforting, holds great value to you, and its a more free and liberating experience than the alternative of being watched or out in public. Its a great big sense of relief, and I hope MachineGames can do a sequel like they want to. Now I've got some nazis to go kill.

Wolf hype: What kind of school is old-school FPS gaming?

With wolfenstein at the gates, its time for the last article like this. Well... ok actually I'm quite late, its released, and in the next 3 hours or less I'll be finally playing it myself. I've heard its been getting 7/10s which sounds up to par with what I predicted (critics don't think much of good shooters that pad diversity, especially without extra modes), but I dare not cloud my head with critic opinions until after I'm a good ways in myself. I'm hoping it lives up to expectations, but even if it doesn't, its been fun writing about my passion for the genre. People like me often talk about the sad state of lacking old school shooters, but when we really look back and try to think of what it means to us there are a lot of different and interesting ways to execute a shooter in a way that breaks modern style and yet feels familiar. Heck sometimes the other way around is possible, where a game is very much using modern things but comes off as linking to a different sort of design from older times (I think Metro: Last Light, Killzone ShadowFall's campaign, and even Alien Rage fit this). Looking at wolfenstein I initially believed it to be more in line with games like older military shooters, halo (minus some of its "innovations"), and maybe even half-life, but looking back on it I'm starting to see it melt together with a bunch of different ideas from a broad meaning of "old school" styles, as well as thinking about how even what it reminded me of was actual quite complex and different. In a lot of way old military shooters spawned off of half-life style games and share lots in common, but yet also feel so different. The more I think about it, the more complex the genre is, and despite being stuck in a mostly stale rush of games trying to beat COD by being COD, there's actually a lot more to reflect back on than whether or not a game has you carrying your full arsenal and a bunch of scattered magical healing kits. You don't have to look further than Uncharted and Metro to see how far different the experience is despite using easily recognizable mechanics we associate with the recent military shooters. So I'd kind of like to use this chance to talk about some of the brilliant older design philosophies we've seen throughout the genre, and the history a bit, as well as the advantages and disadvantages. Though a fair warning, I have not thoroughly played through or may not have played much at all of some of the games I might bring up. However most of them I have played a good bit, and even for the ones I have not I still talk about them because I've known about them or their reputation enough to make an example of them.

Games like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom came out to pretty much set the founding place of FPS. Back then we called games similar to them as "90's shooters" even though other mentalities were established before 2000's including Counter-strike, Arena style shooters, and of course Half-life. Still we sort the old "doom clones" differently due to clear mechanical choices that made them what they are. 90's shooters though went with a very maze-like mentality and pitted you up against constant enemies, keep up with resources (sometimes including lives), and has some of the fastest speed and strafe focused power fantasy with guns style combat. Also there was more platforming, even though that wasn't really a part in the original ID stuff considering they had no jump button. Some games like Unreal (not tournament, the one before that) got more linear and straight forward but with more open areas while others like Duke Nukem 3D just capitalized on a more sophisticated form of level design within a more believable and interactive world that was still maze-like. At least not including the 2nd chapter, which was clearly more generic. The biggest weakness of this was the lack of story, and low detail which is a combination of limited tech and the need to make a complex level design that could work with long halls and maze-like general structures. The gunplay while mostly great and superior to most could also be subjectively worse if you like slower combat, or realistic weaponry and fights.

Duke Nukem 3D remains one of the most noteworthy of 90's shooters

Then there was Half-life which set up a different trend of campaign shooters. You had more scripts, more linear game design, and slower paced movement and gunfights. Sounds like a big negative, but honestly this introduced a lot of improvements. Better story, more depth and detail in the levels, Set pieces that were often fluid and interesting in favor of the player and gameplay, and the gunplay started traveling into a new route that is somewhat like a cross between what we usually have now in military shooters and what we had in 90's shooters which made for an interesting sort of diversity. This was before these aspects got carried away, dumbed down, and just dull. Set pieces weren't so much as forced pieces you had to watch through as much as they were cool side galleries to help built the fiction and tone (like seeing a zombie attacking a scientist behind glass), or they were active gimmicks that changed up the pace in a way that was fun when left paced at the right time such as using a giant cannon for a specific part. Sometimes these parts were specially decorated for the set piece, like having the hypothetical cannon piece be within the only section of the game that had destructible terrain. Overall worlds felt more complete, mythology and lore felt more included and well executed, characters actually existed, and aliens and monsters still dominated the genre with more clear designs and interesting background to them. Actually a lot of these set pieces pretty much worked with similar mentality of boss battles. They basically gave you a greater feeling with better scope but often had more strict limits as a result, like how a boss might be only damageable by a specific weak point or with a specific weapon, but the end result left you feeling great. I honestly felt like nearly nothing I loved about older shooters was lost within this format. Guns still felt crazy, there was still resources to keep up with that made it worth your time to explore even if it was more clearly limited, and in addition to good run and gun shooting against awesome enemy types there were interesting set pieces to play out that changed the scope of battles or built on the fiction to make it more immersive. I enjoyed some of the trade offs, and the more linear nature for a more well developed world. I've got to admit though I am a bit biased as I grew up on these games, my only memory of doom at an early age involved me being lost in its level design. Turok 2, Medal of honor, Killzone, Half-life, Turok evolution, and timesplitters were what I had grown up with and appreciated as my preference of shooter. However.... you could drag a lot of those into their own categories.

Half-life helped set in motion more linear detailed experiences

I'll go back to those later though. Instead what was also happening while this craze was competing with 90's shooters was a multiplayer scene mostly spawned off of Quake, later unreal, and some modes in between mostly coming from either quake or Half-life (which was very similar to just being on quake considering it was using a modified engine of it). Games like Quake kicked off the big arena style frag fest gameplay that competitive multiplayer used to be based in. Items were scattered across maps, the action and speed was fast paced and encouraged platforming and circle strafing, and the level design was often blocky and abstract in a very odd but fun way. That was kind of it, plus some of the modes that were being somewhat invented around this form. You killed each other, did the mode's objective to score, and repeat. It sounds simple but honestly the core gameplay is much deeper than most skinner box gimmick formats of today. To be fair though whenever your game was an arena-like shooter that didn't have Quake, Unreal tournament, Timesplitters, or Goldeneye on it chances are it wasn't all that impressive or interesting. A lot of games pretty much had their own more watered down versions with interesting little nitpicks but none of the same genius pacing, level design skills, or care that went into a great arena shooter like unreal. Its like comparing Crysis 2 with COD today... sure Crysis 2 has a multiplayer, and it isn't really "bad", but its pretty much a watered down COD knock-off with its own quirks slapped over it. The result is EA is shutting down its servers this summer, and oh hey it looks like its going with a bunch of old PS2 games that clearly outlasted it. Staying back on topic though, arena shooters were like the only version of multiplayer we had save for the awesome mods. Mods like Team Fortress and Counter-strike were set up to create more of a tactical and fast paced thinking aspect layered on top of familiar pacing and gunplay to create very interesting experiences. I sadly can't say much on them as I'm far more familiar with their modern brothers, but its clear they were amazing innovations in shooters that occasionally proved to inspire someone out there with some kind of idea. Whether its CS's high penalty or inventory style, to Team Fortress influencing just about anything with classes. I'd like to include Battlefeild on here somewhere but I've got to shy off on that and say I just don't know anything about Battlefields older history other than 2 is regarded as a massive hit among series veterans.

Now back to what I was saying before.... there seems to be something odd about the influence HL created. It not only borrowed from it, but games started using the depth to their advantage to go beyond the usual settings. Instead of demons, hellish worlds, and cheesy sci-fi we began seeing historic war games, fighting on D-Day, holding guns from spy movies and nazis alike, and fighting along actual allies instead of alone or solving puzzles. The military shooter was born out of this stuff, and along side it were oddballs that felt like they feel in between such as Goldeneye, Soldier of Fortune, and of course the spiritual successor to goldeneye: timesplitters. It wasn't quite as clear cut as telling Doom from wolfenstein it was more like the difference between Doom and Hexen (First RPG/FPS hybrid?). The games felt like they had a different tone with clearer objectives, slower pacing, less puzzles and hidden bits, and a special use of set-pieces to make believable battles. and when Halo came along some edged more towards its new spin of resource management. Eventually you had things like Killzone, Far Cry, Halo, and even parts of turok evolution where it was like it was going back to silly sci-fi plots using half-life influence, but was actually in fact aiming to be more like Medal Of Honor or similar military shooters. Eventually iron sights found their way through this, as well as regenerating health, stricter inventory spaced, small differences in human AI like adding stealth, and eventually it lead up to where we are now. With that in mind though I think we can all say we can see clear differences between this evolution, and COD 1 wasn't the same as 2 and 2 wasn't the same as Modern Warfare 2, much like Killzone 1 is miles different from where 2 and 3 went. Still they none of these were exactly on the same page as Half-Life either, and so it was a weird off branch that slowly took on its own form following from the founding Half-life set up. Eventually the multiplayer we also know today was added thanks to influence from COD4 which was influenced by a mixture of other weird things from shooters and non-shooters alike, campaign quality decreased or was at least replaced by a more blockbuster presentation, and we ended up where we are today.

This is all your fault epic D-Day scene!

A lot of times when people talk about old school, they can mean several things. Some people explicitly want 90's style feeling to their games, which is sadly a tall and mostly unseen order in today's time. Some indie games may end up helping, but in general that's something likely lost among shooters. Though with that being said there will always be Serious Sam, which rides more on 90's elements than anything else even though it is its own beast in the end. Meanwhile if the talk is more about old school multiplayer, that can be quite a far reaching piece. It can range from older tactical games like counter-strike or just be about bullet sponge health thrown into an arena, to full blown fast paced explosive fragging arena FPS. Heck going back to tactical games there's the splash damage method as well where its about re-contextualizing arena style gameplay into a more objective focused style, and you get things more like Enemy territory wars or Brink out of it. I would exactly call all of that old-school, but it can be what they mean and it is certainly refreshing compared to the typical trends of now.

However I and some others grew up more in line with corridor shooters from HL1/2's style and I'm happy to say that has a better presence still left as well as more influence. Its still rare and thus it feels more in line with what we call throwback, but occasionally you can find games with values similar to them. Killzone ShadowFall felt like capturing the older pacing and variety mixed with new and mainstream ground mechanics. Metro and crysis 2/3 feel like they take their script and story influences and map design more from games like half-life while also trying to build in more sandboxy combat along with their own slightly unique mechanics whether it be a nanosuits and bows or immersive details and oxygen supply. Then there are games that just don't give a damn about any mainstream garbage and aim to just next-genify old things like Resistance 3 does or what Wolfenstein seems to be doing... mostly. Duke Nukem Forever would be a good example of a failure to follow in old influences from this style mixed with modern trends. It was just plain broken in the way it tried. Maybe the same can be said for Aliens:CM.

At the end of the day though shooters have become really complex and it becomes harder and harder to identify them by any easy sub-genre. Its no wonder people have as a result gone on to adjust the idea of Wolfenstein, Metro, Bioshock, Far cry 3, and even Dishonored as "single player" or even "story driven" FPS (more evidence that the stories aren't as easy to dismiss as most people would like to make it seem). They are far different mechanically (one is even freakin' open world!), but then again they usually appeal to the same person, and provide a lesser seen experience to the alternatively implied multiplayer shooter. This is kind of why this article was made, its becoming increasingly more difficult to talk about a game like Resistance 3 or Wolfenstein as simply "old school" and easier to sell it more on story or the fact that its only one mode. Maybe that's why the marketing felt kind of weird and hid the HUD that would have easily excited the real old wolfenstein fans. Its a game with a solid setting, story, and mechanics that differ from its competition in interesting ways that will appeal to long time fans of corridor shooter campaigns. Its also kind of why it pains me more to see some of the people, both pre-launch and after its out already, are talking down on the game as only some boring run and gun cliche. These kind of overgeneralizations would be like trying to say hockey is nothing more than an ice accident, or racing games are only about holding down the gas pedal. Its misleading overgeneralized trash talk that dismisses hard work, effort, balancing, the fiction, and player tactics. Ignorant statements like that aim to degrade a game of any sense of purpose and fun when in fact it has meaning and fun in spades. Fine I get it, not everyone like shooters and maybe someone really feels like this as they're better suited for something else, maybe that's all they can register while playing something out of their comfort zone, but that still doesn't excuse that sort of disrespect and ignorance. I tried out MS flight and it wasn't my thing, but I didn't have the idiocy to say it was just "sit and look" even if that's what I mostly felt like I was doing. There was clearly more to it, and there were way more underlying mechanics to it that didn't simply appeal to me but it would be another person's first choice for escapism after a long day. As such the same can and should be said for old school shooters. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, or throw gimmicks at your face all the time to break up its run and gunning for you. If its mechanics, balancing, aesthetics, story, and attitude were good enough they hold up on their own to create an engaging experience to a shooter fan.

So excited to figure out what these enemy types are like!

The genre has come a long ways, which is why its hard to see it trip over itself and forget many of its old roots and potential for going backwards and innovating from there. Its why I fuss the way I do about mainstream games. Its not that they're awful or evil, and of course I keep buying them and enjoying them for the values and individual bits that do make them interesting, but its kind of a shame a game like Resistance 3 is a bit rare. Even when shooters are the most popular and biggest thing, it seems they can't keep up with their own content and diversity to continue delivering to all fans. Now though with Wolfenstein coming up it sounds like its a celebration of older roots fused with some interesting and personal tailored bits from the developers making it. I'm excited to see perk trees for the first time in an old school FPS, I'm excited to see difficulty combined with entire health alterations and strategy bending differences that can result in alternate playthroughs, I'm excited about its action movie style story mixed in a cliche a mad science sci-fi setting, and I'm excited just to get a new and fresh face with great and pleasing mechanics and a nice attitude. It'll be fun getting a feel for each new weapon I first see, each new enemy that makes me want to observe its actions like finding some new animal species, and each new level layout and branching path as well as overturning each little stone looking for documents or whatever the collectibles will be. I hope this game succeeds both in expectations and sales to encourage such fun games, or at least a sequel that does even more interesting tricks.

Sony's Vita and their vice

This is a bit more behind than I wanted to be, and was quite difficult for me to write (and I hope I fixed all typos). Just a heads up for a small disclaimer. I say Sony a lot when it goes far beyond what I'm truly talking about. Sony makes lots of electronics, but pretty much all of this is about what we really know them for... PlayStation. The fact they make TVs, headphones, and similar devices is cool but I'm pretty much talking about Sony's gaming area. I'm going to have a hard time with this article. It was actually coming for about... a month or so, originally positive, but then took a turn towards a dark negative I don't like admitting. Now... I just don't know. Sony is an awesome company that puts out my favorite brand of choice. They do cool stuff, have excellent developers and games to show off, are usually friendly and fun towards their consumer in a way that makes me feel like they really care about more than just money despite most publisher standards, and then there's just that good string of PR with the PS4 and those awesome flash sales lately that show potential for a better than expected digital age (its not better than steam but its showing that consoles are finally matching it a bit more). However they still have problems, some of which are very painful to bare for some people. It can be senseless, rage inducing, and just goes without enough explanation. I was originally going to talk about how great they've been on a role with a surprise entry of spyro and crash after being reminded from the glorious $0.99 sale. Then they had a great update on the PS4 that added more features to the recording than expected. Oh and did I mention all those flash sales, including a ton of games going for just a dollar? Yeah it was nice... then things changed around a bit to punch fans in the face and now I'm here to talk about that instead.

*sigh*

Part 1: Has the Vita support been cut off?

Lets talk about Sony's latest announcement regarding the Vita's potential future, and then maybe even the major problem with PlayStation overall. First off the Vita. Its been struggling for a while, and while I could have sworn it was picking up steam I think that's always mostly been in the heads of the fans. It is afterall a goldmine for quality entertainment on the go, and its had some incredible hits and enough titles to appeal to just about anyone by now. With a unique hand held experience it should be doing better. That's not to say it beats the 3DS as that's all subjective and it does have a larger amount of general content, but never the less the Vita was an incredible system that keeps getting good titles even if many are ports and indie games. So some like myself naturally assumed it was doing just fine, and sony has spoken out multiple times that what owners were out there adored the machine from survey results. Even though it was slow at getting the major titles and hits like Killzone Mercenary, Tearaway, and Gravity Rush, it was still getting them in and always seen great reviews (Well we can leave out Nihilistic's shooters, right?). That's not counting some of the goodies that you can bring with you from your PS3 experience. The recent big success of a major title was with a giant open world FPS RPG that just so happens to go by the name of Borderlands 2... old and downgraded sure, but the things that make it fun are all available on the go now. So imagine our surprise and dissatisfaction when we were told this sort of thing isn't cared about anymore because streaming and remote play are more money efficient ways to put big experiences on the machine. No seriously, they believe that's the best future for your $200+ portable gaming system.

Image feels fitting for some reason....

I just don't know quite how to approach that sort of statement. Am I to call it out for being very stupid, or as a decent business call that goes way too far to try and justify a solution that is absolutely mind blowingly awful and contradicting to the purpose of their own machine they put so much hard work into making? Or do I call it out as Sony being too proud of features nobody else is all that enthusiastic about? Either way what it all boils down to is them saying that we're not going to get another Tearaway, Killzone, LBP, Gravity Rush, Battle royal, Monster hunter, Mortal Kombat, Borderlands 2, type games and instead they expect us to appreciate a tied and restricted way of getting other system's games on the go. So its pretty much going to be down to Japanese and indie port games to supply the Vita's true library... oh but if you want to and have no other options, you can use its screen to see and run a game that belonged to and ran better on another console you likely already have.

I suppose the same could be said about some of the games already existing on the vita, as it really does have quite a few dedicated ports already some of which were over a year old and likely bought up and exhausting by most wanting it, but even then there's more of a place and reason for them to exist as a true vita game rather than a streamed format. Borderlands 2 is a good example that is coming late with most fans already burned out on its PS3/360/PC counterpart. Lets say that never happened though and you could only play it on the vita within these new perimeters Sony has set up for the future. You need to be subscribed to PSnow's model, and tie yourself to the internet and hope it is up to par to stream the game well. Also you could just use a PS3/4 and maybe PC with a better functioning controller, screen, and likely a stronger connection so you'll probably want to play it on those instead and the Vita will be absolutely pointless as you couldn't go anywhere with it and it has a smaller screen... you know, because its a portable! If you want to go the remote play route you already need to own the main game on a normal console as well as owning that normal console, then you need to tie your Vita's connection to the PS3, and then you'll be running the game in a version that was still mostly developed in mind for normal console controls. All remote play basically boils down to is switching the screen if you absolutely can't keep playing it through your Television. Its like that special Wii U pad mode some games have for that console. So no you wouldn't have Borderlands 2 on the go, you wouldn't have it as well crafted and tailored to the experience of the handheld, and you would probably not be using your Vita for its worth at all as your pretty much just nerfing your own home gaming experience. Actually it wouldn't even be like owning the game at all, its practically like throwing the game into internet DRM. Remote or purely streamed, it requires you to stay connected and the game's response is best on higher speeds. Low speed, flickering, or lost connections will have a terrible time with these experiences. Having fun yet? Well its a good thing you can because Borderlands 2 really isn't restricted to this crap, but I can't promise that there will be another good ending like this.

Ok I lost track of the point for just a second in using the BL2 example, but yet I think I still pointed out the major flaw with this ideal system. Relying on a PS netflix-like service or remote play just doesn't work with the Vita's purpose and capabilities. It instead turns it into a last resort application for other Sony projects. Its not giving you a beautiful and well crafted adventure Tearaway or Gravity Rush presents uniquely to vita fans, and its not taking a loved game and giving you a portable re-etnry or spin off  like Killzone Mercenary or Borderlands 2. This new idea is simply to remind you that the vita is capable of doing things that work with other PS services, but sadly this reminder comes in the form of what seems to be a replacement. Somehow they got the idea in their heads that this is a welcome replacement to games like Uncharted golden abyss and Soul Sacrifice. They find this reason to stop caring about making cross-buy games, or pressuring other publishers to put out their work on the platform. We might at least still get ports of Rayman sequels if they still pop up. This message was them admitting they can't maintain big games, and they have to use this to push some other products on you. Want Triple A game on your vita? Buy a PS4, or subscribe to their future and unproven streaming service to have the illusion that you're getting the Last of Us on the go. That's... sort of technically a triple A game on the vita, right?

Now in defense of this move, I get the core idea that its hard to do this stuff when it doesn't turn much of a profit. Its still a business, and Sony as a whole isn't in the best financial shape as it is anyways. However I'm still a little confused when they make it sound like they're shutting down an entire line of possibility and support for their 2nd biggest console to push right now. Especially given their record and views on success for games. I'll admit some of this distracted by ignorance. I don't know precise sales on the vita or its games. Maybe Soul sacrifice, Unit 13, Killzone Mercenary, Tearaway, and uncharted sold like 15 thousand each worldwide and the vita sales aren't even quite 4 million. I find that amazingly unlikely by now (at least for some of these games), but if that's the case maybe this is a decent response because it is poor sales. Still I'm sure most games and especially the console itself is selling much better than that "what if" bit after this time. Maybe not the best results, but still decent ones that sony would usually accept. We're talking about a publisher that gloats on "success" of selling one of their most expensive, highest budget, and highly marketed games at just 2 million, something a publisher like EA would need double or triple of towards a lesser budget (still triple A, just less so) game to call a success. If you want specifics I'm mostly thinking Shadow Fall vs Dead Space 3. Sony has consistently sold great games at what would usually be deemed unappealing sales by most publisher standards, yet they continue to push on which is one of the reasons I love them. Sometimes they do dismiss games as failures, and they have shut down teams and series before, but on average they're some of the most forgiving publishers out there and one of the few sources of niche entertainment without resorting to indies. So hearing them shut down an entire line of work and basically give up right now sounds like the sales were either consistently miserable or they're just using the doomsayers to their advantage to say that they'd rather push services than games and their portable console. On top of that, another thing to wonder about is the budget itself. Triple A to PS4 and xbox one standards or even PS3/360 probably aren't the same as recycling Killzone 2's engine and making a Killzone portable game. Even outside of that specific case, I'm just willing to bet the budget isn't super sized like the normal Triple A game. The system runs on mostly less hardware, likely less people required on the game at hand, and should discourage online play. It should be a cheaper method of getting big games out. Also lets not forget Sony hardly markets these games. Yet this is being generous, I can question ports to be even less risky yet to count for part of this triple A scheme. I understand the need for better sales, but is it really as big of a loss as it sounds like? Are the "economics" really so bad? Then again I suppose I also need to factor in the $40 vs $60 bit. Again this question is pretty blind, and I can easily be wrong to question the budget vs profit rate.

Triple A fun for much less than the usual Killzone budget

Ok enough with the sales talk directly. There's actually another major problem with the Vita support that needs to be addressed. One that will lead me to the greater overall complaint towards Sony's management of the PlayStation brand. But first... lets take a moment to actually admit that there should be some excitement towards PlayStation Now. Even though they may supposedly wreck the vita by relying on it, there's something cool about opening a new line of market and a new way to access gaming. For what will likely be a subscription fee, you will have access to many console games from PlayStation's history. Beta testers that ran with games like Killzone 3 and I think the Last of Us report back some good news on how well it works. Imagine streaming classic Sony games across multiple platforms, even unusual ones like Tablets, and there's no more of that direct fee standing in your way of trying something interesting. You'll be able to replay classics for seemingly no up front cost, and instead can play games ranging from Uncharted to Resistance anywhere. Maybe even more... how about playing those great PlayStation 2 games like Timesplitters, Battlefront, or PS1 games like Tomba and Spyro and.... oh hi everlasting support problem from Sony where they've never lived up to any promise like this before.

Part 2: Was the support for anything ever there?

This question doesn't go as far as just the Vita, but decent support overall from Sony's less direct services. Think about it, apart from the consoles themselves and maybe a coupe exclusives has there ever been a single thing outside of that to get true, helpful, and fan serving support that satisfies expectations? Nope. Services on PS3 and vita went down for maintenance often, coupled with firmware releases seemingly every month with only maybe 3 out of a year actually adding something you would have found useful, appliances ranging from 3D to PSmove flopped and weren't proven well with any decent games, some games failed to be marketed right at all (but to be honest its not nearly as bad marketing as people make it out to be), Digital versions of their own games used to be either late or possibly non-existent and until recently was the worst place way to pre-order anything, and whenever we have these services that allow us to replay old classics they have been pretty barebones and left with little to no good games or proper attempts to get good games on there. Actually I'll also take back what I said earlier, not even the consoles themselves get what is promised. As details of the PS4 got out we still are lacking key bulletin points for their hype train. Things like getting a sleep-like mode (which has yet to be mentioned again), and I think proper remote play function was also something patched after a couple months.

Look I'm a pretty reasonable and forgiving gamer at the end of the day if you still provide something really fun and unchained. Which is kind of why i really like sony and put up with this stuff, its not often destroying the fun, its just that you have to fact check things a little more, deal with some down time flaws, and will have to accept that some dreams just wont happen. Yet that last one has been happening way more than it should be lately. We had to wait for things like PS2 and 1 classics which is fine in itself since its an nice thing, but when its hyped up and then arrives with little fanfare something went wrong. Thankfully the PS1 library at least got built up over time and you have some great things to choose there as well as to put on the PSP. It was implied this would carry over to the Vita where you could run old PS1 and PSP games off the store, but oh hang on we need to wait for half a year for that for whatever reason. Ok now its patched in and you can now run a small list of compatible games.... darn. Oh but don't worry they'll get fixed..... eventually..... eventually...... ok we got most games now, but we're still oddly missing some major classics including a part of the MGS series, Crash, and Spyro and I don't believe all PSP games were working. Don't worry though, Europe can have their crash and spyro games on the Vita because they waited longer without having them at all. Confused yet?

huh?

So yeah to put that in simpler terms, you get to watch a bunch of Sony's features and services get hyped just so they can deliver poorly on them or do it incredibly half-assed. Europe had no Spyro or Crash games on their stores for years, and finally after that was fixed and accomplished towards the end of the console's life cycle they also simultaneously got it to go compatible with the Vita and PSP from the go. The other regions get... nothing. For over a year. Thankfully the classics in addition to other PSP titles that should have been compatible in the first place slipped out quietly and mysteriously in a functioning state that got people talking on the net, and yoshida himself gave advice for altering the controls properly on the Vita machine to better simulate the 3D camera. It was amazing and people were kind of hinting there should have been an official announcement when instead this was all reversed... as if it was a mistake. A fully complete, fully sensible, and totally functional down to touch page manuals was all wiped like a mistake. Oh you can still play them if you got it in time, and they work perfectly well and in the American version just fine, but for whatever reason Sony is holding them back again.

Some have suggested its a licencing issue.... but I just can't quite make sense of that. How weird and screwed up is the licencing that you need to buy into it every console, that you are no longer able to sell games you published on consoles you made and own, and that you have to do it by each and every region? It just makes no sense. I kind of want to twist the story in some happy belief that Sony leaked it against law just for the justic and fun of those paying attention, and when they absolutely had to the plug was pulled like an "accident". If that is the case, awesome and thanks.... but I just can't have an easy time believing that fantasy as much as I want to, and even if its true I'd rather they just buy the licencing and do it for good already. Even if licencing was the case, and activision held the say in putting Spyro and Crash on the Vita as well as jumbled mess elsewhere like those PSP games, why can't they just come out and inform the press about it. Why can't they just say the simple sentence of "sorry we can't, licencing problems"!? Why can't they communicate a word on such mysterious and silly circumstances as these? Do they enjoy getting hate mail, blog spam, bad PR articles, and forum complaints from passionate fans on these issues? Instead they somehow find the time to jump the gun about Watch Dog's output with false hype on such silly things as its resolution, which they later had to take down as it wasn't true. Oh but don't worry they can still communicate with people to some degree. Like the time they came out to say on this specific Spyro/Crash issue to give out a "stars need to align" sort of hyperbole towards a question concerning it. I wish I was making this up, but its right there down near at comment #14. I would usually be the overly forgiving guy to say its better than nothing, but here.... screw that, its just insulting considering what we all just witnessed. Its outright mocking our intelligence, sitting there suggesting its something impossible when we just saw the very thing leak out, touch our screens, and send waves of joy across the net news only to become shattered a few days later. The stars don't need to align to make it happen, Sony just needs to be more honest and responsible about what they promise. Or maybe they don't.... maybe our expectations are too high.

Clearly by now they can't deliver on the usual things you'd expect with their features, so its time to lower our expectations to their usual standards, and honestly that doesn't look too exciting. I bet PS now will look just like the PS2 classics does on my PSN store. Junk, junk, not interested, played it and it was ok, junk, really obscure junk someone on youtube will make fun of, and we're at the end of the list. Where's war of the monsters, Killzone, twisted metal games, and so many third party hits? Oh but of course the typical expectation on hearing such an ideal service as PS now is that they should have such memorable games as Uncharted 2, Journey, Jak and daxter, Metal Gear's series, and more niche fan hits such as Killzone 2, Ni Nu Kuni, Twisted Metal, Medevil, etc. But they wont. Sure they published them, owned them, and work well with the teams that made them, and they know it made people happy, but they just wont bother having it at any reasonable time if at all just like the way things are now with PS2 classics and such. Instead we'll be looking at Buzz, the games in the beta that tricked you into thinking you'd continue to see such great hits, and half of square's library with the other half missing just because nobody could be bothered. Oh but if you're in Europe you'll be lucky enough to have LittleBigPlanet, and in America maybe you'll have Infamous 3 years before Europe, but for whatever reason they wont cross over to any region like they should.


I think I've made my point by now. I could spread onto other issues, and they do exist in similar forms as my earlier brief summary went on about. I recall hearing of a horrible story where someone (I think greg miller of IGN's PS division) got a new game, made sure it was up to date, and right as they got on a plane and planned to enjoy their game on the trip they were hit with a firmware update block that came out of nowhere and prevented him from playing that game until he could get back to an internet connection. I hope I got that context right, but it was something of similar nature. To speed by some others though there were several complaints around about the interface, each PSN store, there's that infamous download list that makes you manually scroll through everything you ever possibly downloaded, or the download problem of the Vita with pausing if you don't babysit it, and then there's the whole mess behind digital version of retail games that have their own list of complaints or at least did until just recently. At the end of the day, this is Sony's weak point. Even though I'd argue they're some of the most consumer and developer friendly bunch out there, user wise, convenience, and general polish wise it all falls flat. They have server, set-up/patching, error, and general digital management problems, all of which makes it harder to use their products as you would anticipate. Still that's about it save for certain marketing problems and maybe occasional typical bad PR that slips out like it does for any company. That's why I mostly haven't really talked about it a lot either, it rarely feels like its gotten in my way. However recent times have called for something a bit... more.

Now don't read me wrong here....

Guess where I'll be after this rant...

I think I've got it all out now. The frustration, the response to nonsense, and a general questioning of Sony's darker side. Outside of that... its hard to find big problems with them. There's a lot of good. They've put out amazing games, do good PR moves, and possibly destroyed a massive attempt to lock down consoles. Oh yeah and one more thing: Just look at this. The very digital PSN spyro I'm fussing over for not being available on my vita was paid for by that money (well at least the first, spyro 3 is another story). By Sony. I had some left over as well. The cynical side of people or just outright buzz kills speaking out loud will sit and dismiss it as a "sneaky PR stunt" since it was used the day or so before the PS4 reveal when sony wanted people hyped. Ok that might be true as it does work over to pump joy and excitement into our minds in favor of the company, but how the heck can you be trying to use that to defuse the joy in this. They just gave out free money! It wasn't tiny dollar donations or the minimum limit either, it was enough to buy full blown games on the store.... and then some in cases like mine. They just gave it to random millions of players, and you wont believe how big of a highlight it was for me to see this in the news, run up to my PS3 with a big smile, and find a new message. They did it again in a smaller amount of random people, and then later on they bundled this same amount with a PS4 purchase. That's just plain generous, and I can't think of many companies that have done this... especially just directly giving digital cash away like the original message/voucher. They also spent a decent budget on just teasing and making an emotional commercial about how awesome it was to be a big gamer. Remember "Michael"? That was awesome.

Sony has been one of the best parts of gaming to me honestly. Its been behind so many greater parts of what I like within gaming. Its been with me from the first revolutionary play of Spyro the Dragon to leading me up to expect great things with each new Killzone. Its where I started my true interests in gaming, Its been where I played just about all the great FPS games I've enjoyed, it was what I first experienced any feeling of multiplayer through with bots letting me wage unpredictable and replayable battles within battlefront and killzone, its been where I've heard amazing stories and explored inspiring worlds within, Its been where I discovered my favorite sci-fi fiction on (W40k), and its given me something to keep looking forward to no matter how bad the industry seems to be getting with toxic practices. The last one is actually funny to say as I actually went from PS2 to wii in part to avoid a bleak possibility of stale shooters. Eventually as I found the wii not holding me as long as the PS2 did, I started looking back on PS3 as a possibility and noticing how much fun and exciting something like Killzone 2 would be, or how enticing the adventure of Uncharted 2 might be, or the thought that online play also bring new heights of joy that I couldn't access enough of on what I already had. In the end the results on all of those PS3 hopes were positive and its been an amazing console. Even though shooters actually were on a decline in a way I didn't predict the PlayStation side still offered me better escape routes with RPGs, Space marines, Sly cooper, and entirely new experiences like Journey, and Dark Souls. Just as you'd expect some kind of industry crap to interfere and mess up the fun with unwelcomed changes, something goes and proves it wrong to me through PlayStation. At this rate I wouldn't have expected any decent middle tier games on retail shelves for the PS4 by now. Nah, Trials fusion comes in as the first true retail purchase (Killzone and AC4 were gifts) I make and it has everything I love in a middle tier game PLUS a level editor, cheaper price tag even at the deluxe version, and upcoming content I can look forward to so its even better than what I'd expect to be dead by now. Of course PC fans and xbox one fans are able to enjoy it all the same as well, but as with the past its something I've found best suited for the PS experience and found on that path personally, and the best supporters I've seen showing me some good tips for the game are doing so through the PS4 as well in a way that makes it all the more relatable.

Ok I think I'm going overboard here now. In the end I'm trying to say that this is what needed to be said about an otherwise amazing thing. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for terrible flaws when they show a little too much. Lets criticize the flaws, show what we don't like, and humble them to make sure they don't get too arrogant with them all with the hope to try and make it a little closer to perfect. This is where the major difference between a fanboy and a loyal fan comes in. The fanboy goes in with hate and hyper sensitive defensiveness for the brand to the point where they no longer show a true sense of passion and will just aggressively hate something outside the brand. Meanwhile the actual down to earth fans, whether dedicated and nostalgic or newly won over, care enough to stop something they enjoy from being corrupted or hurt by its own hands. It was actually rather depressing and sickening to write about it to be honest, leading this to a slow write, and as I was trying to remember all the good for this last bit it went the exact opposite way. I really questioned this article, and even comments I made on real journalist outlets if things were just too emotional which leads to the common toxic attitude of the gamer culture. However its not by now. We've endured support issues like this for long periods of time to no tangible results or explanation when as customers we probably deserve better. Now its not only effecting updates, patches, and store details, but the very games we've bought. In such a wide open and connected time, how the hell are we waiting 2 years or so to get a game we paid for working on a device that is supposed to play them while another region has had it perfectly fine? That's not about emotional attachment, it truly is just and right to be angry and complain all over Sony's dumber moves. Even though I don't think anyone actually reads this stuff, it feels like it helps to get this down and out there more across the web. Beyond simple comment sections with typical flaming, or exaggerated hatred. It was ripe for an article on here.

It must return

Whether they know it or not they're not only messing up their services, but destroying trust they would otherwise own in stacks, and are scaring away potential customers. Seriously, who's going to buy your new vita edition now when you basically told the world its just going to become one big app? Then there was a comment literally within an article on new compatibility for spyro/crash/old psp games that was saying they were probably going to go out and buy a vita slim that weekend if this was still a thing. Another comment replied to his apparently a day later when they "fixed" this. Lost a sale, oops. I guess they'll get that sale when "the stars align" again. I really wished that guy would have tried it anyways to be honest, but hey its sony's fault they drove him away from a great portable. Meanwhile Greg of IGN wrote on similar sony support issues long ago on to admit that his friends who would take his word on what consoles to buy were sent to go after a 360. He would have told them about how much more he liked PlayStation, but he sent them after 360s because he was worried they wouldn't be able to put up with Sony's problems like these, or that he would have to set up their systems for them because it was so foreign-like to the usual steps. So I want sony to fix this not only for consumers, but because those consumers will drive better sales and more loyalty leading to an overall better overall results. Those are sales the vita needs to be honest.

I don't really know a great way to wrap this up. In the end I'm grateful for a lot of things Sony has done. For all I know there's the possibility I wouldn't bother much with games if it weren't for them. Spyro sat at my mind as the best example of a game series ever for the longest time, and if it were ever replaced by anything it would probably be Dark Souls... which was spun off of Demon Souls, another Sony owned IP that might be seeing a return if the rumors on project beast hold. I also hate bad talking about the fate of the Vita, as even if it were to have all future potential die overnight (not just triple A but indies, Japanese games, and all) it would still be my favorite handheld of all time and I have some games like Tearaway to go and grab. Up until Sony doubted the vision of triple A on the go, I never would have agreed with the doomsayers and those saying the Vita had nothing. Lately I've been absorbed into Soul Sacrifice on the go, and its simply incredible. That combined with Killzone, Gravity rush, LBP, indie hits, old PS1 games that do work, and more make for a very satisfying collection with some games that clearly rival releases across main consoles in fun. In that time of sitting down with Soul Sacrifice, curled up in my bed with a screen glowing and telling me cool monster stories complimented with one of the best orchestrated soundtracks I've ever heard, and dueling across tense strategic battles with giants, I can't be bothered to stop and acknowledge that someone out there has the audacity to trash this device or call it buried. Its a great game, and I'll likely go right back to it and temporarily forget these angers with its well designed game. Too bad now I have more of a reason to think games like these wont happen again and now Sony has actually sided with the doomsayers to tell me this stuff is over.

What I'm trying to say is that I believe in the Vita to be a good machine still worth its value, and I believe Sony to be in a similar light. Its just that it angers me when they start hurting themselves. The vita needs more games, not less, and I don't mean just triple A I mean more in general. The dog game is fine, SS delta is great, Borderlands 2 is nice, the 60 or whatever indie games sound awesome, but keep that up rather than tell people you're quitting after this. And FFS, get your services together and actually deliver the fun rather than pretending you'll get around to it eventually. Also I hope PS now does well, but as an additional thing rather than a replacement. The vita still needs real games for it, and it on its own, not just something I can stream. If a game is made that can run on the vita, it should be ported to the Vita... not just fixed for stream readiness. I hope Sony proves themselves wrong and still come out with more games for the Vita, and in addition fixes things up a bit. The internet was a bit fussy for good reason over moves like what happened with Spyro, and the Vita's general market, and Sony has heard people like Jim Sterling out on it. I hope they listen well, and I will keep believing in their machine for just a but longer even if I'm being told not to.

Some things are too good to die...

Spec Ops: A confused satire of heroic fantasy, or tragic tale?

Well first off, if you haven't read my other article on Spec Ops yet back when I was in the middle of it, your probably should do so now. In it I discuss the basics on how the game was a solid cover based shooter with some flaws that attempted to take on a good sense of context within its shooting. With all that being said I would also like to make one major thing clear before we begin, as this article isn't made for people who haven't played or at least watched a walk-through on Youtube. Its full of things that strip the surprise out of the game and analyze them. So with that in mind...

Now as I was saying, the game makes it clear that rather than being a mission with some fun set pieces or gunplay the game focuses on making you realize how brutal this concept was to begin with. It is a shooter after all. However to how far its intent goes is a pretty good and possibly dual sided question and I feel like one potential direction falls way flatter than the other. A guy on Youtube known as Campster or Irrational signal did a good job digging into the plot and story elements of this game, and reveals most (or all?) potential meanings. I don't necessarily agree with his Content 100% of the time, but he makes some good thought provoking stuff and I would seriously suggest looking at his views before mine here. He also sort of acknowledges the rant I had in the other article (about players being beaten with morals they didn't make themselves), yet justifies it is done that way on purpose. I might get back to that later, but for now lets talk about the potential different target goals of this game overall.

Lets first look at it from the perspective of a character driven tale. The game's narrative is based around 3 characters trying to survive in Dubai. Walker is the player's character and the leader of the core cast. He's the one calling the shots, and the one held more responsible for the actions of the squad. As the game degrades him and his squad by pushing them through countless sandstorms, testing them to extreme situations where they severely cripple the civilians they originally desired to save, and endure fighting what was supposed to be their own allies, it all amounts to the cast feeling at horrible. Their original goal to run into Dubai, call an evacuation team, and rescue everyone was some heroic fantasy that was way out of their reach. Instead they find chaos out of strange conflicts and have to pretty much kill a bit of everybody in the process of survival. Yet its not just survival. The captain (player's character) names the face responsible for it all and starts weaving out his own mission of vengeance. Suddenly because saving the people is too complicated, he wants to hurt the "bad guy". While the villain seemed a bit plausible at first, it was nothing more than a badly imagined conflict made up for an excuse to keep killing, and eventually the main character can do nothing else to keep himself believing his own heroism. You can't end the game on a good note, he either dies and ends it all, goes crazy by himself in Dubai (killing his only means of escape in the process), or goes home scared for life and presumably needs help. If the game was about this adventure, this changing character and his pals, and the horrors of true conflict, then it was an amazing narrative.

There's even subtle effects throughout the game that make it all even better. The squad continues to show more wear and become visually as torn as they are within their minds. Meanwhile Walker's ability to order his men range from a serious tone of orders, to hate filled swears stating a death sentence. ...Though with that last bit in mind, its odd hearing it from the same guy that voices deadpool. Another thing throughout the game is moments like in the mall when he starts going crazy enough to see mannequins as enemies, showing a lack of control to really tell who his enemies are. In other terms he begins to just want to destroy things, even if its not the real threat. His tale from captian of a rescue crew to blood thirsty maniac is actually felt throughout the game and even transfers into the elements the player works with, truly capturing the effect of the narrative and marking a big story on how mentally terrible this whole conflict has become for a solider. The other supposed goal of the game is the message that this is all the player's fault, that the player should never have tried to be the "hero", and that the game is scolding you for ever thinking you could "win" a hyper violent piece of content. Its about how you should be ashamed of yourself for playing games like these for your own desire to be heroic. This is the side of it I feel falls a bit flat on its face....

With a big serious splat

Now as a whole, its not a terrible idea. The idea might have been a bait and switch aimed at certain gamers, (likely COD/MOH or "dudebro" gamers) and to go from generic shooter to something a lot more hateful in tone. That's why the gameplay is mostly playing it safe, the setting is the way that it is, and its going against the common trend of course. Still even with interesting intentions it kind of falls apart when you step back and look at it. I feel like it might be the wrong genre, I would think COD or mainstream gamers play for the multiplayer rather than heroics. Heroics sounds like something Nintendo, Adventure, and possibly some RPG gamers play for. In those kind of games its actually played up loud and clear that you're on one campaign that always ends with saving the world, and (exempting RPGs) the mechanics are often too limited to really aim for much else other than pushing forward closer to that goal of saving the world and getting the princess or whatever. Modern military shooters are often about the multiplayer. Ammo, points, players, map design, tactics, server stability, objectives, and loadouts all play into your mind. You can't really focus on just the ending or "winning" on its own terms alone, its about how you get there by your own powers and with the aid or agony of the community. Now I guess you could point out how easy and "cool looking" COD games are set up to be, easily making you feel good or like some action hero, but overall people aren't playing with that solely in mind. There's nothing heroic about it because you know the other guys are real people doing the same exact thing, its more down to competition (even if its mostly through reflex) and community. If you forced the same guys to see Spec ops through, I don't think that hero metaphor would apply to them at all. Chances are they played this game because their net was down, not "I want the super vulnerable virtual civilians to build a memorial of me for reaching the credits!".

Oh and this is just under the assumption of COD fans, this bit falls apart even worse if it falls into gamers like me or others. I've yet to run into anyone that plays shooters like that honestly, even narrative heavy campaign fans of shooters. The closest I could name might be Metroid Prime and fans of it. Meanwhile everyone else I've seen plays them for some good stories. The play it to see the characters. That's why nobody really cared which ending was made cannon for Metro's sequel, they just enjoyed getting back into the world even if they were treated with the "bad ending" pre-set. That's why Joel's ending from The Last of Us is remembered as something questionable and harsh he did, not the player's will. The fact that it wasn't the player as a person, nor was it lecturing the player on something outside of their will, all revolves around the fact that the game wanted you to be invested in the character and it worked because that's what people wanted. If everyone was looking to be the hero, that game would have been far worse off than it was and people would have been crying for a "good" ending. Heck even Gordon Freeman from Half-life, who is a total shell of a character, is understood as him saving the world because that's how players felt. They know better than to assume they were playing the game as a hero, instead they just play down the linear events and soak up the narrative as the entertainment it is. Gordon is still a hero even if you never played the game, because he was written and programmed that way in the end and his name is after a fictional character made to do things to entertain you rather than simply overpower you. How about another world saver, Duke nukem. It was clear he had his own attitude and style to the point where it was so obvious and clear it was Duke more than the player in the game. Even if you're the one playing these guys, it doesn't mean we see them with our faces, we see them as fictional and made up as the pixeled world we manipulate through buttons. None of it has ever been about inputting our true morals, and some new developments to shift that focus in recent times doesn't suddenly make use believe we're moral crusaders becoming game heroes ourselves for controlling these pixel characters. If a game really does make us believe we were heroes at the end, its usually an accomplishment of the narrative in the game rather than an expectation of the player (World at war's ending with the Russians comes to mind). In the end, we want in as a player and interactor, not as a realistic avatar.

who am I!?

Now whether or not Spec Ops truly was going for this approach is not concrete. Supposedly it might even just be up to interpretation. I guess I'll never know for sure because I was slightly spoiled ahead of play into knowing that this game had a moral message, and people made it sound like it would indeed lecture the player on morals. So I couldn't see it abstractly, instead I was sort of waiting for it. Still I would suggest like Campster says in his analysis that at one point the game uses dialogue set up to specifically chat to both player and fiction at once. It certainly didn't feel abstract, and I didn't actually have to do much looking for the message to the player. Its not as openly handed to you and released for you to sit with like Last of Us's edgy ending which lets the player think about it, instead it is set in such a way that it truly is intentionally lecturing you through your character's own psyche problems. That's why I'm calling it out like this. Its not letting you figure it out as abstractly as some hint at, but instead attempting to guilt trip you. It really thinks you wanted to be a hero, and that you've always wanted to be that along with your character. That's why it forces you to do bad things, then feels like it lectures you along with the character. That just doesn't work though if the game isn't in the right type of hands it presumes to be in. The only people it would really relate to in that way are the minority that really do somehow see war games as a power fantasy escape to feel better about their success, or those that are so paranoid everyone is like that that they believed this move was so refreshing and educational (in other words the people that spoiled this game for me, and expected this was a necessary lecture). To someone like me that loves game narratives as a way of world building, or to those that look for just good stories in addition to interactive 5-20 hour long experiences, this just comes off as a bit frustrating and pretentious. Its certainly not the worst at pushing anti-violence morals on the player of a violent game, but its still among them as going a little too far.

Finally another point it was probably trying to gnaw at was real military actions. Upside-down flags, a capital city upturned, CIA cover ups, and soldiers killing soldiers all lead you into a middle eastern plot about how messed up America's plans went under a modernized setting drawn into mocking apocalyptic grimdark fiction. Much like how it was probably targeting to scold players, it may have just as well been scolding the video games it mocks or the military those games supposedly glorify. I can't really dismiss this as bad writing like the misguided anti-hero lectures on the player, but I can say I still have to disagree with it to some extent. A lot of people lately have seen the modern military shooter industry as a "fuck yeah, america!" propaganda war cry... and this is where I bring up how this game can find a nice home among those I'd describe as paranoid and think of this game as educational. For starters, if its criticizing real life its doing a bad job as there isn't anything this so clearly relates to. Dubai is still in good standing, there are no terrorists to be found, the mission is evacuation rather than government changing, and finally the whole apocalyptic and stranded style is just all a bit too far fetched to even trace such a chaotic anarchy to anywhere specific. The only way this game truly demotes America is by just giving us a game where some bad guys where the same uniform, but as a satire or piece of criticism its terrible at conveying any clear message. I don't honestly believe the game was aiming directly for that, and people may instead be putting words into its mouth, because it does look like an anti-war on terror themed game on the surface while not having any of the depth to that. On top of that the games it supposedly opposes aren't quite as pro-america as people seem to act like. If it were trying to go for that route, its doing a poor job with crazy traitorous American generals abusing US politics and killing their allies with poor justifications. Maybe they'd have a point with Medal of Honor though....

Though that leads into the other question of: Does the game mock modern shooters? I think that's pretty obvious. While it may not directly mock them in a way like BulletStorm tried with its marketing, it tears down their typical structure and I'm certain it was the teams goal to make you see just how torn from reality these shooters are. There really isn't a lot more to say to it than that. While COD, Medal of Honor, Killzone, Battlefield, and nearly every other shooter taking place in a "war" is all stripped of a lot of the true darkness within war. Heck even Uncharted is pretty guilty of it, even if its not really a war. Some games capture civilian casualties like Homefront, other help give some context like Killzone, but for the most part these games basically boil things down to kill bad guys to win. Violence under tense and horrible situations is down to you mowing down evil, and its hard to do wrong in a way that really weighs in on your decision to do something wrong. That's not to suddenly jump ship and to say that games are training us to be desensitized hooligans with trigger happy habits. Its just that the FPS and third person shooters went from shooting demons and aliens to trying to tackle war, but what feels right as silly demon killing comes off as inaccurate when applied to a struggle that we should all know too well has a lot more political, horror, and ripple effect than what we've been playing in games. Spec Ops tries to turn all that on its head, and give us a darker world full of civilian trouble, confusing conflicts that don't make much sense, and events that you can't simply win by killing and getting to a credit scene. Well... if you ignore the stupidly contradicting, and horribly uninspired multiplayer piece. We're sticking to the campaign of course. Its still no war simulator, and may even be a little too dark for its own message at times (the game is full of shock horror to the point where certain victims look more like rob zombie art than a realistic portrayal of suffering), but it tries to go further than the common shooter will with this. Its mission was to remind people that when you're controlling bombs, bullets, and lethal orders, you risk hurting more than some meanie with a gun.

Most Shooters: Mental scars? Nah, have some points!

So my overall thoughts on the game are pretty good in the end, even if I'm a tad bit frustrated with it as well. I feel like in some ways it tried to go too far. Trying to preachy and putting words and assumptions into player's heads, possibly assuming things about our culture that may not be true, and overall trying to deliver it in a way that also uses a ton of shock value and lack of personality or depth behind it as well. This all sounds like I'm describing some college project from a few preachy kids trying to score on some environmentalist trend. However... and again similar to mediocre environmentalism propaganda, the result is actually still very satisfying in some weird way. I feel like if it was more focused towards Walker's tale on its own, it would have hit home. It could have also done just maybe a bit better in showing the darkness of war. Like I suggested, its pretty much all shock value and mental problems the character has from that shock value. At one point there is a part where a civilian rushes towards the player down a closed up hallway in the middle of combat, almost certain to trigger a fast maybe lethal response from the player (I nearly clubbed her but stopped myself in time). Parts like that were a genius thing to do, but that's about as far as it ever goes without being outright shock stuff. The loading screens, the fire bombs that make people look a little too much like zomies, people hanging on every single light post at one point, walking through several halls full of corpses, and of course the wave based killing you're told to feel "bad" about all stems from a way to just make something bad look disgusting. Its shock value, not something you can actually think about, just more like "ew!". Its not exactly an awful thing, but it wasn't as powerful as I bet they were hoping to achieve. Instead the ending which was a mental thing rather than a physical "LOOK AT IT AND GASP IN EXAGGERATED HORROR!" sort of thing made it one of the only true memorable pieces of the dark plot. Still in general the core plot was great, a bit different, and I enjoyed how they tried to give the conflict quite an interesting conflict to lead to such a troubled and interesting main character.