Thoughts on Hardware Rivals (beta)

There are actually quite a lot of betas lately. One I tried to get into even before Battlefront was one in the "spotlight" area of PSN called Hardware Rivals. It was clearly a vehicle game, but its competitive combat edge and bright sunset-overdrive type art style made me want to give it a try. Unfortunately it was locked for a few days, and only just recently did I decide to give it another try and get in. The result thought was pretty great.

Old school car combat

I've had the growing suspicion on my mind that, AAA issues aside, we're looking at a very PS2-like sort of era with our consoles. Weird niche stuff has been popping up everywhere, and even the AAA industry doesn't know what it wants to copy and past yet aside from last gen staples, so we're sort of in a state where obscure fun stuff gets more attention. This game just proves my point. Its apparently based on a flopped PS2 era online game by the same name of Hardware, and it certainly feels like a PS2 era game. You have a choice between choosing a tank or a smaller off-road jeep type of vehicle, and then go at it with a bunch of online players in an arena style shooter. You've got super charged weapon pick-ups, an announcer with a deep voice, deadly wipe-out type map hazards, and very simple controls. If it weren't for a slight progression system and common online interfaces, I'd accuse this game of just being dug up out of a time capsule and ported over. Not only is this all a bit old school in design, but to see it in vehicle form as well makes it a double rarity since nothing like it has been done since......... well Twisted Metal is the closest comparison, and its still not quite the same.

Unlike twisted metal, or ironically even unlike Hardware's past PS2 entry, Hardware Rivals sports a very nice cartoon style that feels like it decided to put the colorful punk teens of Sunset Overdrive in tanks. This is backed by an electronic funk style music choice, some colorful camo color schemes for users, and occasional automated trash talk from the silly character voices. Its a generally up-beat romp that really captures the spirit of the game perfectly. Its a simple summer-time sort of blast good to have for an hour, or for a day with some friends. Its fun, its over-the-top, and its kind of innocent and nostalgic of simpler times in gaming. Of course that may turn some people off, because I can see where some may find it too simple.

The game is set up to be really arcade and better suited to small sessions. You've got one weapon, can only aim from side-to-side (its about leading the shots and the auto-targeting), and bare bone controls that move and shoot. Even the progression system is simple and kind of tossed in, with it just being about setting one perk to a row of different elements, and they all unlock in a stern order. So you'll have to unlock all your engine parts before you can unlock your first targeting for example. Its kind of a dumb system, and I also have to question if its out of balance since it quite literally rewards top tier players with additional support on all specs where as a guy on even level 10 just has 2/5ths or so of that same power. We're talking about things like speed, extra health, extra damage (you can do both at once too), etc. Of course I wont say I've noticed anything like this out in the field, so maybe whatever improvements occur are super subtle, but then that begs the question of why its there. I was dominating my first matches before I even knew of an upgrade system, and after applying better top speed and better lock-ons... well I feel nearly the same. Whatever the case, its at least kept to a 25 level area, so if you're decent it'll be somewhere within 50-100 matches of play rather than the absurd 1000 you may have to do in other games. However outside of the questionable XP system, everything works fine, its just all so PS2-era simple. You shoot enemies that move, and get power-ups to shoot them even harder. You collect armor + health to stay alive, and occasionally an apocalyptic event is triggered that you have to hide from. That's about it to the core game experience. Its got a strange skill ceiling as a result since you've got to worry about map skill for a change, get used to the driving controls, weapon priority, and can mess people up with a well timed ram, but everything else is pretty loose and up to luck.

Sure I can talk about how simple it is, but I want to also talk about how fun it is. Now a game is never about winning, but that does enhance the experience when your having an ego hype trip during a match where you win 20-4. I'll admit full bias for that before I proceed, because I truly found a game where I'm capable of dominating. Not perfect, not always on the top, but close enough to say I feel good about doing well in this game, and that's weird for me. I'm more of a jack of all trades, master of none kinda guy. I adapt fast to anything, but peak early, and yet I manage to stay near or on the top consistently with this game a lot. It was a blast though strolling through this game, blasting others, and getting into cross-fire fights. Then there's just that urgency when you see a power-up in a crowded area, and damn do I miss that feeling of old school pick-up races. It was a great feeling to have that occur again where I beat someone, or someone snatches something from right in front of me. Even more fulfilling if you beat the guy that got it despite his edge over you. That's the sort of thing I miss out of older shooters, and something online these days really lacks. Even Battlefront, which reintroduced them, did it wrong because games have forgot how to be arcade in the fun ways. This one has that in addition to style, crazy crashing car physics (its so fun to ram someone!), a cool announcer, and colorful explosions. Playing this beta was a ton of fun, and a good return to form. Its hard to imagine just how long it would hold my attention, or that of anyone else's, but I think they've got something good enough here worth buying at the right price and playing on those occasional days where you just want a good rush of online competition.

Problems for the mechanics to repair...

The game ain't perfect. Actually its got a few really prominent flaws within the beta, and some things to be desired in case this really is the bulk of the game. They weren't exactly tight on what content got through out of what we know, and its so hard to figure out information on the game. That's really the first issue, this game doesn't even have its own wiki page and is pretty much ghosting around aside from the poorly timed PS+ ad its getting for this month. That's also where that statement comes back to the center. It was kind of messed up for them to advertise this in with the PS+ give-aways like a free game, only to then introduce people with a "sorry we're closed. Please come back later" message. It had just finished on its closed beta, and was going to start its open one about 4 days or so later... when the much more advertised and ambitious Battlefront was about to do their own open beta run. Meanwhile we sit here knowing almost nothing about this game. Will there be bots? A single player of some kind? A more dedicated time trial system? How many maps? What modes other than deathmatch types? What price will it even be, or is this supposed to be a retail launch? A lot of issues arise from this lack of information and obscurity alone. Heck when does this beta even end!? Has it already, or is it going for another day, or two, or three? I just don't know anything about this stuff.

However lets talk about improvements within what can be stated in the list. Ironically unlike Battlefront, there's some clear beta bugs that need to be worked out. The follow are precise beta bugs that need to be fixed:

• The scoring system is messed up. It'll tell you kills and deaths on the scoreboard, but your total in-game tally will give you a completely different number.
• The matchmaking system can break at times and leaves you sitting in a frozen lobby on a timer of 00... meaning the match should have started.
• I've had one case where the matchmaking just failed on itself.
• Why is there sometimes a waiting time on the server? Is this just a beta limitation, or is there really some kind of awful server stress limitation? That needs to be worked out I'm sure. It also went from telling me to wait for 3 minutes to giving me 5 more.
• The temple's lava trap seems to kill players twice over. I think this is somehow a glitch with the kill cam or respawning, because its a delayed thing almost as if switching the camera triggers the second death.
• Okay so this might actually be intentional, but the 3 round playlist mode doesn't consistently keep its match together. You may end up joining an on-going game somewhere, and that sort of screws with the vibe of trying to blast through a marathon of deathmatches.

Next up are some desires or wishes to improve the general game. Some of these work off of assumptions or blind guesses since there's really nothing to go off of for much information. So some of this is probably already in or is finalized as either existing or not, but just didn't show for the beta.

1. Bots support: Look I really can't trust this game to stay active by the way its being managed. Even if I could though, its just a crummy idea to make an online only game that could easily have bot support. The game is very simple and all you really need is some path finder AI programming skills to make it happen. Of course customizable bot matches is ideal, so some menu and rule set tweaking would be nice to.
2. Server lists: Again, rule sets and tweaking would be appreciated. There was already a hint that this was in the game, as a wait in the lobby has a special menu you can go to specifically laying out all the rules and settings with locked in arrows as though you could change it. Now why would that be in there if there wasn't someone who could set it up and have other players check it over to see if they like it? The sad answer would be that its just residue from private match options, but I'm hoping they're going full on server browser and customization support. This would help benefit an online arena game greatly.
3. More modes: Seriously there's the training grounds, deathmatch, and team deathmatch. Considering training isn't even a real mode, we've been stuck with the two most pure and ancient barebone modes ever. Considering the game itself is also very simple, that's a sign for quick fatigue and death in the community. Please let there be more modes. King of the hill would be amazing in this game, then there should be a CTF mode, and assuming server lists don't happen there should be a shorter round of deathmatch since some players (and even sometimes I myself) have felt the standard is a bit too long. Heck personally I would love it if the 3 match playlist was a special mode where you're playing 3 rounds of smaller deathmatches. Put us all in an arena for like half the time and see who can rush to the top first, then do it again, and a final time. That would be great.
4. More personal customization: Simple, I just want more than 4 colors to choose from. I think I've seen more while browsing for screenshots for this article than what I have through the beta so I bet this is already done, but just putting it out there in case.
5. Some extra clarity: Challenges could be shown a bit better, there could be a "How to Play" in-game manual with visual keys for all the power-ups and a small bit of info, and then the most important one is an indicator for opponent's health. As it is now, fighting is a bit random in how much of a chance you have against someone. Sometimes if you're really close, you can see that their vehicle model is damaged which may put them anywhere between 5hp to 30-ish. Even then though, you usually can't see that. Your taking a chance of luck against picking your fight, and you never know who has been damaged, who is way stronger than you, or if they have armor. A part of me kind of likes this mystery, but in the end I think it'll do a lot more good if you had more tell signs. I think they could do a nice compromise by giving you a 3 bar indicator and a hit confirmation tick in the crosshair. Armor can stay invisible, and you still wont quite have a certain fix on their situation, but you'd still have a better idea of who you could afford to pick fights with and more to calculate on the field.

Concluding...

Hardware Rivals is a lot of fun, but it has a few issues to sort out first, and for its own sake it should start with its marketing. However its got promising potential to fill a missing niche for fun arcade vehicular combat. Its also one I can really get into, and under the right conditions I'd love to own this game. Its got a strangely simple skill ceiling, bare gameplay, and yet it was a blast. I think its really refreshing to see a game in this style again. Back in the PS2 era we saw games with this arena format all over the place, and now its practically non-existent... especially with vehicles. Now comes along this colorful and fun new one in the age of mainstream online access, and I want it to shine in this time. However lets hope it does allow for more than just online, because I fear it may not last long in its current condition, and if that fear goes deep enough I can't promise I'll spend money on it. I hope Hardware Rivals turns out well.

That moment when its almost right, and then so wrong....

Just a quickie here, but I feel I had to say something. Having thought it through at multiple angles, I'm going to just be blunt. Call of Duty's team has just announced a new feature of their game. That feature is having the entire story available to you from the start. That means you can literally jump into the last level from the very first moment your game is installed and ready, and you don't need any prior context. Sounds like such a weird move, right? Well their logic was explained, but its more baffling then you'd think, and painfully ironic considering the franchise its coming from. Here's what was said (and source):

"The unlocking level system is an archaic mentality we've had since we did bedroom development back in the day - you do this, then go on to the next one.Consumers and game players in general are far more mature these days. There are so many things vying for our interests today. It's about, how do they want to consume it? Maybe they put it down on level two, and then they're in work the next day, and some guy says, 'dude, you've got to check out level four!' And he's like, 'okay, I'll have a quick look.' That's totally fine. I think it's their choice."

Better yet, I'll focus on the bit that irked the most of my reaction.

"The unlocking level system is an archaic mentality we've had since we did bedroom development back in the day - you do this, then go on to the next one."

Um... sound familiar? Like that entire skinner box clogging up the multiplayer? The thing that revolves around an entire leveling system that feeds off of primitive instinct rather than creative fun? That 40-60 level climb seems to be the elephant in the room here. I don't want to spend hours upon hours of repetitive grinding just to see what the last assault rifle feels like (and then hours upon hours to unlock its pieces). Not only that, but with every entry it seems like they get increasingly more absurd in stupid arbitrary requirements. Currently you not only have to level up to get tokens that buy stuff, but you have to also level up so you're able to even have a choice on what to spend that token on. Then you have perks to consider, streak rewards, and then there's 9 or more specialists each with their own two abilities you should get at some point. Then once again, there's the attachments for all weapons. Basically in the end the grind for even your first run (not even touching on prestige, which also holds content hostage and makes you want to repeat all of this again) should take around 40 hours or so. Obviously it differs by how good you're playing, but not by so much. Oh but that campaign? That 6 hour campaign with a chronologically ordered narrative focus was what was clearly taxing your time too much by daring to ask you to play it in the sensible order. Truth is actually progressing in campaigns holds meaning, where as actually progressing up the rank ladder in multiplayer is an arbitrary system implemented to suck up your time by giving you a carrot on a stick to chase after. This was so close to being self-aware, so close to fixing a problem I've had with the series for years, and yet they totally miss it and use similar language to say the campaign of all things needed fixing. Thankfully you came close enough that other people have already leaped out ahead of me to bring up the lame skinner box you took from Battlefield and together made into a multiplayer staple. Almost every game now requires around 20-40 hours or so of grinding in order to just try out everything in multiplayer, and its absurd. I'm not totally opposed to progression systems in general, you could easily build one off of cosmetics that could be fun, but that's just not how things have turned out.

However I don't want to just come off as tearing this out. Looking at the statement from a totally pure perspective, I can't say its that bad. Nobody should be trying to play the campaign out of order, but at the end of the day that's their own damn choice and nothing is wrong with giving them that choice. Meanwhile if something were to ever happen to my save data, and all I want to do after a rough day is come home and play mission 7 where you get to use some fancy super gun, then I'll be super grateful that I can do that from the base game itself. So this news isn't so bad, its just that it comes so close to making a big point, only to take a total 180 turn in an unpredictably naïve statement. To be honest though it might have done more good that it happened considering I'm not the only person triggered into this kind of rant, and maybe Treyarch will open their eyes. Of course, knowing how the industry works now, I think it'll just result in Activision pointing to some microtransaction short-cut DLC that pretty much confirms how F2P-ish the entire grind system was to begin with. Oh well, here's to hoping Black Ops 3 turns out well for those with good hopes for it.

Yes, micro-transactions do effect gameplay

Well I guess we're talking about microtransactions again. Its not because I'm auditioning for the league of extraordinary dead horse beaters, but rather because there's a lot of it being declared lately alongside the same excuse. Its funny how corporate excuses are often regarded as "damage control", and yet they more often then not can be torn apart and make them look ever worse standing as liars... or at least more shady at least. The excuse to allow microtransactions is always the same: "It doesn't effect game or game balance." This can sometimes be followed up by who they're for, and sometimes it quite hilariously contradicts. The best example is that the micro-transactions only exist to "speed up" unlockables for busy players. This argument defeats itself, when we all know of an entire genre that essentially exists on this mentality as one of the worst offenders of money grabbing. However even with that set aside, I'd like to argue that it actually does effect the game, and it does effect us as consumers, and maybe it even does effect game balance and you're just making it really subtle.

Here's a thing to note: Metal Gear Solid 5 is selling player a tuxedo for Big Boss. For those unfamiliar with this, you may be shrugging and wondering what the big deal is. Afterall, its just a costume that looks like this, or this. Oh wait, that doesn't look like MGS5 did it? That's because its been in the series for a long time as a secret sort of unlockable for big fans to get, and there you see it in its free but earned status. In MGS5 it seems you can only acquire it by real cash and a trip to the PSN (or whatever platform you own) store. Does it effect the game's balance? Not that I'm aware of, its just a suit. Does it effect the game? Ask these guys who made a whole thread dedicated to this gaming treat. Alternate costumes are traditionally extras that have been unlocked, earned, or simply
stumbled onto as a little treat to fans with a sense of humor. Its an extra bit of fun, where the artist or director can put something fun and non-cannon into the game and let the players discover. Some even have small stories behind them. R&C had one skin that went from a fun little inside joke, to being a small memorial piece that makes its way into pretty much every game. Oh, and that has a traditional tux suit as well, but hopefully we wont see that slip out of place to.

Extra content like this is what helps to make games special. Extras used to be a standard thing in practically any game that cared, and even to this day you'll often see some top tier or "fun" focused games containing it. It usually ties into extra content as well, like collecting masks in Sly Cooper 4 for new canes and character skins, or post-end cheats in Uncharted. Its takes completionist fodder, and instead turns it into fan rewards that people can enjoy. It adds replay value, humor, and just general fun to a game. Well guess what? Thanks to current culture, your lucky if that's all that's held back. Pre-order bonuses, Uplay syncing, season passes, and Microtransactions all step in to tell you this stuff is a separate deal now. That does effect the gameplay, and I'm tired of the excuse that tells us otherwise just because players aren't literally paying to win. However it does mean that there's less extras, less to unlock, and less incentives. At the end of the day, I would definitely say that MGS5 lacks secret costumes like the tux, and now its clear why.

The funny thing of course is that at the end of that day, micro-transactions don't bother me so much. I made an article defending fighter games, Shadow Fall, and others on such a thing. People loved moaning about being "nickel and dimed" over later cosmetic stuff, and that baffled me. I used to love checking the LBP add-on page for little extras like that, or seeing Killzone content hit Uncharted 2 as DLC. I love seeing games get long term support, and knowing there is a caring team supplying that. However its the exact opposite case in situations like this. Now more than ever, we're seeing this stuff planned and cut out ahead of time, and then showing up at launch or really damn close. Meanwhile even Shadow Fall, a game that had this model ideal in place as DLC revenue, didn't even launch with the audacity of say Evolve or MGS where microtransactions were built in from the start. I think things have taken a downhill turn at this point, and developers and publishers are indeed charging us for content that should be there. They shouldn't be coming up with arbitrary grinds for us to pay our way out of, nor launch day skins for us to purchase, those should be part of what comes with the game. Instead they're being ripped out now, and sold to us even when we know they've been with the game, or the entire franchise, for so long. Its a fun harmless extra, now soul-sucked into another cash grab exploit, and that's why I'm saying something about it. Its an abuse I wont support, and I urge others to treat it the same.

Here its done right

My thoughts on Star Wars Battlefront (Beta)

I've tackled this game twice in a pretty mean spirited way, and in both cases I felt kind of bad about it, yet stood by what I said. It seems like a fitting example of just want I don't want out of today's market. However in both cases I also let it be known that I wasn't trying to frame the game as objective trash (unless it really releases broken, but that was just a rumor + prediction which I hope doesn't hold true). Either way I feel I owed it to the game to play and discuss its beta and list out the positives... but still keep it honest where the negatives belong. I think I can let it stand that my views on it are mixed.

The Basics

So without mentioning modes, or tech fluff, its my personal priority to discuss core mechanics. I haven't followed the game quite as well as I thought I may have, because quite a few things caught me off guard. I was aware power-ups would roam the field, and there was supposed to be some card system replacing classes, but how it all fits in is weirder than I ever imagined. The set-up is actually really basic for a shooter today, yet still on the verge of mocking COD at the same time, its kind of strange. You have one weapon. That's it for your real guns, you carry that one around and use it as a main rifle. It has no reload system, but rather a heating system, which is oddly something that I think is more true to star wars than the older games were (of course my memory may be fizzled on that). Also as mentioned before, there are scopes but not iron sights. The difference is trivial in the end though. However its not exactly just you and your gun. Instead there is also this, dare I say it, MOBA-like piece where you have cool-down abilities. These are your cards, and they can consist of utilities, grenades, or weapons that in any other game would be gun loadout choices (grenade launchers, sniper rifle). So instead of designing a load-out, its almost like your selecting a characters abilities in an MMORPG, or MOBA. That's a very strange concept that I kind of like.

The sad thing is this counters one other trait of the game: Its progression system. The beta progression system is a bit weird. You start base multiplayer with nothing but that one weapon. Doing absolutely nothing but getting one weapon, and even being told to stay out of the other mode until even after that, is a bit messed up. Its either a self-destructively strict tutorial process that gets you killed for being new, or its a really bad way of giving us a "You gotta earn it all and tough it out" approach. I admired Killzone 2 for doing the latter and making it a true progression system where you actually felt yourself truly earning and advancing things. However the difference here is that Killzone has more entertaining gunplay and gave you the basics to work with: pistol, grenade, rifle. Your next few levels were things like more ammo, a shotgun, a new class, squad leader abilities, etc. Of course on top of that you could choose your server, and go into a newbie only level. Here I was tossed in with people who were dropping orbital bombs, grenades, sniper rifles, jump packs, and all I had was one rifle and the phantom pain of missing the items I loved from survival (the first mode I tried to practice in). Yeah that's not only unfair, but its just boring. Thanks matchmaking + XP system, you live on to remind me of why shooters used to be better. Next level from there just lets you get your hands on a grenade. Even after I got both common card slots in and a choice for a new weapon, I was still told I shouldn't enter the other mode. Something is just... wrong with this picture. This isn't a tutorial so much as it is a failure of modern trends, and oddly at the hands of people who were ahead of the trend.

On top of all that previous mentioned, I could moan about how the unlock system is a double-walled layer. You have to level up and then pay for what you unlock. Then there's the question of why this system even needs to be here to begin with, and with only 4 beta weapons that's low, even for a beta. Just how far they can take star wars weapons in terms of variety anyways? You can't do blaster rifle #14 as a level 50 unlock like generic shooters do. That kind of shows when the blaster pistol of all things is one of your core weapon choices. I can't help but wonder if this game will stand up well in the public, because I know for a fact other people aren't as complacent as I am with low weapon counts anymore. Of course the locked up cosmetics area could be telling that there will lie the bulk of the grinding. If that's the case, then consider that a positive from me, but others will whine. So it appears like you have a grinding system that irritates old-school shooter fans like me, likely won't have enough content in general to please the skinner box loving modern market, and is set up to force an awfully boring and unbalanced start no matter what kind of shooter style you like.



Uh... I guess the gun shipment took a pit stop on the worm asteroid

Now on health I found some good news and bad news. The good news is that there's a health bar that contextually shows up, showing your chances of survival once you've been hit. This is especially welcomed for survival mode, where you have a solid bit of health to keep up with. The bad news is that last statement only applies to survival missions. Multiplayer battles have the COD policy of shoot first, die later, where its nearly impossible to engage in a real gun fight before someone dies. This especially comes into play when you realize your run speed is pretty slow to. Getting shot in the back is a very helpless situation, and getting shot from the front only is a matter of accurately landing about 3 shots. To shorten this up, the time to kill (as people like to call it now) is too fast for comfort or fun. Whenever I have had a gun fight last longer for a couple seconds though, it was a lot of fun. I've had some really great wildwest-style potshot battles with enemies around the rocks of the drop pod match, and being defeated or winning that way always felt like a just and satisfying experience. Save for the low health, gunplay is pretty solid, but I'll explain more about that later as I feel its more due to the presentation.

Vehicles and Jedi are introduced in power-up form. For whatever reason, Dice didn't want the vehicles being hogged by players who race for them, so they decided to make them obscure power-ups that... everybody can see and chase after. Yeah a really silly misstep. I love how it looks whereas your character calls for "support" and the camera fades to a big walker or a cut-scene of your hero, but otherwise this system is honestly just stupid and keeps compentant players out of their preferred method of play unless they have the luck to stumble into something. You can go intire matches without getting a vehicle, and then find one match where yohu happily bump into them three times. You can also have the tokens snatched right from you. In other words the vehicle system is just badly designed and failed on their goal. Oh and your first one or two rides for each thing are basically junk, because there's absolutely no tutorial to them. You just snatch in during live online play, and get used to it by trial and error... and error means dying and losing your token privilege until you find the lucky jackpot again. I've only gotten to touch the AT-AT once, and the only thing I managed to learn is that its noisy, hard to aim, and has an orbital strike ability built in. That being said, once you understand the vehicles they are a blast to use, and are very fun.

Game modes + map design

So first thing I did was survival with a solo run. That was actually pretty cool. Being tossed in and told to survive isn't my idea of a fun mode in most cases, but it was a fun way to get introduced to the game here. My first fight was around some tents when suddenly blaster shots shredded through them, turning them into shattered clay rubble bits and dusting up everything.  I held off some waves, blasting through troopers like cannon fodder, and then struggling against awesome boss-like walker fights. The terrain is open, yet curvy with a lot of turns and circles, so you can kite enemies around and lead a great chase when you need to shake things up a bit. Meanwhile there's some verticality as well, and its great for the jump pack your given in either loadout. It was a pretty great experience, but it gets old fast given what little we have. So I decided this would be fantastic online, and... oh, its friend based only. I really hope that's just a bad beta decision, but seeing as they show but lock up so much I'm getting the feeling they forgot to let you do public online matches in survival. Lets hope I'm wrong, because its pretty good for a survival, and very few games have left me complimenting a horde mode. However it would have helped if you could do more with the loadout. As it was you selected any of the 4 guns, and then two pre-set card choices. I would have loved to mix them up, or at least had one with a grenade.

The first true test of multiplayer came in with drop pods (and its the only one your supposed to play for a few hours, because the XP system hates you). I got a very weird feeling from this mode, and I'm not sure if the bad side is from the map, or just how the mode is set up in itself. Its basically a round of changing KOTH spots. You get a drop pod, defend it until the timer is up, and you get a point and pick-ups if you win. The map is a small area basically designed as if you were playing as bug-sized people inside of cracks of some kind. The entire map is just a giant cracked surface. It has lots of jagged hills, lots of narrow veins all around, and tiny patches of open areas. Oh and did I mention everyone dynamically respawns? That's fancy terminology for spawning in the middle of wherever and hoping you don't get shot in the back. Get used to that, the map loves that kind of gameplay. With the speedy time to kill, explosive side weapons, unpredictable sniping spots, and a focus to one area, your going to find that anybody can come from anywhere and just send you in a death loop. It kind of feels like MOH... the rebooted MOH. Dice also worked on that (MP only), so not such a huge shock. The good news is that when people moved slow and played cautiously, it was fantastic. However if they were just running around like headless chickens, and the spawn hated you, then it just feels like a poor man's COD. Like I said, I'm not sure if its the map doing this because of how aimless it is, or if its the mode itself since it has this frag-fest with a flag type of vibe. Thing is I was really enjoying it once the tiny learning curve was over, and when I got a fair team line-up where we were playing things with a mixed bag of caution and chaos. Stopping to listen to the blasters, sit in a corner and have your friends play spotter so you can get the edge, or taking that dive to charge in after a neautral point only to succeed and then wedge yourself under a broken tie fighter were all fun moments and made me love this mode. On the other hand, I had one boring one where nobody could find anybody and the result was a one sided ghost town even with the server being nearly full. Then another match where people just showed up wherever and shot you in the back. Again its value is all about whether the spawns and people are working right for you. Its just a mixed bag.

The Walker Assault mode is more true to what they'd advertise as Battlefront. Its on a wide open hoth map, has Jedi and vehicles, there's the famous AT-ATs, and... well you get the point. Its star wars fan service on one of the most iconic scenes. Your goal as the imperials is to defend the AT-AT, and screw up these command post type locations where rebels are signaling fighters from. You have a couple of sets and must push on the rebels to force them out of that position. If you're on the Rebel's side though, you have to defend these points to the best of your ability and open fire when the wave of fighters comes in and weakens the AT-ATs. This stage is really fun, especially if you don't care about winning. If you do want to win... well, stay faithful to the old empire, because its been well known and confirmed that this beta favors their side by a large margin. At no point did I see even one AT-AT go down. However just playing it, its fun. I tend to equip the rebel's with the imperial weapon though, as that's just better, but aside from adapting to the open terrain you can really enjoy yourself here. Struggling through the trenches, ducking in and out of rocks, and sniping from the mountains are all great. Power-ups make you try and think real smart about them, and can put you into some really interesting situations. Meanwhile if you do get the treat of using a vehicle, its great. Basically this is the best mode to be playing for fun once you get used to things. However if I were to complain, I would say it could do with a  better explanation, and the map itself can take a sour turn when things get too chaotic (like what I said about the other really).

Presentation

If there is anything this game gets completely and 100% right, its the presentation. Everything on a technical level, the UI, the use of the license, and just the feel of it all, is done soooo very well. If you came here on the sole basis of a star wars game, then you'll be very happy. For starters lets talk graphics. I've heard mixed talk on it, but mostly praise, and while I don't think I'd call this "the best" I will say it looks great. I can't find any faults in it. Snow sparkles with little glittery bits, distant backdrops look great, textures all feel so full of life, and the lighting is stunning. No really, stunning hasn't ever been a better use of that term for visuals, because the lighting is actually set up in such a way that you can be blinded for approaching it at the wrong angle. You actually can be looking outdoors or indoors on Hoth and not see a damn thing until you come close enough to have it seemingly adjust. Its a very weird and interesting thing to have happen in the game, and it actually feels kind of intense since you don't know if the enemy is looking right back at you ready to shoot. If its really running at 60fps to, then this is an amazing accomplishment right alongside (if not better than) the FOX engine. There's been some light controversy over its resolution, because of course there is on the internet, but I think they need to shut up and appreciate what's being done here as I can see Dice has put some good work behind the visuals and performance of the game. It doesn't need 1080p to look good, and it does look good. Of course I will say its a shame they went off course of their stated target for the PS4. Generally, it all performs well too. Of course I wont be surprised if that isn't the case with its launch, but I'll discuss any lingering doubts on that in the end.

Not quite this good of course, but closer than I predicted

Now lets talk Star Wars. I'm nowhere near a star wars nerd like I used to be around... middle school? Still this game so clearly ties into the series, to amazing accuracy. Sound effects were right, the right music was picked and kicks in at perfect points, the weapons all seem familiar and fire as I'd expect them to (minus the horrible accuracy of the Stormtrooper's rifle, because obviously that's a bad quality to imitate), and the terrains and vehicles all feel like they came out of the SW universe. Oh and the hero units, definitely seem believable at the expense of balance. I remember dying by Darth Vader over and over again at a distance with his force choke pulling me in. I remember seeing look flip across the battlefielding, taking high leaps, and strong confident sabre slashes. Meanwhile its next to impossible to hurt either with their skillful moves, and blocks. If you want to be immersed in Star Wars battles without resorting to the obsolete PS2/xbox era methods, then your in for a real treat.

Meanwhile I'm not sure I've ever been so won over in gunplay by effects alone. I mean Killzone 2 is about my highest standard, and that is due to everything from accuracy, to the weight system in aiming, and yes the presentation as well with thundering heavy sounds and visual recoil where every shot feels like deadly metal being charged out a barrel at high speeds. Most games work kind of in a similar fashion, you judge them based on how the control, sound, and accuracy is, and of course its usually with mundane or fantasized guns. Its all about tying mechanics in with the presentation. Battlefront here is an exception to that, mainly because it takes the road less traveled with lasers, and perfects their own style. Mechanically, its very flat to the point of pretty much doing nothing. It doesn't have a strong weight to it that sensitivity bumps can't fix, there's little if any recoil, and there isn't even a reload function or true ADS (thankfully). You just point and shoot, and then there's that time to kill problem I discussed earlier. Yet the sounds... oh that sound is just so perfect. There's a true feeling of power behind that sound, seeing a bright light come with it, whizzing across the battlefield, and someone collapses smoking from a successful take-down. You truly feel like your holding a devastating face melting sci-fi gun in your hand, and the only thing that comes even remotely close to comparison is Doom 3's pulse rifle. To say that every gun feels like (or even better than) Doom 3's pulse rifle is a very strange, but good compliment from me.

Conclusion

Can it survive

Looking at it from all that I've analyzed and wrote about, this game is good, but not all that good. Its a solid shoot in the vein that we've come to know shooters from last gen... you know, where it all acts trendy and then dies in a year, and then it might get a sequel that is even less subtle in trying to borrow from the leading competitor. Its a B grade multiplayer focused FPS, only with a really great skin thrown over it. Buy it if you're desperate for a new online game and COD isn't your thing, or buy it if you're a Star Wars fan; that's my broad recommendation. Like the last two MOH games, there are some nice tweaks and novelties at play here, and under better circumstances (like if they cared enough for bot support and server lists) I'd trust it to be worth its launch value and a great experience. However considering how the industry's run now, and how some other bits are shallow or bad (time to kill, lack of team strategy, etc), its just not something I can buy confidently. However its also worth noting I'm not big into online or Star Wars, so once again I recommend it to those crowds. I mean I'd consider this a better buy than Destiny, and yet that has a fairly fierce attachment from certain people. Sometimes people will still click to something that's low or of confused quality just on the basis that a couple shallow aspects stand up well... in this case, it controls well and does Star Wars right, so I can see that happening.

I also still advice people to be cautious with this one. While it may sound like my worried "ITS GONNA BE BROKEN AND TEARS WILL HAPPEN!" article I wrote is obsolete, I already took the beta into account and still stand by the possibility of a launch tragedy happening. The beta is very polished for what it is, and as others have brought up there's already been clear improvement seen over a game that at one point didn't want to leave a floppy framerate. So is it time to cheer and say it'll be alright? Well, no. BF4 was also looking great to if you remember it. This beta wasn't so open, even to the point of not allowing online survival runs (part of the server your supposed to be testing in a beta) or cosmetic customization. We got 4 whole weapons, a few card picks, two maps, and each attached to one specific mode out of what will be quite a few in the end. This could very easily be a vertical slice, and considering all the conditions we're going up against I stress to people that this game should not be pre-ordered. Let others be the final beta testers who burn $60 on a questionable product. Its still a movie tie-in set for the holidays, published under EA, and even Dice themselves have come forward and said this was originally an intimidating thing to squeeze in. I'm keeping my fingers crossed this all goes as well as the beta does though, because the beta really was a smooth experience.

..and of course, just a small reminder, don't take internet analysis too seriously. I may be harping on all the negatives, but at the end of the day I'm still coming up to the beta and playing it, often smiling and happy I did so for at least a few minutes. Its a game, and one made by a company that has a sizable fanbase for various reasons. At the end of the day, its going to have its rough spots, but its also going to be fun because... well its a video game. Do I think its one worth $60? Ha, no! However the more time I put into it, the more I come to understand and just appreciate that its here to play in my free time. There are times where I stopped writing this, played it some more, and felt bad over spending so much complaining about the XP system that is no longer an obstacle and the current match is going great. ...then I respawned into a wave of enemies twice in a row and wondered if I wasn't harsh enough. Its a game, its going to be fun, and its going to be flawed. Considering this is a free beta, you shouldn't be taking beta reviews like this so seriously, and instead go out and play it yourself and just stand by your own feelings. Then ask yourself if you'd pay for the type of fun you're having, and how much would you pay for it. Then you have an answer that is better than all the hours spent on this whole opinionated report.



Remembering Uncharted 2

I'll admit I talk quite a bit of trash about Naughty Dog compared to everyone else. Its not only from the fact that I don't think their games are as appealing as everybody else does, but also that I have an issue with the vast majority of what comes out of their mouths. I don't hate them, but I'm more open to criticizing them while most sit by quietly twiddling their thumbs, and by comparison I probably look pretty mean about it. I could go on a big list of all the types of lies or sad excuses that come out of their PR department, but honestly that isn't to say they're a bad company either. In fact in terms of pure quality (or fun) the fact is they're among top tier teams. Few devs give us the same lengthy campaigns, thrilling stories, bonus extras, and replay value as Naughty Dog does. I may not love all their games, but I respect a lot of the work put into them. However there is one major exception to my mixed views on their library: Uncharted 2. That was also my first PS3 game. With the collection coming up there was a demo released recounting a part of the mid-game city area, and after replaying it I felt the enthusiasm of that game all over again.... despite a couple quirky hiccups.

I still faintly remember what it was like before, and after, getting my hands on it at the end of 2009. The game released, it was everywhere in the news. Footage was going around blowing my mind on the concept that you could basically pick up and throw what were essentially explosive barrels. Then there was said to be this amazing blockbuster globe-trotting adventure, top notch visuals that went beyond a simply experiencing HD for the first time, and multi-layered gameplay that mixed together puzzle solving, shooting, and stealth. By the way that last bit is a bit exaggerated from the result, but that was the hype, and regardless of how true or false you take it in the result was still a fairly engaging 3rd person shooter adventure. Reviews were sky high, and the boxes proudly printed with "over 25 (or 28?) perfect review scores!". I remember looking hard at the box art in wal-mart, with a stranger beside me just as enthusiastic about it as we both said to each other "this game has to be amazing". I showed my parents the game and said "If I get a PlayStation 3 for Christmas, I need this to be one of the first games I get for it". I was admittedly even more hyped for Killzone 2 in all reality, but this was a close second. By Christmas morning it was in my hands as my first (and in that short moment, the only) PS3 game. I got everything updated, put the disc in, and eventually started it all up in an exciting game where the only problem was trying to figure out gameplay from cut-scene in that famous train crash intro. Later I dabbled into multiplayer, and was overjoyed by the funny santa hats everybody had for the holiday as my team rushed around in the temple for a great round of TDM. The next day, when I was in the middle of the Borneo level, my dad picked up an HDMI cable and when I continued the game in the mountain view, it was just amazing.

Of course, that's just fading memory speaking for my first impressions. The question remains, what made the game so special, and how does it all hold up? How will I remember Uncharted 2, and why? I think its actually pretty simple in the end really. At first glance Uncharted 2 isn't so special. Its a big budget T rated Gears of War game. You have standard base mechanics, a fairly normal video game pattern, and even the story the series is well known for isn't anything fresh considering we've all seen these Hollywood treasure hunter/archeologist hero type set-ups. Still in the same way I love Killzone, Uncharted is a series that gets the small things right and innovates in those areas. I seem to remember Uncharted being one of the first big hits to use grade A motion capturing, it was welcomed for not only high-end graphics but also all the colorful places it used them in, and its gunplay and the adventure were just soooo good. It wasn't just that you were playing another 3rd person shooter with an adventure, it was that we were playing a really damn good one with love put into it all over the place.

The high quality starts with Nathan Drake, one of the first things I'm sure we notice. He's a hero who isn't as average as the devs would like us to think but yet he's still a fully well developed character. He laughs, he tells jokes, he panics, he fusses about his luck, he's a smart alack in one moment and fed up with the adventure in another, etc. He does this constantly, in scenes, and in gameplay, and sometimes even by the player's actions. I'll never forget how funny that scene is where I wanted to see if I could run into a rooftop pool during the middle of the level (its in the collections demo for the record). Upon diving in and playing around, Drake starts calling out "Marco!" and giggles. His friend isn't as amused, since she just wants to finish the job. Its a funny small little moment that you can experience that sort of ties your actions as a playful gamer into the plot. The game recognizes your input, and ties it in with your character, who then drags the NPCs into the scene as well. Its a nice small touch that we probably take for granted today, but back when this was new it was a tiny innovation. The closest thing I can think of before Uncharted where you could have your character actively talk out of linear scripts may have been Metal Gear Solid's Codec talk, but even then you could argue that is its own little isolated piece that works like a hint system. However the attention to detail goes beyond just the character doing things like swearing about grenades or joking with friends. When you roll in snow, it sticks to your clothes. When you swam in water, you came out wet. When you saw an explosive scene break out, it wasn't just a cut-scene, it was a massive scripted sequence that goes with the very game itself. What used to require a pre-rendered cut-scene, or some lifeless game script coming into play was now coming at you in defined detail from within the gameplay itself. Of course this has later been exploited far out of control with other games, and has aspired to many QTE type scenarios, but Uncharted by itself has always kept these set pieces balanced and engaging. Meanwhile when cut-scenes did show up, they obviously had some great quality, and at times you could feel like these people were real enough to touch compared to past game visuals. All of these little details made for an entry into next-gen that was not only a good preview of what was to come, but it stands in Uncharted 2 as one of the best balances and executions you could probably find.

Of course I'd be lying if I tried to sell you on the game by its perfect execution, as it wasn't perfect. It has a sample of some pacing problems within its own gameplay variety. One moment you'll be facing a big action scene, shooting wave after wave of enemies, then something awesome happens where a helicopter or tank is chasing you, and then after you beat it you're suddenly wandering a temple and just climbing for 40 minutes. It'd be one thing if it were nice down time, but it just feels a bit like an oversight to have areas go on for that long only to then make us run a marathon of gun battles afterwards. That being said though, Uncharted 2 was the best in the franchise at still doing its pacing right. That's why most people agree on it being the best, and its one of those cases where I'll have to agree. Uncharted 1 and 3 have some of the same problems where it feels like the balance was flung out in favor of extra gunplay, which is something I normally don't have a problem with, but there's only so much crouching pop & shoot gameplay you can take in one little area. Uncharted 2 kept the movement flowing. You were always moving up when you fire, cleaning up the area, and even approaching some of them differently. You could always find new weapons to use, find a diverse set of enemy types to encounter and think around, and you always left a battle feeling satisfied. There were also trophies for dedicated weapon use, giving me plenty of replay value and some incentive to try using the weapons I didn't like the first time around. Meanwhile Uncharted 1 and 3 have a few areas where you pretty much can only win by bunkering down a position for a while.

Then there was multiplayer. Multiplayer was flawed, but a blast to play regardless. Its weird to call it this, but it had a slice of old school mixed in with something I can only state was obviously uncharted-like. You climbed around things, scaled walls, yanked people off cliffs by their feet, flung treasure off your shoulder so you could get it to your home base, and tried tearing people up from behind cover. Meanwhile you still had this old arcade vibe that 3 totally destroyed. Every match gave you the same starting weapons, with basic drops off to the side as teams ran out of their spawn points. You had to look for an pick up every weapon you wanted, and occasionally you might get lucky and find a serious weapon like the grenade launcher or magnum revolver where the right shot would mean instant death. Between these, the interest in perks, the skin variety, and the interesting envrionments, Uncharted 2 was a great multiplayer experience I cannot completely forget despite discovering so many superior multiplayer games. Its one I kept coming back to periodically, and one I kept taking an interest in. Naughty Dog supported it well and I even occasionally bough some fun and silly DLC stuff like the Killzone skins that let you play as a Helghast, meanwhile I could run in and shoot up Cole from Infamous or infected Nathan Hale from Resistance. While I'm discussing skins, I'll also bring up the humorous dead explorers, cool looking glowing skeletons, the stretched "Doughnut" characters, etc. Basically anything that had a ragdoll or character model was probably a playable character by multiplayer or in-game cheat code standards, and there may even be a goofy secondary version for laughs.

Multiplayer was great

At the end of the day Uncharted 2 remains one of my favorite 3rd person shooters ever, and honestly as my favorite work from Naughty Dog. In theory I should like Last of Us more for its better gunplay and a legit health system, but honestly there's just something Uncharted 2 does right about the flow and feeling of its level design. It doesn't get in my way much with some dramatic story, it doesn't throw too much buddy puzzles, and the slow segments can be overcome easily by chapter selection. Last of Us... just has a different vision that required a different pace I didn't care as much for. When I finished Last of Us, I felt complete and done with an awesome game. When I finished Uncharted 2, I felt like I had completed an awesome game and it was begging me to keep playing it for more fun, and so I did. I returned to the levels blasting through again, trying new weapons, new firing orders, got more practice and better at the small stealthy bits, found just a bit more of the dialogue, kept going into the multiplayer, and several months later I returned yet again and the cycle continued. It just did something right to keep me interested and coming back, enjoying it, and thanking a team I once didn't think much of for so much good effort into such a great game. The extras, the treasures, the cheat codes, the writing, the fun, it was all just there and hits the right notes for a truly fun classic. At least I think it'll be remembered as a classic.

So while I think the re-release is a bit overpriced, don't make any mistake on thinking I look down on it. The 2nd game on its own is a treasure worth hunting for in itself, and the other two are still great as well. Its a shame the multiplayer wasn't carried over though. Still its worth picking it up, and heck it was worth fooling around with the fun demo as well.

Now playing(:) a lot of different stuff

I usually just focus on something, and if I don't have a particular hook to anything I often just don't bother with something like a "now playing" article. But I feel one is overdue and have that urge to write. Meanwhile I do still have some interesting stuff to say for some of the games I've been dipping into. So for now I want to at least have a basic touch upon all I've been doing lately.

Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain

I've actually finished this game about a week ago, and then had some... mixed feelings hit me. I wont go too far into that, and I may even finish an article I started on it, but to be quick and blunt I feel this more than ever is a great example of reviewers failing to do their job. Games like MGS5 is what made me want to do game reviews and prove my style to begin with. I want detail, I want mechanics covered, I want balance reviewed, and I want a recommendation on how the game stands both alone or within its franchise. MGS5 is a fantastic game as just a fun game, but as a MGS game with MGS standards it drops the ball, and even as a stand alone there are so many minor problems or pacing issues that its simply baffling that people slapped together a 1000 work review with a perfect or near-perfect label and never addressed anything outside of "its fun, you can do lots of stuff, oh and quiet's design is trashy. Kay, bye!". They basically review the game on its concepts, and if they can get to the beginning and ending, and give it a score. There's rarely every analysis on how good it really does anything, unless the reviewer has a quirky tangent and makes an exception for one area. In MGS5's case the only complaints were over Quiet, or the lacking story, but it never even glosses the horrible balance of a certain boss fight, the awful downturn chapter 2 takes, how buggy online is, or how the general mission structure is broken at worst and doesn't make sense at its best. So many details just lost because they can't bother to review a product even if it was their freakin' job and title to review that product.

In the meantime though, I've been cleaning up stuff afterwards and experimenting. I've been using D-walker a bit more, tacking side-quests, goofing off in replays of main quests, and taking in different equipment loadouts. Its been fun for short bursts to just run around and fool with stuff. On the other hand though I've also had to deal with those broken missions as I said before, and try to weed out which side quests are legit side-quests. Some I've already beaten are for some reason appearing as playable missions and mapped locations to go to. So I've been basically tying up loose ends, and enjoying myself for short bursts after the main game is over. Don't take all my whining as a serious reason to rail on the game though, I wouldn't be playing it if that were the case. Its a fantastic game, and still very fun to get into. I'll probably continue playing it some more, or even get involved in the real online mode once that's unleashed upon the world.

Witcher 3

I can't believe I still haven't beat this game, but yet I also can. Does that make any sense? So I've put that to the test and have decided, screw it, I'm doing this game and I will get to the end of it so I can feel better about putting it on the GOTY list in the end (I know its going on there somewhere). So I've been wrapping up side-quests, finished my recruit hunt, tracing back on old quests I've outleveled, and have been starting new things that interest me. I'd be here all day if I went on once again about how great this game is, so I'll just leave that little list here to inform on how I've been playing at it. I will say though that I think despite all the patches, the game has potentially gotten even buggier. While patches have supposedly fixed many weird little quirks, framerate, and nitpicks, I've lately noticed an increase in ones that truly get into my face and stop me from enjoying something. I've seen things disappear, animations break, one entire small scene was broken as Geralt froze during what I assume was supposed to be him dodging a boulder, and now I'm actually stuck inside of a broken quest. The character I'm supposed to defeat actually stops in an animation loop and I cannot "win" the quest, and its a really darn cool one. I love this game a lot, but I'm starting to get that sad feeling it doesn't want me to finish it. I'm just not sure what I want to do with it at this point. Do I just redo the whole mission, quit it, or lie in the dialogue to break the same fight? Maybe all I need to do is just restart the whole game and it'll fix itself. Who knows.

Minecraft

Yeah, returned to this, with a very similar mindset before: its a good zen game. Zen gaming being a game to play and sort of just... not... care. I just sit back, chill-out, and do some digging, building, and crafting. I feel like little thought and strategy ever goes into my work here, but its just something to relax a bit more with. Its something a little different, and yet just familiar or cozy enough to come back and enjoy at some point. I was kind of encouraged to get back into it because of a poster of all things. I just kept seeing this really awesome poster at a store where it shows you a long scene of basically everything in minecraft doing something. Its basically just the entire world animated into events that can all be captured in one picture, as sort of a where's waldo with world lore replacing waldo completely. You just have so much to look at, discover, and just enjoy. Its just something very fun to look at, and seeing it with a game I know just enough about, it really just speaks for how cool this medium is for adventuring and creativity. So I grabbed the poster, was looking it over, and thought to myself... now was just a perfect time to dive back in. Who knows, maybe the game will grow on me more this time? In the mean time, I sort of envision Minecraft as the above picture shows. Its just... relaxing, serene, but also with some undertone to it that just sort of gets bland and boring after a bit.

Currently I've just upgraded my copy to the PS4 version. The least I could do considering I think I got mine free somehow as a side effect of it to work with a platform cross-over, and yet it somehow effecting my rental copy as a digital full PS3 copy. At least that's what I think happened. Anyways got the game, enjoying the better draw distance, and I'm working with a new world and building a home. This time I started by building an underground house that exists under this big hill I found. I built it up, made my bedroom floor out of sandstone, and I've been casually working on supplies. I'm about ready to turn on easy mode and fight some monsters now. I've also been discovering some new subtle features like a book you can actually write in, something I'm way too excited about. One day, I really hope I'll figure the hook out just enough to beat the game through and see the ender dragon. On top of that wish, I also hope to build my own 3D adventure/platformer game out of the create mode. Its just a cool little wish I have sometime.

Smash Bros 4

Actually I've sort of put it on hold for now since I'm physically away from the Wii U. However I've returned and put some good time in because they finally put out some good map DLC I wanted. The pirate ship map based off of windwaker is back, and that was by far one of my favorite levels from Brawl. I was just bothered so much by its absence before, and now that its back it was worth returning just for it. However I also grabbed the Mario Maker stage, which is pretty cool, and fooled around with some mii customization to. This is honestly the game that keeps me turning on the Wii U every so often, with it always being fun to return to for a few matches. There's nothing quite as good of a fighting game as this, and it still stands as a fantastic game to turn towards. I'll probably put some more rounds in when I get back.

The future...

Again, not something usually here, but since I'm a bit blissfully scatterbrained at the moment I have some rouge ideas of what I may leap to next. I just woke up to the realization that Telsagrad was a freebie on PS+, and I'll happily give that a go despite knowing its likely not for me. I've also had PlayStation All-star on my mind lately. I've got an article on the way about it, and I've been seeing quite some attention drawn back to it lately, so its only natural that I should probably play a few rounds of it. Of course there's the possibility I mentioned of me playing MGO when that's released, so that's a thing to. Outside of that I just think I'll be mostly working with Minecraft and Witcher 3. I hope to get further than normal in Minecraft before retiring from it some more, and as for Witcher 3 I still have that want to beat it. I especially want to beat it before the new expansion, something I proudly wanted to support and pre-ordered. I may end up leaving MGS's main game for a bit, but I dunno I suppose it depends on how much I want to keep coming back for side stuff. So yeah that's some plans there. Just a weird little (somewhat cheerful) blog on what I've been up to lately.

The force isn't strong with this one...

Okay so I'm going to fairly admit this is an article working off of a rumor on Battlefront, but upon just lightly hearing it I had to be one of those guys that just says "great work detective" quite sarcastically. Truth is though I am grateful for the supposed warning, but its just one of those rumors so intuitively true to your own predictions when you put 2 and 2 together. What is this rumor? Star Wars Battlefront is broken in its last tested state, and yet its coming up just around the corner. That's also funnily on the coat tails of an article warning us about how broken games are becoming more frequent around the holiday season. However this particular game, more so than say COD, Assassins Creed, Fallout 4, and whatever else is happening is nothing compared to the line-up of Battlefront. Lets review this shall we...

• EA & Dice are behind the game. They aren't working off of a clean record here.
• Dice is stretched a bit thin it would seem. A year after BF4 and they have this game, meanwhile they've also got Mirror's Edge, and they're most likely going to suddenly announce a new battlefield game knowing their routine.
• Dice has showed a weird lack of content/quality in the concerns surrounding Battlefront. Maybe this means they've got a tight focus and polish, but I can't help but see it more like they may just not care so much about getting the product under control for fans.
• Speaking of fans, isn't it funny this is a licensed product that could and will sell by brand, timing, and franchise name alone? Do you think they'd exploit that maybe a bit?
• Oh and its been developed from the start knowing they'd have to hit a movie release date. That also just so happens to be around the big holiday time. This is basically a double lock-down for standard publisher behavior, where they will simply laugh at people who beg them to give it more time over this bug that can be magically "patched" later. ...even if those bugs are things that may actually be really tough to patch, like say Battlefield 4's issues.

Yes I know I'm being all cynical about this game yet again, but its all a textbook setup for a game that flops hard on performance, and maybe even flops hard on reception given some of the mixed notes taken already. It wont be a true flop in market terms, but that's also why it will flop elsewhere; EA knows that this thing will sell by brand, they're egotistically boasting a 10 million seller prediction! They'll believe they can get away with glitches. Also I'd like to shoot one counter-argument down really fast here. The beta is coming up, and in nearly any other situation I would just stand by idly and tell you with confidence "see for yourself" and this article wouldn't happen. About that though, Dice is the specific developer that comes to mind when people wonder if the beta worked better than the full game. Battlefield 4 had a beta. Bad Company 2 had a beta. These did not fix the issues, be it netcode hiccups of BC2, or the outright crashes and broken status of BF4. Battlefield Hardline did fine as far as I'm told, but was made by a totally separate developer... one that has much less of an issue with gameplay stability.

Guys look, please just be warned. This isn't fact, and this may just look silly in the long run. Still it doesn't take a genius to figure this is a suspicious position, and with some shady people. These are guys promising you that the game is in great and complete shape while also promising people who pre-order early access to maps that will be two weeks late of the rest of the game (free to everyone at least, but still they're literally trying to use an unfinished design as a selling point). Don't pre-order this. Don't run in and buy it day one. You can wait, see if its working, hear what like-minded gamers (NOT THE PRESS! Professional reviews rarely give proper critique anymore) have to say, and then make an investment. Meanwhile, go watch the movie instead. Its more likely to live up to what its advertising... at the very least as a functional, enjoyable, sci-fi movie. This game on the other hand is in a highly questionable state.

I'm not saying all of this just to be mean-spirited, or cynical, but rather to look out for people and to say I'm kind of tired of this trend of trashed up games. This is both a warning to think with your head rather than by impulse to consumers, and to developers and publisher a challenge to prove me wrong and do the right thing. Make a great game, I'd love to see that. As I said when I last wrote about this game, its great that at least somebody picked up this franchise and core concept, but if its done poorly all they managed to do was steal it from out of the hands of somebody that could have done it better. I don't want to see that. I'd rather see a good battlefront game, even if I already went out of the way to say it wasn't for me. I'd like to know that kids are getting this for Christmas, fans are getting this expecting a new way to participate in their favorite lore, and that movie goers have a piece of the gaming medium to celebrate with, and the end result delivers. That wont happen if its all botched by a release now, patch later format which screws up the game and leaves all those mentioned with a frown and a gut-punched feeling. Heck it might even get some riled up so much that it pushed them away from the medium. That's not what I want, but the way things are lined up... I'm forced to worry that it just might happen.

...well at least they're still good at making great visuals

Don't feed the professional trolls

A face of disappointment

You'll be disappointed if you think I'm talking about internet trolls. So microtransactions are still causing some controversy lately in the media, as MGS5, and Uncharted 4 both circulate the area with news that they would indeed have special points tying themselves to real worlds credit. Actually I started this they were, but this article is pretty late at this point, but still holds a message I believe needs to be said because of the events. People are up in arms about it, but more and more I'm starting to hear this response that its a necessary evil made to avoid hiking the prices up. In other words, they're forming this made-up assumption that you can either magically get a bigger more complete game with less outer-deals for about $80 (rather than $60 as per USA prices. I wont go into details with how the expenses are higher elsewhere). That's not some strawman argument, that's something I've seen polled by press, and within comments. It also feels really similar to what Cliff B. said some time ago when insisting that games are cheaper than ever, and possibly even too cheap. I wouldn't normally discuss this issue very much (aside from leaving it as a quick quip against AAA), but like always, its always a good number of people or the wrong message being sent that ends up stirring me into topical rants. Still I'm really shocked and a bit disappointed in the amount of people flagging for this terrible logic. They've also fallen for assumptions even developers themselves have abandoned, when they failed to attack the used market time and time again (to quote one comment posted today, "its to fight the problem where most people are buying used", which is an unbacked statistic which is nearly impossible since you'd have to essentially have most copies of all new releases circulate 3 gamers in order for that to even be true). It is all essentially a false dichotomy.

For starters, lets look at just how phony this false dichotomy is, possibly with a glance back in time. Remember Uncharted 3? It had pre-order bonuses, sponsored dealings with subway, collector's edition, game of the year edition, some DLC came along, later enlisted microtransactions and a very light F2P model which included statistic alterations in the main game (In other words, subtle pay to win-like stylings); how did they explain away the scummy online pass that harasses all players with a code to validate the very product they just paid for? "and so at some point, you know, games have to make money. " as if that $10 extra somebody buying used just might give them at some point sure seems to keep them afloat. Also minus the two editions, none of that includes the main game itself, which is of course the core purchase of the experience at a big $60 per person. This was also all on top of Uncharted 3, a core game and formula already made, so its not like they were making a revolutionary engine, or just struggling to crank out their first PS3 game. That's not to discredit a lot of work that did go on behind it, but don't think they were pulling out full force here, they were clearly making a smaller recycled product compared to their last two installments that got them their fame. Yet they still had the nerve to pass off DRM as just a way to barely survive. "So at some point, games have to make money" and I suppose it only starts after all those other ways to make money. Then we have games, who in addition to committing to most of all these crazy things, also work under multiple teams of bloated staff to rush a game out early on a yearly basis raking in as much as they can from one brand.

How'd all this consumer exploiting go for you Evolve?

Where am I going with all this? Well its an example of how broken the "Feel sorry for them" mentality is. Somehow, you want to tell me that this whole situation is so black and white that its either pay for scummy DLC practices or raise the base game price in order for these guys to make the game they made? Um, no. They get my support from making a good game and me paying for it. If they need anything more, then they should learn from their experience and decide to do a more modest experience somewhere in the process next time instead of overstepping their boundaries. How about that for a choice? How about AAA stops creating its own bubble ready to bust? How about they learn from efficient games and think that maybe people don't have to have cutting edge stuff rushed out by a staff of over 300 people and over-priced mo-cap animations? The funny thing is that back in that vote where the false dichotomy was set to be $80 + DLC, or current model, people chose the current. It wasn't because they agreed with what was being done, but out of what I saw it was more that people were looking around and noticing how many open world games were doing it and said there was already too much content than they really needed anyways, and that they like that feeling of choosing what they bought rather than having it all stuffed in one expensive package. I think that kind of speaks for itself about what AAA is doing wrong. It isn't just the fact that people are missing out on extras in games, or the industry is hostile to its very own consumer, but its also just ran by confused people that think cramming more chore work content in is a good use of their resources (which they'll then claim we need to help them make up for). I'm sure some of the same people responsible are the same idiots that have to run focus test groups to see whether or not people will accept a post-apocalyptic open world game.

We've got plenty of potential and already existing games out there proving you can in fact be more cost efficient, fun, and survive without cheating your fans. Its not just small games either, but things like The Witcher 3 (which is shocking, considering it was half-published by WB), Metro, Dishonored, Bloodborne (and Dark Souls for that matter), Skyrim, and heck I'll even personally put up Wolfenstein: The New Order. So far Fallout 4 seems to be following a similar path. We can also go back and even look at games like the first two Uncharteds, or Killzone 2, all of which were certainly not on a low budget yet still made their studios happy. Its actutally quite funny that practically all of those games did well for themselves, and later the same exact console cycle many formerly successful ones started exploiting sour practices. Meanwhile a minority (though still quite a good bit of them) of games still felt content with just leaving that stuff out. The only real consistent theme with who ended up doing good or bad was pretty much just a matter of looking at the publisher. Its almost like they just wanted to exploit new ways to get money with newer tech, and just so happened to be attached to purely the business end... oh hey, that's what publishers do and they bottleneck the distribution of games. Funny how that works. Oh and another thing? Some of these guys have abandoned a lot of their old ways, noting it got them more flak than money. You didn't see online passes anymore. You don't get exploitive microtransactions making a debute with Killzone shadow fall (the ones that came later are cosmetic, and updates have even made it possible to win free DLC). You don't need to type in online pass codes for Titanfall. When these unproven, unsure came around the launch of new consoles they needed to be sure people would buy them and look on from a nice standpoint. People also backed away from and mocked the xbox one's exclusives doing it out of the gate, and between that and its DRM reputation they had to seriously play catch-up to win people back. However its been more than a year now and MGS5 and Uncharted 4 have microtransactions in them. Coincidentally those are massive games coming later after high system sales, and Uncharted has been proven to sell on microtransactions. I'll repeat myself: its not a necessary evil that keeps these guys barely alive, its blatant exploitation to use whatever means necessary to grab money from us by dangling a part of the game we paid for in front of us.

The weird thing to is that at the end of the day, I'm not even sure I'm really angry about this stuff because of the developers and publishers who have raised it. Well of course I am upset with them, but I don't often show it anymore. I've moved passed it, and I've accepted that as long as I stick to my principles and just have fun with what I can get, I'm happy. Besides, I tend to love the games that stray from these practices anyways. Still what really bothers me is when it hits the community like some kind of weed. Suddenly principles mean less, ignorance takes hold, and then fans turn against each other to defend... oh how nice, self-destructive industry practices that wreck what we aim to enjoy. Thanks for that guys. I'm really not sure I like the fact that we've reached a stage where discussing immersive-breaking money grabs is somehow a gray area. I'd like to have hope that we'd just instead see more cases like Evolve, where the practices just kill themselves as Witcher 3 parades around thanking its loyal fans. I'd like to just think the worst it gets is pre-ordering R&C for a gun. Instead we're at this point where people really are just bending to the will of greed and saying "its not so bad if you tell yourself it was necessary". Its like watching a bunch of youtube comments lash out against an obvious troll; people are just buying one big joke of an exploit that was aimed right at their emotions. Of course that's not to say its doom & gloom, as admittedly the opposite end of this has been getting louder while stupid things like Deus Ex's tiered pre-order occur. I worry for the outcome though, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we get more Witcher 3's with a loving community, and less of Evolve with people raging and defending shady business.

A true monster slayer

Now Playing: Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain

Yup, the big one. MGS5 has released, and I grabbed it in the evening. I'm also playing Armello, but I want at least another match in before I do my first impressions on that. ...though when that match happens is up in the air, since MGS5 will clearly be stealing most of my time. Its just amazing.

Okay getting my nitpicks out of the way, the way the game starts is pretty... borderline terrible. It throws you into a hospital, and you've got like an hour full of barely interactive (but just interactive enough that you can't skip it like a cut-scene) pieces strung together. Some part of my mind, especially during a bit where you hide, was telling me it was just a tightly confined way of doing a tutorial, but no.... its just not. It does have a lot of basic elements slowly progressing, like you do hide some, you do shoot some, and you do learn to walk, but everything else is a full contrast to the entire experience. The tone, the action, the stealth, the fact that this is the first open world game, it all is just gone into what might be confused for a military FPS scripted sequence. If I was trying to introduce someone to this game who didn't know about it before, I will make sure they skip this entire piece... even if they miss a bit of the story in the process. Basically this all could have been done 10 times better in the first real level. The only excuse the hospital scene has, is its decent cut-scenes.

Now that out of the way, let me just talk about how superb everything right after that is, because this just might be one of the best games of this decade! There's just a lot to this all! As soon as the first real level happened, I was just jittery with excitement over just taking out two guys at an outpost. There's just so much to do, and as the game keeps going on even more things come out! There's one slight side of me that is kind of upset at how long some of it takes to get going. I mean I guess it makes sense that you would need a weapons expert before your guns can get customized fully, or you'll need to wait to raise the puppy to your companion, but at the same time I've sunk over 10 hours into the game already and I just want to goof off in a replay with maximum options. Still that's a nitpick because of just how much there is still left in what I do have, and I do love still earning some of my stuff.

So much chaos just waiting to be caused

I've gotten my first S rank by doing crazy stuff already. I left a cardboard box in their way, shot up an escort, stole their prisoner, and fled. Boom, bear rating and S rank. It was fantastic! I've been getting all bear ranks now, so I suppose I'm doing pretty good. Kind of weird that I have to actually look up what they mean, but with that out of the way it feels like its time to replay some missions and work on getting the fox emblem unlocked for my flag. Anyways there's just too much to actually talk about, but in basic sense this is another amazing MGS game, and this time its throwing you into a massive world to play in. They really capitalized on the strategy, and playful elements of the game, while also emphasizing this massive meta-element to the whole thing in the form of Motherbase.

Now... the story and side-stuff is interesting, because everyone keeps saying this is not the Metal Gear game you expected in that area. I can see what they're saying, but I also can't help but disagree a bit. Snake really is a bit closer to being a mute, but here it actually makes sense... and not just because the director wanted the player to feel like snake. Snake wakes up and is clearly left in a broken, murky state, yet he's put in charge of this huge operation. I think its perfectly normal to understand his silence, and his quiet attitude. He's sucking in all of his thoughts, and just tries to execute it when its absolutely necessary. The cut-scenes, while kept shorter and go into less exposition admittedly, do still feel directed by the same MGS guy. They go into these awkward dramatic pauses, get the characters to do weird show-offy stuff (shoot the blades of the helicopter Quiet), have humorous little nods to things, etc. These aren't normal or minimalistic cut-scenes by any nature. Combine that with the natural scarcity you'd have in an open world game, and it feels kind of like what I'd expect. I do however miss the in-game story that comes in the form of codec calls, and I also miss the cut-scenes that go very deep into exposition, but still we all knew those would be cut back, so I can't say I'm too disappointed. Besides, the cassette tapes still make a somewhat solid substitute and are very enriching to hear while on the field. Now its about time I just cut this short, and get back on the field. Besides, I need to earn the fox emblem sometime.

Break is over, lets go!