Putting a price on No Man's Sky...

No Man's Sky has always kind of had me on the fence. On one hand I absolutely love the idea of free space travel. I love imaginative sci-fi worlds, looking at new creatures and biology, exploring uncharted territory, and cool sci-fi scenery and themes. Its one of those areas where if you let it, imagination is the king. However as a gamer, I tend to find myself playing the fiddle of a more mechanical space. I love working in worlds with tangible mechanics, enemies, and mastery. I'm not the best at games, but I tend to love still having some set obstacle, a story to drive forward with, and that interaction with someone else's world, and the ability to sort of bend and mess with everything in it. I need a system to play with and goof around with. No Man's sky is a weird middle ground between appearing absolutely gorgeous as a space adventure, but yet as mindless as a minecraft game when it comes to trying to find good gameplay. So I didn't know much what to think about it, and decided to keep hype out of things and wait for reviews to see if it'd be worth paying the default indie count. Looks like I have to wait longer than release though to see that, because the usual indie price count isn't in the launch window. Controversy surround No Man Sky as confirmation hits alongside a pre-order that we're looking at a $60 game like any other on our shelves.

Now first off I want to confess I'm naïve under two accounts when it comes to discussing this subject. For starters the game seems well polished, looks like a technical marvel, and has a lot of promise. I should have kept my mind open to something higher than the $20 average. However I do still feel like $60 is a bit much, but lets talk about that later. The 2nd problem is... well, simply put, I've stayed low on the hype and I'm not the most informed. I don't really know all the recent promises that may have been made, though according to a few talking heads I'm not exactly missing out on anything as they're still kind of vague on gameplay specifics. I'm not going to talk about the depth of some element like its space combat because I simply don't know about that, and its possible few others do as well. So if I'm missing something huge and crucial, feel free to laugh at my ill-informed opinionated little editorial here. That being said, I still feel I've got some points to make on both sides of the controversial subject matter.

Well for starters, lets go over one thing I hear people commonly gloating about the game and carrying it to the peak for this discussion over its price: Scope. Scope is an idea of how big the game is, and could be pushed to mean even more, but the thing is... its really just about the size here. That's kind of the problem. Its an exploration game based on scope, and very basic elements of essentially sight seeing. There's some upgrades going on in the background, but it basically seems to funnel into just making exploration easier like getting a better suit for hostile environments. That scope is gloated about because of just how huge it is though. Its an entire universe boxed up into a game. How can they do that? Well, its computer generated. Five years ago this would have been incredible and unimaginable, but honestly that's just another tick off the box for your generic indie game on steam now. Its actually not but so impressive. The size and scale is still there, but ultimately we've seen these games enough to know the seasoned gamer will easily catch the patterns quickly and want something a bit more... developed. These environments are at their best when they don't actually theme themselves around the levels. Getting a seemingly infinite land in Minecraft and Terraria actually means very little, but why people adore them is their different approaches to gameplay. Minecraft is all about creation, socializing, mods, and is essentially lego in gaming form. Terraria is the more RPG-friendly equivalent, offering players a simplified scape to paint in but one full of more enriching upgrades, enemies, worldly progression, and diverse monsters. No Man's Sky... is somewhere kind of lost in between all of that. You can't customize your ships, multiplayer interaction is supposedly as in depth as Journey, and people just aren't all too sure what lies beyond a couple common survival clichés and the scope. Its pretty much your typical $20 steam indie experience with a prettier picture and a bigger field of computer generation. Don't take just my word for it either, here's a good quote from this interesting article:

My biggest problem with the game is the lack of utilization of this game. What’s the point of having the UNIVERSE at your disposal if you have no one to enjoy it with. Players can visit all these worlds, but can’t build structures. We can have space battles for no glory. We can have the most resources only to trade to a system that only gives money and other resources so you can continue to find the center of the universe that will give you some unknown prize. The purpose of the game is exploration, however the game fails to utilize the full potential it has as when it doesn’t embrace social aspects of any kind. So essentially what you have is a BIG taco shell universe that can hold a lot, but there is only the meat of exploration. The taco will taste good to some, but it would be better if it added the lettuce of multiplayer, the cheese of customization, the sour cream of role playing, and so on. Now when you remove the massive scale of No Man’s Sky and what would be the unneeded procedural generation No Man’s Sky is just another exploration, survival game on steam with limited interaction with the world besides the sole purpose of collecting and trading.

Now to be completely fair, the entire anti-hype article as a whole is not only a bit older, but wasn't well agreed upon. It wouldn't be fair to dismiss them as fanboys riding the hype train either, since the article was mostly bashing the lack of multiplayer functionality I certainly sympathize with comments like this guy's:

In a world where multiplayer is king and single player experiences are dwindling I welcome a personal journey through the vast unknown, if devs are reading this ignore this review, stick to your guns, I believe a space centered game that anchors on emersive personal gameplay of exploration instead of a constant barrage of attacks and interruptions is more genuine to the wonder of space exploration than the many space battle games available

However the problem isn't just in the multiplayer... its that this entire lack of functionality just might persist through the entire core game. I'm not sure how long one can be entertained throughout a vast unknown universe once the loop and functionality becomes very known, predictable, and samey. Oh yeah, and remember when I said this article was kind of old? Well that means guys like this weren't hearing the $60 entry fee to this personal journey. What is yet to be seen is just why this personal journey is any different from Journey, Minecraft, Terraria, Starbound, Planet Explorers, or other various indie games that are going for a 3rd of the price or less.

Is anyone, or any...thing really out there?

Some of the other retorts to the backlash in price is that this game is merely being beaten down for being "indie". Are we really just hating on its price because its indie? Who gave AAA the exclusive rights to $60!? Well... actually the people asking that may have kind of stopped paying attention to their very words. AAA comes from the idea of high budgets, high production value, and expensive top-of-the-line stuff. That doesn't hold true all the time, and there are complaints and disgust with such lazy efforts there (Not sure why that's being forgotten. People aren't necessarily defending AAA by pointing to them as $60 purchasers), however for the most part AAA does in fact mean $60 expectations. A couple of cheaper games have jumped to that price range (mostly niche Japanese stuff), and some AAA games have in fact been cheaper, but for the most part it stands that typical $60 purchases are either bulky deals, or in fact a AAA experience. Expecting that consistency isn't exactly such a horrible thing. I do have mixed feelings on the idea myself, as indie games can and have provided more value. However here's the thing, none of us exactly agree with the $60 price to begin with. With all the complaints these days in not only bad gaming practices, but the general economy itself, we're paying $60 per normal game because we logically have to (as a market, not individually. you can wait if you don't really want to pay that much). If games like Uncharted, GTAV, and others sold themselves shorter, there'd be a bit of a problem getting that to break even. At least with indies we're getting a cheaper choice. Cheaper methods of development, smaller games, and WAAAAY smaller teams, or even crowd funded bigger projects all mean we've got a cheaper alternative on our hands. No Man's Sky is doing nothing different by using computer generated worlds over lovingly hand-crafted details, and a 15 man team. They're also backed by sony, so marketing and potentially even the development process itself is kind of covered by a fairly big company that is hoping their console exclusivity makes up for the money they put into it. Unless there was some wicked wizardry here, I can't imagine the game's budget channeling into the AAA zone, and that's a large part of why I myself don't agree with it being up to stuff with AAA costs.

I'm not trying to come off as mean or angry at this game in any way. I think its still got some ambition, still has a great core concept, and is something that some people will love and should buy regardless of the price. I'll also add that this high price has at least confirmed that its getting not only a physical copy, but kind of a neat special version as well. However I still can't get myself to side with this price. Its not competitive, it doesn't look practical, and it kind of feels like a bad omen for the indie industry. Yeah I guess I should have added that into the monstrous past paragraph, but in truth those who are viewing this backlash as anti-indie are ironically ignoring the blatantly bad AAA signs present. The ripped out pre-order content, and sketchy marketing where we're still not 100% sure on the core gameplay, is all additionally a bit of a bitter pill in addition to the fact that we're paying $60 for what might really be a fancier $20 indie survival game. I do emphasize "fancier" though, as it was wrong for me to once assume this to be another $20 digital indie game to grace the PS4. I can easily see this with its great graphics, scope, and pace (beating out more ambitious space explorers set to release) being easily worth the $30-40 range. $60 though? Well maybe its just that I wasn't so interested in the first place, but I'm definitely going to wait for a drop. Of course who knows, maybe something special lies in wait, and I just can't comprehend what this has. Maybe I have stayed out of the know for too long and this game really is set to be something prized among indies. Ultimately if its worth it is determined by free market rules of supply and demand, and if it looks good to you, shoot for the stars. Maybe, somewhere, this will make somebodies dreams come true and they get the best space exploration game they have and will every play. I wish Hello Games luck, and I hope they do indeed manage to make such a game a reality. However... I wont experience it until it probably set to be about the $40 or less I want it to be.



Still potential for magic to happen.

Shot down shooters part 1| Half-life

I would like to start a temporary special in anticipation of the upcoming Doom (4). Like Doom, many shooters were at the top of their game at some point, and just found theirself in a ditch or way more obscure than before. However I believe such great works shouldn't be forgotten. Almost every good shooter was a good shooter for a reason, and sometimes they merely bumped on the road because of some careless mistakes, or a twist of cruel fate from the market. Either way, these games were good once, and are in trouble or much smaller now and I want to address them in a special series. That might mean pointing to their problems, speculations, their potential future, but most important of all why they were special to begin with and their potential legacy across the genre or even general gaming. Right now I have plans for three big ones, but depending on how they go I might extend the series out and even cover some significant disappointing shooters, or inventive cult hit shooters that never got off the ground. That being said, as of now I don't plan on Doom being one of those here. This is more about the genre since Doom. I think we all sort of saw where things went wrong there, and I'll probably discuss future wishes, the legacy of its old, etc in other articles before and after its release. For now lets instead start off with a big one called Half-life.

About the game

Half-life was no small accomplishment or influence for the medium. Its the huge wave that shifted FPS away from the founded format of maze riddled levels, and obscure (if at all existing) context in favor of a real adventure through the same familiar lenses of blasting monsters with a shotgun. Only that new change of pace, format, and level design actually did slowly change the feeling of the genre. Half-life wasn't technically the first, with games like Sin releasing with some clever and well designed linear driven detailed levels, and Duke Nukem 3D having already given you a world full of interaction. However Half-life was close enough to the origin and definitely did things the most clean and logically out of its competition. You were set in from the start in a literal ride through this amazing new sciency world, and got to really know things for a proper plot to unfold. Suddenly aliens were coming through a teleporting and tearing things apart. Worlds collided as things from some foreign planet or dimension invaded earth by your very hands, and inside your laboratory... so it was only natural they die by your hands as well. You had friends, you helped out scientists, you watched as creative scripts played out, you visited alien lands and helped free the slaves, you fought against a government cover-up, and you just generally watched as the world evolved with the chaos and action that unfolded. There was a real story, a real climax, real characters, real interactions, and a real sense of clever pacing.

So what about the gameplay? Mostly the same kind of stuff you've come to love. There were some changes though. With the more orderly and detailed level design, as well as the scripts they obviously worked hard on to be seen, you were now funneled into a specific direction rather than running through corridors guided by a map. Naturally secrets were also less secretive. The gameplay's pacing was also slightly slower, with reloading, some hitscan enemies you needed to take cover from, and even scenes where you simply stood and waited. Now a lot of us take this stuff for granted or even get angry at it, but at the time something like this was something to be awestruck at rather than frustrated with. Never before had story and events unfolded around a good action game in this way, and at this level of quality. However lots of great things from the good 'ol roots stood in place, and made for a fun experience. You still had all the essential elements of tactics and survival at the core of this shooter. You had to watch your health, and be on the look-out for health packs. You needed to prioritize every weapon, learn every enemy type and attack, use the environment to your best advantage, and keep track of your ammo. You were still clearly playing an FPS, and still enjoying many of the same features that made you love games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake, Unreal, etc. The trade-off here was all in pacing and context. Would you like to go on an awesome adventure, or be lost in a maze? Some 90's shooter fans think of Half-life in a bitter-sweet light for the course it set, but naturally the chain of evolution favored the sense of adventure. After-all, still to this day people pride themselves on trying to get good stories out of their games.

Welcome to black mesa!

Half-life was succeeded by spin-offs that told separate stories within the same plot, and later went on to be used as a basis for many multiplayer games that would later become their own huge classics. Games like Counter-strike, Team Fortress, and others. Hundreds of good mods, most of which also followed this fresh narrative format, were made off of Half-life's foundation. Some years later, a full blown sequel would rock the industry over yet again. This time Half-life was proud not only of their narrative confidence, but now also boasted a totally new engine independent on their own work: Source. This new engine was full of great physics, vehicle combat, an interesting dynamic range of AI, great lip syncing (for the time), and just generally looked and performed really well. It was also highly accessible to users, ushering in yet more mods on top of bigger budget remakes of some of those older mods. Team Fortress & Counter-strike to this day are still massive games. Of course the gameplay itself was also considered stellar, earning a ridiculous amount of perfect scores from the press. An amazing action packed adventure full of lore, object manipulation, interesting enemies, and surprising twists and turns with every chapter and event. You were never bored with all the cool things happening, ranging from leading a rebel attack on oppressive alien overlords, dodging zombies through a haunting abandoned town, and learning to use gravity as a weapon all to name just a few random points.

Influence & legacy

Well the influence is fairly obvious. A combination of natural progression, technology, and most of all: Half-life all lead to pretty much killing the classic 90's style of shooters. It was bound to happen at some point, but half-life lead the way to asking games to put down the mazes and seemingly random secret walls, and to instead invite gamers on an adventure. People no longer wanted to simply be stuck on puzzling levels, they were now being introduced to compelling campaigns, cool aliens, and actual villains all while seemingly retaining most of what makes a game just fun to play. People were being dazzled with scripts and actual story while still getting their "Boom headshot!" kicks in. As Half-life stormed the world another time around, people wanted to show off new engines, that they could do physics, and maybe throw in some kind of other odd gimmick as well. Of course by that point games were also under the influence of another juggernaut by that time: Halo. However we can attach that to half-life to. Half-life lead the way to opening shooters up to those kind of games. With an emphasis on cool scripts, and an epic scope, some people got the idea to take things to the army. We saw a small wave of WW2 shooters charging in, and then sci-fi games that had full fledged battles as well. We saw military drop ships deploying us with friendlies, and we charged into battle watching and helping AI beat the crap out of each other. Games like Halo and Medal of Honor certain were to thank half-life for helping out their foundations. Even in more recent times, games like Metro, Bioshock, and potentially most of all Resistance 3, all still clearly hold Half-life's values close in hand. Heck even Doom fell under its format and aped the style with its least beloved entry Doom 3. Some would also credit Half-life's influence over the current over-scripted military shooters, but I'd rather look more at the true causer of that problem rather than a tiny stepping stone towards it. Half-life ushered in a massive era full of less intrusive scripting and fun mechanical driven gameplay. Half-life may have had a train ride in the beginning, but games like COD and battlefield were afraid to ever let you off of theirs.



Its about more than just demons now

Of course the multiplayer side wasn't very changed... at least not directly. Half-life still managed to find a way though. Again, mods made it happen, and a lot of great games came out of it in the end. Whether you're looking at small interesting hits like Day of Defeat and Natural Selection, or the giants like Team Fortress and Counter Strike, it all started in half-life. Of course this may seem somewhat natural now that we can obviously see valve is involved with some of those games. Still its kind of amazing that it also brought a tactical and sharp edge to multiplayer just as it did with Single player. It happened all over again with Source too, with hundreds of mods for half-life 2. There's an entire modder's sandbox made off of it called Garry's Mod where you can do pretty much anything the engine could handle. That's kind of incredible to think about.

So what happened to Half-life? Well... it just didn't come out.

The fall, and the future

As I already said, it just didn't happen. Half-life went on a short lived episodic binge, deciding to follow Half-life 2's route on the same engine and story, but push it forward quickly in small and slightly experimental short hits. There was going to be 3. 1 came and went, people kind of went "eh", and then 2 happened and was exceptional. Not only did it open up gameplay, introduce new enemies and tricks, and opened up the lore, but significant plot points hit and hit hard. The very end was a very dramatic and unexpected cliff hangar, the type to leave gamers shocked, talking about it, and anticipating the next. It was set to come out on a 2007 Christmas holiday window, and never happened. Yeah let that sink in: episodic game, big cliff-hangar, massively successful franchise, 3rd and final arc gets lost for nearly a decade. Someone had to have made a really terrible call somewhere. They were making an episodic game, had the platform and fame to launch it on, and couldn't bother to somehow fit a meaningful chunk of progression in a 3-5 hour timeslot to fill their episodic quota and continue the story for the same amount of time that entire successful franchises have come and went. Now they've lost their main writer recently, haven't had any meaningful announcements on the game in a good while, and were out of the game for so long that sci-fi settings kind of fell out of style and came right back into style during their down time.

Half-life has been on such a long lasting hiatus that people just don't know what to think of it anymore. At first people were a bit upset it was taking longer than expected, then jokes came out of it, and now people mostly just seem to care about the jokes more than the series itself. Heck its kind of an old pet peeve of mine, but people are asking for Half-life 3 rather than episode 3. You waited and sat on it for that long valve, that people can't possibly expect you to waste their time merely following up this wait with a mere episode like you should have. Plenty of people have even stepped up to their soapbox, looked back, and tried to poke holes all over the franchise and then complain the future wouldn't be much better. That's how long its been... people are able to have that anti-nostalgia backlash, and point to your "aging" game that helped put games into the modern age to begin with. Even fan-art covers have become outdated, with all but one I've seen being of 7th gen consoles. Some have speculated Valve would just rather focus on business and steam distribution instead of making quality games. Even one of their own statements insist they aren't as interested in single player games anymore. However the funny thing is their service is a bit behind as well, so I'd like to put that cynical idea to rest and instead point to their lack of priorities and just carelessness with the series. Or maybe I guess the nefarious G-man has the game locked up.



Wake up Dr.Freeman?

The scarey thing is also in just what Half-life plans to return on. We've had the industry massively change in its absence. Part of the reason we probably saw such a flood of COD style military shooters, and a regression of the genre is because one of its key players was absent for so long. Now how will it be received? Since its last game entire new shooter fans have been introduced, have different standards, and gaming itself has been going through various different periods of changes and controversy. Its a harder to please world full of fans who distinctly remember the values of the old, people who have mildly changed their mind, and those that want nothing to do with the franchise. Worst yet, the story arc itself will be rendered irrelevant to many eyes. Again, that's why it was kind of ridiculous to just not finish the dang 3rd episode off of a cliffhanger. By this point many will tell you that you must "evolve" and to some degree you do have to. You can't just have some stiff plastic little pistol anymore. You don't need go to the length of forcing Aim down sights to every weapon, having some guy yell "Oscar mike!" over a radio as you wait for some slow AI to open a door for you, and you certainly don't need to implement regenerating health. However I'm sure someone out there is expecting you to, and I'm sure its crossed Valve's mind. They need to strike a balance with matching up to current standards, and to figure out where shooters have regressed and fixed them, all while still solving what has aged in Half-life 2. Contrary to how some want to blame half-life for modern FPS, I see a big difference. There's a right way to go about scripting, player agency, and of course the core gameplay balances. Half-life did it right, and I don't want Valve to lose that ability thanks to weak influences from a confused market.

To me, Half-life was never the top mark of its game that it was made out to be (which was deserved, I'm not complaining or anything), but it was something I wound up playing, enjoying a lot, and deeply appreciating. It had a Mario-like quality of revolution for the FPS industry, and its revolution and what it brought to the tablet is a big part of what made it so great to me. I didn't appreciate Doom's maze-like style until later, and usually felt little for it. Half-life's format though? The adventure made all the difference. Seeing cool aliens, getting context for them, challenging armies, learning WW2 history, escaping explosive moments, laughing at a quirky but well crafted physics engine, and fighting built-up bosses were all thanks to the foundations of half-life. On top of that I loved the tactical but crazy multiplayer games that also came off of it. Team Fortress 2, which also went to inspire games like Killzone 2 and even what I've been playing lately, Garden Warfare 2, are all amazing FPS games that indirectly came out of Half-life's creation. Without Half-life, my enjoyment of the genre might be stuck to customizing arena bot matches in games like Timesplitters. So it'd be a shame to see the current path continue, and the world is left deprived of future half-life. Occasionally one company steps out to attempt to carry the torch. Metro, Bioshock, FEAR, Wolfenstien, they all just to release an awesome engaging single player experience with a clear direction, and world, and some crazy or interesting gameplay. Their impact just isn't the same though, and I think the industry deserves a big icon like Half-life to lead them back. ...who knows though, maybe the franchise itself will live up to its name and is set to only live a half life.

Why I bought an EA game...

So I bought an EA game again. Normally not a big deal. I wasn't exactly buying it because it was an EA game, or not buying games because they were an EA game. Rather its important because for a long while EA has been hated and synonymous with greedy and messed up AAA practices, and simultaneously also just a company I found myself not buying from for a long time. I've had my eye on a few games, but most of it comes out of curiosity or "buy it later" mentality. However many passed over my radar because they were Battlefront, TitanFall, or another Battlefield game. I'm done with generic military shooters, and I'm also not buying into this forced online crap for subpar efforts. Naturally they lost me when their most acclaimed offline accessible title was an open world RPG from an overrated company. The last games I can remember buying from them were Kingdoms of Amalur, Bulletstorm, and a late Crysis 2 (which I got used for $5... and gamestop even generously stuffed my game box full of passes with wishes that one of them worked, so suck it EA's old idea of console DRM). So its been a while. Again it wasn't an intention to avoid EA, just the way they decided to take their business. Just like how one minute I was liking quite a bit of Ubisoft games, and the next Crew was some online only racing game, and Rainbow 6 doesn't have bots so I'm waiting on a sale and went a year not touching their stuff despite them making my last GOTY. If they stop putting effort and quality that appeals to me, or they do bad practices, I stop having an interest in buying their stuff. So instead of using EA as an example of everything wrong, lets be fair and give them a good highlight when they got things right.

What was the game that changed my mind? One that actually did enough to get my attention through common-damn-sense marketing. You make a good product (or at least try to make it seem like one), and people will buy it. That good product was Garden Warfare 2. First to understand that though, you must understand the issue with Garden Warfare 1, as well as its greatness. I talked about it at great length here, noting how it looked like an amazing game full of fun and charm, and yet I was nervous about playing it. I ended up passing on it completely, and never bought it. EA gave it away for free on PS4 later that very same year it launched on the platform. That included free DLC from its xbox exclusive days. So I definitely set aside my dispassion for bare-bone online games, and gave it a try with a smile on my face since EA gave me a game I really wanted to have (but didn't find it worth it). It was awesome. Online only, but awesome. If only they fixed that, I would buy it again. Oh hi Garden Warfare 2.

Oh, yeah!

GW2 came up and I didn't even glance at it for a while. I loved the original, and EA made me with their free give-away, but I knew what was coming. They never had any regard for my kind of play, and would make yet another amazing game without the structure to back its high price and awesome mechanics up. oops, how did this word of bots get in there? As soon as I heard that from reviews, I immediately changed my entire perspective. I turned overnight from paying absolutely no attention to this game aside from a review glance, to digging up precise details and putting it on my wishlist against Primal, Dying Light, and various warrior games. More news came out, and more trustworthy thumbs up were had. All around me, even skeptical and bitter anti-EA people were praising this game to the high heavens. Loads of content, split-screen support across a broader range, bots, no season pass or immediate microtransactions (wait for it, it might change), actual effort put into a solo experience, and everything a traditional sequel should have in terms of basic additional content. Oh, and you introduced potentially hundreds if not thousands of players through a free given game that was already well loved by its fanbase by making it free and handing out what now looks like a demo of what later came. I followed through on my wishes, and on the 1st of march I made a decision to buy Garden Warfare 2 for $60. That is how you sell a product. That is how you give a game, your name, and things around it a good reputation. That is how you get my money, and thus anybody of a similar mindset or demographic as me. Its not hard science to figure out: Games are fun. Put effort into fun. If we want games, we will buy fun. Help us see that your game is fun. Does this, or this look more fun to you, or this? Yup, shockingly seeing the game simply advertise itself is more appealing than seeing money-begging over a product that isn't even out yet.

Of course, I suppose you're also wondering if its any good in the end? Well... yes. However the truth is, that doesn't actually matter a whole lot for the point of this article. The fact is they put away their surface greed, took down some barriers to entry, and made a game that looked good enough to buy based on its quality. The only problem left, and it is indeed one worth being upset about, is that its still online only in the sense of a connection. Its admittedly written on the box so I was warned, but still there's absolutely no reason for it. I don't want to hear about the account sync nonsense either, I'm about certain the game has a save data on your HDD, and that same data can hold your info and sync with the server. Its not an alien concept. You should be able to play in the hub, quests, and bots without worrying about whether or not the game is connected. To add insult to injury, there's an implied idea from the mailbox system that the game will stop working on 2017 via server support, which I really hope is more of a minimal time than an actual determined date, even EA doesn't shut off servers that fast. I'll also note it didn't fix anything regarding my request that an online focused game gives your proper server lists. That all is still just stupid. Still I was willing to risk that because its a fun sequel I can mostly play my way now, and it was a fantastic game sequel to another great game I enjoyed from EA's rare spark of generosity. In the end, this was a huge step in the right direction.

I don't just fuss at publishers for stupid decisions because they're "greedy", but its rather because they're just that: stupid business decisions. Games like battlefront, and Destiny are still going to sell as long as you market them hard enough, but there's legit grief behind vocal consumer's complaints. They aren't the only ones feeling that way, and seeding other gamer's thoughts with doubts on your games. They also speak very real concerns that in some way or another, others may end up feeling and letting go of the game, or simply passing on the next, or finding themselves just not wanting to play anymore. Others may never be able to even touch your game in the first place, including even Garden Warfare 2 because of your one glaring stupid unnecessary barrier. I can handle some "bad practices" and deal with them, but at some point it just becomes stupid for the consumer to buy something because your care is more on money than quality. It doesn't actually effect me that the tuxedo was locked as DLC in MGSV, even if that's just awful. However when you rush out a game like battlefront, giving me in fact less than even half of what its predecessors had, forcing it online, and begging for map pack money... why the hell would I buy that!? That's a terrible decision on every single note. When a company like 2K forces a convoluted DLC method on Evolve, begs for you to buy multiple season passes before you even know if its any good, and then has a history of releasing a more complete game later and I have to ask again: why would anyone buy that first copy? Heck the game did so poorly I'm not even buying its complete bundle like I originally planned. These things get very stupid, and go against the basic idea of advertising an entertaining video game to your audience.

Now on the other hand you heard nearly endless praise for Witcher 3, Splatoon, and GTAV even when they all are still guilty of something. Why is that? Because they didn't blatantly advertise that they were milking the consumer like everyone else has been doing. They sold well in their respective ways, got great PR, and provided services people were rushing to buy more of because of their efforts. ...and that's exactly what I'm thinking about doing with Garden Warfare 2. As long as the online connection piece doesn't end up biting me, I'm kind of feeling like I'd like some more maps, or maybe a new fighter, or if they even add in a new hub world that would be amazing. The core game has me invested, is fun, and was bought because I knew it would be fun. Now that I'm invested and happy, maybe I'd buy even more for such a fun game. That's how business should be. Its strange that this is such a distant concept for publishers. I'm not against them making money or selling DLC, but they aren't even trying to be smart about it. If you surprise attacked us with a season pass AFTER a game launched, that simple move would make all the difference and I wouldn't blame anybody for it. However we live in a market where they strangely think we'll buy a game up-front when you're essentially telling us that its not all there yet. Its strange how they've some how felt comfortable, and accepted this common idea that you can demand pre-orders for DLC that doesn't exist for a game that isn't yet in our hands. Its astounding they think we'll buy a game for doing less, and somehow reward that with hard earned cash when you've clearly shackled or drained it in some way. Go back to basic facts and marketing: You are selling us a product. Is that product good, or are you already telling us that we should be buying it in pieces? Are you selling us something that's fun, or just extra tickets with an expensive tag? Are you selling us a game, or a "service" that vaguely looks like one underneath a bunch of fees? This should all be easy to answer, yet publishers so often choose the wrong one. Finally, with Garden Warfare 2, EA selected the right answers and have convinced me to spend $60. So far I can't say I regret it. Of course, a big thanks to Popcaps for doing the actual fun stuff in developing the main game, but this is mostly surprising from the EA side of it, and there's no doubt they make some of these calls. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go practice some more in a bot match on this wonderfully fun game.

A happy little garden indeed.

Lets discuss Far Cry Primal

Back when Far Cry Primal was announced, I was so very confused. So soon? What's the new theme going to mean? Is it a full game? Those were all answered, but the confusion still sits with me. Then something happened to remind me not to take the internet all that seriously. In between the confusion, and optimism, somewhere down the line people felt they knew the game so well as to instantly start absolutely hating on it for the same reasons they did  pre-released Far Cry 4 ("Ew, its a reskin"). Well exactly as I predicted, what they were really doing with Far Cry 4 was improving and adding over top of a game everyone loved. Turns out it worked, it was great, and in fact tied for my GOTY 2014 spot as an incredible experience compared to the FC3 entry I felt mixed about. However... Primal is still weird. Its taking that same idea in a different direction. Its still building and adding, but its also going hard on a far different theme and thus also taking out things and recontextualizing lots of the foundation. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but this close to release, its got me well enough as to hold off of Dying Light (yet again) and ponder on it a bit. I thought I really wanted to think out loud some more on it and post all the weird, good, and bad I'm finding in this.

The good...

This is just great

Well have you seen the premise!? Its about damn time! For a good long while I've been one of those weird guys that occasionally sits off to the side while people discuss WW2 vs modern military shooters and I try to say "What about romans, knights, or any old civil wars?". I don't believe we should be as trapped to settings as our mediums (not just games, but pretty much everything short of books love to cling to a couple of settings or themes). We have such a rich history, a massive planet, such interesting and unique artists from different cultures, and so many different interests that its just plain stupid to get hung up on rehashing the same settings over and over again. So to hear someone bringing out a game set, and well established in a pre-historic setting under the frame of a first person action game is nothing short of an amazing occurrence. I also strongly emphasize this is framed over a first person action game, not some lame puzzle platformer, or some loosely labeled adventure game restricting you, but its an entire world you're seeing through and controlling like you're actually there. Immersion, presence, and input are all established in this fresh, uncharted territory. Without even talking much about it, this is already a huge thing to thank the developers for and a strong reason to look optimistically at this product.

So how do you turn a first person shooter into a pre-historic game without guns? Well the bow and arrow is a good start, then there's throwing spears, but it mostly comes down to some fictional liberties and melee combat. I think it'd be fair enough to just ditch the label FPS at this point. Instead they've gone out of their way to re-invent or even completely add new elements. Animals can now be tamed and added to a pool of animals you can sort of collect and then summon forward, changing the field of battle through their pros & cons. You've got an entire new dimension of combat to learn through them, essentially figuring out which of your furry pals does what and where they'll be best suited. Plus it sounds like each weapon can have a ranged variant with its own effect, like clubs being stun based throwing weapons.

Better than a pistol

Other things have been added and omitted entirely, some of which is really good. The hunting and wildlife has supposedly been more enhanced with predator and pray being more of a focus, you can track animals, and even pit animals up against each other. Radio towers that people got fed up with are ditched completely, with fog of war and outposts (bonfires) playing over their elements instead. While I don't know a lot about it (as I want some surprises) there's also a tribe system at play. Previous events where you walked around and bumped into a hostage event now come off as more of an AC:brotherhood style rescue to get new people at your aid. They will end up contributing to some higher cause to help you in the end.

The bad...

Disappointment?

People are all bashing it in for being a "reskin". Somehow even when you do a completely rare (if not just outright ignored) setting, you change one of the basic principles of the genre, and you add entirely new features or recontexualize everything, its still somehow considered the same game. WOW internet. Still despite their shallow perception that's so unexplained and out of the left field that its no wonder Ubisoft doesn't take internet feedback very seriously, there's actually still a grain of truth to it. Its a tiny grain, but its there and comes with some doubts. For starters... what the hell is with the melee system? It looks exactly the same as before. You run up to people and either hack at them until the splat down, or it connects into some kind of excessive chain animation. You know what would be nice for a melee centric game with no guns? How about a melee system with some actual effort put into it. Its lazy re-implementation of the same melee system because it seems easier to do that and get inventive with non-melee methods, than to actually make melee combat something special. That's a real shame.

Of course, then there's just the fact that some inconsistencies come into play. They oddly enough wanted to make the game so realistic that you can't have dinosaurs or an actual language, yet they apparently don't mind owl recon bombers. Yes, owl recon bombers. Oh and you're the one flying them thanks to what I think is some kind of shaman given power. Yeah, that's waaaaay more of a stretch in logic compared to "we wanted dinosaurs, because we think that makes games fun!" or "well they speak English because a lot of people hate being stuck reading subtitles". Even for the sake of fun, owl bombers is a bit... weird. Wanna know why its there? Well, it seems like tradition is why. Far Cry 3 and 4 took off loving and inspiring other games to integrate in a recon system before you sneak about. By taking you back before history, you tend to lose actual recon equipment. So what do they do? Well animals was an inventive companion system, so they decided to make super birds that make it somehow even easier than a telescope. Its a seemingly automatic sky vision scope that sure does the job way easier and less interesting than a scope ever did.

Oh and about animal companions, did you know taming them is as easy as throwing them meat and pressing square? Yeah, reminds me why AAA is slipping away from the vocal favor of gamers. They don't want us to have to think, or try anything interesting or it might scare away the masses. If it can be answered with a context prompt, then so be it. Such a huge missed opportunity to sit there and decide beast taming was left up to a one button push and an abundance of meat. Its clear they want to do something special, and flesh out various areas for it, but they seem terrified to take anything too far. In the end, they want you to feel amazing for doing so little. away from FC3's first idea of putting a rookie in front of a gun and having him be just amazing while his military trained brother dies at the start. Its funny to think this is the same franchise that introduced a unique concept as gun jamming at one time. They had to change that, but now they're on this kick of empowering the player. That's fine, but only if you empower their ability, rather than do it by limiting their actions. Here, its limiting their actions to make earning any animal a cake walk.



*sigh* Really guys!?

Finally, the last thing I wanted to moan a bit about, is actually what they didn't copy from the other games. Some of us actually want sequels to improve by keeping/improving the good, weird right? I guess I just want a bigger "reskin"? Anyways for a full launching $60 game with roughly the same looking world size and campaign, we're losing the multiplayer and map editor, as well as the co-op multiplayer. Now the PvP multiplayer sounds fine. I mean they pretty much screwed over the loyal community twice, and don't seem to be in a hurry to fix stuff, so might as well just stop wasting money on it. Its especially complicated when you change the entire theme to something that just wouldn't work... again, mostly because the melee isn't very functional. However the map editor is a franchise staple and was very close to perfection. They had a great MP one in far cry 2 & 3 that was loved, then an amazing single player or co-op variant in FC4. So it was getting real good, and now without MP, there was less to worry about adding. Nope, its just not happening, and I can't seem to find any reason why. I really tried to look into that one, couldn't find it. Yet FCP's team is calling this a full project, and a serious game. There's even a $70 version, so you could technically be paying more for less. I wasn't big into anything extra but the map editor, but this is still just a bad value and I feel it must be noted. I loved FC4's multiplayer, but again I can tolerate its absence. The map editor? That especially strikes me as a bad sign. These were one of the only guys that did it (but thanks for securing the future Doom), it was a loved feature, and now there's this smaller compact game that is showing up faster and charging the same without it? Seems like they decided to cut it all out to push FC near an annual status, and I have that nagging feeling we wont see it come back now. In the end the game truly does look like it should be slightly off the normal price, not raising or meeting it.

Conclusion...

In the end, I don't know whether Primal is a wise investment for me. If I take it in, it'll probably be over Dying Light. Maybe I can rent one or the other and figure something out. However on the whole, the situation reminds of almost like what people say about indies, except this is more of a AAA alternative. Instead of a small group making a tiny unique project on a budget, Ubisoft seems to be using Far Cry 3's formula and engine as a cheap base to make a still fairly expensive experiment. There's a lot of refreshing ideas and thoughts put into it, and I bet there's some good heart to it all, but they're still sitting there trying to make sure this thing sells to the masses to make it worth their marketing time. They're still trying to put out another big open world game, and still following various formulas they think tick the boxes off for mass consumers. However there's still just an undeniable charm of something special and different in place... well, okay I guess undeniable to sane individuals, but I'm trying my hardest not to take the "ew, reskin! My grandma could have modded this and made it free." crowd seriously.

Far Cry has normally been getting increasingly better for me as it goes on starting from 2 (1 is in its own territory of awesomeness and flaws). Far Cry 2 was fun, but got dull as it went along. Far Cry 3 was overrated and had some frustrating nitpicks, but was still a lot of fun and I finished it. Blood dragon was crazy cheesy fun, but felt a tad bit too short and underbaked to take very seriously (Oh and that was an actual reskin, but don't tell the internet, they loved Blood Dragon the most). Then Far Cry 4 happened. I ignored the idiots who just cried about it being Reskinned DLC quality, and for very good reason. Far Cry 4 turned out to not only fixed everything I hated about 3, but it kept giving me more and more surprises and fascinating additions. It gave us arenas, dynamic firefights and hostage rescues, sidequests that had context, environmental story telling that made the world feel like more than a hallow sandbox, the story and choices were great, the stealth so well-tuned that I can consider it among action stealth games like Dishonored & MGS, the separate mystic campaign was fun, and the map editor simply amazing and perfectly accessible. It was a blast, and became my GOTY for that year technically (but barely) beating the Wolfenstien game I spent so much time telling people would be the best thing ever. I consider it not only amazing, but honestly its one of the best if not THE best and most content stuffed FPS games you can get on current systems even now to this day.

However I think that's where the improvements end, and as I look at Primal I'm having a hard time seeing it beat that. It doesn't seem to have the same character to it, lacks all the side activities that caught my eye, we know it lacks everything outside the main campaign, then there's just that inconsistency. When I saw FC4 I knew what it was doing and I cheered it on, and was still amazed and surprised by it. When I see FCP, I think they're truly confident and all, but I get that same feeling people do with a new IP... we don't know where it'll go ourselves, and we only have the base ideas and know there's likely some clumsy flaws left in the way. This probably wont be a killer full blown sequel, and its kind of sad that something as good as FC4 will probably stay at FC4. Maybe it doesn't need to be though. I'll still judge it as its own thing, and hopefully it'll turn out fine. Heck, maybe its theme will somehow lend it to just being more fun at its core and it wont need the extras to beat FC4. Who knows?

Is it fun in its own way though?

The part of me that really wants this would love it for a lot of reasons. The unique setting, a whole new world to explore full of shamans and tribal conflicts, the novelty of various animal companions that fight at your side (as well as just the full bestiary that such a system would need), and of course what few fun things may be left to surprises like the tribal system and learning how to cope with the weird setting's unique traits. Maybe the night time is really fun since it takes a bit from those survival games now? Heck I just recently found out you can set a furry animal on fire, and that's just... strangely satisfying to think of trying in a game. On the other hand, there's a part of me that's just annoyed with some things and I'm not sure that's a good sign this early. I'm annoyed with some shallow systems I can clearly see, and question certain other priorities. I mean a lot of it comes down to that comparison again where you have incomprehensible voice work, yet owl bombs. Seeing voices thrown out the window removes a lot of the eccentric characters, and strong voice work the series has had going for it lately, as well as just the typical annoyance that comes with being glued to subtitles. In the previews already I'm sometimes feeling a disconnect with the words and the actions because once you read their story bits, you're left waiting for them to act and wondering where the proper timing for it was supposed to go. Meanwhile I can't help but feel like I'm losing some of their visual personality because I'm focused on the bottom of the screen rather than their hand and face gestures, which look really important when I do see them. Yet despite all that trouble and risk for something authentic, they want to make recon even stupidly easier as a substitute for lacking the scope? Oh and beast taming is just a joke. That's just... not even fun, why did they do that? Moves like that are just frustrating to see, and I can't help but wonder about the game. Will I overcome the lame super-conveniences like one button animal taming, and generic "survival vision" #46 in order to enjoy throwing a club across an outpost, or am I better off slogging through Dying Light's similar set of pros & cons? I just don't know. We'll find out soon enough. I really hope it does end well though, because it would be a real shame to see this concept go to waste.

Its still up in the air...

When the bytes bite...

 

 

So guess what? Recently Treyarch has announced their Black Ops 3 DLC is pretty much coming out and ready via an update patch. News story can be found here (along many other places) on the matter. My response, I'm going to admit, is impulsive as can be. Take this article with a grain of salt (and expect it a little less organized) if you want, but this really just was the last straw for me. I'm actually deleting this game and possibly even selling it. Yes, selling it. I don't usually sell games, don't trade them, don't get ripped off on the deal, but as it is now I feel like my $40 (yup got it on sale, still feeling stung now) is resting barely spent with this game and now I may be looking at something I'll never play again because of this patch. To me, green paper looks like it'll get me closer to entertainment than this game could thanks to this latest move. Ebay looks like they can give me $30-ish or maybe even $40 if I'm lucky with it, and right now I feel like I'll take that over the slim chance that I'll set this back up as a fully functional game in the near future. So you might be wondering though, why am I so angry over an update? Why am I angry that they're giving us more content via DLC? Well its actually got nothing to do with the DLC existing, and very little to even do with Black ops 3 itself, its rather just about the way everything has unfolded into this one very, very, very inconvenient little situation. Its not about it adding to this game, but rather what its doing to take away from everything else by forcibly adding this in. The problem that possibly upsets me the most, is that this isn't something I'm just going to fix by selling black ops 3, rather its a problem because its happened to various amazing games and its going to keep happening unless just maybe more speak up about it. Black Ops 3 is just one that works extra hard to tick the boxes which upset me.

To make this more practical since I still haven't directly said what was upsetting me, we're talking about space, memory, convenience, installation, content, and just generally getting to the game you want... and the fact that with every single new generation, it would appear its getting worse. This update is one of a few cases where it just crushes things for me. I'm not big into COD. I like it, I thought for $40 I'd get a good kick out of it, there was a lot of content worth enjoying, and its something I know anybody around me can jump in and enjoy (I bought this around the time I replaced my stock controller, thus had co-op capabilities). After playing it for the first 4-5 days after the purchase, I mostly put it down. I still came back as recent as the 31st of January to play some dead ops arcade 2 and a bot match. I mostly do kind of that. I get on, I play some bots, I leave. That's typically my COD experience beyond the first week, but it really does scratch that itch of a good quick dumb fun bot arena. Unfortunately this one in particular is built poorly so that you need to be connected to receive a lot of even the most trivial of features, like gun painter (relevant later). I took a big risk this time, because now more than ever it takes up some big space. 50GB at launch, and I estimated around 6gb more for fixes. That's a huge game space. I could fit two ubisoft open world games, MGSV, tons of indies, or about three remasters within that space. However its just something that happens, occasionally one of the big AAAs throws a big 50GB at you, or so close that a patch puts it there. Typically, I have about two games per that size installed at a time. It just takes up THAT much, and obviously there's got to be room for capture footage from those games as well. I still want other games out there installed to choose from, so I don't have a PS4 full of 50GB games, and honestly I've been scraping by on space for a long time now. I usually have to delete something to put another thing on, even if I technically have the space for it (I'll talk more about that later, it is very relevant to some of the problems). I didn't get until about two years into owning the PS3 (120GB slim model) for this to happen to me, and that was also at a time where I got more games put on the system thanks to my dad also owning and buying games that we shared with each other. So... things are definitely harder on space.



This was supposed to be a better experience...

Naturally as a casual player of COD, I expected at some point to remove COD for an install later. I haven't yet, but knew it would happen one day. However... I didn't expect to load it up with a 14GB waiting time AFTER the base install. Sure I can still play whatever worked out of the disc without that, but there are two problems with that 1) Thanks you "known shippable" bugs and AAA for releasing more buggy games than ever into the public that almost need patches to play right. 2) Everything online related is shut down until you're patched up. For an online focused game like COD, especially with artificially constructed locked off features like the freakin' emblem maker of all things, you can't enjoy all of what you paid for until that patch is done. Even to a hardcore fanatic that never deleted this off their system and plays online daily, its 9GB worth the time wasted versus just downloading it off to the side after you paid for the DLC while you play some normal matches like you should be able to do in a sane world. So I'm complaining about a 60-ish Gigabyte game that tests your patience if you dare to delete it or get in on it late, is that all? Well no. In case it wasn't already obvious, people are pissed that teams like this are forcing this DLC content on everybody while still charging you for it.

 Furthermore, its worth taking a step back when looking at this. We've got an entire $60 game crammed with a ridiculous amount of content inside it ranging from 8+ multiplayer maps, a zombie map, dead ops arcade 2, a full campaign, a remix of the campaign, runner mini-game, cut-scenes, all the voice acting and sounds in the entire game, 30+ weapons with tons of attachments and skins, and of course all the base programing that works every single one of those things. It all comes in around the full force of a bluray disc at 50GB (I think technically 47GB or so). Now what are we getting from the DLC? 4 maps. I'm hearing conflicting reports that it might be 5 plus zombies, or 4 including zombies, but that shouldn't be a big difference either way. It ends up being 9GBs. That's nearly 1/5th of the base game. To be fair, one of those maps is a zombie map which definitely has a lot more content than just some normal MP arena, but its got no damn right to be declaring its about 1/5th of the base game in size. This isn't anything new really. By this logic, why are network patches now 2GB? Why did AC Unity need an 8GB patch near the first day for its fixes? And don't say its because it was just that buggy, because The Witcher 3 was fantastic before it patched some extra bugs and minor features with a size that literally doubled their whole game. This isn't reflective of the content they're fixing, its just that these patches are horribly optimized. When another one comes, and another one comes, and another one comes, they all add up. Then you're telling me you're forcing DLC we may not even buy on top of this!? Yeah, I get pissed about it. Oh and as for black ops 3, that means we're probably looking at the game ending at around 80-90GB of space. Yeah you thought I was just complaining about 4 maps? Nope, I got the future in mind to, but Black Ops 3 sure doesn't care about your future since it might easily eat up 1/5th of your entire console's harddrive without any care in what else you wanted to do with that space.

The little known team behind Hardware Rivals finally clued us in as to the optimization case when they decided to hurry a patch out near the launch. They remarked that it doubled the size of the (small) game because of its timing.... and like most patches, it didn't actually fix everything as they later patched it again to fix more matchmaking issues. However that patch was smaller and yet included more gameplay relevant content. It all came later after some resting time, feedback, etc. Unless the first one had some major overhaul deep inside it, this perfectly proves that optimization and patience goes a long way to trim this stuff down even if its new content. Killzone Mercenary on the Vita had a similar case, hurrying out a day one patch that took up over 1GB, and they apologized for it, updated it way more, and by the end everything (including added content) was compressed into around 500mb. Yes that's right, optimizing this stuff is the difference between a massive annoying download for little simple fixes, versus entire game changing content alongside fixes that rolls in at what could be just a little bigger than the save file of a modern open world game. Of course I don't expect that to always be the case, especially since we're talking about a vita versus PS4 game there, but you get the idea that optimization goes a long way. Again, Witcher 3 wasn't exactly handing you an extra copy when they decided to hand out a game doubling patch. Actually you know what, let that sink in. I pick on COD for breaking the straw, but Witcher 3 is another unbelieveable case. In the same world we have Killzone Merc rushing out a 1.5GB patch and apologizing for it with a massive compression later, we have a massive open world game like Witcher 3 that manages to make more patches in total that eclipse the very game size itself (mostly in one patch) without any of that being major gameplay content.

Got a potion for this mess Geralt?

The major difference though that upsets me here is that Witcher 3 is an open world RPG, and COD is a multiplayer FPS. One is a game you get sucked into, and then you're finished with by credits (I'm not that focused, but a major majority are and I'm still not settled with it yet). The other is something you may just wait to have friends over, or play to kill some time.... or are completely addicted to. COD is made from the ground up to be very accessible, appeal to a wide audience, but also kind of servers as the master of nothing. COD really isn't likely to be the blood and backbone of your gaming, and you'll want to be playing more alongside it, or may not even want to be actively playing it at all. A guy like me has other things I like to enjoy. If I decide an occasional dip is worth the money, and I want to play it occasionally, that should be fine and done. Its straight forward capitalism. Well guess who is suddenly locked out and feeling cheated of their money when we're looking at a future in which it might take me 30GB+ of download just to play a match with a friend, or to get a quick fix of some fast paced TDM fun, but I got to wait on a patch that downloads three expansions I don't even own. Its not just me though, it effects everybody. It effects the guy that just bought the game late and is finally getting in on it only to be met with a huge wall. It effects the people who have data caps. It effects fans who have had a tough day and just want to get home and play a simple match. It effects the milder fan who bought Witcher 3, runs home happy, and then is forced to sit in front of a screen asking him to delete one of his favorite COD games or else he can't enjoy this new game, then he has to sit there frowning in front of a download page as one game that does this scummy thing is deleted to make way for another that does this thing, converting the entire joy of getting a new game into complete frustration. This is bullshit.

Don't give me any of this "its the cost of higher technology" dribble either, a lot of this is in how things are being made or rushed with too many outliers and inconsistencies lingering for me to buy into that talk. Yes memory requirements get bigger, I know and accept that. However things are not going well from various angles, and unoptimized rushed patches for buggy games are just the start. A lot of the supposed excuses behind this fall flat when you look at those that come from outside the norm, or put in the extra effort. Nintendo is running PS3 grade stuff without any of the hassles PS3 went through at the time, but if you talked to devs and sony that made you install games its because the "loading speed needed it". This was also evident by the end of the life cycle, nearly every game just ran off the disc just fine like Bioshock infinite, big shock: they didn't need to install big MBs or GBs to run. Xbox one isn't able to run games before PS4 can, even though they're mostly the same systems, that's because of the way they were built rather than because it had to. I could go on and on, and I originally did, but I'm detracting from my main point by lingering on similar issues. My point is that I believe the tech is screwed up because of carelessness, its not a requirement for the future. This memory hogging comes from bad optimization, the DLC is forced on us because of idiot decisions, games leaped in massive sizes even from their superior computer counter-parts with no stated reason, and games are forcing installs even from the disc because the systems were made to do that whether it was really needed or not. Then there's the fact that the memory inside the very system itself is a false reading, as well as the required space to install a game. The space you need to install a game is double of what it says. So if you have a game that is 20GB, it needs around 40GB to even bother trying to put itself on your system... that even includes games that don't actually need that data but just install it by force. Its something in the system itself that just doesn't even bother to even begin copying over that data if there isn't WAAAAAAAY more than enough available. I could kind of be okay with this in downloads, but this is just stupid when its coming right off the disc. Then sometimes you have to restart the system before it can recognize the space was free if you actually delete enough. Again, that's not the cost of super sophisticated technology, everybody's computer can delete content with an active memory update. Then it changes (even if incrementally) a lot of times you check the memory storage, even if there's been nothing changed. While we're on the topic of incompetent design, lets not forget the fact that this are the guys that knew this was coming and yet choose to ship us 500GB in every model for a good length of time.

So forgive me if I'm not playing ball with the idea that this is the way things need to be. I'm pissed about this, and I either want solutions or at the very least honest explanations as to why consoles or games are being made this way. ...and heck, honestly if this truly, really is all a result of advancing technology... well, I didn't ask for it to this extent. Take Black ops 3 back down to lower textures, less particles, and 720p resolution if you must, I just want to be able to pop it in and enjoy it when I want to. It doesn't exactly use current gen for anything spectacular, its just more COD with a good mix of balances, tweaks, and lots of content. Its a shame I have to make room for a freight train just to play some Dead Ops Arcade 2 once in a while.



Looking at it in 1080p < Playing it at my convenience

Basically to try and bring this all to a close, I'm mad with how things have progressed, and I'm not sure why we wait until a giant clunky update to make a small complaint that gets lost. I'm done with that. Its literally to the point where memory space is a buying factor to my games. This happened some in last gen, but its far worse here and now. Now its actually to the point where its not just a buying factor, but a contributing factor to deteriorating a game I bought and want to enjoy. Meanwhile I have to look at a big AAA game and think to myself "Which game can I swear off for a while in order to play this one? Will that be enough?" ...only the problem is, I guess you also have to be a medium that sees into the future and knows what kind of updates they'll role out for it. That in mind, the bugs, the push for certain online games, and oh yeah maybe even the thread of episodic games people are talking about, it seems like games are using advanced technology and rising costs as an excuse to ignore proper releases. Convenient gaming that you just buy and enjoy is becoming very rare, and at this rate I wouldn't be surprised if the next game that you want to enjoy is forcing you to make a schedule just to enjoy it for a little if you're not already forced into that position. You'll need to number crunch each game's memory use, provide space for upcoming pieces of it, pay maybe double on the season pass just to make sure you don't get cut off from the community or friends, hope that you're able to keep good internet access day in and day out for when you want to play it, hope that PSN's servers didn't collapse playing red light green light with itself again, and that the random matchmaking puts you in a match that gives you what you wanted from the game. If you check all that off your list and it stays consistent, then maybe you'll be able to play the game the way you want it on your own time. Oh and you want to know what adds the sweet icing on this little issue? The fact that after I started this article, and before I finished it, the servers for the game went down around the new DLC launch. Its fixed now, but I feel like the point stands. Thankfully, I don't feel like I'm simply rabid mad anymore; I don't need to rock the boat when the captain of the ship is drunk and doing a fine job of that himself.

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm grateful for a lot of the great games out there on the PS4, a lot of the fun times I have had, and the true improvements made. My aim isn't to scare you away from newer consoles, but rather to ask why we're stuck on this crappy two steps forward and one back method of travel. Its not even just about the consoles themselves, but a multi-problem escalation of various poor decisions that don't respect the very market that's supposed to be buying this stuff for some fun time. Meanwhile the funny thing is that in the end, the one lot that is totally clear of all this flak are the same guys I expected to drag us further into this crap: Indies & indie-likes. They had to be sold through digital retail, which meant mostly fixed prices, full downloads, and you never really knew if they used the tech right due to resources. Now they're pretty much the only guys doing anything right, and even if its simply by comparison their download nature is a blessing when you realize their entire game is about the length of a AAA game's patch, or even less (actually, its almost always less in my experience). They've had more frequent sales, they release complete and polished enough, and they're usually games you can pile onto your HDD drive and just load up and play on your own time with no hassle. The very worst case is that maybe there's some small online integration with leaderboards that stalls you if your connection isn't working well. The way things are going, I'm kind of in the mood to ponder if another games crash on the AAA side of things would be good or not. Probably not, but again... its just one of those moments where you're just fed up with the way things have been going. I hope something changes for the better soon, because... well it really is a shame that I've actually got to think about selling a game to salvage its value, simply because its been updated into a situation I don't think I can handle.



My thoughts on kid-friendly games...

So I was doing some thinking on something. Its often you hear people make one of two complaints with kids video gaming in today's market. Either 1) There is not enough kids games out there. Nintendo and Lego are basically holding down the quality E rating market. 2) They're all gaming on mobile instead. I'd rather not think of either case too strongly. Mobile will fix itself when different standards come along, if the kid has any interest in true gaming overall. Fact is mobile just isn't going to run the proper controls for bigger more immersive or input filled experiences. As for the lack of games? I don't think its as big of a deal as people make it out to be. In part that's because I don't believe kids are idiots who have to stay away from T/M rated games for their own sake; I know for a fact many can handle that content well under the right supervision and upbringing (partially because I was one and had similar friends). Its also not a huge problem because there are still plenty of safe games for them to choose from in the wide market, whether it be the previously mentioned mobile games, reliable Nintendo entries, toys to life stuff, anything Media Molecule makes, or the many indie games (minecraft alone can keep a smart kid busy for a loooooooooong time). I know people want to expect AAA to cover everything in that area and I understand that concern, but I think kids are going to do just fine if they have the right know-how to get to the good stuff. However I don't want to simply talk about availability, but rather what I think is important design for a kids game. Obviously I'm not going to hit the mark for every kid out there, and I'm also not covering for the "funducation" crowd, I'm talking about kids who want a game that is just a good game. Something that appeals to their ideas of fun, their unique qualities, and doesn't sacrifice its quality with the assumption that kids are somehow less than the majority of the market. As a matter of fact, I want these games to be enjoyable for everybody in the long run.

My little story...

First I feel it may be important to know where I'm going to be coming from at this angle. Its important to know what I loved most as a kid and what got me into gaming in the fist place. As far back as I can remember them existing, games used to be nothing more than a distraction to little me. It was a basic novelty of controlling something on TV. It was nothing better though. I used to play Rampage and Mario bros on the NES and get about nowhere in them. Then on the SNES, where Mario paint was a neat novelty, and DKC was kind of awesome but tough, and there was some scooby doo adventure game I never really beat because of puzzles or something. The most fun I had was PC point and click stuff because at least then I didn't "lose" all the time and could enjoy animation much like the movies and shows that I enjoyed way more at the time. Then my dad got me Spyro to play sometimes on his PS1 and that was when everything changed. Something he got me out of the shallow excuse that "I like dragons" ended up being literally one of the best things that ever happened to me.

The face of happiness

I know I've told this story somewhere before, but it bares repeating for this article. I just loved this game to pieces, and not because it was an amazing game with a dragon. I loved it because it was a fully 3D world, very relaxed and light hearted, and was quite literally magical (had sort of an enchanted fairytale art style). If you'll excuse the pun, you could say Spyro really was the first game that let me stretch my wings. My little kid mind was enlightened with entire worlds of fun and well designed gameplay. Musical organ notes uplifted the spirit, goofy enemies gave me a laugh, and playing with the world was just so much fun. I've actually spent minutes of my life jumping up and rolling down that little hill you first see in the starting hub world. Just small freedoms like that were just astounding to my young mind. From then on things were clear, and I began enjoying my games through 3D platformers. Racing down slides in Mario 64, laughing at one liners and replaying that tank mini-game from gex, being awe-struck by countless imaginative Banjoe & Kazooie levels, and of course playing more Spyro until I touched every pixel of grass there had to be in the whole game. It was just perfect for me. Even if those games were too hard (and they were, only remember beating Spyro and nearly Gex 3), they were fun enough and fleshed out to the point where I could enjoy much of what I could accomplish for hours and bliss. As TV animation faded with the years, gaming had invited me in through the door with 3D platformers. Since then I also leached onto games like Worms where I could make my own stories with customization and a little bit of imaginative rule bending. Point is, exploration, options, and catering to a kid's imagination really made these games shine to me.

So how does this work for today's games?

Obviously I'd like to just say bring me more 3D platformers, but that's not quite the challenge I put my mind up to when thinking of a modern kid-friendly game. I want to think more of what's in line with today's tech, trends, and capability. I started thinking about this whole discussion thanks to one game: Grow Home. Its not a new game, I've played it before. I just thought to go back to it. However I think I'm a bit more in-tune to a good mood to play it in. Instead of rushing around between MGSV & Armello sessions just to say I beat it, I just wanted something to relax in and flipped through my library. I grabbed Rocket League and Grow Home, and out of the two... well Grow home won out pretty well. Its something I would have loved much more as that same kid that was introduced to Spyro. Still to this day I love the concept of a physics based game, and 3D platforming based exploration, however I'm just not all over this game. Still there's a lot about it that reminds me directly of Spyro. Even the ambient sounds you sometimes here sound exactly like that tranquil sound from Spyro 2's first hub world Autumn Falls. The skybox is enchanting, there's a gentle but nice underlying humor from M.O.M, the world is all chilled out, and there's a nice little progression system in place to drive you but not distract you from enjoying what's just there. Its a nice little idea of what I think makes for a great kid's game in today's market.

It even looks like you could change the robot with a kid in this pic

You've got all the right recipe to engage a person's mind and imagination with this game, all without going the totally aimless direction of a sandbox game like minecraft. Instead of calling for more minecraft clones, I think there is a way and a market for more carefully constructed laid-back linear experience that lets you move in your own pace and way. Something that you can accomplish and win across a good weekend, but something that can last an imaginative kid a month. That's almost the kind of value 3D platformers sold to me with their spacious worlds, playful move sets, and cartoon art styles. I think that's the kind of thing a game like Gone Home is good for in today's market. The game is made so that you almost can't fail it or mess up in any major way, but its not exactly hand-holding you either, its just really relaxed. You can trip up and "die", but you just get reset and are let loose in a massive world full of floating islands and toys. You can spend all day herding sheep around, collecting carrots, testing your jumps and freefalls, or monkeying around with everything that's climbable... and that's all without talking about any of the mechanical objectives. However a big part of those mechanical objectives come from playing like this. You climb around everywhere, and you'll begin finding all the crystals. You do enough jumping around, and you may accidentally stumble onto a cave with that rare bird to finish your databank. You're rewarded for engaging in this game with the pure heart of a child; an open mind, and a drive of intrigue and wonder, and then you'll find your treasures.

Wonder, imagination, and tranquility

Another lesser case I'd like to make, is the dumber physics games. The kind like Goat simulator. They're often dismissed from what I've seen as "youtube bait", which I think might be one of the dumbest things I've heard from otherwise smart critics. Of course it is helped by youtubers, but in the same way that any game is. The only difference is that these games are highly centered on unpredictable goofball laughs, and are obviously going to be played by famous youtubers, but its hardly just for them and their fans. Saying that is honestly a horribly cynical and overblown version of what the games really are. Just say the name: Goat simulator, and that's enough to know its purpose: Goofball fun. Its silly. Its for people that want to just goof off. Its the closest thing to a video game being an actual toy. Its simple, mindless, and hilarious. Its a non-stop goofball sandbox full of laughs. That's not something for screaming youtubers and obsessive fans, its for people that want to have that dumb toy-like bliss in short sessions, or for however long their mind comes up with wild ideas to do. I watched a tech news channel feature Goat Sim as their background piece for many videos (at least 10 or more), with him occasionally acknowledging how ridiculous and fun the game is in retrospect. Its not "bait", its just fun, and I would certainly think that games like that would be twice as fun to a young mind. I know I would have been playing those for quite a while if I were younger. Of course I think its still better to build something with an aim and goal in mind, otherwise kids are just going to go back to Minecraft if they just wanted a massive world to play and build endlessly in, but I think the dumb sandbox physics games are onto something that would be ideal for kids as well.

Of course that's not to say anything bad of kids market as it is today. I just thought it was worth discussing what probably works best amongst them. Looking at typical kid features, what I found interesting, and trying to look at a place in today's market where that could happen. I wanted to look and point to the games that seem like the best candidates, without falling to typical Lego & minecraft finger pointing (actually I think Lego has taken a big step backwards from their older games personally). I wanted to bring up a topic that isn't that much discussed. In both examples (Grow Home & Goat Sim) they're also games that don't sacrifice their values for kids, but rather just exist in such a way that kids would likely enjoy them more. Grow Home could be played and enjoyed by a kid's father just as much as the kid himself, its just more likely that the adult has less patience for when physics go out of control, or wouldn't spend more than an hour at best likely laughing at goat sim. These are games where kids can go further, but nobody in any age range is patronized or implied to back off. These are just great games that pair great with a common kid's traits. Just my 2 cents on the topic at least.

Imagination & fun, a great combination for everyone really