Is it Game of the Year if it's not even done?

I'm coming close to a reflection upon 2017, and while I might not continue to do a real GOTY list, I might do something similar. Either way, I tend to still set some system of rules for myself. Usually they include making sure a game was released that year, and I had to have played and loved it enough that year. That's basically my two main rules, but the first one is a major doozy. Sure at first you think it just eliminates backlog stuff I wait out and buy cheap from last year, but then you begin to realize there's late ports like Dust, Tomb Raider 2, and more recently a new wave that will be experiencing Okami for the first time on the PC (like a decade or close in age), not to mention just all the remasters people may be experiencing for the first time. I've had to shoo away from so many good games I loved in he year, because they didn't release then. However this system also works backwards, as if that makes any sense. Somehow we live in that awkward but awesome time where we can play games before they're out, through systems like extensive beta releases, or "early access". My personal rule would disqualify those, because even if they technically release, they are not the end-goal product they want you to see.

Unfortunately I have to step around eggshells to explain this, because some people don't understand that. People latch onto these words like "end-goal" and "finished" and "released" and start picking away at technicalities, or pretending that major award winning games are equal to broken betas because they might still have some free DLC or some serious patch changes to rebalance things. It's not "finished" anymore. While my rules are just my rules, and I shouldn't have to defend them, I would still like to talk about the principle of this topic and address it through arguments I've actually seen, especially as of recent drama around PUBG getting nominated in places like Destructoid.

"But nothing is ever finished today! It's all patches and stuff, and there's bugs everywhere!"

Fuck your pessimism, there are full functional and enjoyable games with no serious issues. Those that aren't, naturally don't become something amazing I love and gush over to the point where it's GOTY. The new Zelda was working pretty good. Horizon was a lot of fun from the cheers of it's launch week. People love the new Crash remakes. AC:O even escaped from any mass panic. On the other hand, Prey gave some people hell, so some people really took issues with it, and I don't hear it on a lot of GOTY lists. Sad, because it sure as hell is close on mine, but I understand that. But nobody with serious credibility gave AC:Unity or No Man's Sky a game of the year. Those are the seriously bugged or just flat out missing components of a game that make something truly bad, and worth putting more on the level of Early Access. Those games release, and they don't survive to become GOTY, because unlike an Early Access game they spent their true ideal release under controversy and angry costumers, fighting an uphill battle to even get an acceptable image.

"But Overwatch is still adding new characters and balances! It's not the same game anymore, so it was never 'finished' like you want!"

Oh, okay, I'm sorry developers aren't apparently allowed to use the internet with games anymore. This is conflating additions and rebalances with fucking beta or even alpha work! That is not the same damn thing. I can just go look at screenshots of something like PUBG and tell you it's not on the level of a finished product, or an Overwatch game with a good model of continuous content. So no, I don't consider beta and alpha work to be legit award winning material, unless that award was based on potential or hype. Even if the game is amazing, and fun, and it's brought a massive smile to your face all year long, if the devs say it's not good enough, it's not good enough for the awards. It can wait it's turn, it'll have it's release year (unless it's name is DayZ), there are other games out there that are actually ready for your final judgement. Adding additional content, or slowly transforming it, does not disqualify that, it just means it's an adapting and growing online game like... well, nearly every successful online game. Chances are, if you're early access game runs like that, it will continue post Early Access.

When people usually describe an award winning "finished" game, they don't mean one that is frozen in stone, nor one that has a tag that says Early Access on it's store page in massive letters, they are referring to a game released to the main public in ready 1.0 form. Games like Cortex Command or No Man's Sky that bullshit and fudge that 1.0 form don't live very healthy lives. You might have even just asked me what the hell "Cortex Command" even is, to which I say... exactly.

"But it's so good, and breaking records, and-"

Fantastic, but it's still not ready. All the reason you need is right on the store page, and in a separate category, under a different filter even, and it is perhaps even on the .Exe file name or folder, or even in the main menu every time it's booted up. Some might even watermark it in the corner of the screen as you play it. It probably says "BETA" or "0.8b2" which all point to, NOT READY YET. It was ready for you to test, and if it's incredible, then I hope you can say the same when it is ready as a product. Do you know how many finished releases are out there and ready as normal products though? Well you can help me, help you, because I won't write out this whole list, because it's a lot. So much in fact, that it would be a shame you neglected them for something that isn't even ready (though you can weed out re-releases it has).

"But this is just the nature of releases, get used to it!"

I'm sure publishers are telling you that about lootboxes to. Anyway, like I tell them, that won't omit you from being criticized. Plus this just flat out isn't an argument, and you look silly. If a website has different rules from me and decides to nominate broken farm survival V0.64b instead of a game that's actually optimized for more than their lucky office team, so be it. But in general, I'll still join the people angry at that decision, and we'll still fuss about how you dodged real and awesome great games that were more worthy of your attention, and unlike those Early Access games, won't have a second "release" party to celebrate in. They launched this year, and their chance to be game of the year is only once in this year. I'm not going down this broken logic of handing it out to ever game that decides to patch itself, or released beta version 7 which was better than version 6, and then give it to them again when it's actually done... or vice versa, rob it of it's chance to glorify it when it's done, because I wasted my breath on praising it before it even had showed it's best card. So I'll "get used to" criticizing people with shallow principles rather than declaring a game the best of it's year before it's even had its year.

At the end of the day, it's a hollowing thing to declare anyway, but I can't take it seriously by it's own rules and logic, because it lost what little it had. There are no rules or award ideas when you begin bending it to mean anything you can touch. I guess Doritos are the best drink now because they both feel good on your tongue? No, that's stupid, and so is saying a game that loudly boasts it's "EARLY ACCESS" status (before you can even read what it's about), is a game on par with titles actively competing to be known as good and ready for anyone of it's target market to buy for fun. Games like PUBG are more for testing, reporting, and experimenting, and are not ready for such privileged places. It will be one day, and I hope all you emotionally invested fans making up weird excuses for its praise will be there for it when it's ready, and I hope it's still fun for you and a blast, but that time isn't here yet. It's not there yet. Go play Divinity, Nier, Zelda, Mario, Hat in Time, Horizon, Prey, Evil Within 2, and a plethora of other stuff instead. Hell, I'll even rather give you credit for even putting a remaster on there if you really loved it THAT much, because at least that product was in a ready state and ready to be appreciated by everyone. PUBG isn't even optimized well yet... and before you say "But X you mentioned is also broke", yeah then fuck that, and don't put it on the list either, it doesn't make the other suddenly okay. What backwards logic is that!?

A hat that fits just right

I remember hearing about A Hat in Time long ago. I took a glance at it, but was skeptical. It just wasn't too interesting at the time. A cell shaded girl in a funny hat walked around a gray town, talking to guys who mumbled stuff, and you jumped around on balloons and stuff. It wasn't so appealing in the slightest, aside from just the vague murmurings that it was a "3D platformer guys!" by an indie team. It quickly got overshadowed by news of stuff like R&C remake, Yoolka-laylee, and even other 3D platformers that are now far more obscure that I can't even tell you their name at the moment (sadly among them, one never even happened). Heck, I think Tinker was even more interesting for a little bit, and then I realized you couldn't even freakin' jump. Point is this game didn't have my attention, until the high flying praise of it's very recent launch. I stood there, looking at it on the store page, irked by the price, but I did the math and took a plunge. ...then the game started off with a plunge into a monster pillow pile on a space craft, and everything from the first few seconds of the intro has been nothing short of a constant grin on my face. I adore this game, and it's brought back not only a complete thrill in this lost sub-genre, but it's the first time in perhaps a decade I found this much joy in a totally unexpected new IP type. No mario, no familiar animal pals, and no medicre wreck of meh like Yoolka-laylee (we'll get to that later), but it was a totally new universe that somehow captured and added to the sheer childish fantasy delight that is the 3D platformer genre, infecting you with bliss from the TV screen at every new turn and level. I don't even know what's going on a piece of the time, but that just adds to the crazy adventure of constant amusement and wonder.

I can't emphasize enough just how fast it all took off. From that ugly gray lifeless town on a youtube video years ago, to somehow transforming into this game of constant cheers and positivity. It starts you off on this ship ran and made for essentially a little kid, and the whole thing reeks of a child's fantasy wonderland in space mixed with new and old tech wonders and goofy descriptions. A little TV in the lobby has a pillow for a chair in the floor, there's a giant pillow pile with a secret cubby in your bedroom, and one of the first things you can do is try attacking, bouncing on, or hitching a ride on an automatic vacuum robot with expressive digital eyes and quirky animations. As the main room fills up and you wander, you'll see him goofily bump into stuff and bounce around. Goofy little details persist like a microwave description being "a thing you use to punish bad food". As the plot kicks off you go from mafia town where dumb broken-english-speaking russian chef mobsters (that's a mouthful) pretend to own and bully everything with hilarious slogans, to a dual between a fancily dressed penguin and a Scrooge McD-like guy who are trying to make the better movie. The game oozes with charm and personality, despite the stuff I saw in the early beta builds. Everything is full of quirks and sillyness, with some of it directly carrying into the game itself, like a stealth level where you're building up silly fines for everything you do to sneak around a movie set... including "cactus assault" for knocking over a cardboard cactus prop. I could go on and on, but I've honestly already probably spoiled too many charming surprises.

However it's easy to be charming and still fail at doing the medium justice. Thankfully from right out of the gates, it's got what it needs to be a blast. As soon as it started, I loved the jumping, and that was a huge part of my near instant smile. It's not just your basic jump and double, plus running and a gimmick (in this case, hat powers). Nope, you get the extra stuff. The kind of thing that honestly divides great platformers from... well, we'll get to that. You can vault over walls for a bit, trying to either gain the extra height before you bounce off, or try to reach the top. You can also dive, which is kind of like a nice little long jump. It sounds small when writing about it, but trust me these two additions to the generic are amazing. Like Spyro's gliding, or mario's complicated flip jumps, these moves build upon a feeling of momentum and freedom that make the rest of the entire experience shine and feel like exploring and running through. It's a key component of making a game like this feel just wonderful to pick and play. Almost nothing is locked away except for the gimmicks, and the main attack function requires you to beat level 1. That's it. No slow tutorials, you don't have to buy basic crap, and it's just liberating to run across the first world and just poke around at things. It's true 3D platformer glory!

The only major negative thing that runs through my head when playing this game, is it puts down the perspective of how much more wrong Yoolka-Laylee did, and... simultaneously smacks some of its haters by being the 3D platformer of amazing glory they think was only in our rose-tinted heads, or made up some other dumbass excuse to dismiss things without real thought. Yoolka-Laylee was a trip south for the genre. It was still okay, and had it's great moments and call backs, but let's begin to tear down all that went wrong. The tutorial was slow and painful, too afraid to let you be free until you slowly picked up all the pieces to start the game. The worlds followed a similar pattern, limiting themselves and then making the excuse that there only needed to be like 5 worlds because they all could be unlocked a tad bit more, and then on top of that some of the worlds were gimmicks to begin with and just kinda... bad. Then there was arbitrary limits, and even as you unlock mundane powers, and spend currency towards them, you were trapped by a dumb system that even stunted your sprint with a "charge bar" that drained, punishing you for certain movements that should have been basic. Oh and then we can slap on those awful mini-games, the repetitive side quests, the convoluted and unpleasant hub world, the fact there was no voice acting, a $10 higher asking price, and then the fact they burned some good will in a fire by making a pretentious political move.

Despite publisher backing, veteran development, and a super funded kickstarter, Yoolka-laylee looks like garbage by comparison to A Hat in Time. I'm not just ragging on it for the heck of it, but rather these games should be compared side by side as a lesson in a genre that's very difficult to pin down other than emotional feelings of acclaim or scorn. ...oh and Hat in Time even has Jontron, with actual voice acting. Regardless of your views on his controversy, this felt like the major point that sealed this rant and said "fuck you" to Playtonic, before just as easily slipping back into the comfort that is Hat in Time. I know, Rare inspired these guys, and I'm still thankful for all their effort, it's just... it sure feels like a lot didn't go into Yoolka-Laylee when thinking back in retrospect, and this inspired game stole the reigns from those that were once masters completely. Yoolka Laylee was still alright, but it's among the many B-grade guilty pleasures people seem to forget Rare made plenty of, rather than being major B&K successor it was hyped to be. Hat in Time on the other hand, is currently on track to be in leagues with the grand classics of this sub-genre. It feels so perfectly in between the sort of love, charm, quality, and game stylings that were to be had if you fused Psychonauts with Mario 64 (honestly I feel more of that there than any Rare game), and it's just soooo good.

Hat in Time has just been a blast so far. My only two concerns now essentially include "is there another massively open level like Mafia town?" and "Does it conclude at a good pace?". After Wolfenstein this year, I can't say it'll be good until it's over, it could easily drop the credits so fast it breaks the teeth that were once smiling. However I seriously doubt that, and so far this is honest and serious GOTY contender at this rate. Perhaps the first from an indie. I can't seriously express enough just how fun it's been, even the more heavily scripted pieces of the game. Moments like the mystery case just had me thinking real fast and quick, feeling fantastic as I made it through, and still keeping a keen eye out for exploration bits. Still I'd love to see another Mafia town, where most of the level is open. I have a good feeling though there's still plenty left to see, do, and love about this game. It continues to constantly surprise me, and even turn things I'd usually hate on their head and make it great. This is just such a good game, and I seriously encourage others to go and buy it right now.

Battlefront 2's controversy is everything I've been warning against

^ How the publishers see us ^

So, Battlefront 2's release has gone up in flames, with the big spark not being the pay to win mechanics (even if those were bad and sparked deserved drama), but when close to launch a reddit post remarked how absurd the grind was, and how much it would likely cost him to get up to Darth Vader. When EA tried to respond to reassure us it was all in the name of fun unlocks, it broke the record of the website's downvotes. I could say I told you so, but... I'm actually kind of happy people have finally woken up to hating it so much, so I won't burn any bridges too much. I've mentioned how terrible this bullshit grinding is in several accounts, best one probably right here where I also predicted the microtransactions in COD:BO3 before the game launched (it patched them in like a month post-launch, so pretty far out). However this one is another fun relevant read where I lashed out at the idea briefly, and this one is a strange one that will grow some anger as I defend people who buy into the shortcut, but the massive catch is that's because I fucking despise the system now being monetized more so than the people just wanting to do whatever they can to escape it. The people I were arguing against were quite literally condemning them for daring to want things trapped behind an absurd skinner box, hating other players with a warped envy, rather than asking the developers for either a traditional unlock system ("back in my days, we would beat the game and challenges for X"), or a system that naturally respects the players time and doesn't ask insane requirements to get alternate costumes. The real problem was always in the game design, and loads of people were being idiots bordering on Stockholm syndrome, defending their captor's system whilst accusing people that use the meta-system of paying DLC shortcuts were cheaters of some sort. They weren't cheaters, just naively thankful for a way out of a dumb game design. To quote a piece where I used Bad Company 2's old shortcuts as an example, where-in people were "thanking" publishers for the shortcuts...

Back when bad company 2 did this, I looked at it as an offering, something that wasn't there before. Now after many games with various branches to grind up, large amounts of guns with trivial stat tweaks dangled in front of you as "rewards", and a combination of better or crazier degrees of this going on, I can safely say I see that the problem was from the very base of the game's design. Instead of thanking Bad Company 2, I want to condemn it and many of its brethren for installing a ridiculous F2P type system in a retail game. Unfortunately its well integrated and this point, and you're more likely to see backlash against a game without progression than the other way around. Progression systems are deemed a welcome standard and are considered to be at the heart of a modern AAA shooter experience. People love to chase their carrots on a stick, and when they get tired of it they become those that fall into the gratitude trap mentioned in the video.

That article was written back in spring 2015, where the systems were already well implemented and copies ever since the combined might of Modern Warfare and the sudden mainstream appeal of Battlefield, bringing skinner boxes to the trendy competitive multiplayer spotlight while people tried to pretend they were as appropriate and homely as their favorite RPG. However it was far too early for publishers to find the most optimal way to monetize it, and now here we are today... hi EA's Star Wars Battlefront 2.

EA hasn't actually changed much, which is why I don't see why this was so hard for people to get behind. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure everybody is 100% there even now. With the recent update about EA pulling out microtransactions and ONLY microtransactions, some are already sounding like we've won, completely forgetting the entire point of what makes grinding for vader outrageous to begin with... the fact you're grinding for vader. All they did was pull out the shortcut in a game designed to make it painful if you don't take the shortcut. They were aiming at potential money by making it poorly designed! That's still there. It might be fixed in the long run, but then again we thought so to when EA dropped both the grind requirements, ...and also the reward payout. This isn't fixed until it's truly fixed, and right now all we're looking at is a broken bridge where the repair man was charging extortion rates, and then left when an angry mob formed. You've still got a broken bridge, and we aren't crossing it until we get a better repair man.

Not going places with this yet

Oh, and another thing, that discussion about arcade mode locking people out after a while? Not only does Dice not know what they're doing when one guy says "it's not going to stay that way", while another is saying "it's to prevent exploitation", but the second guy I just mentioned is literally using an argument gamers themselves have long fallen into, and we do need to have a serious talk about how full of shit it is. Remember "boosters", and how terrible they were? Yeah, those jerks who go on a server and dare to... get a random rifle faster than you? Yeah, how dare they, don't they know they need to go and earn it like everybody else, by hours of corner camping and one hit kill knife throws, or by letting your killstreak helicopters rake in the points while you watch? How dare they indeed. Now they're going to get Darth Vader before me, which was almost as bad as the original Battlefront 2, where anybody could play the entire iconic cast as if they owned the game or something. I don't know who those cheaters think they are, but they better not also speedrunning games because that means they might beat them before me with a glitch, and that'd just be unthinkable! ...hopefully you guys can see I'm sarcastic, but people were really talking like this at one time, and maybe a couple special snowflakes that need their "fair" participation sticker rewards trickling down their skinner boxes still feel that way. It's sickening, and now even Dice is attempting to use it as an excuse as to why they need to curl back the offline unlocks. Except it's funny, because it makes no sense when they're also selling the shortcuts that got these elitist asshats complaining about guys akin to boosters to begin with. Now they finally stopped yelling at each other to unite, and actually see that a star wars game advertising playable jedi & Sith as a major feature... shouldn't take three weeks or an extra $80 to see Darth Vader.

Even ignoring idiot anti-booster retorts from the peanut gallery, Dice's defense on stopping offline farming is a warning sign of bad game design. What is being "exploited" by earning points? If it's not silly costumes and boosting goofs, is it legit power enhancements that would empower them above all others? Then that's bad balance and bad game design, and players will naturally "earn" the ability to not only be more experienced, but have better stuff than others for just lucking out with lootbox rewards. If it's not, then why are they farming for something worth so little? Maybe it's because you made a bad grind, and you don't want people to have the freedom to just enjoy it all, because you're exploiting them for potential money off of that grind? The sad truth is, it's both, contrary to whatever they may say. The best idea would to be either to let them just do whatever with the game they just bought, unlocking things in whatever way they feel comfortable with, or to let them just play with whatever out of the gate in an environment that is entirely up to them. Various games with offline modes and online progression systems had this radical idea to isolate them, almost as if they were separate modes... because they kinda fuckin' are!

Hey, so how's that bridge coming along!?

Look, don't let these guys off the hook here, and better yet... wisen up yourself and towards the community around you. Expect better of your games. This skinner box was a problem long before now. In the past, it was to exploit your attention, trading depth and in-game systems for a lazier design that valued quantity over quality, so they could shower you with constant participation rewards with the hope you'll hang onto the game and praise it for having a long length, forgetting that good design and integrated social community is it's own lasting power... but building that is hard work, so they'd rather give you 20 different assault rifle tweaks to work on obtaining over 40 hours, and master-sergeant-mcawesome badge status beside your name. Now they've found they can drag this out to sucker cash from it, and it's not going to stop there. Even with Overwatch, a game with amazing depth, decided to throw all extras and customization under the bus because they knew they could charge you for it through the obligatory modern skinner box scheme. It's not even nickle and diming you anymore, with easy and simple costume packs, it's a gambling game where they want whales to buy bundles of 50, and get people making stupid reaction youtube videos of them opening it for hours on end, or "testing" the probability. It's all bullshit, and it's there to exploit you, not appeal to your sense of fun. If you want a skinner box where it's appropriate and actually worthwhile, go enjoy some Borderlands. They actually give you skins to start with, have a real DLC model, and the core game isn't broken by making you pay around it but rather designed to incentivize you to play with a serious shooter RPG hybrid model that involves  number crunching grinds for quests and adventure. That's not what you get by the cheap, shallow, and exploitative nature of just participating in a shooter until you eventually get to play one of the key figures in the star wars universe. Thank you all so much for finally saying no to a game that pulls this shit, but it alone won't be enough.

Hunting rats is the real achievement, not being one trapped in a skinner box

Lootbox Surprise!

I really didn't want to talk about lootboxes. I shouldn't have to. It's easy: Yes they suck, and no you shouldn't support them. Don't touch them. If the game looks entirely rigged to them, stay the hell away and wait for reviews (especially grassroot. I laugh at the idea sites like IGN would tell you in fairness). Above all though, I stress when I say don't buy them. It's actually an insidiously good concept of bad business, where just getting you to buy even the dumbest one, and then stop, it's a net gain if they never had it at all. This stuff uses virtually no resources for them to put in, as long as they had an in-game system of rewards (thanks to idiots praising the COD/Battlefield formula for years, this is standard) and prints an ever-source of money. So stop it. Don't think about it. Not even a test one for some lame excuse. No, it's not okay with cosmetics either, that stuff should at the worst be sold on the store as a solid $1-5 costume, not a rough gamble. Lootboxes are bullshit. Don't support them. But I suppose with the subject of lootboxes, it should be an appropriate surprise that this isn't so simple. So surprise, a lot of gamers are taking this to some bullshit lengths, and I'm starting to become slightly more sympathetic with the publishers as this goes along.

With all the talk about loot boxes being gambling cropping up, it's clear this isn't the casual use of the word coming up. I call it gambling like I would taking on a risky RPG quest, it's a gamble if maybe I am or am not ready for it, or can complete it, or get the reward. It's interchangeable with risk. Well apparently people have forgotten that layman talk, and want it to be legal talk now, and say that this is legally gambling and must have all the laws, 18+ rating, and perhaps taxes associated with it. Loads of gamers don't want this to be a choice or consumer responsibility, but they want to directly bring the legal system in and pretend things will be all sunshine and rainbows... when the government directly profits off of gambling. Yeah, genius thinking there, you just told them they could get more money from gaming and incentivize it. As the rating boards, and China's attempts at Overwatch have made it clear, this isn't quite a simple gambling thing. There's loopholes, and then there's the matter of trying to attack it without burning down legit gameplay mechanics that involve risk. ...but that's not the worst part.

Often the ones wanting this to be enacted by law, are talking as if their kids are going to be rampant addicted gamblers because they're apparently dumping hard earned cash (again, kids) on loot boxes for Overwatch skins, or Fifa points. The fact this argument is being uttered by emotional gamers this time is incredibly annoying, especially when coupled with the above mentioned irrational legislative mentality. It's as assinine as I was hinting at earlier when you actually apply *gasp* logic to it, and so far in every instance I've brought this up, nobody has been able to refute it; How the hell are games to blame for your kid getting money and spending it on worthless skins? The kids that live under a guardians home, not legally able to work a paying job, not having credit cards to make direct online purchases, and I'm somehow being told by gamers themselves that they're puttin' the big bucks into gambling for that rare Tracer skin. Nevermind booster cards, and don't think about arcade games of the past, or claw machines of the present, no we mustn't stop and think with common sense, we've got to call this for what it is: the end of an addiction free generation. I know, tragic. You see how this is bullshit? And the funny thing is, there's a couple of people who almost have the sense to see this, only to somehow have an even more stupid response. Because they'll sit there and know this argument "for the children" is dumb, but they'll turn and suggest that because some parents are idiots who will try to attack games over this, that they must.... do it first? No really, they want the rating boards or the legal system to do something about it, so they're raising a fuss and being those angry parents so we don't get angry parents. I wish I was making this up.

I still hate lootboxes. I'm on your side in that regard, and I will casually refer to it as a gambling device to get more money out of us. However I draw that line with the right argument, and I think us complaining about it being a sucky system is in itself grounds enough to discuss our distaste. I refuse to defend dipshit parents or guardians who are so neglectful and ignorant that they'll let their kid get addicted to a system that naturally has quite a few obstacles for a kid. A good parent would teach them more responsible routes, or even make some example of what a bad value something like loot boxes are. ...but hell, even in those cases where parents aren't perfect saints and will watch as their kid tries a claw machine with their dollar, that won't ruin their whole lives. My own dad loves those things, but hardly gambles on serious matters, and I've only given it a try myself maybe 3 times in my whole life, and never bought a lootbox. We don't need legislation to know this is a bad value, you just need more sense. If you don't think we're a capable society of that, then I'll remind you who runs that society: The government. They're still humans, they still seek money, the spend it worse and more crookedly than any gambler if the debt and the US social security is anything to go by, and they even tax you for dying. I think I'll take my chances with the current trend, than any bullshit badly designed legislation would bring. Last I checked, Assassins Creed Origins kept it right with the time period, and lets you die with your gold.

Wolfenstein the new Colossal shrug

When Wolfenstein: The New Order came out, it was amazing. Death to the time when all we got was practically COD clones. Now we got a return to real hardcore FPS, told through a weird fusion of Half-Life and ID formulas. It was an amazing game, and stole the spotlight around the singleplayer scene, with more people than ever talking about the series for it's story. Of course there was room for improvement, and as the sequel was releasing, it looked to promise so and even more. The result? *Sigh* ...I don't know how the hell people are giving this game 9-8 out of 10s. It's not bad, but it's certainly mediocre under the technicality of the hype it set out, and I find all the praises of this game from critics to run skin deep when you see the full reality.

The first half of the game demolishes one of the biggest traits I loved, and I don't think anybody saw that coming. Everyone knows about the wheelchair bit by now, but it's only upgraded slightly, as BJ is "dying" in a power suit. Instead of being like power armor, it really acts more like just the thing that he's barely alive to live through, which carries over into the gameplay by sticking you at 50hp. That's your max. Half your health, and yes, it still partially regenerates, and the game still has enemies, movement, and gunplay that suits more of the old school mentality. This translates into a system that is just flat out broken beyond easy difficulty. You're expected to soldier through these big rooms with weapons and crazy enemies flying, hit scan shots soaking into your supposedly large pool of health, and yet you're just given 50hp. With the rate at which bullets eat up your health and fly out at you, you're reduced to nothing unless you have an overcharge.

Not only that, but you begin to notice just how flat out poorly design lots of little things are. I think some of this applies to The New Order, but I never noticed it there because the map design and core mechanics were actually working. Here you won't be finding the same working fun when a grunt in his thick black steel and iron suit is running to you at the sound of a ninja and gunning you from full to dead health before you have a chance to respond. That's not old school. Having a grenade being cooked and thrown at you to knock you down, and the enemies shoot you while you wait for a stuttering animation to let you shoot again, killing you even if you literally have full overcharge AND armor is also not old school gunplay. The crazy run and gun, circle strafing, dual weilding crazy, laser nazi killing type of fun reviews and attitude alike around this game, are just flat out not there when you die the second you peak out of the corner because your health isn't allowed over 50, and you're being shot in the back by sudden enemy closets and silent creeper. Then you have to put up with the idiots that just don't die consistently, when you use up 30 shots of machine gun on one guy, only to realize he was just tripping instead of dying, is an old annoying trait emphasized when your health is fixed at half. Then they have the audacity to put you in these terrible rooms that are either too cramped and generic hallways, or full of so many ups, downs, and turns in addition to the enemy horde that you just can't reasonable beat the thing without dying several times in a bid to luck out with where the enemies do or don't flank you. This is half of the main campaign too, going on for several levels, and a massive bulk of cut scenes and important story moments. So hope you like badly designed cover shooters in an old-school pretend skin. The first half is a more sophisticated Duke Nukem Forever, just as broken and stupidly contradicting.

I wish it was this crazy fun

Okay, so maybe it's good at story, right? Heh, this is far more subjective, but sit down and let's talk through some SPOILERS!

So the story goes pretty strong at first glance, and even in a lot of it's continuing depth. Some people hate the contrast between silly pulp fiction, and the actually dramatic and horrible nazis, but I actually like the grit and spit silliness of it all. If you can get by the fact of say... a B-grade pulp fiction head transplant as a serious life measuring tool in the same game that expects you to take death seriously, you'll be fine. I mean that, really, I am among those who won't complain at all about the silly contrasts, I actually enjoy a dark plot with some sense of humor. Everything in that vein is done really well. I was interested in the characters, I liked how many scenes and twists unfolded, there were some cool mysteries and interesting extra lore, and the cast in general was just kept interesting.

The problem isn't that the story is told pretty good in the moment, it's that the moment never has a real ending. The ending destroys everything good this story sets up so well. It's not that it's a shocking or "it's a dream" ending, but rather the lack of anything shocking or interesting, or even so convinient as to tie it up neatly. The game just flat out ends, like their budget was cut, or like the writers who actually got shit done were on holiday leave while somebody just literally tried to find the shortest way to pop the credits in stylishly. The game ends with you just literally out of nowhere, fading into the same area as your arch-enemy, and sneaking over to her where you just watch a cut-scene of BJ running and stabbing her. You then have the resistance pals take over a broadcast and shout for people to fight. Cue credits. That's it. it's literally just a sudden tip-toe to the credits deal.

It hurts the heart for all the wrong reasons

Now I had to clarify this is subjective, because apparently a lot of people liked this anti-climatic. ...and look, there's a point there, and that's fine. I get it, the villain wouldn't have suited some traditional mech boss, or some gigantic evil scheme. You were left "wanting more" in a "good way", and the resistance wasn't just done there, and that's... alright to a point. Fine, we did that, we killed that guy, I'm okay with that. The last fight they did have was cheap as fuck and badly designed, but whatever, that's not the point. I wasn't disappointed because the villain's death was cinematic, that could have been done well. I was actually really fine with it, even if a little confused at it's sudden appearance, but it was when the credits kicked in that sorrow and anger came into place. It wasn't the villain, or her end that was bad, it was the fact that the game ended and thus ended for everything around that scene. Suddenly, answers were closed, there were no more real levels that it could have gone through, and as I was just saying that made the good parts all the more shorter considering the first half was... I won't repeat it.

You had a nazi join you. Not only a nazi, but the daughter of the main villain. Her last position? She was just radioing in intel, and says nothing in the final moments. She says nothing when you murder her very mother on broadcast television. She isn't found to be saying anything. They never bring it up. It is nothing. You saw hitler suddenly a couple levels back. You left him there, doing nothing to him, and nothing was said about him. You end the game with that nothing. There was a device a few hours in, a cool contraption that your quirky smart scientist cared so much about took interest in. It was made this great deal out of, given the name of a God Key, he was so mesmerized by it, and you know where that went? NOWHERE! No exaggeration either, it literally went nowhere beyond being a mystery, and being called a god key. Nothing else. Nothing. You can't even find the character on the hub world to hear idle dialogue. It ends with nothing to that build up that you spent over an entire minute of core-campaign cut-scenes witnessing. Then there was Fergus, a character who's slightly optional under a binary choice. I played with him in it, and just before the final mission, back before it even remotely felt like the final mission, you were being opened up to a dramatic new development in his character. You had to go out of your way to find his robotic arm, which involved a five minute long flashback on his woes and why he tried to destroy it, and then you just leave once you gave it back to him, but the very reason and event that lost it to begin with... goes in the gutter. It's as important as the god key apparently. It was just filler, ending with the sudden credits after you just conveniently tip-toe to the big villain. That's just the tip of the ice berg! There's an entire character who is introduced only to disappear, amounting to nothing the whole game. Her companions were barely there as well. There's this key plot point about a ring brought up, telling you it's this big deal, but it's only wedged in a sloppy scene mid-credits like they nearly forgot about that too! Oh and several lost characters and past events, it's like they never happened. You apparently didn't do shit in the last game, and the characters that died, or were associated to your wyat/fergus timeline meant nothing! I held out hope for a mention or inclusion, even a tiny hint or call-back, but when the credits rolled in a game that felt far from over... it was all just suddenly hurried to an end and died.

Do you get what I'm saying by now? I'm not angry because of a lack of robot boss fights, I'm mad because of a lack of story all over the damn place. I'm not just angry because of the sudden villain end, which should rightfully be enough to piss off a lot of people on it's own, but I'm also pissed at all the things that just came to tease you about something that never happens. I scoured around a bit for some terribly hacked in side plots that tie in what were introduced in THE MAIN STORY-LINE, but I've yet to find anything even remotely on the subject. ...and I shouldn't have to. If you're a good writer, you don't write purple-monkey-dishwasher scenes in just to bait a stupid side-mission, you finish what you damn well started and don't make it some damn hidden side slop like it were your moldy leftovers. But even given that benefit of the doubt, I haven't seen anything. The only possible explanaition I have is that some questions will be answered by that artificial secret that is a Vault. That thing, which once enticed me as a possible surprise like maybe a new mode, is now pissing me off with the realization that the game I paid $60 for and installed 55GB onto was half-assed the whole time, and they were still fixing up a patch to finish it and are parading it as if it were some big show to be excited for. They even managed to work in a line, where you see the real vault in-game and have BJ say "What's set cooking up in there?". So they quite literally managed to work in a piece to tell you they're working on another piece, but they couldn't work in a few lines of Sigmund reacting to her own mother's cinematic death, or answer the God Key question they spent two cut-scenes imposing.

Weird shit that goes nowhere, like this guy's maps

....but this game is somehow a massive success!? Higher end of the bargain? A great narrative and action game? 8 and 9 out of 10s all over the place? Are we playing the same damn game!? This isn't hard to see, it's right in front of your faces if you actually played it to the end and paid attention, and I'm not the only person seeing the bullshit all around. Thankfully a couple others have asked where the plot went, or why the ending is so anti-climatic, but there's not enough. Googling the god key for any hidden secrets or even theories gets you no real results. Believe me, I wanted to know where the fuck this stuff goes, but the answer is nowhere. The game doesn't "leave you wanting more" because it's good, it leave you wanting a damn conclusion because it ended so terribly.

Again, I want to end this on the note that it's not a bad game. As a matter of fact, there's a lot to love. The characters and story are still going great before they end. I adore the scene that Horton is introduced in. I love what they did with dual wielding, or more importantly how weapons actually stick with you this time. I love the added replay value in hunting down nazi generals as a post end-game way to play. I also love all the potential in starting a new game and seeing news stuff with a new timeline and new mid-game gadgets. ...and when the game just goes all out crazy, a lot of it is good fun. But between the terrible opening half with the poor gunplay, and how the second half chooses to go nowhere in the story's end, the game can't seem to hold itself together. It falls miserably in one or the other of two major categories, and when it happens on the same package that you're holding on your harddrive for a whopping 55GB, you start questing how worthy this game is, or if you're just enduring the pain to get through it. This is a very flawed gem, worthy of playing for general single player FPS fans, but not a must have right now. I'd wait on it, see where it goes, and realize there's better things out there. Prey was amazing, and as for new releases, holy shit is AC:O surprisingly better than I thought. Wolfenstein had an easy path to being one of the best games of this whole year by just being a good sequel, but it choose not to do that. It's... really kinda sad. I love a lot to this game, and it's the sort of thing I stuck with and pushed through it's faults, but a lot of that pushing was spent angry and away from the fun that I love in this stuff. In a world where Doom succeeded it, it learned nothing from it, but rather fell even further into flaws than it's own predecessor.

Dropping the old PS+ sales fable

Look guys, I don't understand why this sort of thing set in, but I want it to stop. Stop with the bullshit pricing lies, and tell people how things are. When PS+ went up, with the encouraged deal that it was a value of under $5 for a whole year, I remember it sounded amazing. For just a chip out of your pay, you could have all these extra savings and freebies. Except... it's not so easy, because it wound up being $50 at the checkout. It always has been. So what's with this bullshit about it being $5 a month now? And even weirder, why the hell are other consumers talking about it this way all the time? This especially sparked up in a conversation with a journalist when discussing PS+'s value...

"The amount of entitlement people have from paying a few dollars per month is astounding. Somehow they expect 100s of dollars in free games every month for the $5 they put in."

Riiiiight....look dude, it's a lot easier to pretend a bunch of people are "entitled" when you're using a phony sales pitch to discuss what they're actually paying for. Do you get free PS+ in with your review copies of games as well? Because it's like you're not actually making the actual payments. It cost $60, and that's an important distinction. Saying it's $5 a month is just sugar-coating it, trying to make you feel better about how far the value goes, or even trying to make the argument (like here) that you're complaining your $5 doesn't transform into the best possible mileage. Really, we paid $60, and like anything you burn $60, I'd like to enjoy it. You know what else also happens to work this way, where you pay some giant sum at first for a bunch of things you don't know about until it's here? That's the season pass gamble, and last I checked, people were critical as hell of that and didn't try to spin some bullshit about how Battlefront's pass was just like paying "$5 a month". The only difference is, season passes last forever.

There is a real difference present. Not only can you no longer sugar-coat your arguments about how "entitled" all the paying customers are for voicing their opinions, but you also have to consider actual math and savings, and embrace the fact that PS+ is actually gambling. You'll be faced with the questions like:

• Can I afford to put down $60 for fun and games at the moment?
• Do I want to use that $60 on a service that does not directly add anything at this moment?
• If I buy PS+, can I still afford to spend money on this new game I've been excited for?
• How far can $60 go, and what is the best route for me?

It actually becomes a lot easier and humanizing to see that these "entitled" gamers might actually find better value elsewhere. $60 up front can get you a year worth of possible savings, deals, freebies that are amazing, or you might be looking at a loss of games you directly know you wanted. If somebody just put $60 in my pocket, I know up front I could make a decision between buying Dark Souls 2 remastered, that new Tooth and Claw game I want, and the Uncharted trilogy remastered I've been thinking about. That's five games I know I want, which is about how many PS+ games I've probably loved and found true value in, except for better or worse I'm actually doing the picking here. That is the difference! The upfront payment of $60 is what lead me to actually drop PS+. It was the final straw, the thing that made me say "No, I'm not paying that much for what I can't see. Maybe another day when I'm better paid." So let's drop this bullshit that it's $5 a month. I would love it if that were true, and Sony should put out the option, but instead you're paying $60 for a year of gambles that end in an expiration, where they come searching for another $60 they rip out up-front. That is the reality, stop pretending otherwise.

In defense of Andromeda...

So recently, I finally got to play Mass Effect Andromeda. I'll fully disclose my casual flying interest was more on the basis of being contrarian, but the reason I write this article... was genuinely because I was kinda right to be. You see, I'm really not a fan of Mass Effect, or Bioware's style of making games. They tend to make these games that have real good ideas, and then some real shit stuff mixed in with some cringe-worthy design choices. Witcher 3 honestly outdoes them on every single damn front, aim, goal, and design Bioware ever attemps to do. Whether it's the better writing, or the choices and roleplaying that feels like it actually matters, and all within one of the best and truest of open worlds that can be observed in gaming. I never was able to enjoy Bioware's stuff, even when I put myself in the right kind of mood to, something always got in the way. So when people all unite to say a game was seriously disappointing, or just outright bad, I get curious as to why people are in agreement with what I've been saying... but for different reasons. Then it actually gets out that the open design and combat are actually better... but it doesn't matter, because the fan's hearts are broken, and the game was bugged to hell. Well I put on the same mentality that let me endure Two Worlds 2, and decided to dive in to see what was better or worse about this entry. In the end... I not only think it's better, but I'm considering making my first serious purchase for the first time ever (considering the rest of my attempts were gifts or rentals). I genuinely liked Andromeda. Though I will make it very clear, it still has issues, including much of the typical Bioware bullshit.

My face is tired, and I must scream

Everyone loves to make fun of that one line. You know what I'm talking about, and if you really don't, well it's right above in the image. People have essentially laughed and mocked it to the point of putting it on a plaque, and passing it around as the schoolyard's best prank. It's the icon of infamy for this game, and then there's.... oh yeah, like nothing else being mentioned. People really hype the dialogue as something terrible, with quite a lot of cringing. Then I hear quite a few others talk about how poor the decisions are, or the reactions in your character and how they don't match up with what you choose. To that I ask... are you newer to this than me? Seriously, where the fuck have you guys been, this is like Bioware's code of ethics. This is up there among one of the reasons I most detest in a Bioware game, yet somehow most are only seeing it here like it were a new discovery.

Somewhere out there in their offices, I'm sure they have a rule written that at least 40% of the text to talk must betray the player's expectations (whilst pretending you have strong sense of choice), and this game is only the sixth or so time in them doing it. That's why there's a freakin' emotion icon right with the choice, because god knows you can't actually decipher the path you're taking without it. That's the only thing with some accurate guide, a good game wouldn't need it. But sure, let's all point and laugh at this particular entry only because we already started with "my face is tired". That is a terrible, and horrendous line, but... it's like one of maybe three or four missteps in two books worth of scripts and dialogue. I'm not going to condemn the game on that. Same with the choices in your way. You get wedged into some weird scenarios where they over-simplify your possible solutions and answers, including an attemped murder case where attempted murder isn't even in the vocabulary and you must decide whether or not a guy should be free for misfiring, or busted for a false murder. That is honestly a dumb design, but... it's nothing new! It's on a dialogue wheel, not in a void of awesome possibilities. As a guy who's been forced to trudge through Mass Effect 2's first three-four hours over and over, and over again, trust me I can tell you there aren't a tone of real choices that matter, nor a lot of my preferred methods. Mass Effects has always been more about the thrill ride and seeing ideas, than giving you actual deep control. Before you argue, just remember ME3's ending. I'm only dealing with it here because my expectations were set so low long ago, and I'm able to enjoy the rest of the stuff surrounding the dialogue that dances with two left-feet.

Shepard is dead

I kinda get this, but at the same time it's one of the sillier complaints too. On the better side... well, it's your beloved main character of a bold and impactful story-heavy series. You stuck with him a trilogy all devoted to making him the coolest guy in the known and unknown universe, and now he's tossed aside. But at the same time... you guys can't seriously go buying the game, and saying it's unexpected. This was all over, Shepard wasn't going to just show up here. He's not your pal, he's not your hero, he's dead in the 3rd game, and this is a totally place and theme going on in the same universe. Same IP, new story, and new characters. If I can deal with the butchering and loss of Spyro after a solid trilogy, and then a total betrayal of what his entire branding and genre was, I'm sure you guys can live with a faithful recasting that expands upon the features and tries anew.

Oh, and I freakin' love the new story and characters, just saying. The prior trilogy that I knew of did some cool stuff to. I liked the illusive man and that mysterious plot, I loved how the opening of ME2 gave a cool reason into constructing a confused and lost shepard, and I enjoyed some of the politics at the citedel, or some of the scenes. Oh yeah, and Garrus was amazing, nobody sane and stable is fighting anyone on that point. Still, I really, really, really dug into some of the overlapping stuff going on here. Let's go over some of it just to recap on how epic in scope this story really is:

• Sent to colonize a new galaxy, 600 years into the making, only to find things go wrong and a mystery is out there.
• Mysterious aliens that can be barely understood, and those aliens are studying other mysterious aliens they don't understand, and then you get stuck helping other aliens who are fighting the first aliens over what the mysterious other aliens are all about. All of the 3 new races are conflicted in mystery, and trying to kill each other over figuring out, and you just show up and get stuck being a 4th array of aliens that they don't know, and you don't know them. It's the best kind of confusion.
• SAM is an awesome concept that melds well with gameplay and story. A convinient scanning guy, and perk gifter, while being secretly mixed into your brain and passed on from your father. Oh, and it all came from an illegal process, and SAM is like an unrestricted super computer leaching onto your brain. Questions? Of course you have them, so play the game and figure out more.
• Where are all the other ARKS?
• There was a freakin' mutiny onboard with all sorts of lingering angst to figure out and solve, old rebels lingering out there, and then even the guys who helped out became their own outlier group to figure out and win back.
• There's a power struggle between all the main commanders, and it laughably turns out the one winning was an accountant who got lucky by having all seven of the higher commanders die in a random flash of chaos.
• Oh yeah, and that random flash of chaos is kind of a weird piece of the plot that also needs to be resolved.
• You've got a twin sister/brother who is trapped in cryo sleep, with occasional concern or breakthroughs there.

Now on top of all that, there's all the new characters at work here. I personally love Vetra's character a lot, being a person who's simultaneously a cunning rogue, and a stern commander. Then there's the braggart veteran warrior Drak who's surprisingly chill and yet gruff, the bumbling everyday man of Liam, the previous mentioned accountant commander who is power hungry enough to annoy you, yet is also a total fanboy for you. There's so much here, meanwhile back in ME2 and 3... it was all a bit meh to me. I loved Garrus's character, and the rogue that came with DLC, but beyond that... all so meh. I really never grew a big attachment to any of them, but with Andromeda it's harder to find someone I don't care about in some capacity. Even a few of the ones I am more bitter about are kinda cool in how I don't quite like them. Meanwhile, I don't see the problem others do with Scott Ryder either. His voice actor is just fine, and he's a chill but confident type I can get behind and relate to in a reasonable sort of manner. Shepard was never bad either, but... I felt he was just trying to be serious and done with things. Gruff, stern, and a commander, but the sort of guy I'd usually see as an NPC than the main hero. I can't say I miss him much myself, and I thin Ryder could be given more of a break.

So, those glitches and wonky things?

About that... by this point in the patch, I ain't got much to report on. One time a wall was invisible until it loaded, another time there was a silent line (a common glitch in this kinda game), and there was occasional animation hiccups in trying to have it leap from gameplay to conversation. Aside from that, I'm thinking this all went roughly smooth, especially considering the shit development cycle I heard this game go through. They pulled this thing off incredibly well for a game that was essentially made by a B-team in around a year's time (they claim it was a decade in the making, but it was almost ALL concept and writing type work. Due to engine flips and all other sorts of mess, it was essentially crunched on in around a year or two's time). Though I do also understand that some characters came out looking a little ugly, but I'm personally more forgiving because I've seen much worse in gaming. Still, a fair point to bash, it's 2017 and you're wondering why humans look like animatronics with synthetic rubber skin stretched across their faces.

Still I won't deny there are some... other problems. I was fairly livid a couple of times when stupid things sent me back to my ship, interrupting the flow of my first real colony. Look guys, of all times for an "are you sure" button, you freakin' need it on the loadout thing. Nobody else on this whole world uses a back button for CONFIRM AND DEPLOY right on the most vital options for a mission. But here we are, where a multi-tab and layered system of options is set to go with the simple accident of an accidental extra press of backing out of one of the several menus of your choice. It's so easy to slip up on this, that I go ahead and do a manual loadout at the locker before I do it via mission deployment, just because I know it could screw me over and send me out with the wrong squad mate or weapons. Then there was the nomad. Who the fuck puts an instant evac, again with NO CONFIRMATION MENUS on the common exit vehicle button? It's admittedly a hold button at least, but I never would have thought driving around in a jeep would have a single button that just teleports you to the ship, right off the planet. That's a tad bit extreme, especially when there's no "are you sure" things. I never thought I would be asking for those annoying prompts, but Andromeda does fuck up in that area, and I won't deny that a bit. Then there's just all the damn convoluted minerals, the fact your ship has to manually fly over little sight-seeing, and you have to wait on that to load, and the mission strike teams are slow and grindy as hell, etc. There's lots of little dumb things like this in the programming. The shitshow of a dev cycle this game went through shows here more so than anywhere else, and I'm not sure if they will or even can just patch this stuff up with a magic wand.

Oh hey, level design is actually used

When people compliment the combat of this game, it's an understatement to leave it alone at that. The combat actually isn't too improved in itself. You still have weightless laser guns, enemies that bathe in your ammo before going down, and a very shallow system of squad commands and perks + powers. The only real addition at surface level is the evade and momentum type stuff, and the reason why that actually works is because: they actually have half-decent level design this time! Seriously, has anybody ever gotten on Mass Effects case about this, or is it just me? Damn near every level in this wide galaxy was a connection of corridors with hiding walls, maybe a slight open area, and then a funnel into another series of halls. Every single level was the most literal and textbook example of a corridor shooter, and not the fun Killzone 2 kind, but rather literal corridors everywhere. That's a really stupid oversights for a game that pretends it's all about an open story, exploring the galaxy, and presenting ideas. It bored me to death, and made me dread the levels in any replay, especially Korlus.

Every damn level was like this!

I'm not a big fan of open world as a concept, because it's usually done lazy or I just don't care, but Mass Effect was always a series where I was asking myself "why not!?". Besides, it was clear the linearity here wasn't for tighter quality when it was all the must dull corridors ever. It was begging for open world. Exploring the galaxy, making friends, doing side-quests, it all just made sense to open the game up to reflect those themes. ME:A finally does that,  and then realizes it enough to give you boosts, jet jumps, fun platforming challenges, and offroad fun. It embraces it even better than Dragon Age now, and we've got a galaxy with planets that are actually welcoming to the basic idea of moving around. You still have those funnels and those walls, and the vault place I went through was a callback to ME shit design, but I've got my expectations within reason, I'm not expecting a Far Cry here. If a few places still need to be tight or were designed in a hurry, fine, but the game has enough diversity and mechanics working within that, that it's actually fun. I still remember being able to run up a cliff, jump off of it, land on top of my space ship, and have my crew make fun of me for it. That kind of thing was great, and a step up where Mass Effect finally upgraded to modern standards. ...so yeah, naturally within all of this, the combat is also more fun, because I'm not fighting a 7th wave of bulletsponge enemies thinking "when is this stupid hallway going to end!?", instead it's more to push forward and to actually see what happens next.

So is it a "golden world" or not?

Andromeda feels very similar to my outlook of the main plot honestly, except I didn't go in expecting glory and golden worlds. I came in expecting a strange game that had a mixed and mediocre reception, and for it to possibly be the change I wanted in the series. What really happened, whether I see it that way or not, was disaster behind the scenes. However in the debris, there's still hope, and a lot worth exploring and seeing. It's not a golden world, but it's a place worth staying with some work, and after the patches I'd say some of that work has been done. The rest is the sort of thing that's up to the player: Unfold the story. There are some cringe moments, and remaining Bioware bullshit that make me shake my head, or agonize over something, and the occasional newer feature that is just poorly done, but for every moment that frustrates or slows the journey, there's more telling me to move on and see what's next. It's an actually decent game that seems inviting, unlike Mass Effect 2 that I tried so hard to trudge through time and time again, and could not enjoy it so well in all the time there. ME3 was better, but not good enough to send me back. But with everyone bitching about Andromeda... well, it's brought the game's price down to a comfortable level, and I think I'll buy it while reminding you guys to chill out. Some of the complaints just pale when considering the whole series was always flawed in places, and then others are just not bad enough to stall me from a good adventure. It's not a fantastic game, but it's a good enough game, and I'm excited to see more from it and will be considering a purchase.

Less posting...

So, I haven't been posting on here much lately, and now that's definitely going to happen even less. Prior to recent events, I worked very loosely under an off and on schedule thanks to knowing an awesome self-employed guy. Now, I work a more ordinary job at a restaurant and am writing this on my first day off. My time is running much shorter, and while I love writing, there's some other things to do in that time.

However even prior to this new switch in time and pacing, I was writing elsewhere. I was off getting deeper and deeper into creative writing, wrapping up work on posting a novel-like story on a forum, and diving deeper into new projects, an episodic sci-fi series, and very recently a story I'm cooperatively writing with a pal. Oh, and a blog detailing extra bits or ideas about such stories. Every time I tried to start an article here, it was only started or half-assed, and never made it to publishing. This blog just felt less relevant to what I wanted to do, and instead of printing out 5-15 bits a month, I found myself with nearly nothing to say within reason or inspiration. Last article was on the joke that was the Arc Survival controversy, but now it's just too late, and feels too stupid to really discuss.

So I'm going to be taking a bit of a break away from here, only turning out stuff when I have the time and true passion. You might see me put out a final two before hiatus, because I want to ramble on a bit about creatures in fiction, and about platformers and intuitive gameplay, but then that'll be about it for the foreseeable future. I'm going to likely return to more of a habit about keeping games to gaming, and writing to writing, and not intermingle with them on here so often. This isn't exactly a goodbye, but it's likely it could boil down to a post every three or so months rather than my old activity.

The games of E3...

So E3 happened. And a lot of things at E3 happened. So this is my summary and thoughts on things that grabbed my attention. It should be recognized that I did not watch the live streams, and have merely looked over at the after-math type news. Still, if it was good enough for the internet, it's good enough to write and post about what stood out to me. Still, I have not seen everything. Also, another note is that nothing makes this list other than just the thought that I have something I want to say on it. This isn't a straight hype list, best of E3, or other nonsense. A lot of this is positive stuff, but still most of this is just "I want to talk about it" stuff.

Far Cry 5

Far Cry has kind of been one of those games I guess I quietly fanboy over. I'm not major fan, I mean there's nothing really to be attached to in the usual sense. Every game is a new character, a new place, new atmosphere, but mechanically... it's a mix of features and mayhem to a scale that make it the closest thing to a modern day Mercenaries game. You've got war torn people, can hire in stuff, all sorts of outposts and territories to capture in addition to eccentric story mode quests, and then they mix in so many other features that just feel so good. Far Cry 3 to 4 was a "re-skin" to shallow minds exhausted of surface-deep relations, but to me it was the mile between a good game, and a mastering of such work that it went towards my GOTY. Far Cry 5 is doing little to slow that down. It's another sequel, featuring most of the core mechanics and principles, and I'm happy enough with that.

I barely paid attention to it, but what I saw was essentially "we upgraded your primal pet. He's super-dog, your trusty side-kick". That's all I really saw at a surface level, but it's good enough for me. I'm essentially sold already, I know it's going to be a good time if they keep the base features. I ran a mental checklist in my mind, and everything from AI hiring, to re-breaking your hand for healing, was back in. Even my concerns with a more stale setting eroded when I realized just how good Ubisoft is at building a world anywhere, and it's honestly still looking like a great time. It might also be one of the only games that I'm possibly too impatient to wait for, it just doesn't feel like a 2018 kinda game.

...oh yeah, and because those guys are already out there, if you want Far Cry to be a different game maybe... *gasp* Go to a different game. Maybe you didn't notice it, but there's tons of other products that are doing different stuff at E3. It's kind of the point of E3. So quite expecting Far Cry to suddenly cater exclusively to your vague "change" wish. It doesn't revolve around you, and can't read your mind as to what you wish it to transform into. I'll probably have to write another article on this continuing bullshit of "ew, it's the same" all over again. ...I guess you could say the internet stays stays the same on that regard.

Metro Exodus

Like Far Cry, it's has little to do with "what did you show", and more like the fact that you did show it. Metro is a damn good series, and as long as it does it's job and gives us a fun ride, I'm fine for that trip. Metro showed us more Metro being Metro. You walk through dark places, beat up mutants, explore the outdoors while worrying about supplies, and then get attacked by a crazy set-piece monsters. It's the best scripted nonsense type of game out there, and I think they can manage to get away with releasing yet another brilliant FPS game that I should theoretically hate. The big news is essentially, Metro is back for a 3rd round, and depending on my mood during launch... I'll probably be there for it. It's supposedly open world, but I have no idea how that's going to work since it isn't shown off in any way, so we'll see for that. I'm hoping they can keep it all good under that new direction.

Assassins Creed: Origins

Here's where things get more difficult. AC is simultaneously a great and terrible franchise. It has so much clutter, dips, turns, inconsistencies, and just... it's a mess. It's become every single flaw of AAA rolled up into one. There's no focus, it's cluttered, it's too new and gimmicky, it's too "the same", etc. It's everything wrong in a box, but it's also fantastic. It also has some fantastic ideas, some of the most unique settings in direct video games, has so many cool stories to tell, so many chances for cool moments to pop up, and so many way to just grip you. Now, they're doing it in egypt. I was enchanted for all of half a minute, before sky-spy fad rolled in and started marking targets by arbitrary numbers that were whispering "you better have a matching level requirement for your blades to stab these normal people". Seconds later, and we were seeing skinner box shoving confirmed with a level up system, followed up with some of the most clunkiest combat I might have ever seen in the series, ending the last second with a magic controlling arrow mode. Following it up with an epic cinemaitc-like showing of the world, a giant snake, and real bosses, and you have a roller coaster ride of cringe and delight. This game... has my attention, but it also has my fury. It's one of those games I am so badly hoping it turns out great, but I'm lying every time I say I think it's going to turn out fantastic. Everything that is right and wrong with the AAA industry is present here, and... c'mon now ubisoft, we've been waiting on Egyptian assassins creed since Brotherhood. Do not fuck such an easily cool thing up with your focus-tested bullshit, and slopped together clumsy combat. I guess, come October, we'll see where it ends up.

Wolfenstein: The new Colossus

Do I need to justify why this is amazing!? It's a new Wolfenstein, doing more of what made it amazing! Dual weapons, lots of guns blazing, nazi stabbing, but it takes place in american now with some crazier new characters, further developed relationships, and a lot of new crazy enemy types. Yes, yes, yes! Love it all! I still haven't heard anything about the mechanics, but I don't see why they'd change it up. Since then, they got two answers that were both in their favor: People loved the first. And then, people loved Doom perhaps even more. So yeah, old-school mechanics are amazing, they have zero reasons to ditch them, I think I'm justifed in hyping on this train. ...and then they have the nerve to tell me it'll be at the end of this year. Bethesda, you're trying way to hard to win E3 with just this one game.

Shadow of The Colossus

Turns out Wolfenstein wasn't the only big attention grabber with Colossus in the name. Now that word, almost always spawns yet another game in mind, and it is exactly that game... again... remade on PS4. I didn't quite expect this, but yet nodded my head, understanding that there was a clear demand for such a game. SotC is a classic that people still compare a few other games to, and think about when talking amazing PS2 quality, or just great art and indie-like products. It was a strange boss rush adventure concept that just worked, and I can still remember my friends in middle school talking about how weird but cool it was. When I got it with PlayStation Plus, I would get these weird moods for a lonely adventure, and SotC was one of the sole best things to itch that scratch. However as a general rule, it ain't my thing. I'm not all too into just an entire game dedicated to boss rushes, and empty gaps of searching and wandering in-between. I have to be in a special mood for that. Disconnected, concentrated, time on my hands, lonely adventure mood, the will for patience and trials, etc. I needed to essentially be in such a mood that would require me to go on a real adventure. Be willing to test my patience, have my gear, and be ready. If I wanted that, SotC was the best thing there is, and I welcome it's presence back. Depending on the price, I might have to pick this up and go at it, excited to return. However, it ain't normally my cup of tea, so my hype is a little waned. I... don't know. Still, awesome of Bluepoint games to go behind this game, and I wish them luck. It's going to make some people very, very, happy.

Spider-man

I'm going to come right out and say it, this was my biggest disappointment out of real feelings across the E3 show. I didn't have a whole lot of hope behind it, but still... it managed to hurt a slight bit. I remember seeing the original tease to this, and thinking "...yeah. Yeah! Yeah, Insomniac and Spider-man, yeah! This could work! Spider-man and Insomniac both love attitude, it's new and bold grounds for a great company, I love almost all their work, and just look at all this energy behind it. This is going to probably be fun, and maybe it'll bring out that inner-kid of me that used to love this superhero." Now jump to present day. I was distracted almost instantly, as the web slinging was damn button prompts on corners as if it were hacking from Watch Dogs rather than YOUR BEST METHOD OF MOMENTUM! Then insert dry and overused arkham comb combat, half-assed stealth, and then a glimmer of hope as you could sandbox the environment, right before the entire second half of an 8 minute trailer wound up falling into the grips of rapid QTE chase script sequence. Oh boy, so exciting to press the shoulder buttons at the right time, I'm totally spider-man here guys! It was overscripted, cliche among one of the formulas I hate the most, and then there's the fact that it just plain didn't appeal to me. Not a second I spent thinking fondly of anything I saw, it all had me kind of either in Okay or lower territory.

Look, I'm not trying to burn the hype train here. Insomniac seems to show a lot of respect for the character, and I know this is giving you a lot of things spider-man deserves. There's some nice winds and nods at play, great care in the polish and presentation, and it genuinely does seem spider-man-y. If that's all you want, to play spiderman, you're looking at one of the best games in a long while. However as a gamer, and Insomniac fan, who was merely hoping by chance to be pulled into spider-man from loving a just plain great game, it failed in every way. I'm not thrilled at all, and I can only hope future trailers will show me a better side with the promise that set pieces don't fill 1/3rd of the game, and it actually fixes Arkam's style by actually being fun. I'm not holding out for that kind of high hope though. Some people lost their shit and called this their darling child, but I'm stepping back cringing a bit like I wound up in the room by accident.

Dishonored: Death of the outsider

Look, I'm thrilled about this somewhere in my mind, especially after discussing Spider-man that can't do web-swinging right, while Dishonored has shown us how momentum powers are done right. However, the space requirements are a bitch, and I just haven't even been enjoying Dishonored 2 itself quite as much as I should because other things are consuming the memory, and rotating out. That, and we have absolutely no gameplay to be excited about. I love the idea, the plot, and the fact that anybody can jump in with it as a standalone, but I can't be excited for anything else. I know Arkane will do well though, so I'm sure I'll get around to visiting it, and I'm sure some of it will be fantastic. I'm looking forward to seeing what they bring, especially with the weird cyborg-looking style. I was beginning to be worried Dishonored was done at 2, but it looks like they came up with a follow-up to the original DLC plan they pulled with the original. I'm glad about that, just... not as much as I feel I should be. But on the other hand, Prey is amazing and current GOTY for me, so still good on you Arkane!

Beyond Good & Evil 2

Oh yeah, it happened. Finally happened. I don't have a lot of attachment to this franchise, but damn does it still feel good. I respect it for what it was, and I love this insanely creative type of world, and with this reveal... they just slapped you in the face with it, over and over. It was fantastic. A crazy British monkey with a giant metal grappling claw, a pig with a Fu Manchu type mustache passing deals, crazy hover craft police mobiles, space warp drives, diesel punk color pallet, and they all swear like sailors. It's fucking amazing nonsense that reminds me of why games are awesome! I'm going to keep my eye on this, cautiously optimistic.

Anthem

Hey look, it's not Destiny! That's the vibe I got from this one for the most part. It's trying hard to be it in a lot of ways, sounding like another online only looter adventure with cheesy clean mic buddies having a good time about playing co-op together on a mission. It's, like Destiny, a game that would look so cool and appealing to me if they just made a traditional fun adventure shooter with it. Instead, it looks like you're going to be comparing weapon variables, number crunching, and running back and forth with chore work quests, while hoping your internet stays connected to bullshit forced servers just in case you wanted to play with your friends. IF under the chance it comes out honoring single players, I might give it a rent and see where it goes there. I'll give them this credit, it didn't look as slow, dull, boring, or predictable as the other Bioware things they usually touch. It looked like a genuinely normal sci-fi action game made by whoever else, until the co-op crap slapped itself in the way and instantly felt more Destiny inspired. I guess what I'm saying is, I've got a heavy skeptical eye on this one, but it stands out just enough to actually put here and talk about. I can't really say Bioware did right or wrong, just that they didn't do so wrong that I continue to shun them in a corner with a giant "overrated" stamp like they usually deserve.