Too good for fun

Before I even start, I know in some capacity this article is either silly, or ironically getting worked up in semantics as a response to people being worked up in semantics. Still, as with many of these topics, it comes from a place of bugging me for more than one time too many, and channels through with another more modern hit. The Last of Us 2 (oh, sorry, "part 2") has recently come out with a statement specifically declaring they'd rather not use the word fun. They have trained their team to respond to the dog whistle of "engaging" to avoid a sense of immediate pleasure that follows through the word of fun. In this article, the usual talking head goes on to say stuff like...

"We believe that if we’re invested in the character and the relationships they’re in and their goal, then we’re gonna go along on their journey with them and maybe even commit acts that make us uncomfortable across our moral lines and maybe get us to ask questions about where we stand on righteousness and pursuing justice at ever-escalating costs."

Which sounds nice, except before that bit, this is their reason as to why they can't say fun, but rather "engaging". Because... fun is a rotten word for darker stories apparently. Its further elaborated as...

"Our aesthetic approach to violence is to make it as grounded and real as possible, and we watch – sometimes uncomfortably – a lot of videos from the world, right? The world that we know, and trying to say, 'Okay, we don’t want to make it sexy. How do we make it real? How do we make it uncomfortable because art at times should be uncomfortable?'"

...and like I said before, if this were just a directing choice in and of itself, by all means go for it. I'm proud of that, and fine with dark, agonizing, and thought provoking games. Games that challenge your perspective, and make you walk away thinking about things, questioning the characters or even your own player-choice actions, and the things contained within the magic that is really just programmed storage space on a re-purposed computer. Games are magical in their scope, immersion, and the creative and interesting teams behind it make gaming so cool. That's part of what makes it fun, regardless of whatever brainwashing and violent flick nights go on in Naughty Dog to force themselves to call it by a different name. That's where I take the issue though, where they're brainwashing themselves into a pretentious and somewhat goofy sense of maturity, where games aren't allowed to be fun anymore, and they feel like they're committed to some higher art in the process of snuffing it out. There's a good lesson about that in a sillier place Druckmann & friends may have long lost touch with.

"Its not 'playing' a guitar, its 'engaging' it!" ~ Probably Druckmann

...though the funny thing is, for a guy who is a stickler about what to call fun, he sure throws the word 'sexy' around like it was loose as hell. Violence isn't sexy unless you've got some real dark and specific fetishes, but even then that ain't the stuff of video games. Nobody is asking for that, nor do we describe a game like Doom as sexy. We call it fun, because that's what video games, or even most of consumable media are. Its this situation all over again though, where the truth is they don't care about word play, they just want to sound arrogant and artistically meaningful. So they think of themselves as too good for fun, and bury themselves further down the pretentious artist hole, boasting about how they make "meaningful" games now instead of fun ones. Because ya'know, games are art, until we get to the next step where we're not allowed to call them games either. ...and really, games are art, but art is a fun and exciting medium that pokes at our creativity, and brings a mixture of emotional excitement, thought, and bliss into our lives whereas we just see and do stuff by our own hands. Its real, its complex, and games are a part of it, but there's a misunderstanding with all art that it must be "deep" to be of quality, and then you get idiotic ideas like this where its apparently not allowed to be fun to be at that standard.

Its not just Naughty Dog though, this issue is an odd thing I've seen more of lately around general op-ed pieces, and concerning other games or film. I often now here "Well, you don't call a horror movie fun" ...to which I reply, actually yes, I really fucking do if it was a genuine enjoyable one. As a matter of fact I'll return that with, "so you don't have fun at thrill rides?" If a horror movie wasn't fun, that literally takes a direct translation to it not being worthwhile, or engaging. The two are directly linked, but never does it mean it can't also do more like scare, provoke, or challenge me in some way. I'll enjoy the extra thoughts and depth, but I find such a depth (if done well) to be fun. I never walk away from something I enjoyed saying, "it was too much ___" to be fun. ...and this is ironic, because I must admit if there was ever a close exception, Last of Us 1 might be it. However its still fun! Its just it was also long enough, difficult enough, and story driven enough to make it not worth it to play more than once for the time being. The impact was delivered, and the fun simply wasn't in returning long enough to endure another entire journey through. Partial way, yeah, but not fully. It was still fun though. The mechanics, core health system, inventory management, survival choices, and thrills of proceeding from one major story point to the next, as well as all the exploration in-between, were quality fun. So was Dark Souls, despite its many ups and downs of difficulty and relief-to-frustration ratio, and so was my time with the crazy PT demo. These were fun.

If an emotion ever overrides fun, its probably stress from a bad game design, or a game that is just flat out unpleasant or boring to play. So its a bad game, or a bad game for me. There will never be a fantastic or enjoyable game I want to have that just "isn't fun" or can't be described as such. That's not because it was too deep, or too emotionally gripping, but rather because something like COD lacked the depth to keep me having fun. Again, I automatically evaluate fun with the engagement in a game or piece of fiction. That is their purpose, to excite and transport me into another world of different dramas, puzzles, conflicts, or person's imagination, and the act - if interesting and valued at all - is the value of fun. Trying to argue it can't be fun because "emotions!" or "we're all edgelords about it!" is like trying to tell me I can't call soccer fun because its exercise.

I will have fun, damnit!

I know, at the end of the day the reality is these guys just have a stricter idea of the word fun. They think of the more obvious big smiles all the time, grinning dudebros, and bombastic points and gamey systems overlapped in a quick hour of escapism and beers or energy drinks, or the fun in movies to be popcorn flicks. However its a strange word to get strict over, and honestly when it comes to statements like these, there's only one purpose to them. If they were going for a dark and edgy sort of feel, it speaks to itself, or they'd go more into detail about the steps taken. However instead they're just virtue signaling about what edgelords they are, too good to call things fun with this game. Instead they go around telling interviews and gaining headlines about being serious art now, as if they need to validate it for someone, or compensate for some insecurities. In the process, they might be slowly drifting away from the actual thing I would call fun, which means their game might come closer to sucking, which sucks for the whole big picture as I don't want that. In an environment where they're falling into politicized internet arguments, admitting they're way behind in making anything resembling the game only a few months back, abandoning creativity, and making pay to win multiplayers, the last thing they need to be trying to say is "we're not about fun" to keep a hold on fans. Honestly, I don't hold that against Last of Us 2 (though I'm certainly not compelled to care about it either), but rather the distinct possibility that Naughty Dog is in going to start declining or only go down from here if they don't pick up their heads a little and actually talk about the game rather than their agendas, or how pretentious they are.

Authentic tones, and divided fans...

I'm not a guy that necessarily likes or dislikes realism. I can enjoy it in bits and pieces, and sure, you can call it cherrypicking, at the end of the day I want my games to be fun. I don't care what you call that, its the point of video games. However how you arrive at that can amass in many different ways. I don't play by this idea that entertainment and fun exclusively equals wide grinning smiles. You need immersion, and enjoyment of the product, and that's a loose and broad, but very fitting approach to how to get to "fun". So with that, how do we approach a polarizing subject like historical accuracy, and authenticity? Technically the authentic route in a game with violence is to stop working the moment the player first dies. However, as games like Dark Souls and... pretty much every other game in existence stands to suggest, that's not the key to victory, and that's not what people mean when they talk about obtaining authentic behavior or realism. So... can we stop making these awful strawmen arguments?

though admittedly this was funny

What people ask for when they want "realism" varies often by a series standard, or their exact context, but its never the exact reality of the situation or else they would just dive right into it. To simulate or be even just immersed is a slight different story, but still one of noble ambitions to limit a piece of art towards obtaining the spirit and heart of the setting. Most of us don't want to see katanas in a more modern military style shooter, nor do we want the same katana in the hands of a realistic norse game, and likewise it would just look off if someone were to say... cast Abraham Lincoln as a chinese man in a wheel chair, or choose a native american soldier as the red coat in an upcoming American Revolutionary war game. Saying something isn't right, or something is amiss isn't the same as suggesting "my game now needs to stop working after I die once" type of realism, it just means you fucked up the basic level of believability for the setting, and damaged the basic point of even choosing that setting or ideal area to begin with, unless of course you were intentionally going alt-history or steampunk fantasy. ...and I have no problem with that, by all means, go crazy fantasy with this shit, just do it in your own space and with that loudly at the declaration. However if the first thing you note is "we're a Vietnam game", and then you give me katana wielding frenchmen, I'm raising some questions. Not because of some idiotic strawmen of "Oh you don't like french people or katanas" No, fuck off, I don't like it because the idiots designing the game forgot what their game was even supposed to represent.

However you think I'm probably being silly, unless of course you know what this is building up to. You think I'm just saying silly things, and there would never be such a crazy thing as a chinese wheelchair man posing as abe lincoln, or some katana frenchman in Vietnam, but yet the entire time you're laughing at these mock-ups, Battlefield V's trailer exists with a frequent energetic woman soldier flipping around in the WW2 era, jumping and shooting backwards out of an exploding house, doing fast paced combat better than most in a constantly energetic and twitchy fast-paced battleground, with a prosthetic two-piece claw arm, and just when she steps out of the spotlight for a second she comes back in on a close-up scene to save the FPS-perspective player. If you somehow stopped your brain functions and decided the only thing I noted out of that entire recap was "ew, women!" then get off the internet, do some jogging, get some fresh air into that thick skull, and come online only when you can think and comprehend thoughts again like a matured human being. That's not what I said, I am in fact pointing out how batshit crazy this "latest WW2 Battlefield" game has decided to pitch itself as with the very first trailer and spotlighted appearance. This is what they want to show off as their return to WW2 after nearly a decade. A series that has been the pinnacle of mainstream semi-tactical competitive multiplayer, with large militaristic possibilities all in a team coordinated large war field lite simulation. ...and now they choose their big WW2 game will be best represented with a disabled tenacious claw woman rushing in with assault rifles, jumping out of falling buildings, and into jeeps where she just perfectly shoots out semi-auto rifle rounds from a moving vehicle with her claw arm, and expects fans to somehow NOT call bullshit. That's without noting the gameplay implications also poked at by the same angry fans. The fast paced action and chaos, with chatty characters, was more of a strange warped fusion between COD and Overwatch than it was a sessions of Battlefield.

Look, people aren't mad here because of some arbitrary "realism" meter. The fact is Dice or EA decided the best way to pitch this game, was through the lens of the most crazy and unblievable fashion imaginable, crushing your immersion and sensibilities from the start with super badass claw english woman at the forefront. No amount of "but women and those prosthetic types were technically in the war, and-" will strike down how crazy and unbelievable the whole scene was. ...and once again, neither does it help when somebody's smug dumbass decides that asking for a slightly better and more immersive representation is the same as wanting your game to be a straight parallel to real life. Look, we get it, games can be unrealistic and are meant for fun. Media in general is permitted to do these things. We were all fine with Wolfenstein, we were all happy with the world aspect of The Order 1887, and we can have quite a lot of fun with crazy games like Timesplitters, or Killzone. Those clearly aren't real, and even their realistic inspirations are a stretch, but the difference is they made it clear from the start, and their ambitions to entertain you were as different as Candy Crush is to Portal. We didn't get Disney's Mulan as a real life tale of what really happened, we got it as a more modern american spin on an old folk tale. However when a more serious game series, established with mostly semi-accurate portrayals of wide open battles and interesting settings and events, says its doing WW2, its perfectly acceptable to find it jarring when their reveal is a tinge away from being both Steampunk action, and another less serious game franchise like COD. Many fans of that franchise were not expecting, nor wanting, that kind of game shown off there. It was bad marketing and a misjudgement of their own consumer base at the very least, and disgusting political pandering and drama-stirring PR calculation at its very possible worse, but in either scenario... its not an easy reveal for fans to take in, otherwise there wouldn't be a big fuss. Somebody fucked up.

Nobody expected a realistic Robin Hood from Disney, but Battlefield is another case...

...and look, I'm not here to rain on Dice's parade. If their message against this controversy were true, I could respect it a little. Fun and authenticity can be difficult to balance in a way. Its tough sometimes to figure out whether you want the gun jamming of Far Cry 2, or to just make the setting itself exclusively feel right while the gameplay is gamey as hell. However... most devs never reached a point of throwing Elephants in Far Cry 5's America, or giving COD WW2 a space station launched nuke. That's where Dice fucked up, in the same spot and reason the actual new Robin Hood movie trailer is being scrutinized to pieces rather than the Disney one. There's a difference between having fun, and pretending to take up a serious mold while still being sillier than even the one clearly having fun. Its not that they're some innocent child sitting over there trying to figure out what's fun, and what matches the theme, but rather the fact Dice have all but pushed the ignite switch on this controversy by including the most ridiculous thing at the forefront of their reveal. In addition to katanas, crazy fast-paced action, and twitchy weapon combat, you had a handicap claw-armed woman in an era where she was a minority. Yet here she was diving in wrecklessly, dying, jumping out of an exploding building just magically alive again, and returning to conveniently save someone else at the front of the camera. Somebody out there tried debuking this situation as "oh, you could run on exploding blimps in BF1, but we only complain when there's women", and here I stand shrugging at that, not even sure if that's possible in BF1, because the fact is Dice weren't stupid enough to make that the highlight and main point of their WW1 game. This is the first thing we see out of their WW2 effort though, and its practically just as crazy, and they're standing behind this as a virtue signaling proud moment to "represent their players" with possibilities like this. ...fuck off with that bullshit Dice, what you really have here is something crazy enough to be an accidental Bad Company 3 advertisement, except you lost any talent to make a good game worth that title. So we're left with this bullshit, and the possible first sign that your series is collapsing and doesn't know what to do with itself as EA pushes you to make the next annual thing every year.

At the end of the day Dice you have two better options to pick from with this situation: 1) Market your games better and more appropriate. Tone matters, whether you seem to actually put effort into it or not, and consumers will see and discuss it. 2) Make this a spin-off, and go all out on steampunk craziness. By all means, I am serious, and would even rather play that game than whatever garbage you had planned here. Within this perimeter you can truly do whatever, including a playable wheelchaired Chinese Lincoln. No wait, you can make it a she, and give her a claw as well. No, make that a minigun arm! It'd be far more welcomed and enjoyable than pretending such nonsense would make it into a common WW2 battle ground filled with wacky antics. You can do whatever you want without concern of authenticity, or even basic laws of nature, as long as you follow your own set world's rules. That's what makes games like Doom so much more fun than your games anyway Dice. Give it a try sometime.

Got some exclusive Battlefield 6 concept art right here

Rant

The new God of War is out, and yet so is a new controversy. However this time around it is not that bad in the game of itself. As a matter of fact, that's the only reason why I imagine there is a defending side to one of its lesser (but common) industry sins. Its a really good game, people love it, its deserved praise and I can agree with that, however they want it to be free of criticism or to just eat up any flowery explanations for it and that's where I differ, even over the small details. Even small, bad details can still hurt the game, or confuse and make the conversation around it very strange. ...and if you're wondering what's up with this article's title, well to that I say... EXACTLY!

Today we're talking about titles, or more importantly, what not to do with them. Come on, we all know where this is going, its all down to stop naming them the same damn thing after a previous entry. Stop it. Your not clever, nor is it suddenly a better "reboot" for that, and its even more obvious of a bad decision when your game isn't even a reboot to begin with like... well, God of War. On a lesser note, this also applies to Doom, but that's far more abstract since the story and cannon order is hardly as relevant or obvious. God of War though... its in the dialogue, quite a lot really. References to the old, the main character you're playing as, even where he gets "god of war" from, is all alluding to the old game cannon. Its there constantly, and developer and press alike have had to dance and prance around the fine line of this maybe kinda but not really soft reboot of a game that couldn't be bothered to come up with a half-decent name for its own identity. I'm not even asking for God of War 4, which would be the simple and more obvious route, but it could even be God of War: Norse as an easy nod to the obvious theme change. Hell, even ditch the main franchise name itself and pull a concept-idea of Modern Warfare where you just change the name to something more suitable to the successor route, like just calling it Kratos, Norse, or Bow & Axe, whatever suits you. Anything but the exact same name that would get even the main review center to tell you its literally the exact same game as the PS2 one.

"Also on: PlayStation 2" wow, gotta go dust that thing off and see how well it runs on it...

As of the time of writing, that exact error is still on Metacritic. Yet people defend this. People defend this obvious confusion, bicker back at those like me bickering to the devs, saying its all really okay, or even the best justified position. There's just no other way to apparently present a change in tone or story, rather you must name it after the exact same thing you're changing from. Its "new" now by being the exact identity of the old. Its not confusing, because you should definitely know this is the first one, but not the other first one. It's not bad marketing, you just don't get it, and all of this arguing, confusion, and people unsure if the old story counts for anything or not, is all the only way it could perfectly market this brilliant new game by being the exact old title of one over a decade and two console gens ago. Still just don't get it though? Yeah, me neither.

Look, guys, there's multiple ways to go about naming your game. Yes that includes even this "reboot" name title by just pretending the old games never happened as an excuse to rename your title after the thing that never happened. However for the most part, that idea is bullshit, and gets a lot of flak in everything it touches, even if its slightly more accepted now because we just got tired of groaning about it every time. Its so bad that many don't even know there's a Mummy movie before the mummy movie of the 1999 one, and yet laughably some have used movies as an excuse that its okay to do this kind of bullshit. Its just bad though. Other routes include generic numerical titles. That's fine, and functional, if maybe just a tad bit boring. Still it works. You say God of War 4, and it works. People are still calling this (and Doom) by the number 4 just out of rebellion. You search either of them by the number 4, and you get results for their proper game. Far Cry 5? It works, and its selling like mad, even if they had to ignore Primal from the count that came before it. Hell you can even occasionally be clever and pull something like Battlefield One did. Its a fine and good system, and so natural consumer will use it even if you don't. Then there's subtitles. Naming it as I suggested earlier, God of War Norse. This stuff is good for when you do want a new theme, or new idea at the forefront. Give your title a punch and make it proud and visible. Assassins Creed Origins was about the origins of the Assassin guild. Perfect. Far Cry Primal was a spin-off taking it back to a primal setting. Perfect. God of War... is being a stubborn pretender, acting as the first of its kind, and its just embarrassing itself by not figuring out a better title. I'd actually love games like this and Doom to treat themselves with the sort of self-respect to actually have their own name, but instead... well devs pulled a page from Spongebob, and essentially threw out the name while the public eye just rolled their eyes about it and gave it their own by either the year of release or numerically.

However the biggest concern is just how many are easily starting to accept this and fight with other people over it, even drawing and pulling contexts and words back to butcher them even further in the process. I was suddenly not only discussing with somebody about "why is this not God of War 4?" but it quickly turned into arguing over what an actual reboot is, because people were dead-serious convinced this was a total reboot, defeating their defense of the latter as soon as they said that by showing how confused they were on what the fuck they were even discussing. But its okay if you shift the goal post and redefine the reboot to include continuing the story in a new enough setting... like nearly every fucking sequel ever. Hey Drake, exploring a new temple in the next Uncharted? Reboot! Hey COD man, you shooting up a new dude somewhere slightly different? That's a reboot to. Assassins Creed in Egypt to explain stuff that happens in the future? Obviously a reboot, I mean how stupid can you be to think Egypt and England were the same, never the less their time period!? Yeah, you see the issue here? I had a guy in the same sentence as defining a reboot that proved GOW wasn't a reboot (defining it as a restart, when the game in question carries exact cannon over into its conflict from even less than an hour starting), suggest it was with it and then say "lol, how is it bad marketing anyway". ....because we wouldn't be arguing over what it fucking was genius. Even the literal show Reboot's reboot wasn't this stupid, and gave itself an actual name, despite almost no effort elsewhere!


However I'll cave a little. Because definitions, words, and titles don't matter anymore, you've been reading Rant, and this is a blog reboot since I haven't done this topic before, and this was a new article, and a literal new digital page for me.

FC5 lost something in its "open" campaign

So I finally beat Far Cry 5 recently. I really enjoyed it. Its another entry in a good series, running mostly on great mechanics, and added some additional good improvements. There's a lot to like on the general game, ranging from the open level editor, to just the intense conflict on offer in a big open world. However I've also got to bring up some criticism, especially when this comes a couple years off of a game as incredible as the 4th installment. It just.. wasn't as good. For quite a few reasons. I want to lay some of that out here right now. Most of it is in regards to its lack of "linear" campaign.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

I remember early on I heard from the team that everything was open-ended in its structure, and you wouldn't be taking on the story in a linear fashion. I... didn't know what to think of that, or to even believe it. Clearly you need a structure, and thats hard to map out in an open fashion when you've already got an open world. My assumption was perhaps this was really an even more open ended version of the choices offered from FC4. Ha, nope, that was removed entirely aside from the "secret" opening alt-ending gimmick (which really is just a gimmick by this point. It was cool in FC4, just awkward and out of place here, forced because people stroked your ego about it previously)! Instead you have one-way missions compiled by regions, and a point system that works like you were earning XP to unlock the next story point. What this actually translates to isn't an open and free environment, but rather a mindless session of converting everthing into mindless points until you "unlock" the linear story path of one of three areas (all of which must be met anyway).

The result isn't so much of a freedom, as much as it is just a step back in quality as an activity box overwhelms you and demands you grind to get the next story bit. Then everything left behind on an honestly short lived grind, becomes easily ignorable between its lesser quality, and just the fact you're done here. You're trained to go with the unlockable bits, and then it suddenly means nothing so fast for 1/3rd of the entire map, so you move on, and then move on, each time only seeing the bigger or more interesting bits on the rare linear segment that literally kidnaps you and rips you right out of the open world that is pretentiously proud about its open-ness. The game becomes a duller blur of random activities and smaller missions to eventually push open the next story piece, which is often closed up with the excuse it needed to literally grab you into it to show you something cool the rest was too "open" and under-developed to actually accomplish.

But why is this really bad, if you could hypothetically just blame it on developers for just not doing good enough quality with the optional missions? Isn't it cooler that the bad guys treat all your activities as a threat? Well... no, not to the whole picture. You see all those characters around the original reveal and trailer? The pilot all angry about his planes and family heritage, the bar tender who lost so much, and the pastor who had to compete with a more violent religion? All of those interesting characters who would potentially and easily be this game's main side cast from an outside glance, were incredibly minor blips that did nearly nothing at the end of the day, all relegated to small 2-3 missions in isolation from each other all in one region you could knock out and make useless to the story progression 2 hours in. Furthermore, you didn't even have to help them. You could potentially ignore a character, never answering to their needs or missions, and just go about punching random trucks and freeing nameless prisoners until you met the XP count to make the region's leader angry enough. By contrast, every mission type in FC4 had an attempt of a character. People had their purpose, their wants, their quirks, and you had to hear and experience them to further that element. Want to go on epic hunts? You got to know the fashion designer. Want to go into the mountains? You were probably talking with the CIA agent, developing a side arc until a big twist could unfold that you never expected. There was an entire quest line dedicated to some ancient warrior in a surreal land. Your main campaign developed a rivalry, a set of choices between the two, and even set your path up for a neat and twisting end-game, all because you actually had to talk and associate with your allies who could actually further a more well-designed mission and cause. All of that is gone in FC5, the only guys with serious character are the boss characters that must be seen on the actual paper thin linear plot buried underneath of an over-dressed XP meter. Even returning gags like the CIA agent and Hurk are relegated to potentially their most useless roles, an AI buddy like one of 11 or so, and a one-and-done side mission that advances nothing.

Big trailer for a nobody with a single (Dodgeable) mission

There were multiple characters across this game I was supposed to care about, and I can't even tell you their damn names, or why. It was just so quick, abrupt, or no care given to their development. How could they anyway, players would be able to miss anything important if they did dedicate time into these guys? Its a shitty structure to begin with! The same can be said for the twist ending, and the end-game. The allegedly cannon ending involving a nuclear apocalypse hitting, making the antagonist "right" about a major catastrophe, had no actual noticeable warning for the majority of the audience. You could maybe catch a quick blurb about a nuclear threat from North Korea on the radio, but that about it, and Ubisoft has had to come out to directly point this out to critics with players having over 30 hours into this and still scratching their heads. Then even after that major turn of events, unlike FC4, there's no trace of it in the actual post-game. You just get tossed back into a perfect boss-less world full of side activities, even missions from underdeveloped dead characters you may not have completed before they died, but hey this game was developed with their death and lack of character in mind... because you can still do them and it doesn't effect a damn thing. It has no meaning or depth, less impact, and its all just there to serve a sandbox purpose. Nothing was ever well written, well displayed, or directed, because there was no direction. 

Hell, the main guy that sets and helps you on this resistance path named "Dutch" is nothing more than a voice on your radio! I was playing the entire game, expecting a turning point where he comes out with some serious news or development, but nope... he's just there to spout exposition until he just dies before he has a life beyond that. WTF were they thinking!? Where did the Pagan Min, Sabal, slow burning twists and turns, contrast with silly and fun to dark characters all go? Its all got to be shoe-horned into seconds of dialogue that one of 25 characters might get for their 1-2 mission across the entire game's maps. ...and on top of that, we've got a voiceless protagonist, and the main antagonist only peaks in the mid-game through these unnatural black backdrops of monologueing directly to you because immersion be damned. Go back to a more linear path Ubisoft, you screwed this up.

The rest of the issues are more simple. Things like just the fact there's no weapon variety in a game that sets you up to expect it, not to mention its earlier entries had you covered. Multiple assault rifles of the past, are now just two repainted ones still with a full list of stats as if you actually had much choice. That applies nearly all around. The one SMG under the SMG category is an MP5, with the MP40 thrown in once as perhaps a sort of functional joke. What the hell happened to an actual selection range? ...or at least simplify it right, and remove the silly stats, and just give us really good weapons we can truly improve, or work with through the whole game. Instead once you've got an AK47 with one of each of 3 attachments, that's as good as your end-game. You've got more things you can throw at a guy than any one type of actual gun you can shoot at them for the entire game. SMGs, Pistols, assault rifles, all of them incredibly limited down to the same two or three. Meanwhile you've got five different boom objects, a can, a knife, a molotov, cans, and bait for throwables, even a toss-able melee, all on your person at the same time. The amount of thowables is pretty great, but you'll be spending the vast majority shooting with a "6" damage assault rifle, wondering what the point even is of that 6 point assault rifle, or its five different over-priced reskins, when its your only damn assault rifle for 90% of the game. Its even more stupid that the lesser choice also has as many over-priced skins, as if you'd choose the worst weapon to dump hours of cash grinding on out of stupidly slim selection where you can't even trick yourself into thinking its the better choice. Who the hell came up with this shit? ...and again, I'm fine with a simple arsenal, but just do it right. Actually give me one iconic awesome, super customizable and worthwhile assault rifle if you want to simplify it. Don't tack it over an overcomplicated merch system with multiple skin tones, big stat sets, resetting the attachments if I just buy a new fucking pain job, etc. Its like some moron decided to settle an office argument by giving both sides what they wanted, 10 choices for an assault rifle, but yet only like two assault rifles, and he managed to do both at the same time in an act of unbelievably terrible game design that benefits nobody and just looks sloppy. Its even a detriment to its own lame inclusion of microtransactions.

At the end of the day, its not all bad, and honestly I still really enjoy the game. Its just... I'm sensing homesick vibe of FC4, and recalling how much better that was in most categories. It had the creative arena mode, better characters, actual plot logic and consistency that lead you somewhere, better side quests, and just all around knew more about what it actually was and wanted. Outposts and stealth were more fun, whereas the AI here wrecks that, and it barely even gives you a chance half the time anyway. FC5 is well summarized by one plot point where you escape a bunker by grappling on a helicopter and riding it out as it all explodes. Sounds awesome right? Flying up into the air, looking around an explosion you narrowly escaped, except... no, it actually fades to black right as you press the prompt and you watch from a sudden fixed (but poorly done) camera angle that wanted to make sure you were watching an explosion they put together by forced point. Likewise, you can hire any average joe, and most of them will have cool stuff or side-quests to tell you about.... which sounds cool until they start to go into lock-down panic mode over a threat 10 miles away, and actively escape you even if they're a major quest giver. Its shit like that which kind of makes you wonder if they lost the same vision that once came up with the 10 minute ending out of actual cleverness, rather than just to force it as a staple. 

Still there's a lot to still like here. You don't have to go hunt arbitrary 4 buffalo for your last gun holster, gone is the obnoxious loot bag you need to fill to get more loot bag material, and the buddy system is more refined and nicer. The level designer is a tad bit more open, its nice to not have that mini-HUD in your face, or radio tower #13 to climb up. Oh, and did I mention all the throwables? Yes I did, because that's kind of awesome! There's still some smart world design as well, and they do go to some interesting places with several missions and character actions. There's little quirks and fun things that occasionally still shine through, and moments that truly make this worth the big AAA game you should be playing for this month, not to mention the series returns as one of the only console-friendly games that tells players "hey, you can actually create your own levels, because... why not, we love what you can do with our game!". Far Cry is still a fantastic series, and contrary to what some silly people will say, its far from stale for just improving over most of a working formula. Its just that it actually lost some of what worked in this entry, and all for a misguided attempt to innovate in a way that just wasn't smart, on top of many more small little misteps. Its still a great game, just not FC4 great. Its one step forward, two back, but when it started from exceptional... its still really good.

The sheep should be very afraid...

Spyro is all but confirmed to be making a comeback by now. To my honest shock, it's all three games, and even some supposed "cut content". I don't know exactly what that means, because out of all my spyro knowledge, there's not a lot of good talk on deleted stuff. It theoretically exists, but there's really not a lot with reasonable discussion to add in, short of say... Spyro 2 actually introducing a 4th homeworld as there was allegedly supposed to be one for each season. Still we don't need to talk about that, because the fact is whatever they do for "cut content", it's added stuff on top of the best possible trilogy I could ask to return. There's no problem with this, unless... like some of the old trailers, the sheep aren't going to be happy about this.

Spyro was a big deal to me, and all this news surrounding him has sort of resurged the inner hype-child inside of me over it. I went through wallpapers, music, related media, and fan projects, just generally checking up on all things spyro. As I've said in the past, Spyro was like my serious introduction into gaming. Not the first game, and not the first enjoyable experience, as prior I had my hands on things ranging from putt-putt, or Donkey Kong Country, to even... Turok 2? Seriously, I was playing a lot of different games, but Spyro was the first that truly sunk into my head as "wow, this is incredible". It was the first game that involved actual gameplay, was truly fun as a game, and I actually played until completion. Then I came back for more. and more. and more. As the trilogy progressed, I played each one dry, exhausting practically all aspects of it save for perhaps some super completitionist stuff I would only be back later for. However it isn't just nostalgia. Spyro was just all-around fantastic in many aspects. The music was incredible. The levels were pretty awesome, and often memorable. There was a good mixture of humor and charm to what it was capable of presenting, and the gameplay stretched a real simple premise pretty far and well. There was also the art style choice, which despite the crazy and colorful worlds of 3D platformers, nobody had yet to consistently make an enchanted fairlyland type theme and make it last and feel good for three whole games. That's not to of course say they were super consistent and never deviated, but whenever they did, you could believe the weird logic of these portals, and how easy it was just to go back to fairy + dragon land. It all still holds up as a generally great series, where even whiny haters of the genre have answers to their issues like camera options and a hover jump control mechanic (except the first game).

So here's the deal. If this thing actually gets announced this month, each month going forward, I'm going to try and work on a fun spyro article despite a potentially busy work schedule. I want to try and get something out there each month, or maybe two a month, and discuss the games. This can be anything from wishlist/hype stuff about the remake, to just something like the top 10 lists, or maybe even outside the main trilogy. Just fun stuff, and kind of a fun way to keep things going. Of course, the fact remains that things are still a rumor, and there's still the sad possibility this won't be happening. Still the fact is, this is the logical conclusion, a spyro remake should be on it's way. We've got everything from leaked Crash code about an intentional spyro reference, to voice actor and twitter accounts pointing us that way, all that in addition to just the sensible idea of making a spyro remake after a crash one. The more realistic concern, is if they can finally prove that anybody post-universal can make a proper Spyro model, and not butcher it to something horrible like the crooked nose LOS version, or the gremlin Skylanders guy. Just stick to the classic design guys.