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.