The dark side of content creation...

Here's a short topic to come to my attention lately... Aren't games that let you create within a fun rule set amazing? Boomblox, LBP, and Timesplitters just to name a few are some of my favorites, and its kind of a shame nobody talks about modnation as much because that was awesome as well. Truth is we all love community creations, just like any sane person loves trying out mods to their favorite PC game. However I always find it kind of funny that we always neglect one of its biggest faults... fact is we as every day people are not only questionable designers, but even if we make an incredible masterpiece the question next is a matter of how fun can it really be for ourselves? How do we know when we've created a masterpiece? And how the heck do we balance it right!

Let me give you this fine example of what I'm talking about. I was playing TimeSplitters 2 once again in a very long time, and I used to make stuff like crazy on there. However back then I never totally enjoyed it. I always pushed hard to make it just right, but it never was unless I got carried away with cheap stuff. I knew every weapon placement, every enemy spawn, how many times they spawned, I knew where the health packs were, I knew where my objectives were and how to do them, I knew if something could be cheated because of a loophole in the code, and I knew every room. It gave me an experience that was hard to make hard, and even if it could be done there were no surprises about it. Now I have another problem where going back to this stuff with a very foggy memory, I see some of these levels as borderline impossible without my super knowledge. Rooms were spammed with 7 different enemy spawns, health packs were thrown into obvious places to compensate for the enemy spam, and everything is based around trial and error rather than a natural learning curve. Now naturally in this day and age I would be making these maps in mind with balance for other folks and await their feedback, but the point is its still absurdly weird trying to balance something all by yourself and you can't exactly enjoy it like that. This isn't something I just see in myself either, it explains why every Duke Nukem custom level on steam's workshop is ridiculous while the more well made company released mods like the beach scene are so much better balanced. One was made by a team and tested like a release, and sold out there on shelves. The other is something a guy made and sent online calling it done, at best they had a friend test it. Most of the big successful mods have testers in their credit to thank, most of the slapped together levels are trial and error tests. Heck some of them don't even hide it, its quite common to see tracks and levels named after a hard or intentionally impossible difficulty wall. Now in their defense of course some community level should be harder because that's the after content stuff that you play once you've beaten and won everything the core experience through at you.

Of course this logic does  not apply to every single game out there. The beauty in a game like Trials or LBP is that you have half the challenge presented on a basis of reflex and timing, and while I usually condemn that over actual learning curves I've got to say it means that your average level is designed to be more fair to everyone. That wont stop a few masters from making a modest torture platformer level, but for the most part you can open up a list in LBP and expect most levels there to be decent creations of some kind. Besides, any online sharing station worth its time now has a system to help you get the better levels out of the community. I guess that's why Duke Nukem is mostly tough as nails, it also just has a completely non-organized method of download via the workshop and no other methods to it. I'm not at all demonizing content creation in general either. On the whole its a great thing, and I envy the better creators and often wonder why I don't spend more time with this stuff. Its just... I have to stop and wonder, do these guys ever get to enjoy their own work, and also note how tough it is to balance some of these games when making your very own stuff. Its also just kind of weird nobody talks about this side of things, at least that I know of. However in modern times, I guess its the act of sharing that counts more. Some of my favorite levels in LBP come from those that actually make a story and adventure out of their work, and I think they enjoyed writing and making that for people equally as much as I enjoyed playing it.

Now playing: The Order 1886

Ok this is going to be a quick one because I'm a bit constrained on time here, but I also want to get first impressions on this one. Thankfully Redbox rental service answered to my waiting woes and now I'm playing the game without risk of spoiling it before it hits $40-20 price range. So how is it? Well... mostly good, but I'm not going to hide its problems. Button prompts and QTEs are quite common and not always handled with the best impact, the cover system is a bit wacky (getting shot has made me stand up as if that's somehow a good idea), and misc dialogue is ridiculously quiet. Oh and if I were to get real nitpicky, they have these readable news papers with print so tiny I'm getting up close just to read them, and its a full newspaper article. Last of Us did that right, give us optional game text. Its more immersive breaking to squint at a TV than it is to have a convenient text prompt. I also had to skip out on an entire letter because of its scribbled up handwriting, but it was clearly still meant to be read. It'd also be great if combat had more impact to it. It feels gritty and shows blood, but the impact still feels like something out of a soft uncharted feeling where you're shooting sacks instead of people. Its not the bullet sponge bit (again last of us comes to mind... hey, I think the game is slightly overrated but it still is a masterpiece worth comparing to), its more of how they just react to it and the limited use of blood. Oh well. I might say that the wolves are a pain to fight, but honestly I think that might be because I'm trying this out on Hard for as long as I can.

Anyways now on with the good: The game's plot is very compelling, characters are interesting, graphics are superb and don't make many clear compromises (bodies stay thankfully), weapons feel good to fire despite my earlier aesthetic complaint, and the world is just fun to take part in. I'm going to basically sumarize the game as Gears of Rain. It feels a lot like a David Cage game with its heavy use of cut-scenes and character narrative, but yet giving you plenty of interaction space with guided white dots to your next interactive bit. You walk around casually, analyze stuff, watch some scenes, and then you're thrown into standard 3rd person shooter mode where you shoot up the rebels or wolves and that's a generalization of the game for you. Throw over the steampunk look, a neat plot, and a competent gameplay aspect, and I'd say yeah its overall fun. I love looking at things around the towns, I enjoy hearing the plot and context, I've stuck around to overhear extra audio, and I'm enjoying the combat enough. As for cut-scenes, my only gripe thus far is that it did one of those start with the future things and it kind of gives away any chance of a surprise for the main character's path, but by contrast everything else is good and I loved the first round table meeting. Its certainly not horrible as some want to make it out to be, but its nothing to take top spot of about any kind of list.

So overall its certainly worth grabbing so far, just not proving to me that I was wrong for skipping out on it at launch as its really not something I see $60 worth in. I might gladly return to the world at a lesser price, but of course first I need to finish the first tour here. I'll try and put together a review as well as a solid discussion on cinematic gaming at another time, but for now I need to keep at it while I have it. I want to do some more exploration, get more of the plot, and see the combat evolve as I go along with it all. Plus I've got an eye out for a sackboy easter egg I've been told about.

Making games easier, not stupider

So quite a while back EA wanted to toss themselves into a fire yet again when they made the declaration that games are too hard! Yeah we know that this is wrong to some degree or another, though more clarity is really needed. Here I actually encourage you to watch this video to save me a rant on streamlining and trend following for the sake of being similar and easy. Its a terrible thing and I'm getting kind of tired of it. It got to the point where seeing the circle button being the use button on shadow fall became a unique trait standing out against the norm for shooters... yeah that's just weird. So I could do this two ways: Rant and moan about how awful things are. Or the next and more productive option is point out better solutions. I'll go with the last plan, but I'm sure I'll manage to mix a little of both. So let me make an assumption that all EA wants is for more accessible, and intuitive games that respect the player's time. Ok lets look at some things the majority of triple A could make standard again and how it would benefit the entire player base.

Control mapping

That's a lot of control

I often hear one of the biggest barriers for anyone is actually within the controller. I can't relate so well, but I do have to admit that I can see some potential points to it. Some veteran gamers claim they need to slowly build muscle memory to a game, meanwhile from the casual perspective supposedly you've got the disadvantage of jumping in at a time where there's over 10 buttons, 10 genres, and multiple platforms where that layout can change. Now this isn't actually as big of a problem as some want to make it seem, because we didn't actually all grow up playing Atari and many old gamers could have easily gotten in through an old computer where you still had a full keyboard worth of stuff. However it still is clear that not everyone would be able to handle that, and looking back I remember struggling to learn how to jump right on a 2D plane in the original Super Mario Bros. I bet I could still get it over time without being restricted to a d-pad and two core buttons, but it might have been longer and other people are surprisingly impatient about learning stuff.

So we have two options here: Destroy all progress and make only games that run off of 5 or less core buttons, and render the default consoles and most of your keyboards, and likely plenty of genres obsolete. Yeah that's a ridiculously radical option and I guess we should just let designers themselves think about whether or not they want to design a simple Journey-like game or something more traditional.The other options is to make games open up their control schemes more so you not only can look at the controls, but alter them to your own desires and do things that feel right and intuitive. Good ideas for this might be someone that wants the highest face button (Triangle/X/Y) to be a jump control for any game with jumping, or the camera/aiming analogue stick to also click in for zooming or aiming down the sights in a shooter. Both functions are very uncommon features that could be subjectively intuitive to an individual, and to make matters more confusing they have been done this way as default controls under a minority of games. So clearly some designers out there even prefered them, but when games mainstreamed themselves into one line of thought for most controls with only minor changing pre-sets, people that may have gotten used to the minority function were isolated. I'm like this with the aiming example, I adore R3 ADS in shooters but for whatever reason I had to be forced into using a shoulder button to aim. Now on paper I can get that this was to make the controls parallel, and because triggers became a big deal for shooter, but this logic doesn't follow through elsewhere. The crouch button is almost always to the upper right of the jump button, or possibly the lower left, either way it is far from some parallel function. How do you fix this without losing anything for those complacent with mainstream practices? Simple, its called controller remapping and like I said it allows you to input whatever feels intuitive to you. Many PC gamers are used to ports that usually still have this function, but for consoles its for some reason a forgotten quality that used to be precent in at least a 3rd or so PlayStation 2 era games. For whatever reason now, we aren't allowed to remap controls in most games, with the major exception being either an indie game or Alien Colonial Marines of all games (which is likely only there because they kept it from its original PS2 function). Bring this back game designers. This will make gaming easier and better for all of us.

Lots of other options!

I love the Shadow Warrior game I got for christmas, and you're looking at one of the reasons why (A blury look at least). Well ok, its more like icing on a great cake, but its still some great icing to talk about. Games used to occasionally come loaded with options. You could totally redesign your Crosshair, customize some bits of your HUD, and occasionally some silly extra like changing the color of blood. On top of all that there were cheat codes to, some silly, some game changing. This not only gave you some personlization, but it made things easier and more suited to any player. On top of that cheat codes made a game more accessible. While the game should have a natural difficulty curve, and well designed levels, they could cover for someone's mistake as a difficulty spike was thrown. If we just sucked, we could also get by. We could also just enjoy a game longer if we could replay it while say... invisible and able to just screw with the AI. Still being able to set up our own HUD, change its size, change colors, etc helps with a lot of potential issues (like color blind-ness, or reading impairment), and just adds more to a game for some die-hard fan. I know I played Killzone 2 a few times with the self-imposed challenge of no HUD, but it would be a much better and smoother experience to do the same idea with only an ammo indicator. Its been proven before that both of these things can exist within a modern game, you just disable achievements with cheats, and take the time and care to give players HUD options.

Handling a multiplayer centric video game...

I've been consistently bashing forced matchmaking over last generation, and to this day I'm still baffled by the practice. You want games to be accessible, or even in the slightest bit advanced to show real innovation, then use or improve the system that has been with us since at least the 90's, because as it is most games have been backwards on online support. However I'm getting a bit out of touch with the subject at hand... imagine this: A newer gamer is playing one of their first online games. They were told by their friends it would be fun, they get it, and then they play a bunch of awesome private matches with their friend on their favorite map. Then... they can't quite get in touch with their friends because of a busy day, but they still have that urge to play. They try to connect to a public game and its just a mess. They don't like being instantly killed by some explosives, the map is unfamiliar and sucks, and they just weren't prepared for what was thrown at them. If only there was a system they could practice in, and/or some way to adjust the rules for a steadier learning curve or something more people could appreciate beyond the stock settings you're thrown into with 8-16 other players. Oh wait a minute, that stuff has been done before and its called bots and server browsers. However neither are standard, and one is pretty much as rare as the launch of a Duke Nukem game. Again this is something that makes life and gaming better for the casual and veteran alike. Weapon overpowered? Ban it! Want to see what a headshot only match is like? Do it! Want to take out regenerating health? That's usually an option. Campers too cheap? Well fix it so that you always see them on the map and people need to move. Just want to be dumb and have an all explosive low gravity party? Go right on ahead. That's the way of many server lists games, at least back when you could say "many". This is still possibly common place on PC, but you're screwing over a huge market of casual gamers by neglecting the console side, as well as just pissing them off. As a big fan of Starhawk and Killzone 2 I can proudly say there are console gamers who know the good side of this stuff, but the fact is many devs just stopped caring. However I will say at least EA themselves gets this a bit and has battlefield come with server browser support, thanks EA. However truth be told the bigger thing for casuals or those wanting to get easy access, bots pose a bigger solution. As much as I adore server lists, I've got to say this problem is better fixed with bots as that eliminates online stress, provides easier learning time, some customizable training, and is just a better way of learning how to come to grips with a multiplayer game. Now there is another aspect of MP that needs to be done just right, but that is worth its own section....

Don't screw up DLC

You know I get that at times gamers, including myself, complain too much and complain over some dumb things. However there is a damn good reason tied to certain DLC complaints. I suppose big games like Battlefield and Call of Duty get away with some of it, but the bottom line is you've got to double check yourself to make sure your DLC plan isn't causing people to back out of the game, and trust me quite a few actually are. As a guy that doesn't buy Battlefield because I've seen BF3 actually keep me out of the game when I wanted to give it another chance several months after its release, as a guy that didn't pick up evolve because I know its not going to simply let me play a deep and compelling game until I've purchased DLC later down the line, and as a guy who saw Destiny's path coming before it even launched because of how exploitative Activision could be with a fake MMO I know DLC can keep people out. You're not only having games keep casuals out because of DLC, but I know for a fact you're keeping experienced gamers out of it as well. Having a bad DLC plan is the exact same as trying to launch a broken game, people get frustrated and fed up with the idea that they can't simply play the game and let that speak for itself. The only difference is with cases like Evolve and Destiny you can see this kind of bad crap coming before launch because developers or publishers have no subtly about their season pass plans, where as a broken game is up to reviews (not likely though) and word of mouth. People just want to play your damn game and have fun, that's a lot less of an option when you're cutting the package up and making us feel like we're missing something but also too confused by the split models to know exactly what it is we're paying for even if we do try to get everything. On top of all that, if these plans and publishers had even half an ounce of common sense on marketing they'd know that people don't know how you're game is going to be until they're actually playing it. Trying to sell them expansion packs with terms, weapons, or characters they don't even understand because they have no experience to go on is just plain stupid, and its not helping anybody out. Furthermore, just stop making map packs! That needs to stop being a thing as that just splits the community. Its not only a disservice to late comers, and new gamers, but hardcore fans still watch as one of their favorite game's playercount drops.

Look DLC is a very diverse system that can be handled from many angles and many price ranges. You don't have to stop DLC, and I don't want anyone to either as I love seeing new content for a game like Killzone Shadow Fall. I love it when a developer supports their game way after launch like Naughty Dog does. I'm sure COD ghost players were surprised and delighted back when suddenly they were offered a chance to have R Lee Ermey narrate their matches. Things like that are nice, and can stay. Its just you got to be smart about it, and you have to stop shoveling out this stuff before a game is even launched, or just shoveling out things that will wreck the game by making it actually lack something rather than add. Make sure a new gamer is always welcomed, whether its a new guy ready at launch, or a guy buying the game at a discount 4 months from now. Either way he contributed to your game's lifeblood, he's probably offering you some funds, and it'd be a real shame if he simply backed out of the whole thing because before he even knows what the game is he's assaulted with various locked down paywall content. As it is some people are making it harder not to just play the game, but to even make a purchase of one to begin with. I plan on attacking this issue in its own article at another time as well.

Conclusion

Naturally one concern I do have to address is the one that someone will say I'm only asking for more complex games, and to a degree that is true. However I say each and every thing with accessibility in mind in addition to a better overall game experience. Each and every thing here outside of DLC is asking for more, but each and every one allows for users to reconfigure a game to a degree they'd be more comfortable in. Honestly if someone is simply so overwhelmed by help and options that they find that a draw back, then they never had any business with gaming and I've got to wonder if they have any business with almost anything else. Nearly everyone uses smart phones, some use tablets, we all have to fill out over-regulated paper work more than once in our life, and honestly if they can't be bothered to figure out what HUD color means or how to hit default if they mess up their controller then honestly I'm legitimately concerned for their capabilities and I don't think they would have truly sunk their teeth into the actual act of playing a game. This is an age in which you can look up practically anything and everything up in the palm of your hands, and that's what millions of people both gamers and non-gamers do in their routine life with this age of technology. So forgive me if I'm missing the problem with giving the users more options. As for dev work, this shouldn't be a ton to ask for seeing as how ancient games have had these options without a problem, and I'd be fine with them taking their time to put it in rather than rushing out yet another game that can't even be bothered to let you change volume pieces beyond "Master". Seriously, fuck you to some of the games even going lower than we've already been in option menus.

Games do not need dumbing down. Not everything needs to be streamlined. Time and time again we've seen new and old gamers alike engaged and loving tough, cryptic, and complex games. Thats what brought gaming an audience in the first place. Yes some things in the past were simpler, but the skill was still high and gaming is still something that has been picked up by people looking for accomplishment, challenge, and fun. Just look at some of the big popular games out there besides just Call of Duty. Its a unique medium in that you control it, and are actively asked to work a bit within it, and I think that needs to be capitalized on not just by letting games revel in some complexity but also by letting the user customize and engage in them on their own terms. You can have some simple and dumbed down games that will sell, but you must also allow room for complicated, deep, and engaging games that you can actually walk away from and feel like you've learned or done something new and feel amazing about it. That is the power of video games, and nobody should be fooled into thinking you have to make the gameplay itself easier for enough people to enjoy it. You just need to give them the tools to be a little more at home.

They can make it to the top, just give them good footwear

Time is valuable

Congratulations The Order 1886, you've inspired two articles in a row. Unfortunately this one is a bit more grim. While the last was sad because "game looks goooood" this time its sad because people are ratting out your time at around 5-6 hours... and I feel like some of the defenses are kind of missing the point in this panic. Lets take things back a step shall we? Several playthroughs have leaked out on youtube of The Order, and you can watch practically the whole thing and it appears like the time comes in somewhere over 5 hours, but barely. There's questions of skipped content circling around, and given the fact that I have neither played it nor am I stupid enough to spoil the entire game on youtube, I cannot tell for sure what's missing or what's whole. Still I looked at the footage enough to see they really are playing the real game, and it ain't exactly as long as I'd hope for. Also for the record, a lot of the time still is in big, big, big cut-scenes, so technically the youtuber I was looking over wasn't even playing the game for 5 and a half hours. Well the reaction to this is fairly standard. Some are throwing a fit while others are doing the whole "meh, make it good and I'll still grab it" thing. I'm... admittedly not very comfortable with any extreme here, but the common defense kind of bugged me so I wanted to discuss this a bit more.

Before I really dig into this I want to put out some decent little disclaimers. For starters, I still need to make an article further discussing the merits of short vs long games. The one you're reading now isn't totally and solely dedicated to my whole view of time for value thing, this is just a focus on this exact case and the myth that time is bad. That being said, the next thing I need to bring up is that if you are still going for this game regardless of length, and you have confidence in them delivering what you're looking for, good on you. I hope you enjoy it and find exactly what you're looking for (and maybe more). My criticisms of this decision, and my views on it from the marketing and gamer perspective are not to hate on your own individual decision as I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money. On another note remember that I have not played the game or been told of its quality by a trustworthy source, it is a mystery as to how long this game is. I want it to be good and lengthy so I'm keeping my fingers crossed the rumor is wrong. So I will be talking about this from the imaginary perspective that this game really is 5-ish hours long. However in the perspective of my own gaming habits, what I was looking for, and from a common folk's marketing perspective I've got a bit of a bone to pick with the idea of The Order 1886 being too short and those that brush it off because they think length is just a waste of time. The game developers have defended their game's length on multiple levels, which in part is interesting, but also convoluted and indecisive. They refused to give a number (even though in the past they said 10 hours per average joe), promised that some numbers were wrong, played the quality over quantity card, implied a 3 hour movie would probably suck, insisted that not all games had to play by a certain length, and have promised that the game aims to deliver high with the time goal they had in mind. I think they even brought up older game lengths. However I'm not sure all these counter-points are totally realistic at all. I mean fine quality is the best thing, that's what we pay for, period. Similarly yeah I agree that some small games, actually quite a few, are capable of hitting harder than the longest ones. However that's where most of this stops making sense.

Shhh.... Don't respond logically, they wont understand

The arguments are propped up like its playing politics, playing certain aspects up as "its this or that, one is good and the other is bad" while also sounding brave and bold, like your this great underdog taking on great things and being something more than it likely is. The reality is this is a $60 only campaign driven 3rd person shooter that as far as we know is just alterable by its difficulty modes. There might be "surprises" but based on what I know there aren't even collectibles or logs, let alone other modes. Saying quality over quantity isn't like debating mario levels, or discussing a unique indie game you got for $15, we're talking about a game that is put out there at the highest common asking price and receiving a content that is just a slice of practically any big market game out there. Now yeah some small games leave a major impact, but don't pretend you knew that going in. Don't pretend you would slam down $60 on any game that promised you it sacrificed length to give you some deeper meaning of life, because the fact is very few people take that high of a risk. Now even with that in mind, look at a massive difference between Gone Home, Unfinished Swan, Journey, and The Order1886. Most of those were focused and centered in slanted strange gameplay pieces that made the story what it was and gave you a more natural and interesting meaning through its focus. The Order is a shooter that in the team's own words is "tried and true", unless the story line is pulling a meta Spec Ops thing here you're not going to get a game that uniquely speaks to you in a big way as a video game like those small experiences. You're getting a shooter that cut back on a lot of content compared to its competitors, while still asking for the big bucks. You're not getting a magical companion lit adventure across the desert that needs to be enjoyed in one sitting, you're playing a very short shooter that plays like GOW with cool cut-scenes (shallow generalization, but you get what I mean). If you feel for something in there emotionally, it'll probably be from a good writing in a cut-scene and not an organic massive realization brought to you by unique experimental gameplay. A game that makes you feel through its cut-scenes isn't covering the same grounds as one that does so through its very existence. Journey will have a meaning you come back for and love, a good cut-scene on a bad game will still leave you feeling cheated out of the game. That being said I'm not saying The Order does have to be a weird game, I'm actually very glad to see a 3rd person shooter like this out there... its just that they need to remember they're a modest 3rd person shooter with some interesting ideas and not an edgy bold new experience. Lastly A 3 hour movie has no place in this discussion, its a sixty dollar game! How about you cut it all back to 3 minutes because I heard a really powerful song about that length? Oh right, you can't compare it to that because its blatantly stupid. Well so is this. There's different markets, prices, mediums, and competitors, so don't tell me its like I'm asking for a 3 hour movie. I'm not asking for a 3 hour movie, I'm asking for a reasonably lengthy shooter that is a sane and good investment.

Actually that wasn't the last point I wanted to bring up. The last major one up for discussion is on gaming diversity and standards. You see he's right that games do not need to all hit some magical number. As a matter of fact, the number of hours doesn't matter as long as its enough to accomplish what it sets out to do. This would be the case as an isolated statement where I just saw games as something to play through and enjoy in its own bubble, but the reality is I look at what else is on the market and pay what sounds reasonable and fun towards my tastes, so then there steps in a position of money, worth, and best deal. That's how the entire consumer base works, and keeping within a sweet spot of quality and value over other comparisons is considered being competitive. Nobody is matching a magical number for the sake of it, but they are looking at what is best for people's value and trying to deliver a lengthy awesome experience in the right time, tone, and way. If you're so far off that course yet charge the exact same, then you're simply not competing for the public's money and wont get much if they see this. Its what I was getting at earlier by bringing up small indie experimental games, those are the ones that are being sold as short amazing things, and those are the things selling themselves at a small price (which actually is comparable to movies, $10-20). However lets find a $60 bracket of those that fit more in the same genre as The Order 1886. We've got Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Last of Us, and maybe you could even count Assassins Creed and Metal Gear Solid. Every single one of those (except TLoU) in some way is getting a sequel release this year and has a massive amount of content instead of setting only for a 5 or 6 hour campaign. Actually all those in that example have multiplayer as well, and some other extras or alternate ways to play. Most major campaign driven shooter games clock in somewhere around 10-16 hours, so The Order is essentially being accused of being a 3rd of the normal campaign length of its competitors without any of the extras. It was already at great risk as it was being an IP with questionable PR, and now its got this. However what if it really is the best with its delivery and message? Well.... yeah sorry, but The Last of Us, Spec Ops, and MGS proved that you can deliver very strong emotions and big impacts without cutting corners on your length. Essentially if you have a good team of writers and designers, and have the time, you should be able to work with length and still make a meaningful result. If length really screws with your vision, than you need to adjust the price to be smaller as well. That's not me being a length=price guy, otherwise I'd expect every game to live up to Torchlight 2 standards (60-ish hours of vastly replayable and moddable fun for $15... not reasonable to expect of every game and genre). I'm speaking on a competitive and common sense marketing level, and The Order is simply not offering me anything as good as what I can get elsewhere. If they do have some secret sauce that beats everything... well I can't see it so I'm not risking such a large amount of money on it. Of course there is the concern that if this does succeed, just maybe this'll set lower standards for others which might be an even worse thought than someone being disappointed in this one game's length.

Finally this leads me back to a pretty common idealogy I hear expressed a lot now. Supposedly a short game is fine, as long as it delivers. However this is usually struck with more of an offensive tone with remarks about padding, grinding, and chores that come with length and I feel like this concept of time going wrong has gotten out of hand. Lets stop pretending that more time is somehow automatically bad, especially since the very same people are still praising lengthy awesome games. Its a strange hypocrisy that just seems weird. Remember The Last of Us? Big trek across America, multiple types of foes and ways to deal with them, a unique cast with some perfectly executed side characters, more than one big emotional moment, unique gameplay elements fused together, and two loved characters, and it all paid off with a heavy impact on the ending. All of this came from an adventure developing across 10-16 hours of play. I do personally believe it dragged a little at the beginning, but that was more due to the poor tutorial implementation and possibly to give Tess some decent screen time. The game still used each and every moment to bring you something, and it was what helps develop the characters, keeps people returning, and gave you such a big and tense sense of an actual adventure. It didn't suffer because it was long. Neither did Spec Ops, it used its length to set up context, hallucinations, character lines, and gave you some unusual conflict elements within it. Wolfenstein? It had a great campaign with well paced and timed hub sections to help pace things out and give you more time with the cast you're working with.

Nothing wrong with this lengthy campaign

Now by contrast lets look at most shorter shooters, which many are in the military sub-genre where they're considered throw away tacked on functions. The only game anywhere close to this genre I'm aware of that we've actually seen benefit from a big scale back is Crysis 2 to Crysis 3 (and arguably the original). This stuff isn't RPG talk. We're not saying time = grinding, this area we're usually covering length discussions in is instead usually an adventure from the perspective of a gun. Time is more likely your friend here. It gives you a better cast, more of the world to explore, more levels to replay if you loved the gunplay and balance, more places to stash extras, and more set pieces to be surprised by. Very few games ever overstay their welcome or screw with their plot in between 10-15 hours. Maybe some open world games and RPG games do, but this conversation is never brought up around those titles from what I've seen. Do I hear people worry about Borderlands length, Witcher 3, or Just Cause 3 despite the last one being a major grind-fest? Nope, its always linear or indie games where length is condemned. So my honest question is why are some people's response to short games is "we would have hated it if it was longer"? What do you have to gain from making such an assumption and being bitter about longer games? Do you really want awesome adventures to disappear in favor of short campaigns? Heck even if a game really was padding, what are you losing compared to the possible opposite of it cutting corners to be shorter? It don't want to make the same mistake of "it has to be quality vs quantity" fallacy like what the devs here did, but if I were to pick a 10 hour game with two extra filler levels or a 5 hour game with 4 chunky levels in total, I'd choose the one where I can jump into more levels and just relax and have a good time in. That's once again more level designs, more weapon variety, and more exploration per level, so its another piece of the game to enjoy even if it may not have been a necessary stepping stone. What was really lost in that? Well at worst, I would simply get to the ending a day later or maybe have that one level I didn't like as much. I'll take that over a game that leaves me feeling empty inside because the credits of a big game smacked me in the face on the 2nd sitting and the level select screen is too bare to turn back to.

Of course now that everything has been said and done, I want to clarify once again that this entire discussion is ify at best, and the game that is at the focus isn't even out yet. The product may easily be more like 10 hours, and even if the youtube video is a solid proof thing then I'm sure I'll still stretch it out an hour longer by my own slow pace. Still it is a bit concerning to me, as a guy that usually looks forward to cover shooters as a safe bet of a fun game I can really enjoy all the way through and then keep coming back to. I still stand by the idea that little can go wrong, but little length sure can sour the deal a little. If its a very short trip, that's less time to experience it, and less levels to be worth a replay. Of course the elephant in the room to anyone who's been a bit hyped should be this: They spent a load of energy into this project. Ready At Dawn have not proven themselves far beyond ports and portable games, but they went far here. Deep research, an imaginative plot, highly detailed animations, incredible graphics on an engine they built just for this game and the PS4, and the well picked orchestrated songs, and heck Sony has two separate collector editions made for a new IP. Looking through all the videos I have lately, its very hard to see this all going to rot in some small 5 hour game that was developed over the course of a few years and even delayed. They aren't doing multiplayer, there's no horde modes, there's probably not even little collectibles, so I have to wonder what on earth they were doing if all this work went into only a 6 hour campaign. I just... don't think that's the real case. I sure hope not, I want this game to be as great as it can be. However my lesson in the end is this: Time is actually way more valuable than many are thinking around this game. It can indeed be a key point, and I'm hoping the team didn't screw themselves over with it.

The uncomfortable order of The Order 1886

UPDATE: Yeah article is a little obsolete thanks to the fact I was able to rent this.

The Order 1886 is a strange game on my radar. It gripped me at its E3 reveal, soured expectations as I watched the gameplay reduced to a glorified rail piece at a big conference, and then remained alright as I saw a good gunfight scene on an air ship. Then I dug a little deeper as the launch approaches and people are talking, and this is a game I essentially want but for all sane reasons can't have (yet), and that kind of burns a bit. Admittedly its also my own fault as I've been reading too much internet comments that make me worry about the game. Not from the perspective that the gameplay is bad, but from the perspective that other people are being whiny about it. Its that double standard of innovation again, where one moment a game doesn't need anything but the right face and it becomes huge, and the next game doing something similar with its own tweaks and style gets the short end and hated for doing not "enough". Meanwhile somewhere out there an ambitious innovative title flopped or didn't get any credit for what it does. There's hardly a middle ground anymore, and now I'm kind of looking at why its scarey to be a new IP for good. Its not just about being unproven, but its about the fact that people have weirder expectations and will hate you for much less. However I'm not here to simply rant about that, I'm here to help bring out what good I do see in this new IP.

The World (Worth hyping on its own)

For starters I'm a massive fan of steampunk. Yeah I'm sorry developers, but despite their denial and disliking of that label they are going to be a little stuck with it. Maybe on some technical level its not "steam"punk, as there's a lack of steam and brown, but there's a ton of elements. The clothes, the crazy guns, the gadgets, the horror element off to the side, and of course the era all add up to a theme that is going to appeal to steampunk fans. I love that, we need more games that come in that sort of theme going into immersive genres like this. Why on earth are there so few? We've kind of got bioshock, damnation (flop!), the incredible Dishonored, and if you count friend required co-op there's two airship combat indie games. Finally here is a game that wants to go for a dark victorian steampunk aesthetic with monsters, crazy weapons, historic figures, background airships, and compelling lore, and its all making its way into the AAA market with gameplay that is difficult to fail on at this point. The word is in that the polish and feel is really pulling through on most areas, with critics not really being honest with themselves (bullet sponges didn't seem to be an issue for Uncharted for 4 games!). So that's awesome, another potential steampunk game. Plus lets just put that label aside and honor the fact that there's an assault rifle that shoots combustible thermite bullets that mix with the weapon's secondary flare fire. Its like a grenade launcher with napalm instead, and its more personal by the bullet.

One step closer to playing this in a game

Gameplay (nothing is wrong with 3rd person shooters)

Of course are we really sure this will turn out well? After all what good is a streampunk game if it might be another Damnation coming up with tasteless gameplay. Well that game both wasn't quite as painful as the internet told me to believe (of it still wasn't great, but it was alright), and was a primitive 3rd person shooter done when everything doing it was instantly branded a gears game. Now we have DeadSpace, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, Spec Ops, Lost Planet, Inversion, Space Marine, and more all in addition to Gears of War making the mark and by now its clear how to nail a 3rd person shooter, and its clear whether or not you're going to fit in and enjoy it. If you're the kind of person that was absolutely bored of Spec Ops on gameplay, then just maybe The Order 1886 isn't for you. However for me, if the gunplay is good, and the narrative is compelling, the worst it can do is be a "meh" experience. Unless of course there's something that they aren't showing us (and that can happen, so don't get me wrong it will possibly fail somewhere), but everything seems to be in order for at least that. Maybe a cliffhanger would be bad, but the gameplay will still be fine if its just another 3rd person shooter. You've got enemies to fight, an adventure to go on, and the cover and shooting is proven to work. There's even some nifty extra stuff on top, like a slow motion function, and a self-revival tool. If people could adore Spec Ops for its story alone, and enjoy Uncharted as a major blockbuster experience, then why would this be bad for being another story driven standard 3rd person shooter?

Tying the package together (Solid gaming and a new adventure)

Ready to explore ghostly houses

So is that it? An alternative history Victorian mundane 3rd person shooter? Well its like I said, if Spec Ops did it right on boring barebone stuff with a squad pointer thrown in, why the hell can't a game with this premise make it? You've got that and more. You've got monster, secondary fire, a slow-mo piece, compelling lore, and a great setting, and of course far superior hardware. Its this kind of game that I love calling a safe investment. I know they'll be fun, I know I'll dig something out of story and come back for more later absorbing every level detail I can, and I know there will be impressive moments I'll remember. I also know that despite my ADD I'm 90% more likely to play it straight through than a normal game. For some reason I just do for this type of game, the exception being Inversion. Its a big new adventure, a great theme, potential lore, and a seemingly good execution. So yeah, a perfect purchase, right?

The problem and worries...

*deep sigh*
Except its ironically not such a safe bet thanks to its timing, not the gameplay. This is 2015. In the year when so many games are coming out, this one is an easy pass-up. Would I enjoy this? Yes! I would love the dark corrupt streets of steampunk Victorian envisioned under this mutant infested altered history. However not as much as I would love a full Ratchet & Clank game on my PS4. Would there be impressive moments? Yes, but whatever it has likely wont be beaten by the shear emotional powerhouse that is the souls series and its upcoming successor BloodBorne. Will I be back again and again for more content, loving the game and replaying it tremendously? Yeah, but not nearly as much as I'd likely put into Metal Gear Solid 5. Are its mechanics sounds and entertaining, with great gunplay? Probably, but Doom's reboot is going to likely be the best shooter of the year, and has way more tricks up its sleeves than zombie werewolves and even combustible bullet spewing rifles. If those games even live up to half of what I'm anticipating them to be, they'll be more entertaining for the type of gamer I am, and these aren't even the heavy hitters of the year. I'm not even bring up batman, COD, AC, withcer 3, and Nintendo's catalog. Oh and of course, the key to people's hypocrisy on this very game is the fact that Uncharted 4 is coming out. Although I despise the fact that many players and critics alike are giving The Order no chance by comparison, I have to admit Uncharted 4 would win in a direct vs fight because that's just a better studio with a more refined game in their hands. The Order 1886 choose a year too soon to come out in, though at least its going for the beginning where few of the massive sellers are trying their luck. I just need to save up for other things. Even if I could supposedly wait on a price drop for say, MGS5, I know that its going to stay at a higher price longer and I'm better off hoping for faster cheap access to The Order by its larger potential to bomb. Heck given two CEs, maybe I can even get lucky and score that at a gamestop for a discount. Its a safer bet to place money elsewhere. Especially since R&C as a franchise needs me as well at its own troubled time, and given that's up there among my all-time favorites in pure gaming bliss you can see which one gets my charitable sympathy.

On top of that there are pacing concerns, and of course the implications set out by this game. Sure on one hand I want to support their lovable dream of this steampunk shooter fantasy, but do I want to support constant scripts and glamorized "cinema" scenes on my games? Do I want to support guys that lie about the framerate being about "cinematic" experiences? Also while my concern isn't too high, what if most of the game is full of segments that "break the pace" by shoving rail shooter bits everywhere like that E3 trailer? Again the worst it can do is "meh" but when there still is skepticism, should this game be the one I throw money at? For the sake of a potential future I hope enough people do that this game can survive and the developers can fix whatever mistakes they might make, but maybe... maybe its worth it to pass and just pick it up at a $40-$20 range instead.

Despite my last negative sentence though, I don't feel like skepticism holds much water here. Yes the E3 showing was bad, but if you go back and look there was some exploration being rushed over, and the event wasn't really any worse than a vertical slice of that truck scene from Uncharted 2 (which I'll remind you is one of the best 3rd person shooters out there). Yes the 30fps lie sucks, but people are letting Uncharted 4 get away with it so far and honestly we've been doing just fine before with 30fps. Sure their justification was stupid, but so would turning down hours of entertainment over some little dumb words. Sure maybe some are tired of cinematic games, but again some of the best games coming out for me include BloodBorne, R&C, and Doom. If you don't want cinematic stuff shoved down your throat, but still are interested in this, then 2015 is the lucky year for both. Unfortunately nobody really cares about using this kind of logic, and I fear The Order will bomb because of pre-determined hype while its very similar brother Uncharted 4 gets all the glory despite essentially doing the same basics that The Order gets hated for.

With all concerns out of the way... it feels like The Order is just a badly timed game. I want to say I fear for its status on the market, but at the same time it reminds me of old games I used to just pick up, love, and play regardless of whatever anybody else had to say about it including the team itself. Its the first time in a long time I've actually sat down and watched back to back to back trailers, and still wanted to hear and see more. Its a good comfortable shooter I want to play and enjoy. Another immersive world, another adventure. Its essentially like another timeless fairy tale you want to hear around bed time, only the problem is you're not a kid waiting in bed for a story anymore and you feel like you've got to go through some dull paper work from the office before you get to read any fairy tale for fun. The timing is just off, and you're in a position that just feels wrong and toxic to your desire to have fun. I'm keeping my fingers crossed enough people support The Order 1886 anyways. Ready At Dawn clearly worked hard on it, and the deserve more than just another port job.

Does this tale have a happy ending?

Now playing: Transistor

Well back to back PS+ surprises. I'm still playing Rogue Legacy, though there was a major set back with a horrible cloud sync problem, but I'm playing it still on the Vita this time around. However what really has my attention now is Transistor, which actually has a linear system of progression that makes it a bit more compelling. Like Rogue Legacy I had some doubts. For starters its an indie RPG that wasn't Torchlight, so there's that. 2nd, it was made by the same guys as Bastion and praised by the same people who I could not figure out their real reasoning on. I guess they just somehow felt hooked on the neat gimmicks and the story, but when I tried it I thought it was incredibly boring. So I had low expectations on this one. Again though I'm glad to be surprised, I love it so far.

I think the thing is its not even a real RPG, at least by my idea of one. I suppose you got numbers, XP, and a familiar RPG perspective, but there's almost no progression choice or "role playing" at all. You're main option is to usually choose one of two seemingly random abilities you get per level, but the real deal is how you mix them up. You're given more choices and unlocks as you go on, but its a linear lock down system mostly meaning you've just got to get that XP to the fixed level to get that special slot open. So just grind for XP, right? Well actually, the levels are pretty darn linear. Its not like you can't find anything special or stumble into an extra on occasions, but 90% of your trip is down a line. I'm making this sound horrible, but believe me when I say I actually love it because it all pays off when the actual combat shows its true nature. There's a strong feeling of strategy within a strange system of real time and limited turn based combat, and its absolutely brilliant. You're turn based side is a high advantage as it freezes enemies when you execute the move, but it also uses up a certain limit and then you're left vulnerable depending on how much power you used during that phase. The balance is just perfect to, with recovery and yet limits being placed just right to keep the action going and keeping a tense pace. I love weaving in and out of battles with my custom picked array of attacks, trying to use the best of my turn based ability and then think of a back-up plan while it charges.

However I can't talk about this game without discussing the presentation. The world is fascinating in a digital cyber punk way, a mysterious political struggle & conspiracy, a talking sword (who I predict is a person trapped by the way things look), the power to absorb someone's personality as one of your combat perks, and the incredible music! It all comes together really well. I especially love the music and the creative world they built. The music is so haunting, yet as usual "haunting" for some reason feels relaxing and soothing to hear as a musical piece. The main character ties in a bit with music as she used to be a singer before having her voice supposedly stolen, and she can now only hum. Meanwhile you've got a dark blue and glowy cyber punk digital world policed by "administrators" of some kind, robots out to get you, and a highly democratic system that is still somehow kept in the dark by some sort of cover-up.  This is a place where people actually vote on the weather, Magicians are pretty much a black market hacker-like thing, and you're some character with a talking computer sword thing. On top of all that, each news terminal you go has an optional interaction and usually when you "leave a comment" its something quite humorous as your character usually shouts a rebellious thing before taking it back and retyping a more polite and neutral comment.

If I had any complaints with the game, its probably the indie restriction in its perspective (oh I so badly wanted to enjoy the beach scene as though it were a 3D platformer hubworld, but its just so shallow), the fact that there's no camera control whatsoever, and that sometimes maybe the game could benefit from being a bit more open in its levels. I kind of wonder how New Game+ works with the linear structure, but then again I'm a major R&C fan so its possible. I've also got to say that I hope leveling gets me more room for combat perks, as there's some kind of 16 point limit thing that is just a bit much for restriction, but I'm able to deal with it for now given my comfortable playstyle. However the biggest complaint would have to be the lack of this gem on the go. This is the kind of game I'd be sucked into on the Vita, and it should in theory work, but as of now the only PlayStation console you can get it on ends with a 4. That certainly is the best experience of course with a big screen, and the sword talking through your remote (which isn't on by default, I'd highly recommend every PS4 player correct this ASAP), but its still a shame I can't take it on the go when it would work. I also heard someone talk of ambitious ideas of how the touch screen could be well integrated. Maybe... I can keep my fingers crossed that its happening behind the scenes, and its taking longer because of touch screen programming. Who knows. Well back to more Transistor, this game is just great. I'm hoping I can focus on mostly just sticking through this until the end, I'm kind of tired of ADD-like game hopping.

Rogue Legacy is actually good.

I was wrong. I don't like most rogue-likes. I loved Risk of Rain, but that was sort of an exception and even then I don't frequently play it. Its kind of a game I binge on for a day or two and then leave alone for a month (So where's that vita port that'll influence me to play it more?). I enjoyed teleglitch for a bit, but couldn't totally find a compelling reason to keep going back. Rogue Legacy is one of the last games I'd expect to change my mind on this whole concept. Hard 2D platforming, cheap projectiles, and a luck gimmick themed around your character with some light RPG elements loosely slapped in. Nah, certainly not another risk of rain. WRONG! Now to be fair I do still hate that this was one of those poster child indie games that got its name thrown out there triple as much as a good indie game. Kind of like Limbo it was one of those that was exposed plenty, but took up the time that could have been used to talk about how great Gravity Ghost or Chivalry is. Still I'm getting side tracked on a small tangent here. The game still manages to impress me greatly. I would have made this a "Now playing" article but I don't know for sure if I'll stick with this. I haven't been very consistent or sure where I want to be right now with my gaming to be honest.

Back to the game though! The controls on the platforming are tight and smooth, the random traits are kind of funny and work real good, and the enemies are usually fair as a challenge. However the big thing I hate with a rouge-lite/like/whatever is that they are so bent on loss and repetition, and not at all on the fulfillment of an actual adventure or story, so you're going nowhere and basically wasting time in a deadly loop. Well it doesn't entirely fill the gap, but its close enough. Its level randomization is interesting enough to feel unique and keep me learning new tricks and challenges. One moment I might be fighting a bunch of many enemy types, then the next I'll dodge some mild traps and screw up, then the next one kicks off where I'm running across an entire floor of slightly delayed trigger spikes. Its just always doing something to grab my attention and plan just a little, and unless I'm really stuck doing this for a while I guess I wont get tired of this loop yet. Oh and its pretty awesome that this game actually gives you the chance to save your level progress any time for a price. You just need to unlock the right guy and accept a 40% money loss, which brings me around to the progress bit. In addition there is a flash-like upgrade system. Everything can be upgraded, and there's always something more to unlock up to where some abilities can be raised 75 times. The catch is that you lose any money you don't spend, and the upgrades get costly, so you've still got to get better or get stuck. I guess that's where I may potentially draw the line, but I bet I can still go further than my current place.

Now as cliche as it is to say, I do sense a sort of strange alternate Dark Souls vibe. Every enemy has an attack style, every trap has a trick to it, and most organized looking death traps have a way to time it and get it right. Its all a matter of caution and exploitation, kind of like learning Dark Souls. Of course that doesn't mean its truly like dark souls, but the difficulty learning curve feels slightly comparable, even if still a bit shallow. If you combine this great set of rules, the well tuned (though random) difficulty, a neat character gimmick, and a really solid 2D art style, and I guess I can understand why so many rogue-like fans enjoyed the game. If I put it on my Vita I may be potentially playing this for a good while longer. Thanks for making this a PS+ game sony, I would have never known what I was missing otherwise.

Imagine that.

*sigh* Now this really bugs me. Like way more than it should, and I know it, but it really is one of those things that stimulates my mind and memory as much as it does my frustration, and that's usually when I've got to fuss about it in some blog article so here we go. I love a lot of things about gaming, and there's a lot about it to be loved. We have some of the best characters, most interesting worlds, some awesome adventures, and the offering to enjoy it all through our own interactions. That's a part of the wonders of imagination and creativity working with gaming. However as gaming tries to awkwardly put on a suit and tie, and look all matured to be taken "seriously" (whatever that means) some of the most stupid and immature stuff comes out of some the mouths of those behind it. Sadly it comes now from an incredible developer that thinks they're too good and mature to be doing the fun and imaginative stuff.

When asked about if Naughty Dog felt bad about missing out on their past, I get what they were thinking. Its fine to say that your new goal is with character driven games, and it really is. As a matter of fact I want to make it perfectly clear that despite my usual preferences, I think Uncharted and Last of Us are better than Crash and Jak & Daxter. For whatever reason I couldn't get into them quite as well, and when it came to people taking side with Insomniac or ND I was always with Insomniac, but Uncharted remains possibly my favorite 3rd person shooter, and Last of Us was incredible with its execution. Meanwhile I have little if any drive to look back to their older stuff. By contrast Insomniac's new IPs actually haven't been as good, though I still stand behind R&C's real games so there's still that. So... Naughty Dog do what you do now, and keep your good talent around, they're making great stuff. However shame on you for saying you've suddenly "grown up" just because you're busy making serious toned games, and/or implying that the past was some child's toy. Imagination is what fuels lots of modern day games, and its part of the whole incentive to enjoy games. On top of that, its just a disservice to yourselves. People loved Daxter's wise cracking jokes, the dramatic twist of who Jak was, ripping up the dessert in giant industrial cars armed with all sorts of crazy stuff as they took out huge dino-like beasts called "metal heads". We were sold on the idea of some guy in a silly cartoonified wombat suit going up and shouting mean things at Nintendo, only to then laugh at him in-game as he stumbles into dynamite crates leaving behind a pair of eyeballs and shoes. This was what you built yourselves up on, and if it wasn't for this you wouldn't be where you are today making arrogant statements and discouraging creativity in the biggest interactive medium out there. The medium that is supposed to be about fun, adventure, and exploring danger be it serious or surreal from the safety of our homes.

Adventure the video game way!

One of the reasons I got so into video games was the imagination. Before I even truly got really into it with Spyro, I was loving the animations of the putt-putt point and click adventures. When Spyro happened I was walking from realm to real to realm in amazing imaginative worlds with an enchanted charm to it all. Oh and the monsters! Wizards that shifted lands, metalic giant spiders that could only be beat with enchanted fairy fire, huge yellow horned beasts that weird penguin-like people tamed, and turtles that transformed into dragons when the light went out. It was so amazing! Then with the FPS genre there were so many awesome creature designs, interesting soldier uniforms, and crazy chaos in the palm of your hands with some odd ball weaponry. I especially loved awesome creature designs, like cyborgenetic lizard monsters. That carries well beyond just my quick favorites though. To this day I still look into games and take an interest if their art style is something special. Sure treasure hunting as Nathan Drake is a cool novelty, but not as cool as being a secret society that is trying to stop a rebellion that teams up with sub-human werewolf monsters in a retro-science fiction Victorian setting (I'm talking about The Order 1886 in case you need clarity). And that's just the surface of an imaginative setting, its still just another dark shooter with serious people. We could talk about BloodBorne's horrific tone, Evolve letting you play as a mutating monster and a bunch of super geared up elite squads of people, or good old fashion Mario who might as well be on a special kind of mushroom but we don't care, his world is silly fun and puts a smile on our faces as we enjoy collecting coins and shooting fire from our hands.

Gaming and imagination just work. While other mediums shows you someone's art, and lets you enjoy dreaming a bit, gaming is unique in that sense that you're actually a part of the imagination. You have input in this world, you have an interaction, you have a metaphorical (or maybe literal in a few cases) voice, and you're on a journey as much as the plot's scripted character. In a game like Okami you aren't just seeing a magical wolf help stuff under a nice art style, you're actually painting, playing with powers, and you feel so good when you make the innocent happy around you and bring their faith up. In Warhammer 40k you're not reading some space man story, you're either playing Dawn of War and waging your own war campaigns, or in Space Marine you're that supposedly unstoppable raw force slaughtering millions of orks with a chainsword. I'm glad I get to do that with games in addition to exploring their world, spying on fictional people, and picking up interesting documents detailing imaginative downfalls, hidden secrets, documents on aliens, and other nice surprises. That's what gaming is good for, more so than "grounded" story telling. Don't get me wrong you can still do that, and again Naughty Dog is good at it, but they still know somewhere down the line that they themselves need some imagination, otherwise there's no super stone to chase after, or it might be a really boring one. So it'd be great if they didn't scoff at their brilliant past, or limit themselves for the future. After all as one image puts it....

Upcoming topics

So like my gaming, it would seem writing has piled up some stuff that needs to be finished. So when I keep getting ideas for reviews, I decided why not combine them both into a list rather than keep a job just waiting. This way I might also keep some focus to finish these projects. However don't be surprise if something else pops up....

Articles:

Bullet sponge balance: One I started a good while back, but plan on finishing. It covers the need to properly balance health design under action/shooter games, and discusses the value of going small and big in this department. A bit of a weird subject, so it wasn't rushed, but one I want to put out there anyways. Probably about half finished.

Imagination in gaming: One I just started today, provoked by a sad Naughty Dog response. It'll be kind of a hybrid of a rant and happy subject, discussing the merits of creativity in games vs the serious push for "realism" and drama. Just started today, but its one I want to finish within the week.

Top 10 games defining me: This is a weird top 10 list where I try to name off the games that held strong influence over what I love to play. Its kind of a good personal piece, but also pokes fun at some weird paradoxes of my gaming behavior (hint: Zelda is on that list even though I've never beat even half of one). This is just a frame of a list at this point, but one I wish to accomplish at some point.

Further thoughts on reviews: Reviewing reviews. Fun huh? Yeah I wanted to cover some constantly piling thoughts on how reviewers get stuff done, and for once probably avoid talking about my own style of it. I've got a good 1/3rd of it finished.

Sector Sequel: This is actually a new format/series piece. Its where I discuss potential wishes for the sequel of a series in various small points. The game to kick it all off will be a surprise, but a hint is that it'll be one of my favorites.

A good kind of bad: Defending terrible B-like games, starring Escape from dead island! Yeah a bit of a weird one, but I've been really wanting to do this for a while and started it already, so I guess I'll finish it. Its been on hold for a while, so I don't know when, but it'll happen eventually.

Incompetent villainy: I need to totally re-write a lot of this one, but its something I still want to put out once again tackling the subject of DLC and pre-orders, this time in one go. Its actually not just random hatred of bad practices, but actually a more curious approach because I honestly think they're even terrible as a money grabbing scheme. I keep ranting about this on sites, so I might as well just make a big article here and rest myself from worrying about it ever again.

How long is a good game: Another "eventually" thing, but one that needs to be done, discussing my preference on length, quality, quantity, etc.

Is marketing ruining the game?: A topic I've been wanting to get around to about how too much info is spoiling the surprises, but keep forgetting about finishing this one. A lot of it is written around FC4, and I may want to find a better example and re-write it at this point, but maybe not. I dunno, either way I think the message should be carried out in a full article.

Reviews:

None of these are officially coming except for the one particular game mentioned. All of these are just ideas, plans, or hopes to plan. Even if started they may or may not get finished.

Not to worry, I'm still working on stuff.

Far Cry 4: This one has been almost done for the longest time. I need to polish it up, patch in some notes, and discuss the level editor, then its all finished. This one WILL be posted and is the exception noted in the small text for this section. It will stand out a little special thanks to the help of a friend who wants to bring out more polished and customized screenshots for use. Not to mention it'll be the first true open world game I've ever reviewed.

Infamous: Second Son: The more I think about it, the less likely I'll go for this one. However I still might do it, and try to do a much shorter open world game based review. I'd love to also cover the expansion pack if I can in one go.

Ratchet & Clank: Now this I want to be a double review for the movie and game, even if I'll be a terrible critic for movies. Game wise though I know there's just no way I'll be able to turn up giving my thoughts on the re-imagining of one of my favorite franchises. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that its amazing, but my review will tell for sure. However if I don't do a review, trust me you'll still hear my thoughts one way or another. Also one thing I want to do once this game has been out is to make a special "Why I game' montage. By then there should be plenty of PS4 footage from various games and types that I love, capturing the fun of action, adventure, and experience of gaming as I know and love it. So look out for that as well.

Legend of Kay Anniversary: Just read about this today, and looking at the youtube videos it looks like the kind of game I'd love to support. I also thought... heck why not do a review? It looks like the kind of game I'd like to give a reviewing chance. However given the timing I might be busy working with R&C's review, and the montage. Who knows, I might even end up turning down the game, depends on how things go around the time of release. I'm expecting moon hunters around this time as well.

Journey: I've tried this twice now, but can't seem to stick with it. So whenever the PS4 port comes out, that'll be my excuse to push out a solid review on its port and why Journey is one of the best games ever made. Spoiler: Review will be tremendously positive.

Wolfenstein The new order: Really not sure about this one given my extreme biased nature and conflict about giving this an "awesome" or "legendary" rating. However I really would love to one day replay this when its older, and maybe give out a review for a retrospective offering on how wonderful this good 'ol corridor shooter is.

No easy title for this subject...

Drama is an interesting thing. I have done little in the face of discussing GamerGate (Don't turn away, that's not focus point of this article. I promise!) beyond what I said around the matter before it was even a very public matter. I don't read up on it daily, but its a topic that still has my attention and from time to time I end up losing hours into reading about it, because I'm fascinated and upset with how the drama and varying philosophies work behind it, and what it means for our gaming culture. Then something occurred that halted everything about that vacuum of an attention grabber. At least 5 tabs I was getting around over the subject were going around when I totally stopped caring about it because reality slammed into my face. Its the sort of topic that hits you and reminds you of just how silly you are for getting this wrapped up over drama within (sorry for the upcoming crude term:) nerd culture. I went to destructoid and and found this. Please read it all before you continue reading mine, its far better than what I can hope to accomplish with my own article. I still feel so personally moved though that I need to contribute something here. I don't usually cover a subject like this, but I feel staying quiet would be a disservice considering all the work this person has done, and how great it felt to watch his work.

Kitty0706 was an amazing video maker. He was into animation, and was among the first to popularize the use of Garry's Mod (or Gmod) as a tool for such a medium, essentially spending hours puppeteering ragdolls, and crafting limited audio into finely tuned comedic stories. Gmod machinima was certainly a big step up in the general Machinima area, and before Valve produced official tools it pretty much became the go-to area for turning games into movies for PC gamers. So in complete honesty, he deserves to be remembered as a pioneer for this whole art. It was hard work, but it had a high payoff considering the laughter it could get. I remember around when I was in school watching Kitty's videos and similar machinma, often alongside my sister. His video "heavy goes bowling" was probably one of the first I've seen in Gmod driven comedy, and it was hilarious. I found out about The idiots of Gmod, and The Idiot box (don't get those names confused) from there. It was a gateway into an area of comedy I still look forward to seeing today. Even though I knew a bit about the game itself, each time I watched these it always inspired me to run back in and enjoy the game itself some more. Heck I could say the same about Team Fortress 2. Gmod's area practically turned TF2 into a community driven cartoon series based loosely on what Valve offered us with their pre-built rules and characteristics, and that kept people not only entertained and coming back to the videos, but it kind of gave the games themselves more value and gave us more reason to enjoy them. It was in large part thanks to Kitty, and videos on something as weird as Heavy weapons guy going bowling. Of course there was more beyond that, in fact his greatest accomplishments were probably Mass Defect and Team Fabulous 2 which were both amazingly lengthy videos forming a huge story alongside countless well timed parodies. I'm pretty sure when I actually started completely using my youtube account, his channel was one of the first I subscribed to. He took his time making content, but whenever a new one showed up it just made a whole day even better and was worth any amount of waiting.

The extra shocking part was when this event revealed his age. Its not only another sad case of someone going way too young, but it struck me a little harder to hear he was actually within the same generation as me. He was born in the same year, and actually quite some months younger. While the most I contribute to society is these blog articles nobody reads, he was out there making Youtube comedy gold at what must been at least the age of 15. That's just incredible to sit and think about, and its equally as shocking to know it happened around the same timeline as I was sitting through. While I was in high school, spent my free time casually, he was uploading grand achievements that pioneered an entire area of comedy through video games. That kind of accomplishment is inspiring on the level of thinking someone can do that much at such a young and busy age, but its also sad to know that he wasn't given the fair life time to continue moving up and to take his ambitions to a more professional level (assuming that's what he wanted to do). He seemed to be ready to not only continue making amazing comedy through new and old gaming means, but he had ambitions to tackle other formats of animation as well. Its kind of terrifying and sad to the point of shiver and tears when someone this ambitious just leaves so soon. Its the sort of sadness and terror that evokes strong emotions one rarely should ever feel. However there is one stronger emotion than that, and this particular artist had the will and power to bring it out in everyone: Laughter. Laughter cheers us up in practically any situation. It distracts us from our fears, our sorrows, or just our rough day, and it will make good days even better. I read a comment on how one of Kitty's hilarious videos actually brought a family closer together because of its humor, and I can truly believe Kitty's work had the power to do such great things. That's why I'm going to link the previously mentioned video (heavy goes bowling) below at the very end of this article (and in a real link to, its not the type of thing that should be lazily watched on this page). The news of his passing is grave and sad news, but I doubt he'd want us to just be sad. He was an animator, and artists, and a comedian. He wanted his work to bring joy to people, and he was very successful. He may have gone early, but he still left a good mark, and I think that's what we should all really appreciate.

Thank you for all the laughs, inspiration, and joy Kitty0706. You put a lot of hard work into some great and hilarious videos that generations from now will likely still be enjoying. If anyone has yet to see his work, or just wants to re-watch them I'd suggest starting with Heavy goes bowling. His channel contains many other good videos worth watching.