Lets talk about horse armor...

Hey, remember the whole horse armor controversy long ago for the Elder Scrolls Oblivion game? Of course you do! Its been a huge mockery for just being entirely cosmetic yet setting you back a couple dollars. How dare they force you to consider maybe buying something extra days after the release! Wait.... so... if I just wanted horse armor and had $2.50 lying around on my account, what exactly is the crime of that investment? Don't get me wrong, I do believe its stupid, but its not exactly a terrible thing that hurts Oblivion. I still believe its stupid because I'd rather save that money for something useful or better suited to me. Something like... a western themed costume for Penny Fox in Awesomenauts.

No seriously, same price to: $2.50. Its just a simple skin, but to someone who's dedicated 85% of the game to playing as this character, likes the general game, and loved this costume over the default, its worth it. I don't regret a bit of it either. The game is littered with costumes like this all over the place, and honestly you'll be paying possibly double of what the whole game is worth if you were to buy them all. Actually, there are two costume packs that have 'em in bulk for $15, so $30 right there and I still think that's missing Penny's and Ted's which would amount to around $12 right there (Ted has fancy re-voice packs that cost extra). The stock game of Awesomenauts is $10 by comparison. That just sounds ridiculous, and you may think nobody buys into that kind of crap. Yet I've bumped into fuzzy teddy suited Alyas, cop Lonestars, robo-snipers, a chicken clunk, and a bumble-bee gnaw, oh and another Desperado Penny fox. There was also a person on the game's support forum (I had a glitch that needed sorting) who told me I bought the "wrong" alternate costume for Penny, indicating s/he favored the Cheerleader alternative. All of this is premium DLC content people are actively buying and using around $2.50 or more, so they clearly value them and gave in some support. Another game that fuels itself and shows off with premium costumes is LittleBigPlanet, where its inspired some interesting costume ideas, recolors, and even levels to suit a new costume, but could still be enjoyed if you just wanted stock stuff. Actually quite a few other Sony published games do this, like StarHawk, Uncharted 3, Resistance, Modnation Racers, and while not quite there Killzone Shadow Fall came close with voice over, mech skins, and taunt DLC.

Why is this all so relevant though? Well because despite all this that horse armor hate is still flowing strong in the vocal gaming culture and communities. Fine I get it, again I really do believe the horse armor is stupid. Despite buying into Penny Fox's western costume that's more of an exception for me than the rule. Unless its dirt cheap for its value, or it really hits a niche that suits me, I'm a hard to sell person with this stuff. I see where people are coming from when they say they don't support it and would rather look into the DLC market for real expansions and some serious game-play spices. However what I do have a problem with and lose my understanding for are those that insist the cosmetics aren't just undesirable for the person, but in fact a plague and something worth fighting against before it harms all your games. I'm sorry, but the whole thing falls apart with a clear contradiction and feels like hate for the sake of hate. If its DLC that doesn't do anything, and your complaining that its hurting your games because *reasons*... well you just said it right there, its not doing anything for your experience by existing. So how is it a problem? Also lets dispel the argument that its taking away from true DLC, because we're talking about skins and cosmetics. This is stuff an art team can do in a day or so, run it by some animation tests, and call it done. It takes more effort to probably put the damn thing in the store than it does to make it (which is why in most cases its done in massive amounts). So you'll still get your shivering isles expansion, new maps, new characters, or whatever else it is you were looking for. Actually most games that do cosmetics are up there among those putting out possibly the most of new content, and new spices for longer than the average game. Cosmetics are only a fraction of their commitment and its often a sign that the team is still working to enhance the game beyond the launch copy. I would even go as far as to say the industry is better for the consumer with these costumes. Look back at Killzone again for this one, even if it is a little weirder than say a common costume. They give you free maps and in exchange they bomb you hard with optional DLC that effects mostly looks. There's a special hacker and retro weapon themed expansion pack, and a co-op expansion as well, but for the long time it took to get those out they were giving maps out for free and took a chance on players buying special bonus stuff. It works to, with people flying cheese colored bots, and showcasing and reviewing all the many voice packs. By contrast lets look back at killzone 2 and 3. In 2 if you bought the $6+ map packs, you'd be disappointed to find your money was wasted and nobody used them because it would tear a hole in the community. In 3 the matchmaking really could care less what you got, you could be thrown in with a bunch of players who never had it and thus didn't have the cycle, or thrown in with the cool kids that bought it. Either way, the game basically cut matchmaking into yet another category that could potentially leave people out or keep you out of what you paid money for. Oh and in both cases you were also locked out of potential trophies if you didn't buy it, screwing with your completion percentage if you actually care about that sort of thing. In shadow Fall the community stands united as everybody has every map possible, and its fantastic that way. Imagine if more games followed this model. Unfortunately some like COD get away with charging on both, but even then... I can't really complain about new narrators as a premium option.

$2 useless taunts + Free maps > $15 maps, take it or leave it

So what awoke this whole thing was actually thanks to Capcom's shenanigans. They recently bumped up content in ultra street fighter and dumped a dozen or so summer themed costumes. I'll admit from Capcom it looks suspicious after the disc locked and delayed characters out of SFxT. However I've still got to bring the same argument around again when I see people hating on the entire Horse Armor style. Its not cancer or anything guys, its freakin' bonus content you may or may not want, and if you don't want it just leave it. If you leave it your not missing out on anything. Its called free will, use it, say no, and then you're done and can continue playing your game exactly as it was before. They aren't holding your precious expansions, characters, or online competition ransom, they're simply giving you the option to send in your favorite character in his tacky swimming trunks. That option isn't destroying your game, its just another choice you can make with your money. Unless they suddenly decorated your game with locked "please buy" icons (which admittedly is a little too often for comfort), they haven't screwed with your $60 purchase. Street Fight was still the same competitive arcade fighter it was before, Killzone is still an underrated and amazing team based FPS, LittleBigPlanet is still an amazing level sharing socially driven platformer, and Awesomenauts still is still an amazing 2D take on the MOBA genre. Horse armor is just a little extra treat you can grab if your hungry for a little decoration with your fun game. Its not the end of the world people, you can find much more deserving topics to bitch about. So please... can we get a grip on reality and stop moaning about how "awful" horse armor DLC is?

Now Playing: Tomb Raider [2013]

Well this is odd, but good. In a turn of events since Legend, I've finally found a bit of enjoyment from the Tomb Raider series. Underworld isn't so bad after that opening puzzle I was stuck on, and in the meant time while I try to acquire the full game cheap I decided to go back and revisit the reboot on PS3. I wanted the definitive version, but its not worth a $30 price gap when a perfectly good game is that much cheaper. Like I said in the last article, knowing when something is "good enough" is a better way to live and save. Maybe I'll revisit it when its at a more sane price. I also said when discussing Legends that this game of the subject today was overrated... I still hold that up a good bit and for the same reason. In addition, going back I'm amazed by how much its lacking in options. No alternate controls, no aim tweaks aside from sensitivity, no HUD changes or way to remove tutorials in a game that's 70% cinematic, and to add insult to injury the subtitles are terrible blocky TV style ones and the audio settings can't help make up for a difference between voice and sound effects. Still despite all of that... I'm enjoying the game far more than I did last time.

It sounds weird to talk about a cinematic game being better the second time through. That's the exact opposite of what you'd usually expect, and is proven to be lesser with games like Last of Us, and even open world games despite how they have more in the gameplay department than Tomb Raider here. I guess its because I set my expectations better, and came in with more understanding for where the series came from, and what this was trying to do in both the same-ness and difference. The old TR was a unique gem of a game series where the platforming was literally Jump Puzzles (in any other place that's a very stupid and contradicting term) with how complex, thoughtful, physics based, and time centered they were while the game also tossed in environmental puzzles and loose but unique auto-aim acrobatic combat. It was an adventure game that stood out as very unusual but interesting. The reboot... is incredibly familiar and mainstream at face value, but underneath the surface is about just as unusual as its older games. Its basically zelda/metroid style adventuring hidden under an uncharted-like 3rd person action game that does uncharted's job a little bit stronger in many categories (for better and worst). It technically has more complex stealth, progression upgrades, more impact on its gunplay, a hunting system, more intrusive cut-scenes/scripting, heavier set-pieces, and a heck of a lot more quick time events. However in the process of all that it also plans the levels and upgrades around a very linear system that is identical to metroidvanias, where you come across an upgrade or tool that suddenly lets you interact with a certain piece of terrain, and then your expected to remember where you've seen it in the past to go back if you want to be a completionist. This has an interesting effect that tweaks both of what you would expect from the genres, and that's what killed it for me my original time around... well that and the heavy scripting.

Uh oh, scripted wolf sequence #4! Mash square to keep your leg!!!

The game doesn't do itself any favors to help me keep my expectations right. People all over the place compared this to Uncharted, but where as that game gives you a plot and picks up on diverse combat, enemy types, globe trotting, and keeps you in touch with your input even during scripted events, Tomb Raider has like none of that for the first 3-4 hours but more scripting and more obnoxious QTE events. In the end the metroidvania structure also requires you to basically have just 4 weapons that serve with upgrade and tool-like abilities. While I usually love a game that lets you carry all weapons, uncharted's charm with this is that your always scrapping by with ammo, hot swapping weapons, saving the right weapon for the right enemy, learning the map on the fly, and adapting to each and every weapon.... all of this in just the typical combat scenerio due to the modern inventory system. Tomb Raider has the same 4 weapons, and usually puts one enemy after the other in near single file lines. I was pissed that this was being compared to uncharted's experience, and was disappointed and appalled by the game's attempt at it. Like a week after I had played it though... the thought hit me, it was freakin' Zelda in disguise! Not only that, but a much better, much more atmospheric take on it with better combat. Because I had rented it, I had no way of going back to hunt for animals, no reason to stick and stare at puzzles, and no reason to use the fast travel camp system. I had missed half the game in an attempt to play this as a 3rd person shooter. Fuck you game community, I seriously believe at least of the quarter of the blame lies on the perspective people gave this game. I still take credit for rushing it a bit much, and leaving some stones unturned, but still... giving me this constant stream of "oh, its such a good 3rd party uncharted" crap is the wrong view to go in with.

Now that I've got it again and started a new profile, and got the better mindset on and slowly observing every detail and terrain, as well as making a couple better combat choices, its not quite the rail shooter ride I thought it was originally. Also the story and cinematic presence is still just as good the 2nd time around, and I do appreciate the hard work square did on that aspect. Even the first time around, the story, visuals, and setting had me gripped and loving it... hey, I had to enjoy something to if I finished it. Now its just as good going back, aside from tutorials and all the whining I'm surprised Lara does (the attitude differences between new and old are just jarring and bothersome). Its actually kind of fun to explore around now, hunt, and try some weird combinations with combat, go for trophies, and just be immersed in the setting. I'm also doing more backtracking now that I understand it actually has some value to it. Speaking of which, that's where the game improves on metroidvania by being a 3rd person shooter. While the shooter element may have been comprimised by limiting its arsenal, the backtracking is comprimised by being extremely optional and the tools you use feel more realistic and necessary than something like Zelda where its one big obvious colored key hunt to get specific item with specific hook/door/switch. I'd rather be blasting a barbed wall with a shotgun, or using rope arrows to make tethers than traversing one of Zelda's dungeons, or getting locked out of Metroid's door because its a funky color that requires a certain missile. Part of the enjoyment is also just more letting go of the mechanics, and more of enjoying the literal adventure within an adventure game. Speaking of which, I also just wanted to go back to the setting. The dark, wet, and gritty island mixed with culture and elements is just a really well presented fictional world to traverse, and its a lot of fun even if it is the only place in this Tomb Raider. Some of the set pieces are still just a bit too intrusive, and even in a weird way that they still force you to move while also taking the control out, but its still more tolerable this time around rather than that feeling that it was the only thing this game felt like it offered between story bits. So... I'm kind of glad to be back to one of the most overrated titles of 2013. I'll still feel that way, but I can't deny its a lot of fun to run back in and try to be immersed more in the world than the mechanics. I was also surprised to find myself in a real and functional MP match, and I'll give that more of a fair shot once I'm off of Comcast's craptastic connection. 

There's some unfinished business left here, and its fun to be back

I still kind of wish Crystal dynamics had the TR: Legend formula to work with, but honestly I'm still glad the reboot exists. I'm very curious about what they'll do with the sequel, especially given its name and Lara's experience. I think we're going to see it be a little more familiar to the older games in a good way, hopefully with a better more uplifting personality, clever wit, more varied weapons (maybe dual pistols), and just a better refined experience. Hopefully a lot less scripted BS. Until then though, I'll be trying to finish this game (maybe 100%... maybe) and trying to get my hands on the PS3 trilogy of the older Crystal dynamic TR games. I really want to play Underworld.

My thoughts on the framerate debate

Now I don't want this to be confused with a certain youtuber's title and message on framerate from some time ago. The debate isn't about whether or not 60fps is better, because its just a fact that it is and your not losing anything "filmic" from moving to it. So that is a framerate non-debate. What is still up for discussion, talks, and will contain differing views is whether or not the framerate is worth the visuals or if 30fps is just fine. This is more of a console debate than anything else, as you can always adjust your own on PC and if you can't you know its either a matter of upgrading or complaining about a sloppy optimization job. What brings this up now? Well... several things really, probably the biggest one in recent times being Naughty Dog's statement that the remastered Last of Us is a game changer at 60fps and they wish it to become the standard for gaming. The other is up for debates, it seems like some were just expecting better everything with the new consoles, and others appear to be driven by PC elitist's talk. Of course its not only that, but PS4 fanboys trying to use it against the xbox 1 for some multi-plats as well as the talk about resolution for cases like COD. So naturally people loved hating back on them whenever a game had less than either 1080p, or 60fps... and apart from ports and Wolfenstein, there is nothing that really has that.

Got to love the console wars.

The Order didn't help when it was making the stupid excuses it did for its choice. Now it seems like 30fps is not only less, but that supporting it almost makes people think you're an idiot trying to pass it off as filmic. So now here we are, with a renewed sense of frustration and entitlement to get a certain higher standard in. Is it justified? Well ultimately I'm going to say no, and on both sides of the argument. I think I've said this before, but its fixed hardware and we're all well aware of this way before we buy into it. When you buy one you're well aware you have minimal if any control over your visual options and performance within the games, and you know where you can turn to if you wanted to go with that route. This is just miserable for exclusives since you don't have another option to turn to, but oh well. Now likewise you don't owe the games money and you can choose to turn down a game that doesn't hit your expectations (or even intentionally buy it used, but your a bit of a jerk using that as a boycott), but c'mon you've got to admit that's a bit dramatic if the game truly interests you for the reasons its supposed to: gameplay.

Now the thing to keep in mind is that compromises are made all the time. The engine, physics, graphics, resolution, and performance must all  blend together and function across consoles. Each and every thing around the game's limit will stress the able performance, and that does mean the framerate can take hits with more effects. Any PC gamer can tell you that resolution alone will move framerate easily, so there's a good chance you wont be hitting 60fps and 1080p on an advanced game. If you can... its going to take downsized shading, lighting, AA, or something similar to make up for the big resolution and performance. If your aim is 30fps, you can probably look more like Shadow Fall and Infamous. If you drop the resolution in addition to aiming at 30fps... well I don't think we've seen a perfect example, but it'll probably beat the two previously mentioned games despite some extra AA needed (or handle their engines better). So in the end the discussion is whether or not its worth the comprimises. My own view? 1080p is worth it, 60fps is not.

I just don't see the boost that people claim is offered within 60fps. The framerate looks the same to me unless I'm staring really hard at a side by side comparison (and yes, 60fps is better in that case). People also say the response time is better, but again I don't really feel this. I've jumped between 30fps and 60fps games without feeling out of place or anything. COD isn't more responsive than say Killzone or Bad company because of its framerate, its more responsive because its incredibly fast and twitchy... much like Unreal Tournament 2004 which I've run just as fine at 30fps. I actually play at most 30fps games better, especially if its a case of bad company 2 vs COD. Now I'm not going to call the response time stuff a lie, as I know from going to high on certain PC game settings or just badly optimized games on consoles that a very low framerate can mean the difference between hitting your mark. I've watched my quality vastly improve as I tweak and go in and out of higher settings on Chivalry, and I sure need more than 20fps to be at my best (which still ain't good, but that's another subject). However the thing is 30fps is around the mark where you lose track of any real difference, and I haven't seen people change or lose balance over a 30fps mark. The games play just fine, and again I'm better at nearly every shooter over COD because most other shooters have more for me to learn and adapt to and conquer or outsmart other players with actual tactics of some kind. However one thing I do notice between Resistance 2, COD, R&C: crack in time, and rage at their 60fps, and then compared to Killzone, Bad company, R&C: nexus, and Metro at 30fps is that the 30fps games always look, and process more into a more immersive and interesting experience. Before Insomniac dropped their framerate, they always had something or multiple things within their games that had horribly jagged edges and desperately needed some sense of higher resolution or AA (and this is coming from someone that can never put any AA on their PC games, so I should be used to it). Rage was just a total mess, with some of the worst and most distracting pop-ins ever, and textures and details that were so flat and dull they shouldn't have bothered loading with that pop-in to begin with. Meanwhile I don't have to explain why COD wasn't breath taking, its still running on an ancient modified engine even to this day and it just doesn't compete well or hold any impressive effects. Its not ugly, but you certainly wont see it competing against most other shooters in visuals. Meanwhile Killzone has some of the best PS3 visuals out there and an insanely good engine with ragdolls, wind effects, and a heavy dose of lasting decals and blood. Metro is an amazing job from a 3rd party source, and Bad Company 2 has you destroying entire buildings as well as superior model textures over the average military shooter. Oh and Into the nexus is one of the most beautiful 3D cartoon-ish looking games I've ever seen in my life, even if it sadly dips below 30fps occasionally... its worth it considering I'm not watching 8-bit explosions everywhere. The differences between most 30fps and 60fps games are visually jarring, meanwhile I just can't detect the framerate boost and I wouldn't unless it was a side by side comparison.

Worth 30fps! End of story!!!

Now before someone takes my view too seriously, I'll admit there is a flaw with my line of thinking. First though I feel like I have to fight for 30fps one more paragraph basically paraphrased as such: It isn't the end of the world. The thing that really, really, ticks me off about this framerate discussion is the sudden appearance of those who say they can't stand 30fps. Its "garbage" and "unplayable" or in Naughty Dog's case when discussing their 6 million+ selling highly successful game, it feels "broken". This is like a Hershey fan going to World Market, buying a $6 candy bar made from various "real and handcrafted" ingredients, and then claiming that Hershey candy isn't fit for human consumption and refusing to ever settle for it again (and then they go bankrupt buying overpriced chocolate). Its a stupid spoiled statement made on a comparison basis that holds no concept of proper standards and flies directly in the face of facts like how successful last gen has been running mostly 720p and 30fps. I remember reading on the IGN article with Naughty Dog's statement that "The myth that 30fps is good enough needs to die". I told him exactly what I thought, using the very games ND made as evidence. 30fps was good enough. It was good enough to sell millions, even sell consoles, complete the game, leave an emotional and thoughtful impact on players, and was enough to get it some of the highest praises ever. If that and Uncharted 2's 28 or more perfect awards wasn't "good enough" I'm sorry but you are simply lying. I'm not saying the games deserved all their praise, that's subjective, but the fact that they alongside countless other 30fps titles have been enjoyed and praised by millions of gamers should say that 30fps isn't its problem. We've had an entire console generation thrive mostly on 30fps without hardly anyone fussing, and it was fine. The people exaggerating about how spoiled they've become almost make me want to remain at 30fps just so I don't become like them.

Now with that being said, I'm going to play into the idea that maybe this would actually be the best time for 60fps to become the standard. Despite what I said, I have to take a step back and also ask myself what is "good enough" and I think its safe to place that on the visuals now more so than the framerate. Sure 30fps is good enough, but then again so was Wolfenstein's visuals (once you admire the details and all the destruction), or Mario Kart 8, or considering we can upgrade Last of Us in addition to 1080p/60fps maybe even just leaving it at that despite it being a port is good enough. Heck I still think PS3 games as they are just look pretty great most of the time. Ground Zeroes looks incredible on just PS3, and if it can look better, hit 60fps and high resolution, and be an open world game, that is all good enough to me.

MGS's fox engine looks so real! Ok, real link

So in the end... I kind of want to conclude with that message... to both sides of the topic. Shut up with the mudslinging, and just hope they developers are competent enough to deliver something that runs well... no matter what they choose for how to optimize the game. You can achieve great things with or without 60fps, and its time to really appreciate that. Unless of course your up for the idea that developers should be able to make a 720p/60fps or 1080p/30fps thing, in that case I'm with you on that. Still in the end can we quite expecting the sun and moon to come out at once to match the idea of fine quality? There is such a thing as good enough, and honestly many games look good enough at 60fps while games also still run just fine at 30fps. Its at an age where its possible, and considering the over-bloated budget of gaming right now there's no true urgency to need more. And above all... remember your here to have fun. Wolfenstien was ridiculously ugly as a PS4 game at first and I had no problem blaming the framerate, but even before I started to see the better details within it I was still having some of the best fun I had in years on a shooter's campaign, even more so than Shadow Fall. That was worth playing, regardless of it being against my stance on this issue.

Let the fun times keep coming!

A simple theory on the complicated issue of female characters in gaming

Well as I mentioned not long ago, I was finally enjoying Tomb Raider, or specifically Tomb Raider Legend. I absolutely hate it that it comes down to this, but that innocence of just enjoying a game as it is and the character as is just isn't there anymore and I'm pretty sure the current trend of Social Justice Warriors invading the opinions of the internet are at fault. If you're playing a typical game (generic characters, or a shallow custom character games) its not exactly on your mind, but anything slightly different like playing a weird mascot-like character, or a fixed position as a female character, and suddenly there's the nagging voice of the internet at the back of your mind crusading that everything needs to be this way or counter-arguments to it. So in other words the feminists and social justice warrior's own arguments kind of pollute and ruin bits of their own wish come true games. Its not natural to just play Tomb Raider or Metroid, instead your conscience will intrude in marketing talk vs vocal comments on the internet, and excuses made for and against certain character designs. As for those average games mentioned earlier, if its a fixed one like Watch Dogs or Gears of War then its only a matter of browsing the web before you come across a community bashing the character design only because its "another gruff white male". Yeah because obviously skin color or gender means so much to character development. Way to go social justice hypocrites, you've brought racism/sexism into gaming while ironically claiming to fight it. Its just like that time Anita insulted female gamers by implying they need special handicap controls. Is there any more evidence needed to suggest that this topic needs to die already so we can just enjoy the games for the gameplay and stop dragging political agendas into an entertainment industry?

Anyways ranting about SJW topics isn't exactly the point of this article, so I wont go much further. However what I want to get around to is the fact that this did eventually lead to an interesting theory on helping the vision of more strong female roles in gaming. While I am against the SJW idiocy, I am in favor of more diverse characters. I also have to admit that the SJW side is just one piece of the stupid topic, and there are actually guys in charge of games thinking the opposite wrong: That there can't be female characters because it "wont sell" or whatever their fake and slanted stats say as they plan their cut pre-order exclusive content instead of developing a good story. So as I was playing Tomb Raider the theory started out by kind of thinking about how it was funny that a lot of female characters in gaming just seemed... different. Not exactly because they were female characters, but because of what they did. Lara does a lot of puzzles mixed with loose combat, and big globe trotting adventures. Faith practically brought parkour into gaming on her own and is still one of the best examples of it while others half-ass the effect. Samus explores hostile alien planets and survives by unusual suit methods and level design that is just convenient enough for her suit powers to get through in odd puzzle-like ways. Chell places and warps through portals to solve facility tests. Finally.... correct me if I'm wrong here since I didn't play it much, but whoever the heck the girl from beyond good and evil does a lot of photography in odd and forbidden areas while defending herself with a blunt staff from aliens and government agents. The female characters often brought up in gaming have unusual roles compared to the usual spots filled by dude characters that often do the typical stuff the genre commands of them. Samus is often compared to Master Chief, but out of the two its easy to pick which one actually has more specially crafted design choices (its Samus, and she doesn't even need to speak to be better). MC just has a gun as he holds up a typical space marine FPS cliche, while Samus goes on true adventures. Now you do still have male characters doing more dynamic things (I feel that Samus's true male counter-part is Link who follows a very similar game formula), but more often then not the majority make up for the mainstream or streamlined games. They often feel a bit more dull and uninspired as a result to. However it also occurred to me then that it was a very odd coincidence that about every single female lead game was an adventure type game of some sort, and females almost never, ever appear in a good lead role in a solid, generic, or safe and popular style of genre. Also I'm obviously leaving out custom character games when I say this, as there are countless tried and true RPG games that let you play as a female, but there's also no real character development to those games.

so much unusual-ness

Seriously think about it. Out of which of these games has any sense of solid, consistent, and popular gameplay design that could appeal to many people. Actually lets also take note of how many have combat that lacks a lot of punch you would expect from a combat driven game as well:

-Tomb Raider (especially before the reboot)
-Beyond good and evil
-Remember me
-Metroid
-Mirror's edge
-Portal
-Gone Home
-Nearly every casual point and click game ever
-Contrast

Many of those aren't very well refined, and when they are they aren't a massively popular type of experience. Yet the funny thing is a lot of them actually still sell well anyways... its just that publishers don't know when enough is enough. I think a lot of its "poor sales" is a matter of comparison and stupidly high targets. Yeah sure Mirror's edge wont print money like Battlefield, but that's got nothing to do with the female lead, its because Battlefield is one of the biggest names in one of the biggest genres where people around the net participate in its competitive multiplayer experience. Yeah Metroid isn't as popular as Zelda, especially in Japan, but that's because Zelda's lighter and fantasy tone is more marketable than Samus's Pseudo-shooter and dark sci-fi style. Furthermore I mentioned combat earlier, lets think about that for a second. A ton of the female driven games have it, but the fans will all tell you the same thing: they aren't games about the combat. However combat is a big part of many popular games. I'm not saying it should be in every game, but chances are you are going to have a popular game if you have well made grounds for fighting. As I said long ago in an article about why violent games are all over the place, its actually a very social experience and one that can appeal to a broad group of people. Its an easy way to establish a conflict we can identify with as well as a win/lose condition (like "you need to kill evil goblins, or they'll kill you), its competitive opening up that sportsmanship side of gaming if you can take it online or just have really smart AI, it can encourage skill and fast paced thinking creating a decent rush/challenge or even just an easy power fantasy to enjoy, it has a unique system of tactics and strategy, and its a good feeling of escapism from the real world reality of the fact that violence is very ugly and terrible. On top of that massive and well known genres like RPGs and Shooters primarily center around combat. Meanwhile nearly all of these games really phone it in. Even Remember Me, which was a brawler in the end, was really strange and clunky in how it did things and sold itself off of other features that would end up being barely present at all. Many of these games would rather focus on different things like puzzles and experimental platforming.... and puzzles don't sound so mass appealing, and experimental platforming is unrefined and flawed leading to a love it or hate it opinion that divides gamers. In other words, its not likely getting you those COD/GTA/Madden numbers. You'll get a strong and enthusiastic cult following that sings constant praises for your game (which about all of these have), and you may even see solid sales, but nothing to blow your mind. This obviously isn't something just related to female games either, you can see the same effect with the oddworld series, some obscure Nintendo games, and Sly Cooper compared to his more popular brothers. It isn't just about the character, its about the whole game play, as it always has been.

However lets look at the exception to this rule out of all the games I mentioned, and it all comes full circle back to what got me here in the first place: Tomb Raider. Specifically the reboot. "The game had sold more than 1 million copies in less than forty-eight hours of its release in the United Kingdom" "Tomb Raider set a new record for the franchise" "As of June 2014, Tomb Raider has sold over 6.5 million units." All of this is from the wikipedia article with source links all over the place. I think Portal 1 beats the numbers, but that's not exactly a fair comparison considering it was bundled with more tried and true games and was also available cheap on stand alone digital (plus its just had a longer lifespan). The only number I can find with Portal 2 is 4 million. The point is though, Tomb Raider sold really well compared to most games (despite Square's stupid target numbers) and even outsold its past games which were kind of funky in design. Oh gee, I wonder why? Well it had traces of its past counter-parts, but the new and successful one adopted a weird zelda-like formula while hiding it under a design that looked like a big mainstream 3rd person action game. You had magical "survivor vision", a dozen or more QTE events and cinematic set pieces, 3rd person cover shooting with regenerating health, an XP and hunting system, easy "press X" platforming, and a gritty dark story presentation. Oh yeah, and the bow that for some reason started showing up everywhere was also present. Completely disregard the character for a second, and there is nothing even remotely unusual about this game except how it weirdly has a zelda/metroid tone hidden under all the shooting. However even that is widely acceptable and enjoyable by now, and tomb raider pushes it into a mainstream shooter condition of it and everything sells really well as you should expect. Contrary to what crap square had to say (alongside sales for other games like hitman) the game was a mainstream success that stayed relevant long after its released, and still has people praising it to this day as one of the best action adventure games in recent times. This is exactly what I've been telling both the stupid and radical publisher and SJW views for a long time: Its the gameplay that matters, not the gender of your character. If you want to see a gender represented well within a mainstream success story, make a game that feels acceptable to the mainstream.

Now look I'm not going to go around and tell people they have to mainstream everything. I absolutely hate that, and I appreciate hardcore and niche titles a lot. Games like Mirror's edge, the old tomb raider, and Gone Home have a passionate following for a good reason. However I've also got to admit I'm no fan of a lot of the above listed games, and its for the same reasons I hear other people talking about it: the puzzles. Similarly I don't expect everyone to appreciate my idea of  good niche game. If you want more female game characters out there, simply put you need more games, and you need more of them to have a mass appeal in mechanics and presentation. If you make COD with a female lead, its still going to sell well, but its also going to be yet another generic COD game. Problem is there is nothing even remotely close to that sort of game with a female lead. The closest ever would be Perfect Dark, a shooter released years ago before console shooters even had true aiming (well it had sequels, but they weren't very notable games). If you made a game like Watch Dogs with a girl, its not going to hurt, its still going to sell like any big ambitious open world game would. Thing is though we don't see that either. Instead they seem attached mostly to puzzling adventures, and complex treks through unusual territory with oddly tuned mechanics just like about any of the Oddworld games, and Alan Wake (which took several years to reach 2 million). Its not that those games are bad, or have characters that aren't appealing enough, its that their gameplay isn't up to par with what the masses love. I've got to also back up and admit though that mainstream or generic games in itself wont necessarily print you money either. Not every shooter makes tons of money (Tomb raider sold better than most of killzone combined), not every RPG is as successful as Skyrim, and Fuse can sure as hell tell you that being a generic co-op shooter with moderate to no marketing isn't so rewarding. On a similar note sometimes a weird game will also get lucky and sell big, or have just the right condition that boosts sales. However the rule mostly holds up that a tried and true game, sequels, or a wide appealing games will sell better than one that is just weird looking and unproven. Giving the females some time within generic games wont hurt. Sure it wont technically make them "strong role model leads" as some people claim to want, but you can't have your cake and eat it to. The truth is for all the fussing that males dominate the face of gaming, a huge majority are forgettable and boring, and a couple just got lucky by being at the right time and place like Mario and Gordan, who otherwise has no special identity. Female characters currently make up a large chunk of the characters that actually matter and have development because they go on interesting adventures, and they really reach out and touch niche audiences for being such awesome and unique adventures, but that's the most of where their reach extends because its not familiar or straight forward enough to appeal to the same large demographic that plays RPGs, shooters, and platformers. I'm not asking to see the end of these niche games and adventures, but I'm saying we need to see some branching paths here if we want females to take off as a popular thing. Its called "selling out" for a reason. If publishers want to see big sales on games with a female lead, make the games that you know will sell well instead of betting it all on weird experimental games. I mean seriously, you cannot blame gender on how mediocre Remember Me was.

Now can we get a true Metroid FPS please? Just kidding.... sort of....

Alpha Prime Review

Feels like an honest box art

Ejecting originality. Proceed to planet Fun? [Y/N]

Alpha Prime is a game released on PC back in 2007 by an indie team trying to tackle an FPS shooter during that transition period... without any of the transitioning bits, and arguably not even the best of the games before it. It was a shooter trying to hop onto the success that Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and F.E.A.R were pulling on and the game was described as a "tried and true" attempt for the company to tap into the core PC market. Honestly it really wears that influence on its sleeve, meanwhile Modern Warfare was about to take the world by storm and Bioshock was the new big shooter everyone else was talking about, so an indie game that was clearly goofing around with old fads didn't stand much of a chance. It got overshadowed and burried without a doubt, but in the end how good exactly was it?

The game is centered around corridor shooter style FPS gameplay on an asteroid mining base known as Alpha Prime. The base has gone completely mad with miners going insane, robots with busted circuits going rouge, and just when you begin to think that's your enemy the real bad guys show up as an elite military unit from a big corporation that wants you dead and the mining minerals secure for secret powers it holds. You go through fighting these guys from room to room with various staple FPS weapons like rifles, shotguns, pistols, and grenades and interacting with the environment to push on. For the most part it all plays out like a standard PC corridor shooter of that time. It was more clearly driven off the success of Half-life with a very gimmicky but fun physics engine allowing you to mess with, break, and throw around all sorts of objects in a room. The art style looks borrowed as well, mostly looking like a brighter more optimistic version of Doom 3. The glows, well lit rooms, and flashy particles can't hide the character models and textures that are just so.... well Doom 3-ish. Then I suppose those on wall health dispensers don't help, every game except maybe FC1 at the time was doing it after Half Life put up those dispensers. Actually while we're at it to, there's even a Halo-ish jeep thrown in towards the later half of the game, and a FEAR style slow-down element tied in as part of the game's minerals that made people go crazy (and this doesn't effect you for some unexplained reason). However with all these "me to" bits floating around, and the game constantly pulling at the cogs of older games, I can't help but feels like it sort of develops its own charm by intentionally riding off of others. Besides it isn't without its perks.

For starters I'm going to get it out of the way that the shooting is better than about every game I can name its copying from. Its got ADS, effective general aim, peeking, guns feel good and strong, enemies are satisfying and challenging targets, and its just fulfilling to fire (if you exclude the awful flamethrower and sniper rifle). Oh and of course the slow down bullet-time feature is nice. The game is one of the best aesthetically pleasing shooters of its time period and maybe even of its whole style, except maybe Wolfenstein: the New order. Compare that to the very strange robotic hit boxes of doom 3, and the dull and horribly inaccurate guns of HL2, or the floaty feeling left to FEAR's guns, and you can see where it beats them. Plus out of all those, I think only FEAR had ADS. The game's only down side to this factor is it was certainly within that time frame where hitscan weapons were becoming an issue, and the game did nothing to hide this. Enemies were straight up aimbots. There's even a glitch you can trigger (and several have reported on this if my own account isn't good enough) where you can look into a camera behind cover and see the enemies shooting the wall perfectly at the position you are behind. They actually register you and hit you precisely on the mark with little if any spread once you've got their line of sight. This enforces a means to quick save/load a lot and go through a sort of trial and error feel to the game where you must beat them on resources and precision. However.... I'm sure I'm going to be looked at as crazy for this, but I absolutely adore this and the drive it brings just like I do with Far Cry 1's "AI issues". They both are hard games focused on lazy but effective AI shoot outs that enforced a feeling of sharp precision. When the gunplay feels this good, and there are quick saves to help out (though FC1 could learn from this little detail), I don't mind returning to the fight and getting it just right. The AI isn't impossible or anything, its just that it requires an adrenalin rush of movement, precise headshots, and lean and peak movements that outmatch the AI trigger finger. The rush, thrill, and satisfaction just feels unmatched by most games, even when many others clearly put more effort and meaning into their AI. Though speaking of which, the AI isn't completely lazy anyways. The miners are crazy and dumb people that charge at you, and the robots behave like.... well, dull robots, however the military units that you fight the majority of the game behave with some decent competence. They have actual battle chatter and talk with each other, calling out grenades, and communicating when a "friendly" goes down, and they weave in and out of cover when they feel the need to. On top of that seeing a more heavily armored shotgunner is steadily walking towards letting off a bursts of shells it makes for a pretty intimidating sight if you've got under 50hp left. You also can't always rely on cheap exploits like kiting, sometimes the enemies will surprisingly wait for you or even reposition themselves to surprise you if you while you hide behind a corner or a door. The AI isn't anything ground breaking, but its impressively competent coming from an indie team.

Oh yes, there is a lot of this

To accompany the gameplay's many shoot outs, there are bits of interaction and physic based extras. You can break open a glass pane and get to a throw-able explosive device, you lift lids off crates to get to extra ammo, have a device that hacks into doors or cameras and explodes internal wall circuits, or you can simply stay at the gym and play basketball. Thankfully the game doesn't stop you with many of those see-saw puzzles, but it does a lot to show off and push its physic engine in your face, along with other minor distractions. Similarly there are one or two unique levels where they put a vehicle into the game, or moments where it makes you travel down a path with limited oxygen supply. There's just enough variety to justify enjoying the 10 levels presented. The levels themselves don't look to varied up, and it is a corridor shooter in a literal sense. There's plenty of decent level design at work, but it all looks fairly similar. With that in mind though, its not a bad looking game at all. The blue, gray, and slightly glowing halls look fine and live up as sort of a campy 00 era sci-fi corridor shooter. Its also got a fantastic electronic industrial rock soundtrack to fit right in with that sort of art choice. There's plenty of computer terminals, some office spaces, and some pre-killed corpses lying around to attempt to give the place some interesting life and to show that it was indeed once a facility filled with workers rather than the murdering psychos that are left.  The actual tech side of things isn't too bad either, if again you don't mind the Doom look. It supports more resolutions, maybe just a bit more polygons, has flashier effects and brighter colors, but in the end it feels similar to Doom's look... and I've got to say it doesn't age too badly and considering how well optimized it, I'm generally impressed. Its not going to wow you by today's standards, but it just feels right for what it is. I guess the windows could seriously use some improvement though, glass in this game both looks and reacts like some sort of bizarre alien substance in itself with how it chips away in very tiny fragments and looks like it was tinted with dust.

Shoot some hoops after you shoot the bad guys

Where the game falls completely flat on its face though is the story. I love the presentation, and I love the gameplay, but the story is just unquestionably awful. It shows slight pieces of potential as a gripping though cliche sci-fi plot at times, but it can't ever deliver. Its voice acting is the first red flag. The main character is going for a style that is supposed to sound like a cheesy wise-cracking action hero, and while the attitude works on its own the voices deliver stays the exact same tone the entire game. There's no real human emotion or basic changes to it, its like someone just phoning in some lines with a cool voice, and he isn't the only one with this problem. However that's when the voice acting is at its best. At its worst is with a guy named Paolo Bellini who is possibly more well known than this game itself for how awful his voice acting is. Its just something I'm going to have to link to you. So here you go, enjoy. Meanwhile the writing itself just never lets itself go anywhere interesting. It starts off ok with a mission to track someone down on a troubled asteroid mining facility where things have gone wrong. The mining facility was crippled when a mineral called Hubbardium turned out to really screw up people's psyche and screw up technical equipment. This is also the element used as an excuse to give you bullet time, and for whatever reason you are immune to the awful side effects that have caused nearly everyone else to go insane. Rumors were also floating around that the planet was ruled over by a monster of some sort called Glomar, but many cite it as a myth or exaggeration about the minerals just behaving weird and life-like. However the story ruins any potential it has as it goes along. Confused writing mixed with attempts to add a couple of plot twists rush together at the end, and the game ends with an ending I'm sure wont be satisfying to many people. I would explain in more details, but either I can't because its so convoluted or forgettable, and for the fact that it would technically be spoilers since most of it comes off kind of rushed in the later half. Even the website seems conflicted about its own stories, describing the crazy guys or "mutants" as just illegal miners after the place was shut down. So which is it, illegal miners and pirates like the website and marketing says, or psychos turned from weird minerals as the in-game context tells it? Either way the message is clear, this is not a story driven game, and it would be nice if they had the option to skip some of the stop and chat comm messages that pop up ever other level for 5 minutes of your time.

Verdict and Closing Notes:

linked score

I think Wile E coyote was a decent choice for the "flawed" review card.

Text version (in case image is broken):
+ Excellent gunplay and battles to compliment solid FPS mechanics 
+ Great Industrial themed OST that suits every part of the game
+ Fun and quirky presentation, physics, and tone, even if it all is a bit familiar.
+ Its $5 or less

- Absolutely horrible story, dialogue, and voice acting.
- Aimbot AI creates a tense difficulty that may turn off many players
- Hacking wasn't used enough, and the game just doesn't go very far with its ideas

On one hand I feel like I've gone easy on this game. I know it released to a lot of hate, and isn't so interesting. Its basically a really good looking budget corridor shooter, the exact opposite of what we expect from indies now. Even those that defend it usually jump to the excuse that "well, its worth $5" which isn't exactly saying a lot. On the other hand though, I simply can't find enough wrong with the game to justify hating it myself. Its got plenty of problems I can still see in it. I especially hate how underused its "hacking" feels, and how downhill the story went so fast. In addition I guess I didn't explain the enemy types very well, but that's because they just didn't go out of the way to truly stand out apart from whether or not they took a bit more bullets to kill and carried a different weapon. 90% of the game just looks like fighting other guys with guns, with the occasional spider droid tossed in. Still for all its down sides, it presented a lot of familiar things in a combined package fused with amazing gunplay, and for that reason and with little getting in the way its hard for me to be angry at any of its disappointments for too long.

 As a matter of fact its a game that just feels like a straight up blast of nostalgia and comfort to me. Its not exactly an iconic sort of nostalgia, but instead sort of like those games copying a pixel art style, or paying a homage to a combination of retro games. We almost never get that with shooters (there's serious sam.... and that might be about it), but this feels like it unintentionally wound up as one that hits the mark for me. It just does everything right to feel familiar and right at home with the era of shooters I loved most, and its modern enough to still feel slightly relevant while its kind somewhat died beyond Bioshock. The gimmicky physics, the twitchy moderately spongy enemies, and just straight up raw corridors of constant precision gunplay at the core with action packed music following it as you traverse a hostile blue and gray scheme sci-fi facility all add up to this great comforting blast of nostalgia. It never feels unique enough to warrant anything to its own name, but because it does so well combining the successes of others it almost feels like a big tribute of why corridor shooters were so much fun. Heck even the publisher, Meridian 4, sounds like some cheesy name you would hear from and older sci-fi FPS. Actually its the game's name as well; How much more generic gamey sounding sci-fi name can you get than Alpha Prime? Its a more mindless junk food type comfort game that I turn to when I just want to play a good shooter on the computer with no technicalities or questions asked and an energy drink ready to go with it. Its not the best of games, and doesn't even come close to touching my favorite FPS games, but its a fantastic and nostalgic sort of corridor shooter that I find myself returning to frequently for short bursts of amusement. At the very least... well I guess I'll agree with the common defense that it is at least worth $5. There's also a really good demo you can grab and judge for yourself.