Now Playing - Horizon: Zero Dawn

Every time I try to write one of these articles, I usually wind up moving onto some other activity before I finish, or go so deep into the game I'm beyond the talk I started the article with. Let's see if this one get's finished and posted while I'm still playing. So.. this is Horizon. Obviously, being both a fan of creative themes, and Guerrilla's Killzone series, I really wanted to see how this would go. Unlike my habits with obsessing over Killzone, I denied myself too much info, and tried keeping this game a surprise. I'm... not sure I made the best of options, because this game really doesn't have a ton of surprises in it. Everything I didn't know about is generic open world stuff under the skin of this game's theme and lore, which were things I definitly knew about. The only surprises are a couple of the enemy types, like the fact there's a giant robot aligator, and a massive bull thing that shoots stuff out of it's horns, then a little shell carrier that's cheap as hell. Stuff like that is a surprise, but... radio tower dinos, vantage points, and dungeon rooms that unlock secrets, upgrade systems, and mods... not so much. However for what it's worth, nearly every single attribute is handled amazingly well.

Honestly, I think what I have to think about the game is shown in the way I love the story. It's a story we kinda know and have seen before. A strange person is an outcast to society, born by odd means with some messiah/demon questions floating about, and literally tossed into a group called the outcasts who are basically the criminals and rejects. She trains hard, rises to the top, just to be struck with a great conflict that gives her a motive to find her true purpose. Okay, so we got all the cliches out of the way, now let me tell you how freakin' awesome it is handled! You're in a setting barely ever done in gaming, where robot creatures rule the land, and man-kind as we know it has been mysteriously reverted back into tribal days. Why? Who knows. Newer civilization is a mix of sci-fi wizardry, and primitive spears. The underground is made entirely of metal, with giant wire tunnels, and massive flying conveyor belts. Your surface world is mixed with crumbling buildings and re-purposed towns mixed with fantasy and real cultures from a world that was once globalized. Then on top of all that, side-quests are handled witcher style (with actual story) with some incredible surprises and very well-written characters. The friend that introduces you to bandit camps is a former soldier, who fights them to make the best of his psychopathic tendencies. You help out an elder who is forbidden to talk to you, so she talks to you through praying to the goddess. Odd but interesting characters like that, coupled with this incredible and beautiful world full of mystery and a tried but true plot of equally gripping suspense, make this an incredibly compelling experience. Even if you need more than your two hands to count all the cliches, you won't be doing that at all when you realize that means putting down the controller

Gameplay is almost exactly the same way. Much like with the story, it ain't perfect. Cliches that seem like they're just there for a quota are present, and occasional misses will have you wondering why, but for the most part everything is good; even if you've seen most of it in some way before. Ultimately, I've concluded it's a mostly good mix of Far Cry and Witcher 3 gameplay. It has the drive and story/quest delivery of Witcher, feeling truly open world in that sense of going places, getting story, and traveling around. However it has an ubisoft (and more specifically, Far Cry because of outposts) way of dealing with map clutter and how the open world is actually used. You'll have these arbitrary boxes to tick off if you want to complete stuff. A lot of it has good contexts, like collecting cups for a merchant because he wants to learn about them from the old world. And the metal caves are explored to unlock data that allows you to work better with machines of the world. ...but then you're also doing things like finding some arbitrary data point to catch the slightest glimpse into the old world, even if it gives you nothing of meaning, and has no real logic. Or you'll be doing hunter lodge mini-games, with some clunky excuse that it's like a big hunter club for sport, but it's... really just a generic mini-game compilation thrown in. I'm not exactly complaining, but it's not exactly in my personal interests to fulfill this sort of world, and at one point I kind of groaned to myself when an interesting side quest marker just turned out to be a guy advertising the hunter mini-games. I guess it just sounds like I'm complaining, because I am covering the strange mix of open world tropes.

While I'm nitpicking things and making comparisons, I guess I'll just let out my complaints right now for the time being so we can get them out of the way anyways. Most of them are minor when taken into consideration with the whole picture. Then I'll resume talking about how awesome the game is.

Complaint round!

Uh oh, here we go...

• The saving can be weird. There's an auto and manual bonfire save deal going on, so you never know for sure where it really kicked in or where you should be stopping. At one point I did a massive trade, bought four new major things and offloaded a lot of junk, ran out to kill two broadheads, and climbed around for a vantage point. I fell, and lost EVERYTHING, even the shop transactions, just because... I didn't get to another fire? But then I later had the game save sometime in the middle of riding around on a mount, doing absolutely nothing of importance in between the last fire and getting that. What the hell, GG?
• The leveling system is one of those arbitrary garbage ones that waste your time and break the natural game flow. Look guys, just because it's an RPG doesn't mean you NEED to take away features just to unlock them. Only a very minor couple are true improvements, the others are needlessly expensive XP crap that you're just grinding for to make the character less powerful. There's a separate 2 then 3 point cost for a ledge take-down and a drop take-down. How much "skill" do you need to just jump off a rock and spear a guy directly below!? How much "skill" does it take to pull a guy down by his shoe? Why do I need 3 points to make a combat roll actually effective? These are things a character who, in their infancy could disarm a person, should be able to do from all their narrative-gifted training! Stop forcing skinner boxes over us. Just to show you how this gets in the way: I currently can't use a new bow, because I need to get the tinker ability to allow me to relocate the worthwhile mod (my original bow is technically more powerful than the new one, but that can become the better one long-term), but simultaneously I can't do the bandit camp I want to because it's filled with elites who you cannot kill stealthily until you unlock some stupid arbitrary piece. Both upgrades are locked behind layers of more useless upgrades I don't need, even with hours of leveling into the game.
• The dialogue choice system just had to take a page from bioware, of all things. I hate Bioware's style of this, and Guerrilla is barely doing it any better. You get the mean guy/smartie/loving moral boxes, and every time you choose one Aloy goes and shoves an extra paragraph in there that involves some message different than what you probably tried to say. I hate that. It's incredibly immature to sit there and think you can just break down somebody's thought process in a conversation as "mean/good/nah, I'll be witty today", and I don't just say that lightly. This is a game about robot dinosaurs, so I typically don't care for "mature" stuff. But this is a system that truly feels like it was invented by a 6 year old's view of morality, or someone who goes building strawmen for a living. For a story that wants to have an edge, this is the fastest way you disassemble it. And then the next bit, about how disconnected the actual dialogue is, is just extra insult to remind you that you actually never had a choice. The game betrays that choice, you just picked your poison.
• A couple of these guys are kind of cheap. It's not a huge deal, and for the most part every creature poses a good challenge, but some of them just feel a bit off. Like how the shell carrier can just spam massive lighting charges that cover massive ground and pull big damage. Then the projectile attacks just make no sense a lot of times, with them all following an unpredictable rhythm and splash effect. I've had many times where you can roll as soon as you see the animation, and still taken damage or find that it was coming right to where you rolled like they were psychic. On a similar note, I've even seen them miss in a similar fashion, firing upon a location I was never at, nor heading to, so there's kind of this skill-less dice roll to their projectile tendencies (and you can't rely on a last-moment roll, because again that splash damage is random... or the default roll just sucks and we're back discussing that horrible unlock system where you magically roll better after you pay 3 skill points). While I'm nitpicking combat, the camera also does some horrible things with the environment. I've had many shots prepared and fail because the deep zoom and tall grass decides it's more important than what I'm actually aiming at. Oh and... why is concentration a thing you need full power to use? If I start it and stop it to cancel, shouldn't I be able to use what's left again instead of being forced to wait on the cool-down? Maybe that's an intentional balance, but it's weird and I'm not a big fan of it.

Back to the awesome!

...and now we're back. In the grand scheme, those gripes aren't a whole lot. They're annoying, and even at times mess with the sense of fun going on, but there's a lot of fun typically going on anyway. For all the bad gripes, there's a lot of big and small awesome things beyond any list. Things like the launch-day photo mode, the awesome environments, the awesome fight sequences, the way the non-XP bar RPG elements are done so well, the stealth, and just that feeling of running into a new abandoned city and learning some more about the lore. Everything from the way your people speak of the land, to the way a shop will label a pair of keys "ancient chimes" is just cool and makes you push to keep going. I enjoy spotting every new creature, get curious at every other forked path that isn't where I was originally heading, and I love the way I can set up quest tracking so that it's only basic navigation until I put my own waypoint on it for emergency help if I'm having issues with some mountain pass. It's all a part of a game that's pretty amazing, even if it isn't breaking any big records. It's a great experience, and I'm finding myself frequently stopping for photos, while then suddenly finding myself regretting the lack of photos in combat because I was too engaged in the moment with them.

I remember that original reveal for Horizon: Zero Dawn. After all those rumors, supposed leaked images, and a long period of "we've got some kind of new IP" talk, we finally got a huge reveal. A nice CGI movie set the tone for the world, and then a sudden shock as we got a big chunk of quality gameplay footage that continues to look fairly similar to the final product in a lot of ways (at least I think, still haven't gotten to that T-rex machine myself). I didn't quite know what to expect fully, but I was really pumped. I've got to say, it mostly delivered. While not necessarily a big innovator, it managed to also stay away from most of my worst fears for what comes to mind with "open world RPG". It turns out to be a great action game with a rich world worth exploring, a compelling story with great characters and sequences, and while the open world aspect is generic there's just something about the land that still lends itself to a sense of discovery that keeps me energized and excited to push further. The world just gets your sense of wonder and imagination pumping, and it's almost good enough to hide the fact that you've got to grind just to unlock a pull-guy-off-ledge action. I don't know when I'll complete it, if it'll be a simple stick and true Far Cry type experience, or something like the Witcher where as much as I love it I just can't sink 40 freakin' hours to it without some diversions. Still, it's a game I'm glad to be playing, and while I'll be waiting on the next Killzone... I'm glad the team behind it got to produce something as interesting as Horizon. It's got it's problems, but it's mostly got a lot of fun and nice stuff worth seeing. Thanks Guerrilla.

It's a big and exciting world out there.

Bulletstorm is finally a remaster worth paying for

Alright, so yes I'm actually hyping up a remaster. This is a bit odd, and unusual, but I think the game is getting a bit more flak than it deserves, and I'm just sitting here wondering why. It feels kind of like Doom again, where people want to ignore all the positive things that matter like its gameplay, and instead... bitch about how Duke isn't dead yet, or whine about how nobody bought the game so it doesn't deserve a remaster, or just "ew, gearbox." I don't understand these people, and how they're so full of venom that they're intolerant of options, or can't support extra work being done for a cult followed FPS. While at first I was pumped at the idea, I decided to stand back and wait a moment just to be sure this game was really happened the way it was being pitched. Now with more trailers out, I'm pretty sure of it. This might just be the first time in the best of my memory that I go and pay about full price for a game I already went out and got, and you know what... I'm weirdly excited about that. So why not have some kind of voice to actually bring in something positive about the game?

Alright, so first off, I'm talking from the perspective of someone who will probably pre-order this. If you run out and pick this up late, and don't get the Duke Nukem bit I'm discussing some of, that's a shame. Really, it is, I think it sucks that's a part of the pre-order bonus, but it's not like this is some sketchy game you can't look up, this is an old product that some people have loved being put out yet again with added content. It's probably worth pre-ordering if your into this FPS, and if not, well you can tell. The only problem is if they somehow screw up this port for some reason, and with physical effort being designed into it to make it even better, I doubt they'd just turn around and drop it to die as some sickly cash-in. Including the fact that they paid the voice actor of Duke Nukem, and programmers, to retroactively inject him into the entire 10-15 hour campaign!

He's all outta gum again

So, let's cover what this game was to begin with and why it's worth it to me to see it on the PS4. Bulletstorm was a First Person Shooter that reveled in skill kills, creative gunplay, fighting off monsters and mutants on a colorful sci-fi tropical apocalypse, and was full of all sorts of crazy, foul-mouthed nonsense. You played as a space pirate who had wrecked his life, endangered his friend, and was crudely trying to get along with a women who comes from your enemy's side. Meanwhile you run around with up to 3 weapons that ranged from a pistol with a flaring charge shot, a four barreled shotgun, a remote detonating sniper rifle, and a weapon that can best be described as the bouncer from Ratchet & Clank just to name a few. Oh, and you always had a heavy boot kick & tether function to play with physics and wreak maximum havok. The environments, your boot, your weapons, and all the crazy mutants were a very interesting system of constant danger and creativity with points raining in at the best of moments. Oh and don't think it was any short ride of danger either. The story went on for hours and hours, at least up to about 12 for me, and kept me engaged long into a week. The story, contrary to the idiotic critics who claimed they couldn't find one, was an interesting revenge plot with a bro-driven team dynamic of unlikely pals and a struggle for them to keep their sanity as they made their way to the dastardly villain. Still don't take it too seriously. This was the game where you could get drunk with a chaingun in a disco bar, while listening to disco inferno blare over the action as a bunch of crazed mutants charged after you. If that ain't selling you on it, I don't know what will. Bulletstorm was old-school arcadey FPS fun remixed with modern conventions, and even my military FPS centric father loved the game, and only played this back when the PS3 servers were down and hacked long ago. (So, it's a fun gory vulgar action game for the whole family.) Sadly... it didn't perform all that well when we were at a time where this kind of game was desperately needed. It's sequel (which it ended on a note where one seemed necessary) seems to be scrapped.

So by some miracle, it's being re-released in better high-res glory for a second chance by a studio that fittingly loves wacky, violent sci-fi shooters. Oh, and they happen to hold the rights to Duke Nukem, a character who had his influences showing on the game long before the game originally released. Say what you want about gearbox for their past deeds, I know I'm not happy with them on everything, but this is their perfect spot for the time being; releasing a game like Bulletstorm, with Duke Nukem adjusted in as an optional campaign character. However if somehow having a completely new character and dialogue to play as in a revived missed classic of the last generation isn't nice enough to you, they went further. They're bringing back DLC, co-op online, and adding new echo maps, then there's new game + overkill mode where you can potentially unlock unlimited ammo as a perk, and then there's the next major overhaul in weapons: a weapon wheel. Yes, weapon wheel, as in you get all the weapons to carry instead of three. You know, I was actually defensive about that the first time around, suggesting 3 weapons was okay because this game actually has a strategy and system to it all that makes sense and challenge in doing it. But I'm glad there's now this, and you can tell that "challenge" or strategy to go fuck itself and just enjoy an FPS the way it was originally meant to be played: all guns, any time, enjoy the carnage. Thank you gearbox.

Kicking things into high gear

I'm usually bitter at the idea of remasters costing about the same price as a new release. Not the kind of "this release offends me!" bitter most gamers talk about with remasters, but the kind where I'm disappointed in a team, and look away from a perfectly good remaster so that it can fall to a decent price. This time though, I'll make an exception. This game wasn't played by enough people, is incredible, I've been wanting to replay it again, and now I'm left stunned and looking in with all the positive changes it has. Sure some of those are needed through a pre-order, but heck I'm 85% sure this game will be worth a day 1 buy anyway, so fine. I think with all the added features, and how much I want to play it again, it's worth a fresh price point. That goes double if you're one of those who sadly missed out on this awesome gem. Meanwhile if you don't want it, or whine about Duke for having the nerve to... appear as an option(?), just calm yourself down a bit and go play whatever you do want. The rest of us will be enjoying this game, and thanking Gearbox for actually doing something right. This'll be the first time I've bough something that didn't tank to $5 since... the original Borderlands really. It's deserved though, because again, I think they've done something right and awesome here. My only wish is that it would get here sooner, which is odd for a game that's technically released.

Even for profits, DLC is mistreated

Okay, so obvious disclaimer: I do writing and rants, I am not some professional marketer, and perhaps I'm missing some weird secret sauce science that defies some deeper common sense logic. Maybe they've got the true ability to manipulate the weird, and human nature is just far more unpredictable than my claims would make things seem. Either way, along the recent discussion (and some anger) over Zelda's season pass. The bit going around, seems to divide it up into 3 categories: The first DLC, the 2nd DLC, and the stuff they cut directly out of the release to congratulate you for being a blind sap and buying the DLC later. Reminds me of how another company runs their season passes. Not just one though, a few silly ones. I won't waste your time merely being another whiny consumer that tells you what I wish to be or not in your game for free. Instead, I'm dedicating this article to discuss something I probably said in smaller detail before: why it's even stupid in business.

Selling the thing that doesn't exist

It's incredibly easy to discourage people from buying a seasons pass, or even pre-ordering certain games. Why? Because it doesn't exist. It's less easy for pre-orders though. Usually, die-hard fans will stick to it, and retailers will encourage it more happily. However with a season pass... that's extra. That's literally extra on top of something that does not exist, at least not unless your Dark Souls 2 announcing it way after release. Unless you know your game stinks, you really have no reason to rush people toward unfinished content for an unfinished game, especially if you're giving away the possibility that the DLC is helping to leave the unfinished game unfinished even at launch. That just doesn't make any sense. Nobody really wanders off to buy season passes pre-launch, unless they're super hardcore fanboys/girls. Then, they'll still buy it no matter what, so you lost nothing by letting them wait it out a month, or even a freakin' week. Just a week, can you manage that? Nope, you got to try and sell people something that doesn't exist, before the game even exists, all the way two months or more out before the release. Doesn't sound like the smart way to entice people, especially in Zelda or back on Shadow Fall's case where the console wasn't even out before it was advertised. So... you're asking them to essentially pre-order and invest in 3 different things to exist, each of which will take you some time to get through to even think of the next one! If the numbers are good here, my compliments to the sorcerers that managed to convince you to buy things that don't even exist, but all I'm seeing and feeling is how stupid it looks.

Showing all your cards

Okay, so you say you make DLC in part to keep the game from being turned in so fast? You want to keep the game relevant with people? You want people to hang onto it, and pay for more? So why are you telling me the entire game's plan before it exists. Going off of the last point, it's quite silly to sell people on something that doesn't exist, and then you're also wasting your time and effort on marketing for the thing that doesn't exist. Make up your damn minds on your goals here! Are you going to assure people there's content and relevance with new surprising updates that hit fast and sudden, or are you going to tell them what you're making before they can even touch the first damn game? Furthermore, you look like a complete fool if the base game flops and you're sitting there peddling future fun for the game everyone hates. Now if you didn't declare your plans, maybe you could try to turn around and spin it as a way to fix up the games, or even just decide whether or not it was worth trying to pull more money in at all and secretly snuff the DLC. But no, you got to tell everyone it's all going to be there for an addition $40 pass nobody is actually going to buy before they even know what the damn game is. Then when it flops, or they see what it's really like, or they can see a "everything edition" coming, they'll dodge it and wait... because you made yourself so fucking predictable. Nice business there guys!

Here, I'll even tell you how to cheat!

Look, I said I'm on your corporate side of this article, not mine. To be honest, I've always got that in mind, and I think out what business moves make sense. Companies need to make money, and sometimes it's not as simple as just selling the core game... even though you should expect that to work most of the time, otherwise look over where you're wasting resources. Still, let's say you just really want extra money, and you're desperate and don't care about pissing people off. Well here's the sad reality, it's better not to piss people off, because some of those lost sale threats are legit. But you're desperate, so I'm not going to tell you to back off on your tactics, just adjust your approach. You want to lock a difficulty behind a paywall, Nintendo? Okay. You want to make content to lock up and sell later Capcom? Okay. You decided to strip out a bonus mode from the game, delay it's finishing polish, and sell it a month later? Okay, I'll be cool with that and not complain a single bit. That is, if you don't tell me about it until convenient.

You see, this is where I really don't get the whole DLC mess. This stuff ain't rocket science here, and publishers have been able to get away with even less subtle disguises just fine, by even being disguises in the first place. However with all the controversial DLC, they all have the common trait that it's announced and fussed over before the game is even out. That's a huge problem, and in case you haven't been following along, all my points lead up to this. You wind up showing all your cards, gave away your announcement press before the damn game was even out, and all so you could somehow pathetically beg people to pay for an extra that doesn't exist, to a game that doesn't exist, at a time before people even know if they like it or not. That's ridiculous! Now by contrast, if you waited a month, or heck two weeks, maybe even one fucking week after the launch of the game, you not only put yourself back in the presses, but get to tell people "Hey that game you love? We suddenly remembered there's more of it coming if you can pay for it!" If you're making a game people send back before even then, you probably weren't going to convince them to stay by saying there will be stuff eventually they'd have to pay more for. However, if this pays off, you surprised everyone, and the people who declare crooked practices will look slightly more about being edgy. "Oh they were hiding this the whole time!?" some would say (oh, and don't just slap it on the disc either, or else they'll find that and be proven right). Others would be just shrugging it off, and thinking more content. Meanwhile there was no pre-game outrage. There was no cancelled angry pre-orders, nor anybody telling you how you fell into the dark path, or fans saying they got used. Instead there's just "Hey, expect this down the road, and if you're really liking the game so far and know you'll want more... there's a season pass to nab it all!"

Instead, you smugly declare before everyone that you have a difficulty mode being prepared to sell later to them before the game, new console, or newer mechanics are there. Are you proudly arrogant, or just doubling down on stupid!? Seriously, this is the big thing I don't get with this DLC nonsense. I don't care about a hard mode that much. So why am I writing the article? Because it feels so smug, so arrogant, and yet so stupid that publishers like Nintendo think it's actually a good idea to sit there and advertise this stuff before anything is even manifesting as an enjoyable experience. Wake the hell up, this is an entertainment industry! You need to entertain and keep people happy, and then you can so easily persuade them to buy your crap right after that. That feels like such simple, easy, and reasonable common sense, yet it apparently isn't when every single company and game outside of Dark Souls 2 does it!? At least that game waited a month to figure out what they were doing for DLC, and then waited to put out a season pass. It sounded relatively popular as well, and not a single complaint was thrown up. People were asking for DLC before it was even announced. That's great business, not this Zelda shit. I'm not even asking you to be that honest about it though, just hide it, and it'll have the same exact look and effect. Instead you're exposing yourself for what it truly is that people call you out on: a company so eager and greedy they have no self-control but to run out and beg for money on top of the other money before the consumer can see a single ounce of return. Maybe I'm missing something in all this, but I figured it was worth a try to explain this rather than just the standard angry consumer. I'm trying to think of profits, and you're still fucking it up, games industry.

You're just putting a target on the suits

Now Playing: Worms W.M.D. + Song of The Deep

Yup, been disconnected unfortunately as I move into a new house, but that won’t stop me. I typed this up online, and have been enjoying some new games raw off the disc. That said, be aware my experience across most of these games have come without updates and I’m not sure what was rushed out with a patch later mentality or changed up later.

Worms

All I’m left to say is… it’s about damn time. You’ll have to excuse me, as I know this will end in a rant that has me getting something off my chest that nearly became it’s own article. Team17 has run worms into the ground. I don’t mean that in a way to say the series was stale, but rather they constantly flooded the market full of sub-par offerings of it with some excuse or gimmick proudly at the front instead of actual reasons or positive features. The games themselves, and the future of the franchise, felt dead and yet dragged out every year to shoot some more. On top of that, the sub-series I love (the 3D worms) haven’t been made anymore, and the HD remake screwed up in one of the basic fundamental concepts it was supposed to be offering. Ever since Worms World Party on down, the worms have been stripped of ever having concrete features one could actually expect. If it isn’t about turn based artillery strategy, and worms, it could go missing in the next game. Never mind whatever strategies, utilities, elements, features, or even basic functional support you expect, they could all disappear then reappear the next game with other missing things. It’s as if some retarded magician was running the games with an act in practice.

Worms 4 Mayhem remains one of my favorites, and offered an absurd amount of options. I would have enjoyed the amount that stayed there, but that’s where it took a sharp spiral off instead (with open warfare). The last tolerable one was Open Warfare 2 back in 2007 (W:A2 was alright as well, but hardly kept me invested). Since then there has been eight games, not counting the sloppy remasters or spin-offs like golf. Oh, and by the way it took from Worms 4 all the way up until W:A2 (2009) for Team17 to realize the entire element of fire was missing, so they used it as a part of the advertising like “Look at this new thing we got!”. It took them eight games, and I would keep checking in occasionally to see where they got things right. Shortly after W:A2 gave me feint hope, grabbed Worms Revolution to see what they did. Not even allowing me to make a damn secondary team, and essentially eliminating half the fun to local multiplayer. Ugh, this would be like if every COD played russian rullet with what game mode they’ll include. Oh, next game loses it’s campaign! Now the zombie mode, but we remembered half the campaign. Okay, now multiplayer is 2vs2 only, it’s for new comers and to test out a physics gimmick. Yeah… that’s the worms experience. ...and now we got to W.M.D.

Finally! A game I think will match Open Warfare 2, and also does some fantastic new things just like what it presented. It’s not perfect at every corner, but it’s good enough that I can sit back, look at it, and say… this is fine, great fun, and I’m glad I’ve added this to my experiences in the series. They even finally returned the ability to have 8 worms, which they hardly ever do anymore. The only things I notice are missing are (and I’m not counting completely crazy one-off features, like create-a-weapon):

• Team flags. Actually took me a while to even notice, and I guess I care that little.
• Various custom options, randomization options, which is… essentially about as easy to come and go as new and old weapons, so that’s expected and reasonable.
• Level editor. The biggest thing, but I can still do without. I still wish it was here though.
• Handicapping a team.
• Selecting sudden death styles (seems to be default flooding)

That’s practically it. Now get a load of what new things are, because it goes way beyond the art. Actually, if anything, the art is the least appealing addition. They still move and act identical, giving the exact same basic aesthetic. However everything else is pretty awesome, like:

• Vehicles! Tanks, mechs, and helicopters, as well as mountable special guns. They’re handled really well, and whoever came up with them is awesome!
• Crafting. Yes, crafting is actually in worms. Weird, but it’s done real well, and there’s a ridiculous amount to experiment with, and some fun rule-sets people can probably come up with.
• Buildings. You now have these hard layered structures that can obscure line of sight, and protect worms.
• Tutorials now double as trials, and the campaign/deathmatch function has a special set of challenges to check off. This adds to replay, and gets achievers to really rethink their levels a bit. A short face off on the latest level actually took 10 minutes because I had to complete it without using the super-convenient mountable guns.
• Challenge boss-like levels you have to unlock by finding hidden collectibles.
• You can actually play local with up to 6 teams, and no limitations on worms per team, meaning (for the first time ever) there is simultaneously full 8 worm teams and more teams allowed at one given time. You could have up to 48 worms on a map. That’s… way past any reasonable and sane 2D worm battle, but you can do it if you want. Thanks T17!

Now considering all the weapons present, the fact that each is essentially doubled or tripled with crafting, all sorts of fun gags and good voice schemes, and 90% of the options I like, then yes with the added new additions I’d say this is a fairly fantastic new entry into the series. On top of that, a lot of finer touches are present to feel like they really worked on this instead of just shoveling it out. Vehicles have their own added dialogue through a speaker like some military radio, then there’s that extra care given into making tutorials a real part of the game, and then they even finally put the foreign language speech banks at the bottom so you’re not shifting through them when looking for comedic ones (which is a first as far as I’m aware). The polish is down to near perfect, with very minor gripes like the victory dance taking away the helmet for some reason, but that’s okay because they somehow crammed 48 worm battles on this thing so you can have some stupid armageddon runs when you’re bored. Compare that to revolution and their 3D/4 remake which barely functions, and you can see they tried more. I’ve been laughing, blasting, creating, experimenting, and destroying for hours and I don’t see myself stopping soon. It’s been a while since we had a worms game this good, so… thanks for finally doing it right Team 17. Now… hopefully we won’t have to wait another 8 games for a good successor.

Song of the Deep

I was patient with this one, and with particular reason. As much as I love Insomniac, they aren’t perfect at everything even within their own familiar IPs (All4One). So I’m hesitant with a game that decides to be an indie-like metroid style game under the sea. Not a single one of those sounds up my ally, and so the game wasn’t appealing beyond a starting cheap price point, but even then… you don’t go lighting $1 bills on fire just because it’s cheap. However I still kept my eye on it, and now I’ve found time and the will to go diving into the sea with it. It’s… kind of how I expected it to be now. Way better than the core pitch of the idea, but it was made obvious by the reviews that this was more of a physics puzzler than a true metroid style game.

There’s no super convoluted color schemed door way, where you suddenly have to go half the game before you loop around back with a magic red key that opens red door to get the power that you needed back in the 2 hour mark of the game. None of that nonsense, at least for the most part. If it’s here, it’s hidden well so you’re not in that feeling. Instead the routine is you move along, and every couple of minutes you’ll hit some block you must cross using a special condition. Like waiting for a friendly creature to guide you through a timed obstacle sequence, or balancing a bomb escort to the door you need to blast. One of the weirder, but cooler things was trying to use remaining anchors in a ship graveyard to slowly pull yourself up against a strong current.

Meanwhile, there’s a lot of combat despite the type of game this is. You’ll enter areas and sometimes be swarmed with what I can only compare to a serious sam style encounter, but more for this game. No it’s not dozens running across a field at you, but you might find yourself entering a circular area and suddenly finding it filled with 3 jellies, and two spike shooting things. Then right as you dispatch them and think you’re leaving, 4 more show up, then two more go in as if they were late to the 2^nd wave party. Its a bit absurd for a game where your core combat mechanism is mashing the square to send out a little punchy arm, and the most rewarding attack is supposed to be using that arm to pick up and tediously throw an object. It’s essentially like a shooter where you have to reload after every single shot, and realize with 10 enemies in your face you’d rather just stab them. The combat design makes no sense with it’s own pacing and level design. Oh, and mercy on your poor soul if you don’t upgrade that punch attack as soon as you can afford it.

That odd observation aside, the game is still alright. However if anything, that’s just the reason why I was hesitant: It’s just alright. It’s not a huge energetic empowering joy ride, it’s not some heart-gripping soulful journey that connects with my inner-being, it’s not clever, and it’s not super compelling, it’s just… a decent game for what it is. And what it is, is a small indie-like sidescroller physics platformer project made off on the side of a team that I love for giant 3D games with complex and interesting worlds and fun goofy characters (or in the case of R1/3, a hardcore FPS). This one doesn’t even talk so much as gets narrated on. So… yeah. This is a fun game, but I’m not in a big hurry to get it all done, and it’s not entirely my thing. However for what it’s worth, I’m glad one of the founders of one of my favorite developers got to make a small passion project of theirs, and I can see where some of the heart went into it. I’m also real happy gamestop backed it hard enough to have merchandise, and then brought the giant submarine pop figure down to $5. It’s a fun enough game that I’m glad I have it and added it to my collection.

Controversy corner: Gamestop's circle of death, avoiding tekken, and Battlefront 2

Duck and cover! Its a 3-hit controversy time!

Hide the children and elders, or your elderly children (I don't know, just being safe here), it's time for another rendition of ugly controversy around the web. This time, mostly smaller stuff I'm opinionated on, but there's a fairly big one everyone else is circulating with. Let's get that over with first...

Gamestop's circle of life:

In the biggest news of this article, we've had the revelation of a long-existing scam within the business of gamestop. Now I'm not one to often suggest the death of gamestop, and in fact I have even started to write articles on their defense against the hyperbolic whining of the vocal minority among the internet. Typically the hatred is steeped in "oh no, I went there this one time and they asked me to pre-order something!" or "They asked me to sign up for a program!". You know, such inhumanities as communicating with customers and making the same business and program offers nearly every other store does. Oh, and some will tell you their used game sales are the devil, because choices be damned. However, this isn't some wimp crying because he had to have social contact with the cashier, this is actually a real and true scumbag move, and looking back... I think I might even dare say I see how gamestop will die.

So they have a circle of life program in place. This essentially ranks employees based on how they sell to or work with gamers. They get bonus points or a better value to their name if they sell you on one of gamestop's exclusive revenue methods: Pro Rewards, insurance policies, net pre-orders, or of course... used-games. Hardware counts in this as well. It's such a heavy part of their work model, that employees see it as essentially a life-support they need to keep up with and struggle on. Don't make enough, and people get cuts. Its closer to the idea of a salesman selling property or a car, than it is a guy selling you a normal product. They want to see the good numbers from you. This leads to them... making arrangements in their local stores. New games go missing, new hardware also missing, and oh yeah, we still got to ask you about our additional programs and if enough people say no at one time, it could mean the guy is fired. This has even applied in an example given, that sometimes a new game will hit a publisher sale and yet go "missing", while used ones stay back for a hiked price. Yes, you read that right, you're being lied into paying more for used... which for the record, you should be smarter than that to refuse.

So... my thoughts are quite obvious. I've lost quite a bit of respect for the store, and feel compelled to stop going there. Feel is the key word, truth be told I'll still go, and I'll still continue my habits of buying new whenever I can and staying informed on sales and whatnot. I'm not the type of person to let myself get ripped off by that. However my further thoughts is that... it kind of opened my eyes to the idea gamestop really is dying. I already don't typically shop there for new games anymore, as Amazon has a 20% discount. Best Buy is also even beating that awesome deal, paying less and winning in-store points for using their system. Then there's talk of Bestbuy and Wal-mart sometimes giving you better trade deals, beating gamestop at the source of their used game system they cherish so much. Between all this, the only two smart things going for gamestop is their involvement directly in the industry, and their plentiful shelves. Then again, even that sometimes fails them. If I were to run out and buy Worms WMD, I would look toward wal-mart, because everywhere else I know doesn't have 'em. Might as well just order it through Amazon. OH! There's that other name again. Gamestop, your slipping, and if they can't get their heads together and realize doing their job as a retailer is more important than their used vs new sales numbers, they will one day fall as people stop going to them for any kind of business related to newer releases.

Tekken 7 is too much

In addition to fighters still costing a bit much IMO for what they are, they've found a new way to irritate me and send me away: size. I've said it twice before, using COD as an example. However that was a massive shooter. That was a game that has a full campaign, arcade mode, secrets on top of secrets, an over-stuffed multiplayer system, a horde mode, all with a ton of different values and mechanics. Here we have a fighter game. Two people beat each other up. There's plenty of characters, tiny scenes, and stages, but each and every one of those contribute to a small part of the game. So... somehow it winds up being bigger than a lot of freakin' open world games, and about matching Black Ops 3's size at 42gb. No it's not as insane as Infinite Warfare's 90gb, but it's insane for what it is. At this rate, you have to be die-hard into arcade fighters to grab this game. For me, I'd regularly wait a price drop, and get some fun. However... I think this made me realize Tekken Tag 2 for the Wii U is good enough, because it doesn't eat up a giant chunk of my console just to keep for some casual enjoyment. Compress your games developers! In cases like Infinite Warfare, and Tekken, it's the difference between a sale.

Battlefront 2, the lackluster strikes back

So funnily enough, Dice has shown they learned nothing with the way a new Battlefront game was discussed. While sounding somewhat welcoming in how they name off changes, they are far away from specifics, and practically denounce one of the few vital improvements of their existing game. Out of all their added support, Skirmish was the most exciting. It introduced actual bots, but on further inspection, it's extremely limited down to two modes. The only actual traditional bot mode, is walker assault. The other is dog fighting. They couldn't even be bothered to support their deathmatch mode. Meanwhile, they're talking ambitiously about their next game. They'll have a campaign (something modern Dice hasn't done so well at), and "characters" from multiple time-lines. What the heck does "characters" mean as an emphasis!? Does this mean I'll be able to actually play Battlefront like normal, choosing all sorts of cool and historic starwars battles, and able to take on the droids in the jedi temple, before moving on to stomping on the rebels in hoth? Probably not, because "characters" aren't armies and options. "Characters" are anything from cameos to token hero members added to the roster. I mean that's certainly progress. If I can see Darth Vader in the campaign and play some flashback where he's anakin skywalker, that'd be a neat idea. If Darth Maul is a random silly options for a rebel & empire hoth battle, that'd be fun. Still, it's not Battlefront. Stopping bot support at a mode with on-rail AT-ATs isn't Battlefront. Staying silent on Galactic Conquest isn't Battlefront. Being restricted to one time era is not Battlefront.

Battlefront was a total all-out fan service war game for star wars, inspired by Battlefield back when shooters were backwards with depth being in the core mechanics rather than the surrounding fluff. It took place across tons of planets, let you choose different eras and battle it out, hid little secrets away and nice easter eggs like Darth Vader's breathing in the tree cave on Dagobah. The only restrictions were the lack of a level-select on campaign, and the fact that not every level was playable by both factions (but most were, including some that made no sense like the death star). The real Battlefront 2 had space and land battles. They had hunting mini-games where you battled as the wild life or gungans, and then of course Galactic Conquest which was an elaborate long-term strategy mode where you slowly captured the entire galaxy while building up an army and sets of advantages and sabotages. That started back in 2004, on a system that couldn't even process enough unique NPC skins to not do duplicates all over the place. Now we're in 2017, and you tell me you can't even be bothered to support a bot deathmatch mode on a game that already lacks nearly every single other damn thing.

There's a difference between reinterpretation, and just being lazy. You want to scrap classes for a loadout system? You know what, fine, try that. I'll take it. You want on-rail AT-ATs? Sounds lame, but I get their thought process. Hero battle? Cool, nice idea there that expands upon a very limited design in SW:BF2. Now where's the rest of the game? Where's the bots, the space battles (in STAR wars), essentially all the modes that were around before, the campaign, and the entire freakin' time line that actually had the cool CGI battles people loved in an otherwise controversial prequel series? It's all gone. They couldn't even be bothered to give it the proper balance, and match care as they do their main series Battlefield. That is lazy. The modern Battlefront is the poster child of the cynical quip that graphics are prioritized over gameplay. For all the flashy looks, amazing sound and laser gun aesthetics, it's an empty husk of a game people once cherished from over a decade ago. ...and just when you think they might improve, the truth shows back around, as they come out telling you they forgot their skirmish bot mode patch existed and won't be supporting it further than the tiny baby inch they gave. I'd love to congratulate them on putting it in to begin with, but then again that's the thing... they didn't. It was a late after-thought they barely shoved in long after the game lost a lot of it's market value, when it should have been better and more from the very starting shot. Now they sit there telling us to get hyped for the next one. Well, they'll have to actually match a game from 2004 first. Until then, my reaction to the idea of buying their modern interpretation of the series is a clear...

Politics in gaming

Funnily enough, this is yet another article somewhat attached off the back of an idea made somewhat popular in discussion by Colin Moriarty. I didn't have a reason to mention him specifically last time (though, he was the person I was referring to as bringing up a judge panel idea), but this time it's probably important because he has the best set stage I've seen to the question here today on this video. Though that said, I first heard it from a die-hard Uncharted fanatic talking about what one of the lead people at Naughty Dog had said. I... really don't like the guy who speaks on behalf of them, and he has made some incredibly absurd and painfully ironic statements, but I actually agree with both him and Colin on this one. However, I've clearly got more to add, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time writing this stuff. ...and there's a lot to write about it. So if you don't know the question by now, let's pitch it: Should we take politics out of gaming? The quick answer is, no. And here's why (minor witcher 3 spoilers):

It's about good writing, not shutting down politics

The longer answer is why you're reading this article instead of doing something better with your time. Anyway the topic comes up when Naughty Dog's director (I think) was asked to keep his personal politics out of The Last of Us 2. He responded with a clear "No", and even pointed to the original's ending as a sign of his political influences. Again, I'll agree with that sort of idea. However, the problem is... this almost feels like one of those dumb internet communication bits. I hear a lot of, and would even say I come very much from the same side that says not to put politics in gaming. I get it, I sympathize with it, and depending on the phrasing I'll be standing on that side of the issue. However that's the key here, the phrasing is all messed up from this side. It's just like with objective reviews. Nobody is actually asking you to suck out your soul and human tone from a review, so you can get everything 100% factual. We're asking for you to give the most transparent, least biased sort of review, and take some effort to explain how you arrived at your conclusions. There's a big difference between that, and slapping together some political message infused review that you were secretly paid off to give a good score, which is something that has and even continues to happen. Similarly, when people ask of you to keep political messages out of games, there's a huge difference from Metal Gear Solid subtly telling you about the dangers of war and patriotism, versus Far Cry 3's protagonist being a whiny baby about how much of a "monster" he's become because he had to fight to survive.

Far Cry 3 is the icon of what you don't want to do with politics in gaming. They decided to write in a message they thought would strike out against the culture, and be all edgy and make the average american shooter fan think. In truth, it was such a confused and poorly written mess, that it wound up being hated for it's "ironic" racist message instead, because it turns out the FPS is fun market aren't actually the audience right now that gets all worked up on messages. Instead it's the people who naturally see the world in the same stupid light FC3 did, with rich white spoiled kids having joy rides, drug fueled maniacs, how fighting to survive is a savage and brutal chore, and that your game is hip for having weed and dubstep in it. So they didn't connect with the racist white guy ruler satire that was pulled, and called it racist, which... it kind of was, but not in the way they thought. It's just that the game was that poorly written. Furthermore, the worst part, was the main character and his forced hokey "I'm a monster!" dialogue that just came in constantly by a certain mark. That may have been the only time writing ever left me only cringing... and literally cringing, not some exaggerated disgust, not laughing at it for being so bad it's good, but literally "How on earth did someone sit down, and actually write this, and it passed off as a good fluid narrative arc!?" type of thoughts meeting with a physical remolding of my expression. It was just relentlessly hokey and badly done, with a character going from "I don't like this, and I'm scared!", to enjoying it one mission, and then imediately after that he has these unnatural and forced conversations with his friends about how him killing people is "winning" in the most forced creeper voice I've heard. It was terrible, and even FC4's writer called it out.

“I think the important difference is we don’t want to be didactic, we’re not trying to teach people. I think a lot of Far Cry games have fallen into the trap – telling you that violence is bad, and that you’re bad for playing the game. You don’t want to play a game for 40, 50 hours to be rewarded by systems that have a narrative layer on top of that, telling you that you were bad for doing those things, that humans are terrible.”

I could not have found a more perfect image for FC3's  writing

So basically it comes down to less "don't do politics. At all. NEVER!" and more about... please write good. Be smart, do cool things, make me surprised, or even develop something so well that I can come to my own conclusions, or analytics who clearly have too much time on their hands wind up telling me something and I have to go and look over the game again and go "OH YEAH! Woah!". That's a cool thing, even if I won't necessarily agree with it. Far Cry 4 actually wound up doing something like that, with Pagin Min's ending where he basically calls out the protagonist as, not a monster, but someone who came there for an adventure. Essentially he winds up telling you "I realized, I was just using [a death] as an excuse to do whatever it is I wanted to do. Just like how you are, holding [story objective object] as an excuse to do whatever you want to do. But god damn if it isn't fun!" In an open world chaotic shooter game, my mind melted with how much that went through to smash the 4th wall and pull the player in, talking directly at you... because, that's the notion I've always had with these games. You get some loose thread of a total objective, but it gets delayed and in it's sleeping background noise, you build an empire of sandbox activities and fun little run around activities, doing whatever you want on your own time and choice, slowly getting to that point where the game tells you it's done... and leaves you telling you that the place is still all yours. Pagin Min literally does just that, and it's incredible writing if you ask me, whereas FC3 felt like it was forcing a message in that contradicted with it's very nature and fought against every piece of itself in stupid and forced ways.

On top of that, FC4 does also do more direct political stuff, and also better. You've got this situation in which the rebels are divided on how to rebuild the land once they overthrow Pagin, and so you get to choose between the conservative religious guy (that later goes blood crazy and regresses social rights), and a socialistic progressive (who enslaves citizens, profits off of drugs, and implicitly murdered a little girl to bury old religious values). They're both exploring extreme ends of a country in turmoil, and in the end you as a player can kind of see what's terrible and wrong about each, and think on it some. It perfectly fits the troubled setting, the way people can manipulate each other, and works inside of this kind of game framing and even adds to it. That's good well-written political stuff.

I've already also brought up the Witcher franchise, which has political sabotage, corruption, moving social rights clashing with tradition, race issues, guerrilla warfare, just modest and interesting lessons. Furthermore, Killzone even has political messages, and uses history to mix up and make a WW2 sci-fi universe that has also been interpreted as an American Revolutionary war piece as well. And what about the countless games that involve you rebelling against a government entity of some form? What kind of political pacifism is that, when it's blatantly eating out of the hands of every libertarian/anarchist/conspiracy nut out there. Oh, but don't worry, we have the anti-libertarian Bioshock for you as well. Oh, and then there were all those WW2 shooter "honoring" the vets. Not exactly a hot issue to sweat over, but it involves the history of political decisions, war, and the portrayal of sensitive events some may not agree with being condensed into a video game. Hell, look at what happened with Battlefield 1 when EA had the audacity to tweet some cheesy puns with the game. Even Doom (4) has political influences despite proudly tossing it's narrative to the side, because the reason we discovered Hell was supposedly to solve our energy crisis. I'm not saying it delivers any real message about it, but it brings it up, and ties it in with the plot and perhaps took shape from one of the designer's political leanings. I'm serious, and if you don't understand, you clearly haven't played one of the best games to come out in the last decade. Still it's not so serious about politics or any real message, and that's just fine as well.

Yes, this kind of game even does it

Just making fun stories can lead to it

Here's another thing, you don't even need to be truly trying to even capture a narrative theme that can come off as political. Sometimes it just happens. I myself have been working with three different stories, and of them, only one winds up not sounding political. It's not that I'm sitting there pandering to someone's views, or trying to lecture people on my own, but rather just what I wound up writing for a believable feeling of the setting. In one case it's fantasy racism/tribalism, prejudice, and the corruption of power. Honestly though I just wrote it because I have fun making up new cultures and having them pick at each other, meanwhile an antagonist wants to control everything for antagonizing reasons. Meanwhile a sci-fi story I wrote, could be taken as pro/anti-colonization (depending on what characters are speaking), there's a somewhat pro-war line in the 2nd part, in retrospect I think I wrote a character who could be taken as an allegory for a trans person, and yet there's also an environmentally aware science team speaking in the exact same chapter of that part. Oh, and there's an SJW-like person who's playing the victim card to delay a debate up until someone shuts her up. That last bit I will freely admit is a bit of insertion of my views, but the rest of it just happened more naturally in the environment and characters I created, and I still wrote it in a way that it made sense to the character's motives and later events of the story. The only story that doesn't have an accidental or intentional political message yet, is due to it's super high fantasy nature that it's too close to greek mythology and trickster folk tales to have any serious message. Even then, that might change as I get more than 3 chapters into it, as it's my newest thing.

 It's not just my own stories I see this in, but look no further than Warhammer 40K, or Zootopia. Zootopia actually had the same theme as the 1st story I mentioned. It wanted to take animals, and make them a self-aware society, and sort of develop a mythos around tribalism and whatnot. It seemed like they had no better intention than just the fun of it, like I did. However it wound up turning into a movie with a "message" because that's just how Disney works, where you usually need to find some sort of kid-friendly message or pitch to teach people. It's a win-win from a corporate perspective, and that's fine with me. The funny thing is though, it was even darker at one point, with a message more centered just as much around police state fears. Then W40k is all about space crusaders, and is so stuck in this proudly "grim dark" tone of madness and tribalism, that the fans of the series cannot process it with a serious face. The W40K fanbase is full of people who look on and laugh at the overzealous reaching of the series, can easily tell you how fucked up every faction is, and yet we love it for a good read and work of fiction. We've slapped everything from twilight parodies, to making a punchline out of heresy. Still, this is in a way, about politics. W40K is about war, religion, and corruption. Just like with Doom, that doesn't mean they're trying to force you to think of them as good or bad, but they've created this world that has so clearly touched on that, and has brought in real experiences and interpretations from out culture and political situations. Meanwhile Zootopia has even been dragged in and framed as being anti-Trump... even though the movie wasn't made at all with him in mind, and never started out with a "message" anyway. But nope, hearing "actually guys, they just wanted one a more unique self-aware talking animal movies" doesn't make great headlines or marketing, so it's got a theme that can be interpreted in a few different ways by people who want to over-analyze it, so some left-wing news site can tell you why it warned us about Trump and take some interviews out of context.

Not even talking animals will let you hide from politics & drama

Concluding...

Hardly anyone is asking you to shut politics out completely. We're asking you write it well, write it to be fun, and write it so we can still enjoy our games. Heck better yet, this is gaming, make your message in the mechanics. I remember how Hoard reminded me of an old Taoist proverb, where the more towns and riches I won over, the harder it was to keep them safe. That came to mind without a drop of text or narrative. Brothers, a Tale of Two Sons, incorporated an emotional family bond in it's adventure using a co-op like control method for a single player game. MGSV has sever risk and reward issues regarding it's nuclear weapons. That is all possible, and it's far better than someone forcing in a political message, or some forced message of any kind. That's why Spec Ops still has some detractors, suggesting it went too far and did too little right. Others (like me) will point out how stupid Far Cry 3 was. Deus Ex was ironically hated by the very side supposedly happy about games as "art" and inclusive, and maybe they'll have some good criticisms in there about proper use of messaging. I didn't see an issue with it myself. However none of us are telling you to stay away from post-apocalypse because it might be environmentalist propaganda. We're not telling you to stop your government overthrowing plots, because it could be raising libertarians. We're not serious about leaving all your influences, wishes, and who you are at the door (even if some people pose the demand in this stupid way). Gamers just want you to write smart, same with any book worm or movie goer

Gaming is still a form of both art, and yet escapism. The two aren't contradicting like some would tell you it is, but they can clash depending on their goals. As a gamer who adores in-depth mechanics and user-power, I tend to love games that are higher on the escapist end and empower you to do awesome ridiculous things. Still, I stay for the lore, world building, and I dig for messages from there. Furthermore, one of my favorite heroes isn't some Peter Parker, or Bruce Wayne, but actually Robin Hood... you know, the guy who's entire plot was being upset over taxes and poverty? Very few people actually stop and talk so much about the politics of Robin Hood, and that's because it's just made fun. Whether it's Errol Flynn, Disney, BBC's show format, or making fun of the 90's variant, people just talk about the characters, best adaptations, and how great they are instead of "Was he a socialist, or libertarian?". It's just about how you build your world up, and if you still have fun in mind, or go for more of a condescending, lecturing approach. Let's hope you have fun in mind. Your work, message, and whatever else will last around a lot longer if people actually enjoy it and it's written well for that purpose. ...and on that note, why hasn't there been a modern Robin Hood game!? Come on guys, get on it!

What should console quality control look like?

Welp, I saw this coming. With the release of Life of Black Tiger, consumers have fallen into the usual predictable state of... complaining about choice. Damn, 1st world problems, right guys? Okay, but I'm going for the throat when I say that, really let's be reasonable here and point at two other ridiculous things: Black Tiger, and "journalism". Now if you want to bash the game, or inform the consumer the game is bad, by all means do that. However Black Tiger has passed that point and is hitting the "punch it and laugh because it's fun! Look at us buy it so we can laugh at it" point of free press. Yes, it's a terrible game, we get that. Yet apparently PSLS didn't think so, and dedicated an extra article to talking about it's trailer they posted up way earlier where people already talked about it. Ironic for them to turn around and question the store "okay, this is good", when they themselves didn't check their own damn re-posted stuff, so they can act all surprised later. Hypocrisy guys? Yup, let's give that game two articles, when they still don't have a review up for Slain, a game that worked hard to improve itself from mediocrity. Are you telling them not to do that, and they'll get coverage? Well screw you, I actually like good games.

What else is terrible, is the fact that you guys cover this, and this, more than you do actual hidden gems. Cursed Castilla, continuous updates from indie games that aren't Minecraft, Moon Hunter's expansion, Castles, the port of Mount & Blade, and the list goes on are games I don't see getting coverage while Black Tiger has double for being terribly bad. It's not even the first to do so! I don't expect every game to be covered that exists, but at the same time you're clearly not even bothering the effort when you can't even be asked to pay attention to the news you're hosting only to reprint it later "shocked" at an awful game you felt was worth more time. However, it's apparently Sony's fault that you can't get awesome games, so let's discuss quality control.

Yeah this really is terrible, we noticed from the very trailer. Move on!

In case you can't tell, I'm not the biggest supporter of the logic. However my title is quite loaded in that direction for a reason. I technically do want quality control, just not to the point where I'm crying tears and writing articles over the fact Black Tiger exists (this article is based on the discussion around it). However I do still ask for some quality control, even stricter in some ways than what's going on now with major releases. For the most part though, I have very basic principles:

• Make sure the game works.
• Have it finish-able and with basic features like trophies and accessibility functions.
• It does not use illegal stolen assets, or other such stolen stuff.

That's basically it. I don't even need it to be a smooth framerate, because depending on where that limit is, you can kick out some really good games. I'm sure we can all agree a framedrop may exist somewhere and be okay, but even if we pretend games are "broken" for dipping into low 20fps frequently, what does that exclude? Well, it excludes games like Lichdom that fixed itself, it excludes games like Two Worlds 2 which I (alongside a cult following) had a lot of fun with on the PS3, and while I hate it I know others enjoy Risen 2 & 3. I know Unity was a much hated entry, but it had it's fans for all of it's flaws and oversized patches. 

Then there's other traits, like the huge mess full of issues that is Black Tiger. How on earth are you going to tell someone they MUST get every bit of grammar right, must make their cut-scenes useful, restrict their loading times, and fix their awful gameplay? Well, you'd have to crack down on things a little too hard core, and other areas would just come down to subjective "this ain't fun" judgement. That's not a judgement for anybody but the consumer to make though. Plenty of great games have each had those type of problems. Old Nintendo games printed books with mistranslations, Half-life and Postal 2 would stop you mid-level or even right after combat to load, and we could go on about frame-rates to as far back as Shadow of the Colossus (you know, one of the "best games ever"). I know, I know, none of them are as severely as bad or added up as Black Tiger, but you're still asking that they come up with some uniformed standard, OR a subjective judge panel, and either could wreck some potential fun games. I still stand by the fact that Two World's 2 is a fun mess, or heck Naughty Bear. NB had frame-rate, basic camera, and just repetition type issues. Two Worlds 2 has even worse frame-rate problems, some kind of awful blur effect, stiff animations, horrible voice acting, and I could probably find more to go on with. However it's an absolute blast, with weird creatures and quests, some fun mechanics, and just a novel sense of adventure.

However let me repeat a certain point of my own standards yet again: "Have it finish-able and with basic features like trophies and accessibility functions." Oh joy, want to know what's not going on today? That! Especially the 2nd bit. Sony integrates options like accessibility, share button, remapable controls, trophy support, and screen fit in for a good reason, yet here we are today with developers openly ignoring the screen refitting tool, and for the first time I can ever recall I am getting games that DO NOT WORK with a TV that is otherwise perfectly fit to play HD games from consoles. I'm not complaining that they're too HD and I'm missing my HDMI cable, I'm talking about matching all the standard requirements, and yet Skyrim, Stardew Valley, Final Fantasy 15, and Mount & Blade's sloppy port are all off when it comes to proper TV fitting even though it is built into the damn system's options! Want to know how Stardew's team responded to criticism on this? Did they fix it? They moved the HUD.... so your screen is still cut out of the real view, and the option to actually use the console features is ignored even once brought up, it's just they tried to guess where you'd be able to see vital things normally again. This is news hardly enough people are talking about, for major releases you're paying up to maximum price for, and they can't be bothered to use the universal built-in options. Then you want to turn around and cry about Black Tiger, which every half-blind consumer can spot and turn away from it's trailer alone, but you can't report actual news that is cheating people of $60 games they can't see right!? Talk to me about curation & quality control when you get your priorities straight and demand this first. I had to learn of these culprits from either isolated reportings, or first-hand experience, and not nearly enough people are demanding devs to take responsibility and fix this, and it's insane Sony (or even MS, assuming they have the same feature) doesn't enforce it. It's a part of finishing the actual game right, and yet here I am, playing Mount & Blade where half of my health bar is eaten by my TV border.

Now, that all being said, here's the funny thing: Sony does have quality control. I love the timing of this whole controversy, because it went perfectly along a recent lengthy article with actual news, coming from the Friday the 13th crew about their difficult console certification process. Heck, I'm just happy somebody finally said something about this. It's pretty obvious that Sony, and general gaming itself, sees some kind of checks go up. It's why every game you play basically has an ESRB rating, and some legal garble in tiny text all over the place. They also forced trophies on games back in like 2008 or 9 or so, which is why games suddenly always had trophies whereas a copy of PS3's Turok has it's own odd achievement system built in instead. There's a lot of hidden forces from us at work to make these games happen, and here this guy discusses a good bit about it. You have to send your game to 4 different local divisions, check for such obscure nonsense as a guitar hero controller that lets you go back to the main menu (even though you could just reset the console... just sayin'), and how voice command needs to work with everything. Yet in this process, we obviously don't have tests to make sure games are universally fitted with the screen size options. Furthermore, he explains (in a way I admittedly don't fully understand) how crap like Unity gets an easier pass with the right sort of money.

Quality protection is apparently a secret cult

This actually raises some questions of its own in some ways, especially with the release of Black Tiger, and the fact it's not exactly the only game of it's kind. How does some nobody indie-like team manage that out there while a crowd-desired horror game of a famous name is held to strict standards? Is it the way these games are being published? Is Friday a retail game that gets held to different standards? What else do we, and not even developers themselves, not know about? Heck, we haven't gotten releases like Black Tiger so frequently, and a lot of the other garbage games can be located somewhere within a 6 month or so radius of time. Did something just suddenly happen behind our backs, or is it just natural for the market to take this long for this stuff to show up? You see, this is why I'm not just standing on some hill screaming quality control. I don't know what the hell they already have in place, what's changed, or what's being looked at. I don't appreciate it being a secretive thing, and I don't appreciate the thought of good games being held back as Xbox once did with quality self-publishing indies. We don't know everything, so quite trying to ask for stricter mysterious strings just because you're not going to like the entire digital store's catalog. Most people not even asking it in a way that makes sense, with the closest constructive criticism being a panel of judges (the rest is just "Ew, bad games bad, make them only good games"). The only other thing I've seen is making solid 30/60fps mandatory, and I already discussed why that's a killer for some fun games. Now refund policies I might agree with, but nobody is talking about that, and that's the problem.

For those that think they know the answers here, and pretend like quality control is everything: If you're even half as smart as you think you are, you won't be susceptible to buying garbage like Black Tiger anyway. If you're not that smart, and worry about being burned, what makes you think you actually know the answer when even game developers don't even know the full details? A little bit of common sense goes a long way, doesn't it? So stop just yelling at the wind, and gather your thoughts a little better. I'm sticking with what I do know, and that's why my list of 3 basic things are just a small list (and yet, even that sadly isn't followed). I know I want games to work, I want them to be accessible and function within reason of the console I've purchased and the expectations that raises, and I don't want devs breaking any laws to achieve a good game. That's why I'm not upset with Black Tiger (at least, as far as I know it), and I'd rather ask people get over themselves. I am however, upset with those who are supposed to be spreading information on good games, and how word is getting around. It is their responsibility, and us as consumers, to discuss these games, and instead they aren't even checking the very trailers they post before coming back much later to pretend to be shocked for extra clicks and views. That is despicable, and that is what I will call out and fuss about. Meanwhile, I still have yet to hear much from any major news source if Slain's console release went over well, and nobody warned me of how sloppy Mount & Blade was done with even the reviews I looked up coming out of obscure youtubers. The media needs to fix themselves, before they turn and ask Sony to do it for them.

You don't have to agree with it all, just play what you like

Nintendo left with scraps again

Not the proper console treatment

The Wii U was off to a great looking start when it was a new concept. It looked fun, had a potential concept that could benefit games (especially with inventory systems), and had enough 3rd party power to get people saying "Yes, Nintendo is back and for the hardcore". Now you're so used to knowing it as a failure that you probably lie to yourself about saying you knew it was coming the whole time (though I'm sure some people really did).  However, looking back I see a few things wrong. Namely, it's among the same thing happening yet again; 3rd party that wasn't obscure or Ubisoft gave the Wii U their scraps. The Wii U saw such titles as a re-released Mass Effect 3, a month late copy of one of the most disliked Assassins Creeds (though Unity tried competing with it later), a new Tekken as if that was somehow a big seller, an open world batman game from the last year, and then Fifa 13. Among newer titles, many dropped, Rayman lost it's exclusivity, and others like the next Batman game and COD were minimally supported once they did get out. By the time people were talking about how disappointed they were with Watch Dogs, Wii U (the system that had beat PS4/xbox one by a year) got it nearly a year late with no bonuses. Even Nintendo themselves were late to the party, expecting Nintendo Land and a 2D Mario game to sell you while they made a 3D Mario game that played like a 2D mario game, and that Pikmin game 20 people were waiting for.


 I remember when the PS4 launched, despite people going "No games, wah!" it actually had a solid enough lineup to start. Black Flag, COD, it had Battlefield, people were talking about Resogun like a quiet gem you got FREE with PSplus, and more on the way. It took a while for a good library to truly build up like any new console, but it had actual new stuff there from the start or within arm's reach, as well as 1st party support, indies, and your upcoming easy ports. Those new games held people's interests enough to hold them over until the next wave, whereas Nintendo is starting out with scraps that the initial sales were already done for. Some of the near titles were disappointing, like Watch Dogs or Destiny, and the many bugs of BF4 and Unity, but they got people through to see MGSV, Doom, Uncharted 4, Overwatch, Witcher 3, and the very games that we're hyped about now. Meanwhile the Wii U couldn't even carry itself to see those disappointments. I'm looking at the same thing again now when I try to look at the Switch's 3rd party line-up, and videos like this one, are already calling the publisher's approach as a wait and see with test scraps. Bomberman, Sports games that nobody buys a new console for, and old hits people have already played 10 times like Minecraft and Skyrim. I'm reading these off the "featured games" Nintendo is trying to be proud of!

PS4/Xbone's launch held new adventures, not old scraps

The big stinging truth lies in, ironically, the one that's getting the most attention: Bethesda putting Skryim on the Switch. Look at Bethesda's library. In the recent years they as a publisher have Evil Within, Wolfenstein, Doom, Dishonored 1 and 2, Elder Scrolls Online, Fallout 4, and the upcoming new Prey. What debuts on the Switch? A 5 year old RPG they have already resold people twice (Legendary & Special Edition) on every competing home console, and it's even been speculated that it's the pre-SE version the Switch is getting. Now don't get me wrong, Skyrim is awesome and I think some people will love trying it on the Switch's portable idea, but for that to be Bethesda's one and only debut game is disturbing. If it were the PS5 or Xbox Two (...yeah, I'm sure it won't be called that) they'd be telling you about how special Prey was going to look on it compared to last-gen efforts, and shoving it in the press's faces. Oh yeah, and that's another effect of this. The new games on new consoles are getting extra press. It's like double attention and advertising on the consoles, whereas an old game is... well, old news. This is a game that's so old news, that the same publisher published a new franchise a year after it, gave the team a secondary studio all the way in texas, and we've got it's sequel out with essentially free DLC patches in that time. ...but we don't get either of those games, or Doom, their latest RPG Fallout 4. The Switch gets the inferior port of the game that every gamer interested has already bought at least twice. You can't even seem to choose the most fresh old thing to recycle for a "test". Then you wonder why you're not selling as well as you do on the other consoles? You wonder why your experiment isn't so positive? Really guys!?

Look, the Vita got better attention than this. At least people tried to put out some new games for it, and is still even getting some fairly unique games. I understand the concerns of the publishers, and their desire to make games where it will sell, but if you don't give it a chance there's no way you'll get that in return. By giving it a chance, I mean you actually have to make some games people will run in and buy. Stuff that's fresh off the presses, has news worth discussing, and is something new to play and discover in, and has the lasting depth for core gamers to return. Skyrim is a big step forward as far as depth goes, and it's also great that the Switch is getting some cool niche stuff like Dragon Quest Heroes 2, Street Fighter 2 (I guess like the Wii U's tekken), and Bomberman. However we need more.

We need something on the scale of Rockstar announcing Red Dead 2 on the Switch, Bethesda saying Prey will come to it, and EA's next Battlefield or Battlefront being made with it in mind. Even some of the older games that are not being done could do better, like Witcher 3's complete edition, Dark Souls 3 or Doom with its DLC, stuff people will be shocked is on a Nintendo console and will almost have to support just to see. Heck, I'd love to see Far Cry 4 myself for some reason. That sort of thing hasn't happened on their field since the Nintendo 64 with stuff like Turok and GoldenEye. Heck, the joke is already that Nintendo's stupid paid service will stop being free once online stuff actually comes out for it, because there's next to nothing for the massive multiplayer gaming community on it aside from Splatoon 2. If you want gamers to give you a chance, actually try giving us games to play on it first guys. Nintendo is doing some goofy stuff with their new system, but among the things that aren't their real fault, this is one of them. This is something the publishers need to fix. Stop giving Nintendo scraps.

Good, but you can do better than this...