A sensitive subject...

This is going to be a short one, but I feel very relevant. Recently you may have heard a change that occurred over the video game Overwatch, and the outrage that followed it. Someone on the forums put out an emotional complaint against the Tracer's "butt pose" she seems to have (likely optional and customizable to something else) at the end game. Blizzard said "Okay, we're sorry, its being changed". Later they also added this was totally the plan all along, as if they didn't just respond to one person on the forum. Now nobody but blizzard themselves can say for sure if this was a genuine change set to happen, but the internet has picked its sides to have yet another struggle over political correctness. However the one comment I see as a rebuttal all the time is misrepresenting things a bit. Its the "Oh look at all the sensitive babies being sensitive about change" or "The don't get offended crowd is being offended again". As a light quip, its a funny and clever bit of irony just as a backlash against a backlash always is. However just settling on that defeats the entire purpose of the discussion in the first place, and its being used as if it were the answer. Worse yet, the humor has worn off after all these attempts at a serious use.

For starters if it isn't already obvious, its an immediate reverse of the idea of people saying "Oh great, sensitive PC babies want to change X and Y." People actually do really say that quite a bit. However the point the reversal misses, is that despite its mean tone the anger doesn't exist out of a will to just degrade someone else. Its instead an angry response to the fact that somebody else got the very makers of the game itself to change the game. It might even be bigger; it might be a response to how many times they've been seeing this happen lately. Outrage culture is a thing now. Have something you don't like? Petition it to death! Send the artists hate mail and threats! Tell them what scum they are, and pretend their fans are neo-Nazis. Parade around like you're change will save a victim you never knew (or never existed, but you said they were victims anyway). Cry about it, bring your children into it, and tell them how sad they make you feel for society for daring to do... whatever it is they did to earn your wrath. Finally if there's somebody actually upset that you're upset, you can totally avoid the issue by pointing out that they're upset first. We see this all the time now, and while outrage as an emotion is still useful if not totally natural and human, seeing it integrated and manipulated within social media has brought out some really weird gray areas and convoluted debates. In the end though, that's what the backlash against the backlash is saying though. They don't want to be a part of that shit, and they want ask that you just stop bothering them. Then they wake up one day and find a new game is being changed because there was an outcry or even just the fear that their would be an outcry, and so you've indirectly bothered them.  Its the basis of the whole culture war and very idea of the words "culture war" in a nut-shell. "Don't interfere with the culture I want to consume" is the statement being made. To confuse that as "Don't be sensitive or I'll have to be sensitive" is ironically being insensitive and lacking understanding yourself.

Of course there really are some creeps that take it too far, and just sit on the sidelines waiting for controversy to jump on. On a case-by-case basis, that's a good time to pull out the fact that outrage culture has sadly reached both sides of the fence. There's emotions to manipulate and profit from on both sides. However here's some food for thought: You lose nothing by asking that games don't censor themselves. You can get up and walk away if that offends you. You do lose something when they do. So naturally, I'm a little more sympathetic and able to believe the "stop being super PC" backlash is a bit more legit than those just complaining about the art of a game they choose to play on the forum. Besides, it takes action to get that sort of action. You can't treat the anti-SJW group (or whatever you want to call them) as an offending team quite as easily. Its reactionary, not the initiating problem.

Finally, someone might be wondering about my thoughts on this specific outrage. Well, I have very little. I'd love to play Overwatch, but can't yet, and I patiently await its real release. I didn't even know Tracer had a "butt pose" until this happened, and I probably wouldn't have made a big note or big deal about it had I known beforehand anyway. I don't take much care in the end-game animations, and I think for whatever this added or stole from the perceived identity, the many taunts, quotes, and short animations for the character probably make up for it anyway. I think the original post that may have gotten it removed was a bit over-emotional, but wasn't some hardcore sensitive SJW, or whatever, to begin with seeing as they defended Widowmaker (a character who's actually sexualized). I think judging from some of the later pleading bits of the post, they were a confused parent who wanted to influence the game's art direction to help his/her younger daughter's favorite character feel a little more "right" for her.... even though that's not how good parenting works at all. And maybe Blizzard really did want to change Tracer. Although they shot themselves in the foot by apologizing to this one emotional individual, they really could have had the change planned. In the end this isn't my battle. Even as a guy who's sick of outrage culture myself, I don't see this as a worthy battle to go die on a hill over. I just wanted to chime in long enough to hopefully add a bit more understanding into those that are arguing. I guess what I might be "sensitive" about is arguing etiquette or whatever. My point is, that those who are rallying against the sensitivity aren't just doing it to be outraged back, they're doing it because they're tired of seeing artists, their go-to source of entertainment, or culture itself being manipulated by the first cry of outrage which is becoming more and more common to see as the internet grows.

How cheating just sold me on a game

Yes you read that right, though maybe its slightly deceiving depending on how you view the idea of "cheats" in a game. Star Fox Zero was a game I was a bit on the fence about. I spoke about it as one that may not make it into my hands from a list of probable games I'd love to buy this year. It was loosely there, and to quote a snippet "I don't like rail shooters, and similar reflex based arcadey junk, but at the same time Starfox is just one of those games". That still holds true. I don't particularly care a lot for rail shooters, and starfox/star fox (one of those mysterious space or no space titles) is one of those games that just strikes me as odd, fun, but ultimately that amazing. I'd love to play it, I'd love to just see it as so much fun, and I envy those with special memories of it, but I'm just not that guy. I can only sit through the same starting two levels but so many times before I feel like I'm just throwing away time if I just lose again. So Nintendo realized "hey, not everybody wants to just play a rail shooter on a repeating loop over and over again" and decided to not only give us a save & level select format in the SF64 3DS remake, but now an invincible mode in the upcoming entry Zero. Yes, full invincibility. I'm not entirely sure if there's a catch, save for probably rank and bragging rights, and maybe its something that only chimes in when you die too much, but its there either way. My response is... excellent! No, its actually more than that. I think this is the first time I've ever been sold on a game just by hearing it had a work around its difficulty. This is fantastic news!

I know, its probably kind of strange. I was never that so-called "hardcore" guy that demanded everything pulled my teeth out with raw power and difficulty, and I never got on the bandwagon for hating easier strides like what happened with Mario games or even Kirby's yarn, but I always felt like I partially understood that area of thought on some level. They didn't want the integrity of the game being messed with, or their determination faltered by the option of an easy mode. They wanted a streamlined, ready, and perfectly balanced challenge to meet and beat. Likewise I totally understand and still side with the idea that Dark Souls shouldn't have an easy mode, as the difficulty is actually a part of where that game stands not only with its reputation, but its very message and being. Even as a guy who wants to see it all, and yet hasn't beaten one, I still believe those games hold their difficulty to their very heart and being, and even inside the story. Dark Souls aside, I've turned to like these easier or outright cheat forms because they typically help players out in games that are mostly about reflex more so than actual skill. Games like Mario are now more progressable because you can advance it even if this one specific mean spot keeps getting you every time. So that's been mostly an okay area for me. Even if it happened to a game with more depth, like the ability to make Killzone 2 feel "lighter" in single player, that'd be great (even though I love the heavy controls). However I've never been on the other side of the fence where a super easy mode has actually made the game a purchasing point.

In case you've been completely ignoring all my articles up to this point, you'll know I'm not exactly a "casual gamer" in most regards. I prefer shooters with a big mechanical edge, games with depth and input, and have been gaming for years, yet here I am planning to use a function that lets me fly around invincible. This isn't just something for your mobile gamer to just pick up at random, this is actually something that can just be there for us as gamers... and kind of has been, it just came through a gameshark or cheat code in the past. I also still plan to play the regular mode a lot, if not more than this convenience. I still understand and want to experience the challenge this game was built on, I want the occasional stakes to know that messing up may throw off my progress, and I want that success that comes with overcoming it all. I just don't want that to be the only thing this game has to offer, and there may be a mellow or even bad day where I just want to enjoy the characters, blasting up ships, and cruising through a favorite level of mine. I'd like to think we're beyond the point where all you got for a heavy investment was a game that threw you on rails, expect you to win based mostly on timing, and ask that you beat it all right in that one sitting or lose and go back to the start screen. We're kind of beyond that point, and even the meanest successful games out there are nicer than that, or at least don't charge you as much to play. Getting more out of your game is not just a nice thing, but rather its a competitive evolution that we have more than that. Now if you make a game based on reflex and timing, chances are its either cheap, or its got alternate modes of play to help or challenge the core experience to go beyond the default. In Zero's case, there's a new glass cannon style hard mode as well, and that sounds like a lot of fun even from a guy that already finds these games tough.

If you still have doubts, and bet that this will ruin the game, here are some points to consider...

• The consequence is still present and mostly natural. In addition to losing a core part of the challenge and thus fun (you can only enjoy god mode for so long), you're probably going to lose out on extras and unlocks. There's always going to be something there purely for the hardcore fans to get to, and I don't see zero and its invincibility mode changing that.
• Its not going to hurt future generations, because the market is already providing the easy and hard way for those that seek it. Either challenge and bragging rights players will be going to rogue-likes, Dark Souls, and hard mode, or those afraid will ignore any game known for its tough difficulty. Much like how in the past the market provided cheats for people who weren't ready to sink their full mind into beating an obstacle. You're not forcing a kid to achieve just by taking the option away within one game, the entire market is their option and they will take whatever way they feel like and can afford.
• This is actually a step up from past Nintendo easy alternatives. The recent past games literally played themselves. You actually sat and watched an alternate colored DK or Mario fly across the basic stage for you. Yoshi's mellow mode and Star Fox Zero's invincible mode at least still tell the player to pay enough attention to actually fire back at the obstacles even if they aren't real obstacles. So Star Fox isn't setting any deadly trends.
• Even if the above was wrong and Star Fox did set a new trend, its hell of a lot better than paying microtransactions to pass stuff like other games are doing. Actually please tell EA and WB to copy Star Fox.
• Finally, and the most obvious answer, this is all entirely optional. The only way this should bother you is if it manifests in some form of an intrusive losing streak message. Those actually are annoying. Meanwhile what I do in my single player game is up to me, and likewise for you.



So now Star Fox is no longer that game I'm on the fence about. its not going to be that game I have to play only when I'm alright with a struggle, and ready to grit my teeth through the finish. Instead it'll be a normal $60 game that I get and play because it'll be fun. Whether that fun will come from just blasting some enemies or casually experimenting with the level design, or if I actually dare to take on the normal or harder modes to the end, it'll all be there and part of the complete experience. If I'm sick, feeling down, feeling experimental, or just want to pop in and blast enemies, this game has me covered whereas Star Fox 64 would be entirely out of the question. Its empowering the player, and rarely is that such a bad thing. I'm still going to do my best to play the game the proper way. I'm still going to try and earn my credit screen with a real victory. I still want that feeling much like Fox himself of having such a drive of instinct and determination that at some point Andross and his army just has to fall, without the need of a cheat code. Its just great however that in the end, that cheat code is there when I just don't care about anything but having fun. If that wasn't available, between the tough mode and Nintendo's strict $60 sticking point, I don't know if I would have ever seen this game beyond the shelves. Now, I'm mostly certain I'll be putting the latest and hopefully greatest Star Fox game to the test... and giving my Wii U one more game so that it stops feeling so lonely beside the PlayStation machines.

At the end of the day, we pick up the controller for fun, and this helps get that done.

Putting a price on No Man's Sky...

No Man's Sky has always kind of had me on the fence. On one hand I absolutely love the idea of free space travel. I love imaginative sci-fi worlds, looking at new creatures and biology, exploring uncharted territory, and cool sci-fi scenery and themes. Its one of those areas where if you let it, imagination is the king. However as a gamer, I tend to find myself playing the fiddle of a more mechanical space. I love working in worlds with tangible mechanics, enemies, and mastery. I'm not the best at games, but I tend to love still having some set obstacle, a story to drive forward with, and that interaction with someone else's world, and the ability to sort of bend and mess with everything in it. I need a system to play with and goof around with. No Man's sky is a weird middle ground between appearing absolutely gorgeous as a space adventure, but yet as mindless as a minecraft game when it comes to trying to find good gameplay. So I didn't know much what to think about it, and decided to keep hype out of things and wait for reviews to see if it'd be worth paying the default indie count. Looks like I have to wait longer than release though to see that, because the usual indie price count isn't in the launch window. Controversy surround No Man Sky as confirmation hits alongside a pre-order that we're looking at a $60 game like any other on our shelves.

Now first off I want to confess I'm naïve under two accounts when it comes to discussing this subject. For starters the game seems well polished, looks like a technical marvel, and has a lot of promise. I should have kept my mind open to something higher than the $20 average. However I do still feel like $60 is a bit much, but lets talk about that later. The 2nd problem is... well, simply put, I've stayed low on the hype and I'm not the most informed. I don't really know all the recent promises that may have been made, though according to a few talking heads I'm not exactly missing out on anything as they're still kind of vague on gameplay specifics. I'm not going to talk about the depth of some element like its space combat because I simply don't know about that, and its possible few others do as well. So if I'm missing something huge and crucial, feel free to laugh at my ill-informed opinionated little editorial here. That being said, I still feel I've got some points to make on both sides of the controversial subject matter.

Well for starters, lets go over one thing I hear people commonly gloating about the game and carrying it to the peak for this discussion over its price: Scope. Scope is an idea of how big the game is, and could be pushed to mean even more, but the thing is... its really just about the size here. That's kind of the problem. Its an exploration game based on scope, and very basic elements of essentially sight seeing. There's some upgrades going on in the background, but it basically seems to funnel into just making exploration easier like getting a better suit for hostile environments. That scope is gloated about because of just how huge it is though. Its an entire universe boxed up into a game. How can they do that? Well, its computer generated. Five years ago this would have been incredible and unimaginable, but honestly that's just another tick off the box for your generic indie game on steam now. Its actually not but so impressive. The size and scale is still there, but ultimately we've seen these games enough to know the seasoned gamer will easily catch the patterns quickly and want something a bit more... developed. These environments are at their best when they don't actually theme themselves around the levels. Getting a seemingly infinite land in Minecraft and Terraria actually means very little, but why people adore them is their different approaches to gameplay. Minecraft is all about creation, socializing, mods, and is essentially lego in gaming form. Terraria is the more RPG-friendly equivalent, offering players a simplified scape to paint in but one full of more enriching upgrades, enemies, worldly progression, and diverse monsters. No Man's Sky... is somewhere kind of lost in between all of that. You can't customize your ships, multiplayer interaction is supposedly as in depth as Journey, and people just aren't all too sure what lies beyond a couple common survival clichés and the scope. Its pretty much your typical $20 steam indie experience with a prettier picture and a bigger field of computer generation. Don't take just my word for it either, here's a good quote from this interesting article:

My biggest problem with the game is the lack of utilization of this game. What’s the point of having the UNIVERSE at your disposal if you have no one to enjoy it with. Players can visit all these worlds, but can’t build structures. We can have space battles for no glory. We can have the most resources only to trade to a system that only gives money and other resources so you can continue to find the center of the universe that will give you some unknown prize. The purpose of the game is exploration, however the game fails to utilize the full potential it has as when it doesn’t embrace social aspects of any kind. So essentially what you have is a BIG taco shell universe that can hold a lot, but there is only the meat of exploration. The taco will taste good to some, but it would be better if it added the lettuce of multiplayer, the cheese of customization, the sour cream of role playing, and so on. Now when you remove the massive scale of No Man’s Sky and what would be the unneeded procedural generation No Man’s Sky is just another exploration, survival game on steam with limited interaction with the world besides the sole purpose of collecting and trading.

Now to be completely fair, the entire anti-hype article as a whole is not only a bit older, but wasn't well agreed upon. It wouldn't be fair to dismiss them as fanboys riding the hype train either, since the article was mostly bashing the lack of multiplayer functionality I certainly sympathize with comments like this guy's:

In a world where multiplayer is king and single player experiences are dwindling I welcome a personal journey through the vast unknown, if devs are reading this ignore this review, stick to your guns, I believe a space centered game that anchors on emersive personal gameplay of exploration instead of a constant barrage of attacks and interruptions is more genuine to the wonder of space exploration than the many space battle games available

However the problem isn't just in the multiplayer... its that this entire lack of functionality just might persist through the entire core game. I'm not sure how long one can be entertained throughout a vast unknown universe once the loop and functionality becomes very known, predictable, and samey. Oh yeah, and remember when I said this article was kind of old? Well that means guys like this weren't hearing the $60 entry fee to this personal journey. What is yet to be seen is just why this personal journey is any different from Journey, Minecraft, Terraria, Starbound, Planet Explorers, or other various indie games that are going for a 3rd of the price or less.

Is anyone, or any...thing really out there?

Some of the other retorts to the backlash in price is that this game is merely being beaten down for being "indie". Are we really just hating on its price because its indie? Who gave AAA the exclusive rights to $60!? Well... actually the people asking that may have kind of stopped paying attention to their very words. AAA comes from the idea of high budgets, high production value, and expensive top-of-the-line stuff. That doesn't hold true all the time, and there are complaints and disgust with such lazy efforts there (Not sure why that's being forgotten. People aren't necessarily defending AAA by pointing to them as $60 purchasers), however for the most part AAA does in fact mean $60 expectations. A couple of cheaper games have jumped to that price range (mostly niche Japanese stuff), and some AAA games have in fact been cheaper, but for the most part it stands that typical $60 purchases are either bulky deals, or in fact a AAA experience. Expecting that consistency isn't exactly such a horrible thing. I do have mixed feelings on the idea myself, as indie games can and have provided more value. However here's the thing, none of us exactly agree with the $60 price to begin with. With all the complaints these days in not only bad gaming practices, but the general economy itself, we're paying $60 per normal game because we logically have to (as a market, not individually. you can wait if you don't really want to pay that much). If games like Uncharted, GTAV, and others sold themselves shorter, there'd be a bit of a problem getting that to break even. At least with indies we're getting a cheaper choice. Cheaper methods of development, smaller games, and WAAAAY smaller teams, or even crowd funded bigger projects all mean we've got a cheaper alternative on our hands. No Man's Sky is doing nothing different by using computer generated worlds over lovingly hand-crafted details, and a 15 man team. They're also backed by sony, so marketing and potentially even the development process itself is kind of covered by a fairly big company that is hoping their console exclusivity makes up for the money they put into it. Unless there was some wicked wizardry here, I can't imagine the game's budget channeling into the AAA zone, and that's a large part of why I myself don't agree with it being up to stuff with AAA costs.

I'm not trying to come off as mean or angry at this game in any way. I think its still got some ambition, still has a great core concept, and is something that some people will love and should buy regardless of the price. I'll also add that this high price has at least confirmed that its getting not only a physical copy, but kind of a neat special version as well. However I still can't get myself to side with this price. Its not competitive, it doesn't look practical, and it kind of feels like a bad omen for the indie industry. Yeah I guess I should have added that into the monstrous past paragraph, but in truth those who are viewing this backlash as anti-indie are ironically ignoring the blatantly bad AAA signs present. The ripped out pre-order content, and sketchy marketing where we're still not 100% sure on the core gameplay, is all additionally a bit of a bitter pill in addition to the fact that we're paying $60 for what might really be a fancier $20 indie survival game. I do emphasize "fancier" though, as it was wrong for me to once assume this to be another $20 digital indie game to grace the PS4. I can easily see this with its great graphics, scope, and pace (beating out more ambitious space explorers set to release) being easily worth the $30-40 range. $60 though? Well maybe its just that I wasn't so interested in the first place, but I'm definitely going to wait for a drop. Of course who knows, maybe something special lies in wait, and I just can't comprehend what this has. Maybe I have stayed out of the know for too long and this game really is set to be something prized among indies. Ultimately if its worth it is determined by free market rules of supply and demand, and if it looks good to you, shoot for the stars. Maybe, somewhere, this will make somebodies dreams come true and they get the best space exploration game they have and will every play. I wish Hello Games luck, and I hope they do indeed manage to make such a game a reality. However... I wont experience it until it probably set to be about the $40 or less I want it to be.



Still potential for magic to happen.

Shot down shooters part 1| Half-life

I would like to start a temporary special in anticipation of the upcoming Doom (4). Like Doom, many shooters were at the top of their game at some point, and just found theirself in a ditch or way more obscure than before. However I believe such great works shouldn't be forgotten. Almost every good shooter was a good shooter for a reason, and sometimes they merely bumped on the road because of some careless mistakes, or a twist of cruel fate from the market. Either way, these games were good once, and are in trouble or much smaller now and I want to address them in a special series. That might mean pointing to their problems, speculations, their potential future, but most important of all why they were special to begin with and their potential legacy across the genre or even general gaming. Right now I have plans for three big ones, but depending on how they go I might extend the series out and even cover some significant disappointing shooters, or inventive cult hit shooters that never got off the ground. That being said, as of now I don't plan on Doom being one of those here. This is more about the genre since Doom. I think we all sort of saw where things went wrong there, and I'll probably discuss future wishes, the legacy of its old, etc in other articles before and after its release. For now lets instead start off with a big one called Half-life.

About the game

Half-life was no small accomplishment or influence for the medium. Its the huge wave that shifted FPS away from the founded format of maze riddled levels, and obscure (if at all existing) context in favor of a real adventure through the same familiar lenses of blasting monsters with a shotgun. Only that new change of pace, format, and level design actually did slowly change the feeling of the genre. Half-life wasn't technically the first, with games like Sin releasing with some clever and well designed linear driven detailed levels, and Duke Nukem 3D having already given you a world full of interaction. However Half-life was close enough to the origin and definitely did things the most clean and logically out of its competition. You were set in from the start in a literal ride through this amazing new sciency world, and got to really know things for a proper plot to unfold. Suddenly aliens were coming through a teleporting and tearing things apart. Worlds collided as things from some foreign planet or dimension invaded earth by your very hands, and inside your laboratory... so it was only natural they die by your hands as well. You had friends, you helped out scientists, you watched as creative scripts played out, you visited alien lands and helped free the slaves, you fought against a government cover-up, and you just generally watched as the world evolved with the chaos and action that unfolded. There was a real story, a real climax, real characters, real interactions, and a real sense of clever pacing.

So what about the gameplay? Mostly the same kind of stuff you've come to love. There were some changes though. With the more orderly and detailed level design, as well as the scripts they obviously worked hard on to be seen, you were now funneled into a specific direction rather than running through corridors guided by a map. Naturally secrets were also less secretive. The gameplay's pacing was also slightly slower, with reloading, some hitscan enemies you needed to take cover from, and even scenes where you simply stood and waited. Now a lot of us take this stuff for granted or even get angry at it, but at the time something like this was something to be awestruck at rather than frustrated with. Never before had story and events unfolded around a good action game in this way, and at this level of quality. However lots of great things from the good 'ol roots stood in place, and made for a fun experience. You still had all the essential elements of tactics and survival at the core of this shooter. You had to watch your health, and be on the look-out for health packs. You needed to prioritize every weapon, learn every enemy type and attack, use the environment to your best advantage, and keep track of your ammo. You were still clearly playing an FPS, and still enjoying many of the same features that made you love games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake, Unreal, etc. The trade-off here was all in pacing and context. Would you like to go on an awesome adventure, or be lost in a maze? Some 90's shooter fans think of Half-life in a bitter-sweet light for the course it set, but naturally the chain of evolution favored the sense of adventure. After-all, still to this day people pride themselves on trying to get good stories out of their games.

Welcome to black mesa!

Half-life was succeeded by spin-offs that told separate stories within the same plot, and later went on to be used as a basis for many multiplayer games that would later become their own huge classics. Games like Counter-strike, Team Fortress, and others. Hundreds of good mods, most of which also followed this fresh narrative format, were made off of Half-life's foundation. Some years later, a full blown sequel would rock the industry over yet again. This time Half-life was proud not only of their narrative confidence, but now also boasted a totally new engine independent on their own work: Source. This new engine was full of great physics, vehicle combat, an interesting dynamic range of AI, great lip syncing (for the time), and just generally looked and performed really well. It was also highly accessible to users, ushering in yet more mods on top of bigger budget remakes of some of those older mods. Team Fortress & Counter-strike to this day are still massive games. Of course the gameplay itself was also considered stellar, earning a ridiculous amount of perfect scores from the press. An amazing action packed adventure full of lore, object manipulation, interesting enemies, and surprising twists and turns with every chapter and event. You were never bored with all the cool things happening, ranging from leading a rebel attack on oppressive alien overlords, dodging zombies through a haunting abandoned town, and learning to use gravity as a weapon all to name just a few random points.

Influence & legacy

Well the influence is fairly obvious. A combination of natural progression, technology, and most of all: Half-life all lead to pretty much killing the classic 90's style of shooters. It was bound to happen at some point, but half-life lead the way to asking games to put down the mazes and seemingly random secret walls, and to instead invite gamers on an adventure. People no longer wanted to simply be stuck on puzzling levels, they were now being introduced to compelling campaigns, cool aliens, and actual villains all while seemingly retaining most of what makes a game just fun to play. People were being dazzled with scripts and actual story while still getting their "Boom headshot!" kicks in. As Half-life stormed the world another time around, people wanted to show off new engines, that they could do physics, and maybe throw in some kind of other odd gimmick as well. Of course by that point games were also under the influence of another juggernaut by that time: Halo. However we can attach that to half-life to. Half-life lead the way to opening shooters up to those kind of games. With an emphasis on cool scripts, and an epic scope, some people got the idea to take things to the army. We saw a small wave of WW2 shooters charging in, and then sci-fi games that had full fledged battles as well. We saw military drop ships deploying us with friendlies, and we charged into battle watching and helping AI beat the crap out of each other. Games like Halo and Medal of Honor certain were to thank half-life for helping out their foundations. Even in more recent times, games like Metro, Bioshock, and potentially most of all Resistance 3, all still clearly hold Half-life's values close in hand. Heck even Doom fell under its format and aped the style with its least beloved entry Doom 3. Some would also credit Half-life's influence over the current over-scripted military shooters, but I'd rather look more at the true causer of that problem rather than a tiny stepping stone towards it. Half-life ushered in a massive era full of less intrusive scripting and fun mechanical driven gameplay. Half-life may have had a train ride in the beginning, but games like COD and battlefield were afraid to ever let you off of theirs.



Its about more than just demons now

Of course the multiplayer side wasn't very changed... at least not directly. Half-life still managed to find a way though. Again, mods made it happen, and a lot of great games came out of it in the end. Whether you're looking at small interesting hits like Day of Defeat and Natural Selection, or the giants like Team Fortress and Counter Strike, it all started in half-life. Of course this may seem somewhat natural now that we can obviously see valve is involved with some of those games. Still its kind of amazing that it also brought a tactical and sharp edge to multiplayer just as it did with Single player. It happened all over again with Source too, with hundreds of mods for half-life 2. There's an entire modder's sandbox made off of it called Garry's Mod where you can do pretty much anything the engine could handle. That's kind of incredible to think about.

So what happened to Half-life? Well... it just didn't come out.

The fall, and the future

As I already said, it just didn't happen. Half-life went on a short lived episodic binge, deciding to follow Half-life 2's route on the same engine and story, but push it forward quickly in small and slightly experimental short hits. There was going to be 3. 1 came and went, people kind of went "eh", and then 2 happened and was exceptional. Not only did it open up gameplay, introduce new enemies and tricks, and opened up the lore, but significant plot points hit and hit hard. The very end was a very dramatic and unexpected cliff hangar, the type to leave gamers shocked, talking about it, and anticipating the next. It was set to come out on a 2007 Christmas holiday window, and never happened. Yeah let that sink in: episodic game, big cliff-hangar, massively successful franchise, 3rd and final arc gets lost for nearly a decade. Someone had to have made a really terrible call somewhere. They were making an episodic game, had the platform and fame to launch it on, and couldn't bother to somehow fit a meaningful chunk of progression in a 3-5 hour timeslot to fill their episodic quota and continue the story for the same amount of time that entire successful franchises have come and went. Now they've lost their main writer recently, haven't had any meaningful announcements on the game in a good while, and were out of the game for so long that sci-fi settings kind of fell out of style and came right back into style during their down time.

Half-life has been on such a long lasting hiatus that people just don't know what to think of it anymore. At first people were a bit upset it was taking longer than expected, then jokes came out of it, and now people mostly just seem to care about the jokes more than the series itself. Heck its kind of an old pet peeve of mine, but people are asking for Half-life 3 rather than episode 3. You waited and sat on it for that long valve, that people can't possibly expect you to waste their time merely following up this wait with a mere episode like you should have. Plenty of people have even stepped up to their soapbox, looked back, and tried to poke holes all over the franchise and then complain the future wouldn't be much better. That's how long its been... people are able to have that anti-nostalgia backlash, and point to your "aging" game that helped put games into the modern age to begin with. Even fan-art covers have become outdated, with all but one I've seen being of 7th gen consoles. Some have speculated Valve would just rather focus on business and steam distribution instead of making quality games. Even one of their own statements insist they aren't as interested in single player games anymore. However the funny thing is their service is a bit behind as well, so I'd like to put that cynical idea to rest and instead point to their lack of priorities and just carelessness with the series. Or maybe I guess the nefarious G-man has the game locked up.



Wake up Dr.Freeman?

The scarey thing is also in just what Half-life plans to return on. We've had the industry massively change in its absence. Part of the reason we probably saw such a flood of COD style military shooters, and a regression of the genre is because one of its key players was absent for so long. Now how will it be received? Since its last game entire new shooter fans have been introduced, have different standards, and gaming itself has been going through various different periods of changes and controversy. Its a harder to please world full of fans who distinctly remember the values of the old, people who have mildly changed their mind, and those that want nothing to do with the franchise. Worst yet, the story arc itself will be rendered irrelevant to many eyes. Again, that's why it was kind of ridiculous to just not finish the dang 3rd episode off of a cliffhanger. By this point many will tell you that you must "evolve" and to some degree you do have to. You can't just have some stiff plastic little pistol anymore. You don't need go to the length of forcing Aim down sights to every weapon, having some guy yell "Oscar mike!" over a radio as you wait for some slow AI to open a door for you, and you certainly don't need to implement regenerating health. However I'm sure someone out there is expecting you to, and I'm sure its crossed Valve's mind. They need to strike a balance with matching up to current standards, and to figure out where shooters have regressed and fixed them, all while still solving what has aged in Half-life 2. Contrary to how some want to blame half-life for modern FPS, I see a big difference. There's a right way to go about scripting, player agency, and of course the core gameplay balances. Half-life did it right, and I don't want Valve to lose that ability thanks to weak influences from a confused market.

To me, Half-life was never the top mark of its game that it was made out to be (which was deserved, I'm not complaining or anything), but it was something I wound up playing, enjoying a lot, and deeply appreciating. It had a Mario-like quality of revolution for the FPS industry, and its revolution and what it brought to the tablet is a big part of what made it so great to me. I didn't appreciate Doom's maze-like style until later, and usually felt little for it. Half-life's format though? The adventure made all the difference. Seeing cool aliens, getting context for them, challenging armies, learning WW2 history, escaping explosive moments, laughing at a quirky but well crafted physics engine, and fighting built-up bosses were all thanks to the foundations of half-life. On top of that I loved the tactical but crazy multiplayer games that also came off of it. Team Fortress 2, which also went to inspire games like Killzone 2 and even what I've been playing lately, Garden Warfare 2, are all amazing FPS games that indirectly came out of Half-life's creation. Without Half-life, my enjoyment of the genre might be stuck to customizing arena bot matches in games like Timesplitters. So it'd be a shame to see the current path continue, and the world is left deprived of future half-life. Occasionally one company steps out to attempt to carry the torch. Metro, Bioshock, FEAR, Wolfenstien, they all just to release an awesome engaging single player experience with a clear direction, and world, and some crazy or interesting gameplay. Their impact just isn't the same though, and I think the industry deserves a big icon like Half-life to lead them back. ...who knows though, maybe the franchise itself will live up to its name and is set to only live a half life.

Why I bought an EA game...

So I bought an EA game again. Normally not a big deal. I wasn't exactly buying it because it was an EA game, or not buying games because they were an EA game. Rather its important because for a long while EA has been hated and synonymous with greedy and messed up AAA practices, and simultaneously also just a company I found myself not buying from for a long time. I've had my eye on a few games, but most of it comes out of curiosity or "buy it later" mentality. However many passed over my radar because they were Battlefront, TitanFall, or another Battlefield game. I'm done with generic military shooters, and I'm also not buying into this forced online crap for subpar efforts. Naturally they lost me when their most acclaimed offline accessible title was an open world RPG from an overrated company. The last games I can remember buying from them were Kingdoms of Amalur, Bulletstorm, and a late Crysis 2 (which I got used for $5... and gamestop even generously stuffed my game box full of passes with wishes that one of them worked, so suck it EA's old idea of console DRM). So its been a while. Again it wasn't an intention to avoid EA, just the way they decided to take their business. Just like how one minute I was liking quite a bit of Ubisoft games, and the next Crew was some online only racing game, and Rainbow 6 doesn't have bots so I'm waiting on a sale and went a year not touching their stuff despite them making my last GOTY. If they stop putting effort and quality that appeals to me, or they do bad practices, I stop having an interest in buying their stuff. So instead of using EA as an example of everything wrong, lets be fair and give them a good highlight when they got things right.

What was the game that changed my mind? One that actually did enough to get my attention through common-damn-sense marketing. You make a good product (or at least try to make it seem like one), and people will buy it. That good product was Garden Warfare 2. First to understand that though, you must understand the issue with Garden Warfare 1, as well as its greatness. I talked about it at great length here, noting how it looked like an amazing game full of fun and charm, and yet I was nervous about playing it. I ended up passing on it completely, and never bought it. EA gave it away for free on PS4 later that very same year it launched on the platform. That included free DLC from its xbox exclusive days. So I definitely set aside my dispassion for bare-bone online games, and gave it a try with a smile on my face since EA gave me a game I really wanted to have (but didn't find it worth it). It was awesome. Online only, but awesome. If only they fixed that, I would buy it again. Oh hi Garden Warfare 2.

Oh, yeah!

GW2 came up and I didn't even glance at it for a while. I loved the original, and EA made me with their free give-away, but I knew what was coming. They never had any regard for my kind of play, and would make yet another amazing game without the structure to back its high price and awesome mechanics up. oops, how did this word of bots get in there? As soon as I heard that from reviews, I immediately changed my entire perspective. I turned overnight from paying absolutely no attention to this game aside from a review glance, to digging up precise details and putting it on my wishlist against Primal, Dying Light, and various warrior games. More news came out, and more trustworthy thumbs up were had. All around me, even skeptical and bitter anti-EA people were praising this game to the high heavens. Loads of content, split-screen support across a broader range, bots, no season pass or immediate microtransactions (wait for it, it might change), actual effort put into a solo experience, and everything a traditional sequel should have in terms of basic additional content. Oh, and you introduced potentially hundreds if not thousands of players through a free given game that was already well loved by its fanbase by making it free and handing out what now looks like a demo of what later came. I followed through on my wishes, and on the 1st of march I made a decision to buy Garden Warfare 2 for $60. That is how you sell a product. That is how you give a game, your name, and things around it a good reputation. That is how you get my money, and thus anybody of a similar mindset or demographic as me. Its not hard science to figure out: Games are fun. Put effort into fun. If we want games, we will buy fun. Help us see that your game is fun. Does this, or this look more fun to you, or this? Yup, shockingly seeing the game simply advertise itself is more appealing than seeing money-begging over a product that isn't even out yet.

Of course, I suppose you're also wondering if its any good in the end? Well... yes. However the truth is, that doesn't actually matter a whole lot for the point of this article. The fact is they put away their surface greed, took down some barriers to entry, and made a game that looked good enough to buy based on its quality. The only problem left, and it is indeed one worth being upset about, is that its still online only in the sense of a connection. Its admittedly written on the box so I was warned, but still there's absolutely no reason for it. I don't want to hear about the account sync nonsense either, I'm about certain the game has a save data on your HDD, and that same data can hold your info and sync with the server. Its not an alien concept. You should be able to play in the hub, quests, and bots without worrying about whether or not the game is connected. To add insult to injury, there's an implied idea from the mailbox system that the game will stop working on 2017 via server support, which I really hope is more of a minimal time than an actual determined date, even EA doesn't shut off servers that fast. I'll also note it didn't fix anything regarding my request that an online focused game gives your proper server lists. That all is still just stupid. Still I was willing to risk that because its a fun sequel I can mostly play my way now, and it was a fantastic game sequel to another great game I enjoyed from EA's rare spark of generosity. In the end, this was a huge step in the right direction.

I don't just fuss at publishers for stupid decisions because they're "greedy", but its rather because they're just that: stupid business decisions. Games like battlefront, and Destiny are still going to sell as long as you market them hard enough, but there's legit grief behind vocal consumer's complaints. They aren't the only ones feeling that way, and seeding other gamer's thoughts with doubts on your games. They also speak very real concerns that in some way or another, others may end up feeling and letting go of the game, or simply passing on the next, or finding themselves just not wanting to play anymore. Others may never be able to even touch your game in the first place, including even Garden Warfare 2 because of your one glaring stupid unnecessary barrier. I can handle some "bad practices" and deal with them, but at some point it just becomes stupid for the consumer to buy something because your care is more on money than quality. It doesn't actually effect me that the tuxedo was locked as DLC in MGSV, even if that's just awful. However when you rush out a game like battlefront, giving me in fact less than even half of what its predecessors had, forcing it online, and begging for map pack money... why the hell would I buy that!? That's a terrible decision on every single note. When a company like 2K forces a convoluted DLC method on Evolve, begs for you to buy multiple season passes before you even know if its any good, and then has a history of releasing a more complete game later and I have to ask again: why would anyone buy that first copy? Heck the game did so poorly I'm not even buying its complete bundle like I originally planned. These things get very stupid, and go against the basic idea of advertising an entertaining video game to your audience.

Now on the other hand you heard nearly endless praise for Witcher 3, Splatoon, and GTAV even when they all are still guilty of something. Why is that? Because they didn't blatantly advertise that they were milking the consumer like everyone else has been doing. They sold well in their respective ways, got great PR, and provided services people were rushing to buy more of because of their efforts. ...and that's exactly what I'm thinking about doing with Garden Warfare 2. As long as the online connection piece doesn't end up biting me, I'm kind of feeling like I'd like some more maps, or maybe a new fighter, or if they even add in a new hub world that would be amazing. The core game has me invested, is fun, and was bought because I knew it would be fun. Now that I'm invested and happy, maybe I'd buy even more for such a fun game. That's how business should be. Its strange that this is such a distant concept for publishers. I'm not against them making money or selling DLC, but they aren't even trying to be smart about it. If you surprise attacked us with a season pass AFTER a game launched, that simple move would make all the difference and I wouldn't blame anybody for it. However we live in a market where they strangely think we'll buy a game up-front when you're essentially telling us that its not all there yet. Its strange how they've some how felt comfortable, and accepted this common idea that you can demand pre-orders for DLC that doesn't exist for a game that isn't yet in our hands. Its astounding they think we'll buy a game for doing less, and somehow reward that with hard earned cash when you've clearly shackled or drained it in some way. Go back to basic facts and marketing: You are selling us a product. Is that product good, or are you already telling us that we should be buying it in pieces? Are you selling us something that's fun, or just extra tickets with an expensive tag? Are you selling us a game, or a "service" that vaguely looks like one underneath a bunch of fees? This should all be easy to answer, yet publishers so often choose the wrong one. Finally, with Garden Warfare 2, EA selected the right answers and have convinced me to spend $60. So far I can't say I regret it. Of course, a big thanks to Popcaps for doing the actual fun stuff in developing the main game, but this is mostly surprising from the EA side of it, and there's no doubt they make some of these calls. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go practice some more in a bot match on this wonderfully fun game.

A happy little garden indeed.