How Prey proves you don't need an old IP

Which one?

Now before I start, I want to say that I am absolutely thrilled about the upcoming Prey. The trailer looked absolutely incredible, and with the recent news giving us just a tiny bit more detail, I remain very excited and interested. I will also boast about a bias in Arkane, as they're games are just awesome and I love their style of thought and gameplay implementation. Something about their works just resonates with me, and even if they have just two real games I've played, they left me in a way that felt powerful and impactful. I apparently like them and their style so much that I usually spell the word "arcane" with a K by honest accident. Again, Prey looks to continue their brilliance in a different area. The alien bloby manifestation, the corrupted hands, the strange living mirror, its all so cool. Heck the way the trailer was set and done in itself was simply amazing, and is one of the few modern trailers to have me watching it over and over again merely entertained by its existence instead of the product its marketing. However... we really have to talk about that name, the issues its causing, and just how ridiculous it is.

First, lets not pretend this doesn't exist. This leaked email from quite some time ago perfectly matches what is going on. Its not just that Arkane is doing a Prey game, but its the fact that its a thriller set on a space ship, you're mostly isolated in an eerie thriller tone, and there's this unsettling AI. Thankfully its not a straight rip-off of SS, but its still very apparent that the two share a connect, especially if you've seen that email. So lets just call it fact, even if nobody is going to walk out and confirm it. So now we know the publisher made this call, and essentially told them they weren't able to touch a new IP. It would "add risk" in addition to the studio taking on a lot more. We're going to focus on that "added risk" because its fucking nonsense and its actually set them back if the early comments mean anything.

Not the best foresight there guys

So far every single time I see news on this game, its met with comments on how dumb it was that Prey 2 was canned, or how it has nothing to do with Prey, or suggesting this game can't be good because of how different it is from Prey or Prey 2. Now I wont sit here and pretend those comments are right. I'll agree Prey 2 should still be a thing, and I would love to see that game still made as much as anyone, but to sit here and pretend this game is the devil over it is ridiculous. Prey 2 just wasn't going to happen by the looks of it. I don't know if Bethesda did something crooked and awful, or the devs just screwed up big, but some sketchy things happened and Prey 2 was canned quite some time before we got rumors of this game. This is a totally different game. However I'm talking to both sides when I say that. Bethesda, this is not Prey. This did not need Prey's name. Prey wasn't recognized for much other than being an older shooter with a couple novel twists and ideas, then it became an ambitious open world game,and now its nothing because you cancelled it and practically killed the original devs. This has nothing in common with those events, other than using the same name.

By choosing to do this, they've thrown Arkane into a corner where they have to actually go out of their way to clear up how not Prey this Prey is. You've confused, and angered the audience out of the gate, and this isn't a victory for anybody. Then you'll be competing with the name itself to clarify it against the early 2000's Prey, because like with Doom, Tomb Raider, and beyond you've gone the stupid route of 100% copied names. What the hell was the safe bet in choosing this IP? Was it easier to copyright? Was it a widely recognized name beyond those who were anxious for Prey 2? Does it have anything to carry over artistically beyond vague things like an alien on a ship? The clear answer is no. Its got absolutely nothing safe about it, and its just throwing the game out the gate in a hurt state. You've thrown a lie in front of their faces from the very start, and all people are doing now are resenting you for that. How is that safe? Its not, because going with an old IP for the sake of it was never just automatically safe.

Meanwhile lets look at the "unsafe" bet... Dishonored. Dishonored was a new IP when people said new IPs couldn't work. Dishonored was a new IP by guys who haven't had a reputation beyond obscure PC RPGs. Dishonored was a game that visually looked nothing like any trending game at the time, or anything immediately familiar. Dishonored sold amazingly well, is arguably chalked up there as one of the best games of last generation, and has gotten enough acclaim and ideas to encourage them to do a sequel and re-release the game multiple times alongside merchandising and an art book. Now tell me with a straight face why that wasn't good enough for you? Lets compare this with Prey, which comes after Dishonored and at a time where it should be even easier to theoretically sell people on this new game. You don't have many people talking about the success story of Dishonored, the now solid and respectable reputation of Arkane, nor the potential of their new direction and game, you instead have caused people to simply see it for what it is not, because it is not Prey.

This is why people get so cynical and nasty about discussing publishers. Even when they have what they need, even when they make good games and do their purpose, its not good enough for them and they have to go out of their way to screw up on something and get in the way of progress. Bethesda is one of my favorite publishers considering the games they put out, but they're no exception to the fact they do dumb stuff to screw up some awesome games. This was stupid. They catered to some unproved conspiracy that an old IP would automatically save them, but in the end they shot themselves in the foot, and I can only hope the new Prey will do well on its own merits rather than being held back by the ghost of things that couldn't be.

Now Playing: GTAV

So got GTAV after being tired of waiting on the price to drop to $20. Why? Because in addition to seeing GTA4 flooding the PS3 shelves for years at $5-$10, I figured it would happen at a decent pace, and also I'm not a huge fan of GTA. I used to love the idea of playing it as a kid, but it was that one franchise that I was told would be off-limits until I was older, and now the open world concept has lost its common appeal for me. I love how supportive and good the dev is about their games, and I understand most of the appeal and how iconic GTA is as a destructive sandbox shooter, but in general the game kind of isn't my thing in most ways. Its missions felt tried and true or even watered down, the game's tone is littered in a combination of gang culture and a cynicism so nasty that its basically a living world format of those people who always moan about their life (a lot of it is played for laughs, but its still so constantly bitter that you might as well be chewing on a lemon and laughing in a mirror for the same effect), and the game just expects you to really commit to it to see the brighter side. The tone also held me back from liking any of the characters all that much, and so even with 3 swapable characters I kept just thinking of how much cooler Saints Row's protagonist was and customizable at that. Despite all that, I still retain some sense of an interest though.... but its certainly not a $60 launch one. In the PS3 release days I rented it, and later borrowed it from a friend, but it never stuck out to me as a must have.

So why am I back? Well for starters, the remaster is a true effort forward. Consistent FPS view & actions in a world this big, so much more clarity and visual polish, and additional content on top of the already big list of patched content, and that's just wow. It feels like one of those cases where a whole new game engine is being tested within the works of a pre-existing game. So far I've found a couple nitpicks with the 1st person view, but its genuinely is good. The graphics definitely look clearer, and while GTAV doesn't have any art style nor consistent environmental beauty, the more I see it the better it looks as I see more. Besides even just being so clear is an achievement considering I can walk up to some generic store building and read every poster cluttering its covered windows.

The next line of logic is... well, good work pays off. Rockstar has made a massive game full of constant updates, mass player freedom, and lots of ways to play the game. Its kind of hard to ignore all the fun people talk about having, watching youtube videos of a chain reaction of NPC chaos in how they react to one explosive accident, or hearing about people talk about that secret they found or what they did with cheat codes. Between all that and the new content, I've built a desire to truly get into this game and hopefully become immersed. I want to uncover the large world, want to build up my characters and have tons of cool stuff to play with, and want that ability to have a game where I can go from walking nature trails with animals one second, destroy 10 cars the next, and then record my day's work in the video editor to make a cool cinematic car stunt video. GTAV has a bit of everything, and its all polished and nice enough that there's just no substitute. Even if its not my go-to thing to do, I've just decided it was time to play and actually own a GTA game for once and there's never been a better time than GTAV for current systems.

So far I've done a few of the opening missions. Unfortunately it looks like my first day or two will be spent retreking ground in the campaign. Not a huge fan of that, but at least I've got some fresh perspective and the updated 1st person mode to do so with. Eventually I'll get to a good point, and just start free roaming, or fooling with cheats for a good laugh. Maybe I'll even try online where I can make my own character and forget about the underwhelming story ones as I start doing a bit of role-play. Who knows. Well, got to go steal a bike back for one of Franklin's early missions. Despite still feeling like I'm in the tutorial-zone of the game, I'm still smiling and happy to be back.

Should Playstation fans boycott the newer Tomb Raider?

So Tomb Raider is finally coming out for PS4. I haven't been shy about the fact that I'm fairly excited. I don't even know much about the game, but I kind of don't want to spoil it either. However as is the way of the internet, some people are salty about the timed exclusive shtick. I'll agree they're right to fuss, they're right to call it stupid, and that's not just from a selfish consumer prospect either, this was a very stupid and poorly handled deal as soon as its conception and further on how it was presented. However its so stupid that I'm willing to sit back and think they've already shot themselves in the foot. They bought a deal with the console the franchise sold the worst on, it bombed by AAA standards (not to mention its hard to sell well on one console over 3), and all this time they still haven't been able to release it for the platform it sold the best on. Maybe they benefited in some way only they can tell, but from my best view I'd say it wasn't a happy ending. So you know what, we got a late game, you gate some late and missed revenue, its all even. Furthermore we're getting what aught to have been expected; Essentially the PS4 port is a GOTY edition right out of the gate, giving us access to the DLC and even a couple fancy bits like VR mode. But... some people would disagree. They basically swear off the game, or pretend they won already with Uncharted because... that's somehow the same thing even though its not. Its a sour and awkward boycott.

Look, I can only give you my opinion and principles. I've stated before, and stand by the idea that a corporate's awful doings are only bad enough to kill the game for me if they directly stand in the way of my enjoyment. When you boil it down, its basic capitalism. Give me a product that is worth the money, and I will pay for it if its enticing enough. By signing a deal with timed exclusivity, they only delayed the game from getting to me. I wasn't going to go out of my way to buy an xbox one and support this crap, but that's where that bad deal ends as far as I'm concerned. Then its a matter of charging me fairly for an older game... and they did that by bundling it with more than just the base game you can find for $20-30 now (though PC is still ripped off at $60 with a pile of $10 a piece DLC. Digital distribution can be more expensive, you can admit that a little more often). The core experience is now no different than running out and buying a GOTY edition for a game you've been waiting on. As for how this deal may have deluded the game? It didn't in any meaningful way. The game is still a nice, well rated, story-driven 3rd person shooter adventure game. There's no DRM, no season passes walling off stuff that I deem necessary, and its still simply the latest Tomb Raider game. The game is still there, its a new experience for me, and its full of content, so I'll gladly pay $60 for it regardless of that stupid deal that was made in the past and is wearing off as such because its in the past.

I'm excited to move forward and enjoy gaming!

Again for boycotters I can't tell you that you're factually wrong on the whole. I can't sit there and tell you how you can't follow your principles. But I can and will point out why I think they're a bit ridiculous or overdramatic. You've essentially parted away with the practicality of enjoyment and let your idealism be driven by a console. You claim Square sold out, but the thing is they're a business, trying to make money even if that means they'll do stupid counter-productive things with it that sometimes don't work. They failed as far as I'm concerned, but at least they still tried to fill their role. You just tied yourself to a console and sat there like a goofball for no tangible benefit. You as a consumer are here to have fun and spend money on things that appeal to you, but you let this little spat get in the way of that simple idea. Because you couldn't get access to it upon release, you choose to side with some console war mentality. You may have even choose to delude yourself into saying that Uncharted 4 was the same thing (sure, but uh... you know Xbox already had gears? So they didn't need your Uncharted. See how that works? Its stupid). Call it what you want. You can say you don't support this behavior, which ironically means you make your own system look bad and less profitable to Square's eyes, or you can call it a save of your money... like you can avoiding any game, but you don't do that because we like to enjoy some of them rather than collect green paper. In the end you've gone out of the way to say that this past and gone deal of exclusivity has meant you're giving up a game you wanted. How about in parity, you start boycotting the long list of indie games that were on PC first. Yeah... no, don't do that, because that's silly to. This is something that you wanted (if not, then you're not actually boycotting anything), an adventure that would have probably put a smile on your face, but that's all gone because of a stupid deal square made to release it a year later on your preferred electronic box.

On top of that, you missed all the positives that came out of this. I'm not saying those justify Square's actions, but still lets face reality here. You have access to tons of reviews, various opinions, you're getting the master version of the game as it launches, and heck we probably wont have to sit there and wait on patches unless they goof up the port. Again none of this makes it right for Square to have done what they did, but its great that some bad things have up-sides. We're talking about a delay, not Square kidnapping someone, so you can relax and live a little. Let life go on, enjoy things, and if this game truly interests you... well, enjoy this to. Its a game, its meant to be played.

I'll probably be here october the 11th, having an adventure. :)

Counter-scandal: Gamer's Opinion (2 of 2); Who can you trust?

So I'll give you a recap from the first part of this situation:

So by now you've all heard of the CS:GO gambling scam. Three CS:GO youtube gamblers would make tons of views off of discussing their big wins and gambles across a gambling website. They were making plenty of money off of putting videos online of them gambling with skin DLC. The CS gambling scene has become a big industry, and technically anyone can do it since it falls through a loophole of not being money gambling... except it kind of still is. The big kicker was when it turns out these big youtubers might have had a good reason for winning... they were the freakin' owners of the gambling site, and lied about it as a sponsorship.

Now consider yourself caught up in that. Now what about part 2? Well if you read things in order like you should have, you'd know I'm going to talk about trust and youtubers. Unfortunately not only has this scam hurt that a bit, but on top of that we've got the Shadows of Mordor controversy circling again where the FTC has ruled some people as guilty. Among the names the media has resorted to pulling out, we have Pewdiepie, who is possibly one of the biggest youtubers ever. So can we trust youtubers? In a recent topic on this site there was a rather depressing reaction against the notion. However as you'd expect, I'm going to offer up my own view on the subject.

Can they be trusted?

Well lets start by debunking the pewdie bit. His defense sounds solid enough, and humble in admitting that he could have done better but still disclosed. He's not the best witch to hunt here. On top of that, can we remember he plays games, not reviews them? Anybody can put up footage of even that ancient infamously broken truck racing game and still have a blast with it in front of a camera. That doesn't mean its recommended, nor good. If you look to Pewdiepie as a completely trusted source for how awesome the game is, I think you're mistaken, because they're more there to put on a show to amuse you using a game rather than selling you a game. That's not to say its a bad marketing idea for publishers to use, but its not exactly the kind of thing that is going to prove to serious gaming enthusiasts that your game is an instant buy (unless it was super cheap or something). My sister watches Markiplier all the time, and yet the last game she bought (and the only thing she's really invested in) is Sims 4. Its not the ideal buyer's guide, just its own source of entertainment playing off of another thing. Its like asking you if you "trust" Bill Cosby to sell you a cake just because that was part of his old breakfast cake story. Who knows, maybe you will actually get cake on your mind and go out to buy one, but for the majority of us we'll just laugh at the comedian and move on with our lives like normal.

Uh... sold?

I'd also like to add that among all the people who are just on this "its cool to hate youtubers now" bandwagon, that a matter of "trust" is a lot more abstract than you'd probably care to admit it. So if we're phrasing it like that article, well its really a question of "do you ever observe videos of games?". Almost every big gamer watches videos of their favorite stuff, and I'd wager you're among them if you've dug up this obscure blog centered around gaming. Its such a big deal that its actually integrated into PS and Xbox consoles now. If you're among those watching a video, even a commentary-less gameplay clip, and that's helping you judge a game you don't own, then you've got some trust. You trust that to be legit, and raw gameplay. That's kind of a big deal to figuring out if a game is worth it: does the raw gameplay appeal to you? So its important to have some slight sense of loose trust with youtube videos, and the people that upload stuff there.

But of course we're probably talking about youtuber personalities. We're talking about big names that got somewhere for having their own style, some decent production values, and decent charisma. Well, lets stop to first point out that this whole Shadow of Mordor thing was made public by a big name youtuber, and spread like crazy from there in part thanks to more youtubers. Same with the CS:GO scandal. When stuff like that hits, it goes everywhere. However here's the key difference to a scammer, older press journalism, and good youtubers: There are entire channels dedicated to finding scumbags, reporting discoveries, and diving deep into the unknown. The best a "professional" site will usually do is maybe catch a glimpse of something some obscure retailer put up that may lead to a leak. Meanwhile we had a youtuber successfully predicted Konami's shifty moves due to actual investigation (which then got re-reported by the "pro" side like they always do), the same guy did a really awesome (less important) investigations and interview about the obscure subject of bots, then you've probably heard of the CS:GO case from this source first, oh and how about this sketchy little situation being covered by another guy, and finally I think I'll leave you with this totally untrustworthy (sarcasm) video on why it might be bad to pre-order games. I don't know about you, but I've gotten better insight, stories, learned more about the economics, and have found more cool games ever since I started using youtube over a site like IGN. Not to mention a video review is just obviously superior for figuring out if a game is something you'd enjoy. I still go to traditional games press, but its hardly as reliable or as in-depth in my opinion. Its not like the pro sites were always trustworthy anyway.

Paid review? Nope, this guys fighting just to have the video itself monetized most of the time

However I don't give youtube my 100% undying trust. Not any youtuber out there, be they ethnically proven as possible, or the most interesting to hear from, have my complete faith in what games to get. Neither does any site, or any one person on this earth. You can't blindly place your trust around. Its not just about sell-outs and cons, but also about just figuring out yourself. Nobody knows you as well as you do, and that goes for the games you like. Reviewers of all kinds are at best a buyer's guide. You can go outside of reviews to, again its great just to watch raw footage. I've found first impressions are actually some of the best material to see on a game because it actually discusses mechanical depth, what you as a player can do, and how the game works. Meanwhile most reviews gloss over the whole product and slap some number on it based on if it works and how they felt about it. How a game plays > How it "feels". Furthermore this matter of trust should extend beyond even just game purchasing decisions. This is how we got into this mess to begin with, people went and decided to go and gamble on some shadey site because a youtuber said it was cool. Why? Don't trust them to sell you on something you don't need. Use your sense, know yourself, and enjoy life.

 The thing about youtube is that its harder to keep regulated. A bunch of younger people are getting on there and making a big and somewhat solo career because all they need is some editing knowledge, the right luck, and the equipment to settle into a big youtube channel. You get views, you get money, and things take off. Many youtubers still need a sponsor to truly help keep things good, so they'll look for such a source. That doesn't make them evil people, or sell outs, but you should still be aware of how they discuss it and how they do their end of that deal. Sometimes it really ain't good, and you shouldn't give them the sponsor support they're begging you to fall for. That's part of the lesser regulated industry youtube has become, though it also nips the youtubers themselves with things like the broken copyright system in place. But that's also kind of the thing I've always loved. I love the "wildwest" markets, and the places where people are free but need to keep on their wits. Its the area I see people strive the hardest in, come up with interesting and creative ideas, and there's so much variety because there's no set predictability. Of course within the environment there are going to be drama creators, people with loud mouths, and snake oil salesmen, but if you use your sense you should be pretty good. Usually when you goof up in a case like this, its partially on your head. So who can you trust? Well to an extent everything, but in full: only yourself.

Obviously not anyone who makes money, because they're automatically evil

Counter-scandal: Gamer's opinion (1 of 2); Valve didn't do it

So by now you've all heard of the CS:GO gambling scam. Three CS:GO youtube gamblers would make tons of views off of discussing their big wins and gambles across a gambling website. They were making plenty of money off of putting videos online of them gambling with skin DLC. The CS gambling scene has become a big industry, and technically anyone can do it since it falls through a loophole of not being money gambling... except it kind of still is. The big kicker was when it turns out these big youtubers might have had a good reason for winning... they were the freakin' owners of the gambling site, and lied about it as a sponsorship. I agree entirely with the anger and frustration going towards them about this mess, and I hate the lack of disclosure which is certainly illegal. However I have a different reaction when it comes to hearing how the same anger has been turned on Valve. The idea from what I've heard is that Valve should be in trouble (and are in potential legal trouble) for letting this happen through their client. Their recent release of information has had some people go "okay, but you just barely got off the hook", and others even angrier because of their PR speak. Before I go any further, I'd like to give my own little disclosure of a different nature:

The following is more of an opinion piece than normal, and contains very little facts in an area that admittedly deserves better understanding and facts. I am not very aware of how the economics of CS:GO work, didn't know much of the existence of these gambling sites, and do not know the laws around gambling very well. I'm also not sure how the web code, security, and account details work that go into what valve has set up with steam user accounts and linking.  I don't even play CS:GO, nor is my steam account linked to anything in recent memory.

Okay, we got that out? Good. I let my opinion out more in a public and argumentative comment section already, and have yet to hear back on it, so I'm going to assume I know just enough to still have a point within my argument. Still please do be aware I don't know this area very well at all, I mostly just have my own thoughts, and have heard a lot about this scandal being blown open. Now that said, personally the farthest I can blame valve for in all this mess, and the most I can potentially hate them or dislike them for, goes as far as this:

Weapon skins

Yup, that's an image of some of the skins you can buy. I don't like the idea of these DLC skins being random loot boxes in a game that costs money to even enter, but hey that's the world we live in today and its still way better than Overwatch's implementation where you pay $60 and then just have a much colder and calculated in-game gamble. That's about where it ends if you ask me. Valve set up a system in which you could incentive a trinket, put a price on it, and a trade market for it. They set the stage which could be exploited, but they did not condone, nor have anything to do with the act of exploiting it. Whether or not they're even profiting off of it indirectly, as so many claim is the issue, is debatable as its hard to say they wouldn't still see money coming in from their regulated market trades. People wanted skins, or money, and the market (unless things have changed way beyond my use, as they may very well have) offers both and is what actually puts money in valve's bank.

However even if valve was benefiting from this, I don't really care. I don't care if it was "negligence" on their part either, because I feel it was a very small case of it compared to another going on here. Maybe the law does care, and I'm not pretending to be any judge that'll tell you otherwise. I suppose we'll see how things go when that lawsuit goes into full effects much later. However as a normal mundane gamer instead of an authority figure, who interacts with other gamers, and who has heard countless other gamers act like Valve is a monster or should even be shut down for this... I'm kind of baffled here. Since when did people go into nanny state mode? When did we jump from defending violent video games and holding people accountable for their own actions, to accusing valve of being scum for someone's poor decisions to go and gamble? When did we decide to play the children card, and pretend valve is at fault for not parenting kids from a gambling scene based on an M rated game? What the hell are you even letting your kids do if they spend their time watching gambling "sponsors", and spending your money towards it!? Yet you want to tell Valve they're negligent? Some nerve you have there.

Look, even if you think the best parents ever can't stop their kids from getting into this stuff (that even I as a 22 year old gamer and long team steam user haven't heard of until now), then the last of your problems is this. If your kid is slipping under your radar onto the dark parts of the web that easily (or "kid" just extends to the idea of a 14 year-old who you don't watch like a hawk), then there's also porn, viruses, scams, bad influences, hackers, and piracy. Gambling can be bad, but I really doubt its the worst case scenario. If they're careless enough to get themselves into this self-destructive habit on their own will, they certainly wont be clever enough to skirt around the other issues. Sorry but you can't sit there and whine about how Internet Explorer is a meanie-head for introducing your teen to a hacker that robs you. Well that's exactly how I feel about this gambling and valve, it ain't valve's fault, and they don't deserve the shit they're getting. (that's not to say they're perfect, but this isn't one of their major faults.) What they deserve, is up to the court to decide.

Well that's all I've got to say on that matter, but not the entire CS:GO deal. Originally this was it, but after some discussion, and a depressing editorial response on the trust of youtubers, I think this can continue in a part 2. So... tune in when we talk about scandals, youtuber, and "ethics", because I guess GamerGate lives on beyond even the hashtag. Until then, can we please stop pretending valve is responsible? What's next, you gonna tell me Microsoft is scum for also allowing it on their operating system?

Damn-it valve! I dropped this here, and you didn't move it for me!

Lets talk themeing... (and a little about zombies)

Name how many times you've seen this in a game

So in recent events, the Dying Light team commented on the state of zombie games and the possibility that they're over-saturated. They gave a statement some would expect, but a fair and just one, essentially saying there's a healthy market for zombie games. The next point they make is a very good one, and the one that certainly helps set the tone for the article: "Its a setting or a theme you can adapt to various video game genres". Now where I stand I can see why they'd have to answer this question. Zombies used to be an element used a sparing amount across media, but in the last five or so years their popularity has exploded and they've practically had at least triple the attention. That's not just video games either, I'm talking television, books, spin-offs, and merchandise as well. Its gotten to the point where you can expect to see quirky "zombie hunting" gear at a gunshow.

Oddly as a person that grew up loving, and very supportive of the whole creature horror with a B grade biological mutation creating monsters, and killing off a cast of heroes, I can't get behind zombies for whatever reason. They're just too human, too dumb, and get old too fast. At least with bug aliens I can expect to see some occasional cool designs, or get curious as to any unique explanations about how or why they're invading. Zombies... not so much. However they're not stopping me from enjoying a good game, and they're not a problem to me in any way. I still enjoy some zombie-centric games (I still want to pick up Dying Light sometime), and I think its a healthier trend than just making everything copy and pasted grunt soldiers. However that's where my annoyance kind of does kick in. For every 15 games with generic copy + paste enemies we've seen before, we just might get one that has some cool and possibly even new alien designs brought to the table. (in a working fun function of course. Biker fans can attest to the fact that there is a biker game with Road to Hell, but its not like they'll want to play it.) I begin to wonder why we just don't have many cool new ideas, when we've got so much going on in the world of both reality and fiction.

On one hand I would understand its a matter of practical programming, and not many people want to try something like a Reign of Fire scheme for dragons, but then when you think about it with something like oh say... werewolves, or raptors, and it boils down to the same AI as a basic zombies; They run up to the player, and hack away at them until they or the player die. Even The Order 1886 couldn't do this right with the 3 times they choose to even include a werewolf, how do you mess it up so badly? Meanwhile a cheaply made B grade game like Jurrassic: The Hunted, and older games like Turok, and Carnivores had perfectly functioning or even complex AI for dinosuars. Then ask yourself this question: How many military shooters in recent time can you name that had an enemy that wasn't Russian or some random Middle-eastern country? HomeFront, Flashpoint, and COD:Ghosts is all I can name, and none of those exactly lived up to high acclaim. Heck HomeFront basically got free press for how unique their backstory was, and that's just kind of sad. We have countless countries here, so many possibilities (what if any of the existing places had a new civil war?), and all we can do for the most part is recycle cold war logic of "those Russians are bad guys!". I don't get this kind of creative laziness. But if you want me to push this even further, lets move beyond just pointing out cool villains and even bringing up something else that made me think about the matter of themes and premise: Firewatch.

Now forget nearly everything you know about the core game that is out, reviewed, and probably even played by you. Lets pretend we only got the basic idea of what it was in our head, and you can cut that down into this: A game in which you play a new park ranger, with your own station, radio, buddy, and a duty. Basically a Park Ranger game. Why is this a thing we had to wait for an indie team to do? This made me question that about quite a few things. Similarly, lets look at Hardline for another example. Why did it take this long for a police centered game to surface? Closest other game, and somehow way more realistic, is the True Crimes (and Sleeping Dogs) franchise. Hardline doesn't even count for much though, because it smashed the theme up hard. So any other takers? No? Look in both scenarios a lot can be done. These concepts make for amazing video game material, much like how we digitalized sports and have that selling millions. You could also be a cop or detective, run around making arrests, taking investigations, answering reports, or heck even giving simple tickets. You could make an entire mini-game out of just giving off tickets, where you have to walk up and talk to the person, only to then see if you find anything else going wrong like drugs, illegal weapons, or just further car related problems. It'd be like a hidden object game within a whole game full of other stuff, ranging from more generic open world gameplay and shoot-outs, to stuff like RPG-like chat systems of persuasion and investigations. I suppose maybe LA Noir did something of that nature, but come on lets see a little more of it. Then there's the Park Ranger way, which can go in many different directions as well. You could manage equipment that can go bad, take up forest survival skills, tackle dangerous animals, or simply run some big management game of keeping visitors and the state government happy. Now lets think outside the box further: How about more games related to photography? We thankfully got a few underwater diving games, maybe keep that up. How about an archaeology game? We can get even crazy with this stuff to, I mean we did invent a dinosaur hunting lite-simulator, and a business management game set on mars. That's my point, games can be about just about anything, but here we are stuck in a mindset where EA barely wanted to make the first major WW1 game because they were frightened people wouldn't even know about WW1. (Meanwhile they're publishing TitanFall 2, because we all obviously know about that mech war that happened, right? That's totally the reason people are buying that, right?)

I'm still sad about the tragic losses of this depicted battle

Oh hey and speaking of Titan Fall, heck I'll give EA credit there and say that not a lot of people combined Mech elements into FPS gameplay seamlessly. So that's a cool idea in what is really just a cult-loved theme. These things can happen more often though, and it'd be great if they did. I'm not asking for anything super ground-breaking, but taking little steps to make a game pretty unique at least artistically or thematically, would be pretty cool. We've seen generic post-apocalypses, the zombie ones, the generic wars, the space marine vs aliens, and the RPG genre alone is probably 85% Tolkien fantasy, and we've even had plenty of saturday morning cartoon type games. In no way am I asking for those to be abolished (especially not cartoony and space marine games, I love those), but that path has been not only traveled, but its a freakin' tourist stop by this point. (wait, does that even work with the metaphor?) I'm just asking for a little more variety and diversity in what we do get to see. We can get a werewolf game in the same world as we have five upcoming zombie games, and things will be fine.

To be honest, I definitely have to say I miss games that had a mentality like the Turok franchise. This was a series that had portals in space, lizard men, dinosaurs, dinosaurs with cyborg implants and/or rocket launchers, native americans, pseudo-futuristic humans, ape monsters, insect people, aliens, robots, a mutated gunship, zombies, and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting. The developers through all this stuff at you and said "here's you're setting, and kind of a story to tie it together." and it was awesome. If you thought that was awesome, just wait until you see that imagination go into the weaponry. Even the gritty reboot took place with a weird portal, a foreign planet full of dinosaurs, and some soldiers with a dark project going on who dressed up like metallic-silver helghasts. This game was full of imagination, and threw all sorts of stuff into this completely fictional and crazy world, without going so crazy as to just be entirely unmemorable surrealist nonsense like some platformers. Looking ahead, the closest coolest thing I can think of on the major market (indies are always doing crazy stuff), is Horizon: Zero Dawn. Post-apocalypse, native american culture, and robot dinosaurs all in one setting. Thank you Guerrilla Games!

So I don't know what better way to summarize this other than just asking people to think on this some. At the end of the day all I'm asking for is some extra bit of imagination. Games like any other art medium have the ability to be and do anything. They have a way to immerse players in settings that will never exist. Think of all the barely touched mythologies, the military possibilities yet unexplored, or what weird ideas we could combine. I'm not asking for zombies, terrorists, space marines, etc to stop or go away, but I am asking that before you decide to make generic zombie modern warfare 6: zero-G reckoning, maybe think about the possibility that nobody else is currently working on a good pirate game, or a game where you need to fight off a vampire horde.

Summer sale scraps: $5 & under deals

Originally I made this list discussing the games I got on the steam summer sale in addition to a budget recommendation list. Instead I wound up finishing the recommendation and just not wanting to talk about the rest because I'd rather play them. With it being the last day of the sale, I guess its just better to release the recommendations. The sale isn't the best, but there still are some really great stuff lying around at a good price. If I could just point my finger at any good game, or even any good discount of a good game, we'd be here all day. So this is a recommended list of games I've played at the expense of less than some meals.

Torchlight 2: Amazing ARPG with a ton of freedom, mods, and its just dang fun. A must have for anybody even remotely interested in loot-centric RPGs, and possibly even more to those who haven't yet had much experience or interest in the genre.

Alpha Prime: I've reviewed this game before, and stand by it as an amazing "junk food" kind of game. Well its $1 on steam right now, but heck its $5 on regular days so honestly you're not losing much in any timing. The AI has aimbot, it doesn't have an original bone in its body, and its got some of the worst voice acting you've probably heard in a good while, but yet its just plain fun. Its fast, intense, and the core mechanics come from the HL2 era which is nice. Just grab it, $1-$5 ain't bad.

Oddworld Stranger's Wrath HD: One of the weirdest FPS (and 3rd person hybrid) games to ever be created, but very well delivered. You're a bounty hunter that uses living creatures fired from a crossbow to catch various dangerous men. A very creative world as with all Oddworld games, and the most free and immersive gameplay that exists within such an odd world, Recommended for those complaining there aren't enough unique FPS games, or for those looking for a bit of 3D platformer charm mixed with a good one.

Space Rangers HD: A War Apart: A unique and awesome little space strategy role-playing game, with text adventure and RTS gameplay off to the side. Whether you're blasting ships in space, trading, or even running for president on an alien planet, this game has a lot to offer and is fairly under-appreciated. Of course I do wish it still had the cheesy intro movie its original release (Space Rangers 2) had. Overall a pretty interesting little obscure title.

Hotline Miami Bundle: If you want to shave off the price a bit, just get the original as its got more replay value in game design. 2nd one is still fun and recommended though. The franchise is a top down shooter that actually works more like a puzzle game in how you must figure out the best way to go about a one-hit battle against a gang of crimi- wait, why am I explaining this one? Unless you've been living under a rock, you know it. Now know its super cheap (2 games for less than half the price of one off the sale), and I recommend it.

Seeing double: A problem in perception

Hey guys, here's a trip down memory lane for all you awesome gamers out there! Remember when Nathan Drake of Uncharted got stuck on an island, had to gather supplies and put together crude WW2 weapons sturdy enough to last him a whole trip, cried and complained about his newfound hardships as this was his first (unwanted) adventure, and had his friend nearly sacrificed to a crazy occult and an angry island spirit? Me neither! That was 2013's Tomb Raider. But I'm sure I just made that mistake because its very simple to confuse them. I mean Uncharted is really similar in that you play a wise-cracking hero, banter with a rag-tag team of misfits, and dash across the globe entering constant exciting set pieces with an entire mercenary army hunting down the same treasures that usually seem mystical, but turn out to be more toxic than anything else. Oh wait no those are two totally different things. But there's got to be some connections here, right? Well they both are done in a 3rd person shooter angle, and have a single player focused affair with characters who specialize in archaeology. That's... about it. They don't even both play like the same 3rd person shooter, one is melded with metroid style exploration across a connected island that has some reoccuring spots and openings, and the other is more traditional with common shooter gameplay and linear level progression. That's be like calling two multiplayer shooters the same because they have quirky colorful heroes, and that'd be ridiculous. I mean nobody has ever confused Overwatch with Battleborn, or oh wait did I mean Team Fortress 2? Oh wait a minute....

Yeah this has been on my mind for a while, and I keep putting it on hold or talking myself down from it. But the issue keeps coming back up, so I'm just going to say it: If you're one of those people to sew together any of the above games as the "same thing"; Stop being shallow, blind, idiots. Oh, did my tone seem a little insulting? Good, because I'm fed up with all the mechanics, fun, and inner-lying strategy that separates two very different games as being melded together with "derp, its the same because they both have a pony." That makes your statement a very absurd and short sighted one, as if you can't tell your right hand from the left because "they both have thumbs, no difference.". So you've earned it. Its not just an issue about comparing games either. Anyone can easily compare Team Fortress 2 with Garden Warfare, but only in a light manor of describing how they work. They both depend on classes, a nice colorful tone, and run with crazy abilities and powers that defy logic to deliver a crazy fun multipayer experience. They have that in common, and to compare the two makes life easier for everyone in conversation. They are not taken to be the same kind of game though, and that's good.

A cartoony character with a bow just like TF2 sniper!? Sue the bastards, they stole the whole game.

Meanwhile Overwatch does have that problem, as the comparison at some point jumped the shark from "its kind of like this game" to "Oh yeah it totally stole its soul and became the same thing. Its an awesome/awful rip-off!". This is a problem because it takes all the finer differences in hero quality, ability differences, the unlock system, the interface and community the game is centered around, and throws it all out the window by falsely saying "imagine its exactly like this game, because it is!" No its not. It has a different name, different mechanical priorities, may have even released among a new market space, and is going to likely be supported differently. They all have their unique odds and ends, and its not just skin deep unless it truly is a clone/knock-off. That does happen. At one time FPS really was just Doom clones, where games all worked the same with only a couple balancing alterations. However at some point we jumped that ship, and that point is something like Strife coming along that takes that same Doom frame and adds stealth, NPCs, dialogue options, etc. If you released it in today's market though your average internet comment would probably call them the same if they saw as much evidence as maybe one demon. Because apparently Doom had NPCs, and stealth much like how Uncharted had you exploring for parts to upgrade your bow to last you the entire game. The answer to that analogy is that they don't, and that makes a huge difference as to how the games unfold regardless of what occupation or camera angle the character share in common. That's all it takes to set people off now.

That's why Overwatch was so fiercely compared to Battleborn even though they were miles apart. But colorful characters + multiplayer theme = twins apparently. Don't pay any attention to the character ability differences, any mode variations that define the way you're supposed to play, or important interface utilities like changing your entire damn character in the middle of a match, nope they're both the same game and you MUST choose one over the other because why would you buy the same game twice? These games were practically in a community war with each other, and it couldn't have been more ridiculous. Some people have blamed the marketing, but you can't seriously sit there with a straight face and tell me that with multiple free betas for each as well as constant and various sources pushing videos with clear evidence in your faces at no extra charge. You had to go out of your way to somehow be ignorant of this and yet also be involved in the community enough to call them the same, and yet that's what tons of people did. Only once both were out and things sorted themselves out, but sadly Battleborn kind of lost because out of this nonsensical comparison of "colorful heroes, its the same" Overwatch already held itself out as the popular kid with Blizzard's barrage of promotion and high reputation. ...and yeah, I think this ignorant, stupid, and short-sighted nonsense that comes from this awful mentality helped create a condition in which an ambitious and unique game was sent out to die for being told it had no identity of its own. The people that contributed to that should be ashamed of themselves.

That TF2-wannabe Hanzo is in here somewhere, I just know it!

Not only is this an attitude that has, in rare cases, hurt games, but its also an attitude that indicates something of another problem: gamers don't understand their own games. Just look at WatchDog's hype where all the generic details were right in front of our faces, but people still got shocked when they found hacking was a prompt gimmick. Then there's the upcoming No Man's Sky where I've already discussed the net has this problem of being super hyped over sheer scope in space. Then there's cases like Far Cry Primal where even with all the differences, people will still fuss about it being a "reskin" over a few reoccuring mechanics. They don't accept, talk, or critic the newer features, its just all about how much its the same because you can craft stuff. Apparently that rules out over all the hard work put into the new game. This is basically why I wound up doing reviews the way I do, dissecting mechanics and how they play out. I don't get where some of the reviewers out there come from with this mentality that they can just give you an opinionated press release, and slap a score on the game and call it a review. A review of a product meant to inform the consumer of its quality should do exactly that. With a movie you'd discuss actors, casting, performances, and plot strength. With music you discuss composition, mood, and vocals. With games you're lucky if you get a review of the plot beyond just hearing the snyopsis (or my favorite, "it just doesn't exist" in games that do in fact have one). I know I'm digressing from the topic, but just think about it... if we're in a culture that has gotten so relaxed and lazy with comparisons that Tomb Raider is considered the same as Uncharted, how the hell are we going to review them properly? This is why no reviews gave us a good heads up on the awful ME3 ending. How are we going to critic, learn, grow, and develop the mediums rights and wrongs without being able to tell the difference between a metroid-shooter hybrid and a... well in the words of ignorance "a gears of war clone". Funny how that rip-off accusation died, I wonder why? Maybe because it didn't hold much merit, and once the game got well recognized enough it had to stand on its own? Either way, if you play one game like the other, you're going to probably walk away disappointed. Its up to the reviewer to not send you in on a false mindset (or have a sloppy one themselves) so that the game can stand on its own, for better or worse. But instead we've got a world in which there's a 10/10 for ACU describing it exactly like a press release, and Battleborn was constantly compared (mostly unfavorably) to Overwatch for no constructive reason.

Is this why it took us years to have a game like Doom 4, and why we still don't have serve browsers in our average online games? Only a minority talk about them, and others just gloss over or turn a blind eye entirely to game function like that, because that would require them to look beyond the plot description. Now there are smart writers, and smart reviewers doing games justice and still keeping things quick and clear, but there's a lot of shortsightedness coming out of both the press and just vocal gamers. These things don't get looked at, taken apart, dissected, and admired, so developers have no reason to go through the effort unless they themselves are smart enough to say they love it. This is exactly what happened with Insomniac dropped their framerate, noting that at the time 60fps never got noted on reviews, but graphics always did. So they sacrificed something on gameplay because there was no respect, appreciation, or even a nod from the critical side about this. Now our latest Ratchet & Clank game runs objectively worse than the majority of the franchise, dating back to PS2 hardware. Thanks journalism! I don't personally mind 30fps, but this is just a small example of the potential mess. I do think if there was an outcry on the current matchmaking style from every format, we'd see browser servers. Heck just look to PC as proof, with its open platform methods and a more aware community, its more common there even if plenty have still resorted to matchmaking.

Happy to say this stands on its own

I'm aware I come off this angry, ranty, and potentially even a bit mean. Its not exactly a fun topic to talk about, and I've put it off for that reason. But there's a good reason I also feel this upset about it. I feel its one of the biggest threats to gaming from its own culture outside of the bullshit progressive politics. Its degrading to games and their artists, its damaged sales and spiked fanboy type competitive aggression, its limited our vocabulary and discussions, and it creates an atmosphere in which both the gamer and developer don't know what makes a game mechanically awesome. It takes a miracle like Dark Souls, or Doom 4 to bring out the discussions on how great mechanics work (at least after release. Before Doom was being compared to freakin' halo of all things), but as soon as you slide a WatchDogs in front of our faces it goes back to "ooh! I can hack a city?" without any questions. Do you choose Tomb Raider or Uncharted? Well the sad dumb truth is a lot of people will answer that with whether or not you want a male or female lead, rather than if you're into exploration vs great linear set pieces. ...and instead of merely talking about the games at all, instead of engaging in a fun community discussion with fans, the first thing I get to see when a new Tomb Raider article comes up about its PS4 port is "who cares, Uncharted 4 is the same thing miles better" from some idiot. Only that supposed idiot is the most upvoted comment among a mix of spiteful fanboys, and those ignorant and naive on what they may or may not have played. It frustrates me to see that kind of thing. I'm not saying you have to drop all comparisons. Uncharted and Tomb Raider still appeal very much to the same kind of player base, as almost anybody into action adventures will appreciate them. Similarly Okami will appeal to and make sense to compare with Zelda related things. TF2 really can be compared to overwatch as a quirky competitive objective-driven FPS. But these aren't the same games, and you can buy, play, and experience them all in their own unique and individual ways.

There isn't a single game out there at this time that can give you the same experience as playing Genji in Overwatch, or Pyro in TF2, nor is there an easy equivalent to Super Brains from Garden Warfare 2. These are all unique classes made and balanced within their own games, with different loadout settings and abilities, and from the imaginations of awesome artists who had unique combinations of ideas to create such playable characters. Likewise there's only one 3rd person shooter I know of hanging as close to metroid level design and roots as much as Tomb Raider does, and a fan of both Uncharted and Super Metroid will be absolutely thrilled with this kind of detail. Its unique and an awesome experience only 2013's Tomb Raider can give you. Not Uncharted, not Gears of war, and not even older Tomb Raider. I think that sort of thing deserves a good bit of recognition and respect, don't you? Can we discuss mechanics a little more instead of just style, or premise? Alright I think that's enough for now. Thanks for sticking with me on this angry lengthy post.

Obviously Uncharted... right?