They're coming to take them away

Recently there was a bit of a blow up around the latest big CRPG (not something you normally say) called Pillars of Eternity. The controversy was around a grave with a message related making a rhyming joke about a man who was ashamed to sleep with a trans person. Kind of a goofy joke you didn't quite expect to see, but it kind of makes sense both with its rhyme and its place within a world that might be more prejudice than real life. Well apparently other people didn't get the joke, and now we have white knights and probably actual trans people up in arms over the issue telling the developer they did something wrong by letting that loose in the game. Lately now (or at least within the past 4-5 years or so) more than ever we've seen this kind of tone picked up within gaming, or occasionally crossing over from other mediums like the Batgirl comic cover controversy (which for the record I'm not well informed in, so I'm not saying the cover was right or wrong, just that a similar uproar happened). Hyper sensitivity and extreme political correctness are not necessarily limited to games or "nerd culture" stuff, but its something that has been aggressively asserting itself into gaming lately. I'm a bit tired of it personally, in case you couldn't already tell from a couple past articles covering similar topics.

Well for starters its a joke... lighten up. Its not even at the expense of transgender people, if anything the funny bit was how a man died from "crying" over the matter that much. That's the actual punchline. Either way you look at it, its mild dark humor that was tossed in and adds a good chuckle while not feeling totally out of place. If you didn't laugh, fine its not the best joke ever, but don't pretend like the developers went out of their way to take a personal jab at you. You're playing a violent RPG set in a grim world that was in reality crafted with a lot of love and commitment from the help of a community, and yet you're going to sit there and pretend like a text based joke referencing another man's life-ending trans-phobia is the thing worth criticizing? Even in fictional context, this is just plain silly to get hung up over. You're traversing a town with hung people, and you're major concern is this one isolated incident with a trans person? You need to sort your political priorities out, I'd think basic human health is a lot more important than the misunderstanding of a small group of people. The game is thick in lore, factions, and obviously you're going to see some bigotry in there as well. That doesn't mean the developers are bigoted, your characters do not speak for you they speak for the work of fiction. I guess it might be true though that some guys out there can't tell fact from fiction.

Now the title seems a little weird, but it stems from an older idea back when this attitude started becoming real vocal, or at least around the start of feminism started cherry picking things to be offended at. The idea was a little defensive of these practices and said "nobody is going to take away your games" to calm down potential fear. Well ladies and gentlemen I present to you the reason why this fear existed. Its not like the head of the feminism mess herself was going to destroy games, but combine that with the misguided journalism articles springing up around similar issues and you have a growing case of people looking to be offended and those people trying to pry out and purify whatever they don't like. They want you to walk on eggshells for them or other people, and when you start listening you gave them to power to push more. As a matter of fact while its possible this can and has happened in other medias, I can't help but wonder if there's a coincidence in how this is an issue in comics and gaming at the same time (and tried to go into Metal with Metalgate). Realistically I don't believe the folks behind this stuff are going to storm in, smash my consoles, and hack my steam account, or burn every retail place to the ground. Nor do I think they'd prevent people from making games. Of course games will still be around, and of course there will still be games I have that I can play for fun. However what I do believe is they'd censor recent titles (like PoE, which the developer is now considering the removal of the joke), and drive fear into the market place. This isn't so much of a fear as much as it is something that is actually happening, although in small amounts. Its no different than the days when people were trying to tell you that blood and gore was too much, all while ignoring other medias that are just fine with it in them. Its people trying to tell you what you can and can't do in a game anymore, and its not covering actual prejudices but instead telling people you're not aloud to mention issues like it at all. You're discouraged to make prejudice characters, have humor that pokes fun at them, or have a character that are just unlikeable, or to give certain characters a weakness, because you might not be appealing to everybody if you do that. That's the kind of message they're sending out. They wont say they want to take away our games, but the reality is they are trying to push that across and take away certain features, topics, and areas of expression within these games. They're narrowing down what is and isn't aloud written by their flimsy code that has constant holes and double standards within it.

I'd actually like to bring up an interesting theory I had recently while playing Metro 2033 redux. Its not a revolutionary idea, but its one that I feel Metro did a good example of. Its world was a violent and miserable one. You had an uncle dying in front of their child nephew, horrific beasts claiming the surface world of the earth, mysterious dark forces getting into people's heads, and of course the name stems from the fact that mankind is forced to live underground because of a nuclear apocalypse and they still can't help but go to war with each other. Its a mean and nasty place, yet its also the one they choose to deliver the message across that this was all pretty terrible and its encouraging you to be a better human. Its a place where you can make a difference and feel good. Its a place where you can give to the poor, spare a "monster" who was protecting their own child simply because you know when to put away the gun, you can try your best to spare the lives of your assumed enemies by sneaking, and you're encouraged to look into the dark threat of the game and have to make the decision between wrecking your entire journey's goal just to do the right thing or cause genocide if you happen to fall under social pressure. To a completionist the message isn't so subtle with the diaries and all; you're being told passive-ness, peace, and forgiveness is a much greater thing than war and gore. However the game's point may not have been to be subtle, the nuclear apocalypse isn't afterall. Its not a coincidental irony that they choose a violent FPS to drop this message in, its an intended part of the program and message. You're trudging through this dark damp and miserable world so that you hopefully tell yourself that you don't want this. Its the same notion that MGS had subtly with nuclear war, the same reason The Last of Us had message about defensive social groups in a hostile fiction, the same reason people are uncomfortable to shoot others in This war of mine, etc. Heck I could even bring Dark Souls into this. In a game that bleak and unforgiving, I had some of the happiest moments, and learned a bit about myself in how I played, reacted to other people, and treated the world with care.

Now what does Mario, Pong, Pac-man, Sonic, and the lego franchise teach you about this stuff by omitting it? Oh right, nothing. Being in some sheltered all friendly environment does nothing to teach you any of this. To be fair neither does Doom, Streetfighter, Uncharted, and other more action oriented games. They're fun for escapist reasons, and while I'll admire that a ton and way more than something like say fully self-critical games, the fact is you don't fix some of those problems by telling others they can't acknowledge it. Art specializes in challenging these dramatic things. It challenges them in... well to put it weirdly, sort of a strawman way (at least normally) of including the problem and then demoralizing it in a way that you want your audience to pick up on. Pretending they don't exist, shutting out other views (fake or real), and demanding everyone play along in this way is a pretty unhealthy and narrow minded view of the whole thing. I guess its no wonder these guys imply a lack of humor in their being.

Its about peace... kind of

So what does all this have to do with a little transgender themed joke? Yeah I guess I'm making it out to be a pretty big deal, but from what I've seen this kind of behavior keeps popping up. People keep looking for things to be offended by. Shadows of Mordor is deemed both racist and sadistically murder happy (M rated action games aren't allowed to have bad guys to kill anymore according to one guy), WatchDogs is racist despite treating civilians fairly equally, comics can't give themselves a cover page without offending feminists, Gannon from Zelda is supposedly an evil middle-eastern stereotype even though he's totally not because he's a fictional species (that turns into a monster) from a fantasy series, and now we've got a crowd funded game told what kind of humor they can and can't have.... and its developers are looking into it. Its hard not to admittedly ask where legit criticism meets with this sort of thing, so for the record I'm not saying a dev is immune to social pressure, but that social pressure shouldn't be used to push the wrong things like political agendas or censorship. There is a difference between the developer like those at DMC improving their game by editing out a line because it was bad, and those who were satisfied with their game and then demanded to change something just to pander to somebodies trigger warnings. "They're going to take away our games" used to be somewhat of an exaggerated counter-argument, but now there's an actual minority of people being very loud and destructive in order to try and make that a reality. They're not looking for inclusivity, they're looking for control. At this point it feels like there are people who are actively looking to be offended (how else would people link Gannon to racism), looking to push things, and looking to demonize certain coincidences or subject material. If they're taken seriously, then I worry very much about the future of the gaming industry, and other mediums they're attached to. I don't think they really will take over or anything, but it is an actual threat, and it carries concern.

Now Playing: BloodBorne

Yeah I know I just did this with Metro, but the article was started around the first 3rd of the game, and submitted right before a later play session where I did a major push to finish it. Loved it, but as luck would have it I'm moving on to the latest big thing starting today. Unlike the last article this one is a true first impression entry, and one that is almost totally blind and early into the game. Heck to give you an idea of how early, its an RPG where I have yet to figure out how to even level up... so yeah. Today, a day after its release, I got BloodBorne as sort of an early Easter present.

So far its pretty good, but it certainly has its share of differences and learning curve. It feels very much like its made by the same team we all know now. Quiet dark lands with cryptic story telling, grunts that you need to time to properly kill, and just some of the general feels that a souls game would have. However its also strangely different. I was told to expect some things like a new health system, an aggressive focus, and I know its technically a new IP, but still some weird things are just different. There hasn't been  single armor/clothing drop and I'm getting the feeling the same can be said for core weapons, stats and classes are recontextualized into something entirely different, I'm almost certain the 1st death is intentional, and the bonfire system is practically non-existent. It'll take some getting used to.

Now I do like the game, but its a bit rough as well. I love the transforming weapons, the game is refreshingly mysterious thanks to the fact that I ignored 80% of the hype (seriously, stop spoiling your own damn games marketing dudes), and the world is amazing. Currently I've got no clue what to do stat-wise, but I'm running around with a whip/cane weapon, and swapping around between a torch and pistol combo. What I don't like however, apart from the infamous load times (which I can live with, but I do think they'll improve things if they get that patch out there), is the fact that the newly aggressive combat doubles that cheap-shot feeling. For example, there are these black coat guys that will occasionally jab a torch at you. Sometimes they do a double dip with the attack, its hard to tell when and how they're able to do the main attack in the first place never the less when they'll cheap shot you with a double hit. The fact that this game relies on speed and aggression over defense, but still moves identical to the older slow paced punch and dodge soul games means you'll see some strange animations or just get hit in ways that feel unfair. Heck that exact torch attack is just the perfect idea, it can go right through my attacks as though it is impervious to the whole stunlock system. I hardly think that's fair, and I expect the game will have more surprises like that in its future even if the combat is mostly smooth outside of this issue.

Now then I'm off to try and push through these darn were-wolf things. I can't break past them, and this'll probably be just like the Tarus demon in dark souls where I spent like two hours attempting to get past that area. Oh and great I'm nearly out of Molotovs, so there's that as well. I'll get through this eventually, and if I have to I'll probably just farm the villagers, run back to the hub zone, and buy better equipment until something happens.

EDIT:

Beat those wolves, got the leveling system in, loved a fight with the big wolf guy (died after cutting him down by a 3rd), got better armor, strengthened my weapon, discovered there's no weight system, etc. I also forgot to mention last time that it surprised me how often health pac- err... blood vials drop. You can carry like 20 of them, they fall from like every 5-8 kills, and using them is fast. Sounds too easy? Nope! Damage output is high, regain makes you take risks to save up your inventory causing you to fail sometimes, and it takes like 2 vials to really heal you up in most cases. Its still a struggle, its just that you're given this feeling of liberty and strong supply for when you do want to use this stuff. It also means they can get away with some aggressive boss fights, I really got to use the vials more so I can take on the cleric a lot better. This game is truly a valid successor to dark souls, striking that perfect difficulty curve twice to make you sweat over the 1st level and still enjoy things. Its got quite a good number of changes, but none feel entirely wrong its just a different way of accomplishing a very similar amazing experience. Now its all new again, and every new creature, NPC, and room feels like its a bold new discovery. So now I'm off to recollect 4000 blood points I lost to that cleric.

Now playing: Metro Redux

Finally found a price I could agree with. Its not like these games weren't worth $50, but I'm stingy in this busy year full of many great releases and so I wanted a better bargain. $15 at Toys R Us? I'm sold! I already played through Last Light on PlayStation 3 and ranked it among one of the best games available in 2013, and I technically owned the very first game from a give-away on PC, but the package here was still a great deal. I hadn't grabbed any of the DLC, and my intel 3000 was running the original in a way that the experience felt drunk and muddy. No seriously, playing the original now on a machine that can actually handle it I'm finding so many "I don't remember that!" moments where it feels like I missed out on all the details my first time around. It feels like a brand new game. Meanwhile Last Light is just worth playing through again with better visuals, it was a great game. So... you wont here any "boooooo! old game port" hate from me, this is more than what I paid for and I'm enjoying things. That being said I'll admit this ain't so much about 1st impressions here, or current thoughts while playing. Playing the game pulls me into this super introvert mode where all I care about is very short term thoughts and what's in front of me, and between that and the fact that I'm already well acquainted by the sequel makes this hard to discuss impressions on. So lets just talk about why this game is so awesome!

So for those not familiar with Metro you're basically playing what I see as essentially another team's Half-life 2. The way I see it there are two modern day HL2 style masterpieces each going their own way with the formula. Wolfenstein is the one that decides to slide things back a little more into ludicrous fun territory while bottled up the same way HL2 is. Metro on the other hand is what happens if it accepted mainstream conventions on its own terms, and played up on the atmosphere and script quality of half-life. That sounds a little concerning on paper, but the real result is an incredible one-of-a-kind game that is well worth any hardcore shooter fan's time.

2 Hardcore 4 U!!!

For starters the set pieces are amazing and make full use of things. Its not like a military shooter where you're doing another mini-gun set piece off a helicopter for the 11th time in your FPS library for no apparent reason. Instead your turret section is a rusty car turret through a dark two way tunnel after you've been saved from two awesome rangers who snuck deep into neo-nazi turf. That's a pretty awesome scene that ends with a cart ride that goes wrong and sends you crashing back into the darkness all alone. Every script is offering something to the action, the world, or the story, and being an interesting section emphasizes the value of all those. Basically if you want me invested in a highly scripted game, you've got to give me both the freedom and the will to explore it, and Metro is very encouraging in that respect. Heck, that's why I'm into games with the half-life formula or feel in the first place. Doom maze games are fun but there's a beneficial balance to including a good amount of lore and story elements that games like this are great at.

Metro is also all about the smaller things and glorious atmosphere. This bleeds in from the survival aspects of gameplay. You need to stack up on ammo, filters, and maintain a mask, all while keeping your equipment charged. You can have masks break or get dirt on them you need to clean off, oxygen runs out making outdoor parts tense, your flash light runs off a chargeable battery with a short life, and some guns are functioning off of pressurized air you have to pump. Oh and you're objectives are on a clipboard you pull out and if its too dark to read you can use a lighter to help see it. That same lighter can be used as an up close light source, and burns thick spider webs as you walk into them. Would you also believe me if I told you Metro has a morality system that is actually subtle? I know, hardly heard of right? Between games like this and Okami I'm starting to wonder if we've actually got amazing moral choice games out there in plenty of places, but only the loud clunky ugly ones are being heard because they're that bad at subtly. With Metro you could actually beat the game and never know there was a system even in place. Sure poor beggars, and one or two obvious binary bits let you make a choice, but there's no clear idea or talk of a payoff. However secretly those alongside subtle bits like what creatures you attack, if you ghost your way through stealth sections, and more add up to separate endings. I've been told that if you're well informed you'll notice the moral choices coming and going with a strange flash and water dripping sound effect, and that's been happening to me constantly in my current playthrough and countless times I have no idea what I did right or wrong. Collect ammo off this guy? Drip! Accept a seemingly mundane task from a guy? Drip! Ignore an NPC to walk down a tunnel for a second? Drip! It happens quite a lot, and my only guess is that I think I'm doing the right thing because I'm playing it my way. That's just awesome. Heck I could go into great detail about how I simply love the fact that, despite fighting mutant monsters of the apocalypse, it turns out some just want to be left alone. Replaying Last Light long ago I discovered entire monster areas can be bypassed by just letting them be, or respecting their territory. This isn't another Skyrim where every single wolf attacks you because they're programmed to be enemies, this is instead a game where you can walk literally right in front of a monster dog thing's face and as long as you don't bother it, he wont hurt you. Of course the thing that makes this tense is that this isn't the norm, and you still don't know for sure if that monster thing you're tip-toeing by is the actively aggressive type or not. Its a great and realistic survival and moral situation, and its an active example of some of the game's story tone. Again this game is all about the smaller things, and its a great little experience.

wipe that mask off and shoot!

So a great shooter with a nice setting, great use of its scripted pieces, good attention to detail, what else is there to go over that makes this a fun ride so far? Well its just one of those games that in its essence capture what I love about my so-called "hardcore" shooter experience. The gunplay is amazing, there's value and lore to discover by exploring, the story gets a little weird in a lovable way at times, and the monsters are just plain awesome. It may have regenerating health and a tight inventory, but it makes the best of both things as the inventory and health are still established in a way that makes you think. They're still powered by resources, and you can really be on the edge of your seat on this game. Heck personally I think this game is tougher than quite a lot of old games I grew up with. I spent well over 30 minutes retrying one small stealth section today, and I still didn't come anywhere close to pulling off my ideal plan once I did make it.


Oh but how does this newer version turn out? Well actually not all that impressive. I mean don't get me wrong I'm still standing on that side of saying you wont get any hate here from me. I don't regret grabbing this game. Still I think its something about being used to the PS4 by now, or just remembering the game as looking so good to begin with, but either way the thing is the visuals feel relatively identical to what I thought it looked like. I'm sure if I did a comparison I'd find plenty of better tuned details, and I know its running better technically given the 60fps, but its just not a jawdropping thing. It just feels normal and it still looks great... just as I described Last Light on the PS3. Again I'm not complaining, previously I couldn't even play the original game right, and all the DLC will be new on Last Light's side. Also a new set of trophies and a share feature is nice. So despite not being mind blown by the graphical enhancements (and still being oblivious to 60fps as usual), its still worth a trip back into these two games. On a similar note of porting I don't know how Last Light stands for sure, but the original is actually full of hilarious little visual glitches I've never picked up before. A door going through a guy, an animation snag, and some minor detection issues. I also think I've managed to occasionally climb on stuff I'm not sure should have been possible. Nothing ever feels broken enough to complain, its actually kind of fitting to the general charm of the game being somehow deep and immersive one second and then silly and clumsy the next. Now I've gone on enough about this game, its time to return and enjoy it some more.

Anti-gravity grief

So lately it would appear that rather than a sequel, Gravity Rush is getting a port... and as you'd expect people aren't too happy about that. Its not because of the whole sequel thing, if anything those guys are happy as this is still news from an unsure franchise that could mean hype building to that sequel, but Vita fans are sad for the Vita's sake. However not all of us are obviously, and I'd like to talk about why I see no harm whatsoever in this.

For starters, people who act like this is going to hurt the vita need to remember Gravity rush released back in 2012. It was demoed and shown off around the time the Vita was launching to build your anticipation. If this game hasn't incentivized you to buy a Vita as it should have, then why would you suddenly run out and grab it now 3 years later. If you buy the Vita at this point, you're expectations of its future should be into the field of japanese games, Indies on the go, or for some weird reason as a companion app to Sony's other consoles. Sure you can grab some great exclusives that are already out there, but almost every single one short of Freedom Wars is at least like a year old at this point (and FW is kind of old news at this point as well) and its nothing new that was excitingly pulling you in with a fierce tug.

On top of that guess who else isn't going to be buying much of Gravity Rush? Vita owners themselves. We're looking at a number of about 10 million or so systems sold at this point, but the number of sold games at retail stays around a comfy number well under 1 million. While this doesn't include digital, its pretty safe to assume that between the sales, give-away + version, and memory card restraints that Gravity Rush wasn't making too big of a profit there either. I'm also going to plead guilty here, there were better things for me at the time of Gravity Rush and I instead relied on my sister's copy once she bought it, and then the + version later as it was available. My point here is, why not give a well loved game that undersold on a slow selling platform to a bigger more alive platform with a lot of the same fan interest in the game? PS4's a perfect fit for this case, and a real test to see if people are interested in this idea. Personally I'm grateful anything at all is being done to help out this IP.

The other thing I would like to note here is that unlike the Tearaway thing, this actually benefits the game in a natural way. All touch motions and whatnot aside, Gravity Rush was an open world super hero game with in-game gravity powers. You could tilt the system to help with gravity flying, but you could also just use the right stick as most people would. Its a fine fit for consoles, and loses so very little in the face of a port. Actually I'd rather have the share features that are built in, and see if they try anything with the touchpad bit. In other words it ain't rocket science to figure that a port could work, and better yet a port to a bigger platform might just improve or add something to the experience (I doubt they'll do much, but it can happen).

So with all being said and done, what really happens if we see Gravity Rush get onto PS4? What harm does it do to the Vita, a console already considered dead with minimal support? I don't like that fact, but Gravity Rush's news has changed absolutely nothing about the situation. It isn't killing it even further, if anything its actually more of the other way around: They actually care enough about one of the few classics to bring it to a new audience, and try to keep it relevant. To that, I say good luck and I might be there to buy the game as well this time around. Oh... and if you're still convinced they hate vita owners, you could go and check out the flash sale where gravity rush is $1, and that's a major edge us lucky guys get that home console only types wont see when they get the chance to play it. So there's that as well. This move isn't an insult to vita owners, far from it. Instead its a great game from the Vita being offered to a wider audience supposedly without any compromises (other than lack of portability). Don't be silly and find some dumb reason to be offended by this move. Its not against you, and if you don't like who it is for then simply look at it like any other product you don't want and buy something else instead. Of course... all this hasn't totally been confirmed yet and it could all just be a goofy rumor, so bare that in mind to. Now that being said, I'd still love it if Sony actually does do something directly for the Vita. It'd be nice if they actually bothered to acknowledge that they have around 10 million users out there somewhere at this point, they just might buy a new game on the system.

Are graphics ever truly outdated?

A perfect fit

I kind of see a valid point in that idea that graphics are better as a style than a tech demo of realism. Its true, if you have something like windwaker or Okami it never truly dies are feels too wrong, worst case scenario is its resolution could use a bump up. Meanwhile Heavy Rain, Crysis, and others are already showing in their age, and some people are totally intolerable to the very early blocky 3D stuff that was trying to take itself seriously like Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Solid. I also can't help but remember a time in which I spoke of Modern Warfare 2 as the best looking 3rd party game at one time, and before the PS3 life cycle was even over I was asking myself what I was possibly thinking because even slightly better COD games were from then on always behind the typical point. Still it only takes the right kind of game to totally change my mind on how I view the more "serious" stuff. Likewise I think maybe a couple artsy games slip up more than they're supposed to, take the old Sly Cooper stuff for example with their robotic mouths, off settling animations, and the low poly looking environments. I also never understood how Borderlands got praised for such a terribly textured world (oh and there's the constant pop-ins). Naturally of course Borderlands and Sly Cooper will age better than say Half-Life 1 has, but its still not perfect and I'd argue some other serious stuff subjectively beats it. I almost feel like a few dated styles end up falling into their own special feel.

Personally one of my favorite examples is from early 2000's stuff, especially on the PC where textures first started coming up as more than flat but as too artificial to be taken seriously. Back then it was also before modern settings had much of a following, so a lot of it was taken place under interesting settings and often cool sci-fi places. Doom 3 (and the very similar looking Alpha prime) probably was one of the best of this type, capturing a very interesting use of lighting, imaginative settings, some solid texture work, and yet models that looked like they walked out of a budget CGI movie. A budget CGI movie I would totally watch and probably enjoy! I love the older CGI styles for some reason, maybe its my love of the old DKC cartoon and Beast Wars, or maybe its because my more late childhood timing which had plenty of Jimmy Neutron, or of course Doom 3 could in itself simply be nostalgic. Either way I just love it for whatever reason. Oh and did I mention the decals? Yeah you could take those strange plastic fleshy models and poke strange metalic looking holes in them with your gun and they'd loosely ragdoll around, it was weird but made the style all the more interesting in retrospect. I spoke with someone recently who on a similar note spoke of nostalgic praises for PS1 and N64 graphics, loving the blocky low resolution and texture wrap nature of those games. I've found people gushing over how revolutionary a game used to be, despite its current age. Whether its only nostalgia, or its a truly interesting look into subjective graphical perception, I feel this was a neat topic to discuss at some point. I'm just a bit tired of only old school 2D and sprite stuff taking all the credit, its really not the only thing that can be enjoyed from older times.

Look at this game's dumb low poly glossed textures... its kind of neat in a weird way

I believe sometimes the aesthetics, visuals, or glitches themselves may in some way add up to a game's own unique style, and it really makes me question when and how a game ever really looks dated in a purely bad way. I can even see styles and feelings come out of more recent stuff. Uncharted tried to be all serious and real, but its goofy physics, flashy items, and super clean corpses make for a strange system that stands out despite how aged the actual engine is at this point. On a similar note I always thought Killzone 2's engine was not just better for its physics and high end quality, but I saw obvious spots where it deviated for realism to have an exaggerated dark tone or glowy sci-fi asthetics... and I guess its worth noting like Uncharted the guns and objects of interest had this strange but appealing gamey flash and you could practically form a battlefield of glitter with dropped weapons. Also I loved Killzone 1 and 2's grainy filter thing, I don't totally understand why it was there but I loved it anyways. Then there's that rushed Unreal 3 engine look some games have, which when done wrong bugs me, but its a style worth mentioning regardless. It has this strange artificially jagged look around random models, strange slime textures that never follow through right, and those physics that are like a wonkier version of Dark Souls' ragdolls (which itself might be worthy of this discussion). Looking down the line, I wouldn't be surprised if we managed to see more recent games become some sort of dated "style" somewhere down the line. Yet these "dated" visuals form almost their own look, unique to the time and date, triggering a sense of nostalgia or strange satisfaction from fans that revisit them and embrace their limitations.

Of course I'm not saying there's anything wrong with an art style that is intentionally unique and unreal. I'll truly stand by those as the better looking games, even if there are exceptions as I mentioned in the beginning. Timesplitters 2 still holds up well today, Ratchet & Clank HD holds up better than Killzone 1 HD, and my favorite visuals on any game on current gen so far is Mario Kart 8. Art wins out over a serious art style, and as we have games like The Order clamp down on cheesy parts showing through I'm wondering if even serious directions will keep a quirky charm like the early 2000s stuff did. Still I feel it was worth discussing that I and a few others out there aren't exactly turned off by older ideas of realism. Sometimes low poly, goofy physics & interface bits, or serious expressions reduced to plastic textures and glitchy ragdolls make for just as good of a time as a trip into Windwaker, and I'll sure as hell take it over Borderlands which still doesn't look quite right to me.

You'll never lose your visual charm to me Alpha prime

Now Playing: Inherit The Earth

Quick story time! Long ago I wanted to try something a little new with my writing. I've always loved culture, symbolism, and I've always loved gothic medieval tones/themes where you have war, religion, and politics. So why not combine them? Fantasy would be ideal in setting as you could have fictional races formed as tribes based on varied cultures and beliefs, and they naturally don't get along with each other putting the world under a tense and fragile state of conflict. However as we all know most fantasy tales just took place with random hero, random quest, and at best some monster for him/her to slay. Its a tried and true but kind of tired formula but almost the only one commonly used and it misses the potential of building up a world that would be so perfect for the kind of story I wanted. So I decided to set this sort of thing up with a story called Wolf Pack. It took place around a fictional world where humans were replaced with more humanized versions of animals to distinguish the tribes. This was perfect as it was easier to understand symbolism (If you made a cat race seem somewhat lazy yet mischievous for example, it was easily relatable to house cats), and you could also form or break relations based on how animals are categorized or compete with each other in the wild. Unfortunately my story crumbled under my own clumsy writing, and I didn't feel like the story was going to truly go anywhere good because its plot was more based on action and dialogue of a society rather than that of a plot arc to resolve something. However the good news is that the story's integrity and idea was never lost in the first place. Well for starters, there's the modern Lego Chima series for kids that sort of runs with the same idea... I think. Secondly, there was something already in place before I was even born (although its shocking close to the date, kind of spooky) doing a very similar concept, only better... and animated... and a video game. Its name was...

Oh and you play as a fox.... sometimes the world just gets things right

Alright so yeah sorry for the delay to the subject, but I feel it was worth mentioning because that really does tie into a part of the appeal of the game for me. Its just one of those games that feels slightly personal in a weird way. I've had my eye on it for a while, but I've only just recently got it off of GOG.com (along with the hilariously clumsy but fun Two Worlds). I had to try it before I buy it though, because the one and only major issue to keep me well away was its genre (point and click). Sure I guess I can see why a point and click was right for such a story and character driven game, especially of its era, but I just never got around to liking them beyond those pre-school games I played when I was little. They have archaic puzzles, unusual logic, and a style of control that will usually keep you away from ever being immersed. However with ITE thankfully it seems the last one is its only real lingering problem, at least based off what I read of reviews and tried off an old demo. So far, the main game shows to be playable for me... but the mouse movement is still annoying.

Now outside of those 3 problems I don't have an issue with these games. Actually I envy the audience that loves them, because I absolutely adore some of the creative minds, settings, and plots driving many of them and sometimes all I want out of a game is a longer better story than I commonly find in movies. So I'm glad to have found one of the few that both interest me, and stray from most of the ugly conventions. Although I did have to look up at a guide once, but honestly I think some of my own ignorance was to blame for not knowing much about what Plaster is (I know it to go on buildings, but didn't know what it looked like bagged up). Supposedly this game replaces dumb puzzles with mazes, and I'm kind of okay with that. I guess that's kind of weird because its harder to solve those if I'm truly stuck, but I think I'm okay with it because its more of a true and legit challenge rather than "Oh here, have a random math/match/slide puzzle that makes no sense here". Of course I mean no harm to the genre, I get that some people like that kind of thing and I'm even making a post defending contrived nonsense (with some limits of course), but its not for me in the way that normal point & click stuff does it. So I'm glad they left ITE out of that mess, or at least kept it down.

It unfortunately shows its age

So anyways how is the game itself so far (as opposed to nagging its genre)? Well honestly that's all up to whether or not you like the plot. If the idea I presented before interests you, well this game does it right and even better. You have a light hearted adventure with some dark implications setting the tone. You play as a fox named Rif who is accused of stealing a powerful gadget referred to as The Orb. So far I only know that it tells the weather, but the characters still make a big deal of it and its been kept safely under wraps for the longest time. Now in order to save yourself, and keep the boars and elk from some potential hostilities, you've got to solve the mystery and return the orb, with the help of an elk and boar friend assigned from each of the bigger armies to make sure you do this right. The game is set in a world where the characters you are dealing with are animals who have formed into medieval fantasy type tribes, and live odd lives related to their surroundings and tribal status. However this isn't actually some alternate medieval setting, its actually science fiction that is so far ahead the science kind of died down. Humans existed, but they either left or offed themselves in some way, and The orb is supposedly one of the things they left behind. This is where the game's namesake comes from (animals inherited the earth from humanity), as well as some the compelling mystery. I haven't gotten too deep to know much about the human plot for sure. What I have seen so far is a lot of good humor, quirky writing, and some clever ideas implemented, and it feels like a good cross between a Disney movie and a mystery game.

The plot mentioned above is what is supposed to compel you in these kind of games. Gameplay wise though it is slightly deeper than what I'm used to. Instead of just clicking blindly and screwing with the inventory, inventory seems limited to 8 things and there's another bar piece reserved for multiple actions. Although it doesn't go wild with things, you can at least do more than click on a guy for the same line. For example, your boar friend Okk can either be spoken to directly for his opinion on something, or you can "look" at him to get a funny comment. Again it ain't much, but these small verbal choices you can try on the world keep you engaged beyond click spamming (though that sadly describes walking, but I'm digressing). Still its the story that'll keep you going as that's the reason you're clicking on anything to begin with. Meanwhile the maze and light thinking bits I've seen so far are ok and handle well, but they're nothing to really write about. Its the success of getting new dialogue, or that first step into a new area, that keeps me smiling and playing as I uncover more of the plot.

Unfortunately the game has had a troubled development and doesn't come out with a happy ending. Thanks to the publishers being the kind of generalizing idiots that insist animals = kiddie the game was dumbed down in its original ideas, and doesn't extend to use tribalism as much as they probably wanted it to. Also supposedly one of the restrictions that followed was that nobody can die, because... kids apparently can't know that being on the brink of a multi-clan war may be dangerous. We're not talking Lego Chima levels of kiddie, but its still integrity breaking. On a related note, the game didn't do well enough to earn its sequel and the series has sort of died on a cliffhanger... sort of. There's a slim chance it may see some kind of crowd funded sequel, but if that doesn't work there is at least a web comic that has given us some story of the aftermath.

Okay I feel like I've written and researched the game more than I've played it. Its time to get back into it though, and I'm excited to see through this adventure. I'm looking forward to the next chance to hilariously trick guards, and close up more of the mystery. So far though, its been fun and I'm glad not to only have seen a weird sort of concept I wanted created, but to also be playing a point & click game I can actually enjoy once again. By contrast I've also grabbed Tormentum's demo off steam, and I can already tell the gameplay for that will be more terrifying than its grotesque art style, but oh well. I got ITE to thank for a good one before I run off and try another bad one.

The dark side of content creation...

Here's a short topic to come to my attention lately... Aren't games that let you create within a fun rule set amazing? Boomblox, LBP, and Timesplitters just to name a few are some of my favorites, and its kind of a shame nobody talks about modnation as much because that was awesome as well. Truth is we all love community creations, just like any sane person loves trying out mods to their favorite PC game. However I always find it kind of funny that we always neglect one of its biggest faults... fact is we as every day people are not only questionable designers, but even if we make an incredible masterpiece the question next is a matter of how fun can it really be for ourselves? How do we know when we've created a masterpiece? And how the heck do we balance it right!

Let me give you this fine example of what I'm talking about. I was playing TimeSplitters 2 once again in a very long time, and I used to make stuff like crazy on there. However back then I never totally enjoyed it. I always pushed hard to make it just right, but it never was unless I got carried away with cheap stuff. I knew every weapon placement, every enemy spawn, how many times they spawned, I knew where the health packs were, I knew where my objectives were and how to do them, I knew if something could be cheated because of a loophole in the code, and I knew every room. It gave me an experience that was hard to make hard, and even if it could be done there were no surprises about it. Now I have another problem where going back to this stuff with a very foggy memory, I see some of these levels as borderline impossible without my super knowledge. Rooms were spammed with 7 different enemy spawns, health packs were thrown into obvious places to compensate for the enemy spam, and everything is based around trial and error rather than a natural learning curve. Now naturally in this day and age I would be making these maps in mind with balance for other folks and await their feedback, but the point is its still absurdly weird trying to balance something all by yourself and you can't exactly enjoy it like that. This isn't something I just see in myself either, it explains why every Duke Nukem custom level on steam's workshop is ridiculous while the more well made company released mods like the beach scene are so much better balanced. One was made by a team and tested like a release, and sold out there on shelves. The other is something a guy made and sent online calling it done, at best they had a friend test it. Most of the big successful mods have testers in their credit to thank, most of the slapped together levels are trial and error tests. Heck some of them don't even hide it, its quite common to see tracks and levels named after a hard or intentionally impossible difficulty wall. Now in their defense of course some community level should be harder because that's the after content stuff that you play once you've beaten and won everything the core experience through at you.

Of course this logic does  not apply to every single game out there. The beauty in a game like Trials or LBP is that you have half the challenge presented on a basis of reflex and timing, and while I usually condemn that over actual learning curves I've got to say it means that your average level is designed to be more fair to everyone. That wont stop a few masters from making a modest torture platformer level, but for the most part you can open up a list in LBP and expect most levels there to be decent creations of some kind. Besides, any online sharing station worth its time now has a system to help you get the better levels out of the community. I guess that's why Duke Nukem is mostly tough as nails, it also just has a completely non-organized method of download via the workshop and no other methods to it. I'm not at all demonizing content creation in general either. On the whole its a great thing, and I envy the better creators and often wonder why I don't spend more time with this stuff. Its just... I have to stop and wonder, do these guys ever get to enjoy their own work, and also note how tough it is to balance some of these games when making your very own stuff. Its also just kind of weird nobody talks about this side of things, at least that I know of. However in modern times, I guess its the act of sharing that counts more. Some of my favorite levels in LBP come from those that actually make a story and adventure out of their work, and I think they enjoyed writing and making that for people equally as much as I enjoyed playing it.

Now playing: The Order 1886

Ok this is going to be a quick one because I'm a bit constrained on time here, but I also want to get first impressions on this one. Thankfully Redbox rental service answered to my waiting woes and now I'm playing the game without risk of spoiling it before it hits $40-20 price range. So how is it? Well... mostly good, but I'm not going to hide its problems. Button prompts and QTEs are quite common and not always handled with the best impact, the cover system is a bit wacky (getting shot has made me stand up as if that's somehow a good idea), and misc dialogue is ridiculously quiet. Oh and if I were to get real nitpicky, they have these readable news papers with print so tiny I'm getting up close just to read them, and its a full newspaper article. Last of Us did that right, give us optional game text. Its more immersive breaking to squint at a TV than it is to have a convenient text prompt. I also had to skip out on an entire letter because of its scribbled up handwriting, but it was clearly still meant to be read. It'd also be great if combat had more impact to it. It feels gritty and shows blood, but the impact still feels like something out of a soft uncharted feeling where you're shooting sacks instead of people. Its not the bullet sponge bit (again last of us comes to mind... hey, I think the game is slightly overrated but it still is a masterpiece worth comparing to), its more of how they just react to it and the limited use of blood. Oh well. I might say that the wolves are a pain to fight, but honestly I think that might be because I'm trying this out on Hard for as long as I can.

Anyways now on with the good: The game's plot is very compelling, characters are interesting, graphics are superb and don't make many clear compromises (bodies stay thankfully), weapons feel good to fire despite my earlier aesthetic complaint, and the world is just fun to take part in. I'm going to basically sumarize the game as Gears of Rain. It feels a lot like a David Cage game with its heavy use of cut-scenes and character narrative, but yet giving you plenty of interaction space with guided white dots to your next interactive bit. You walk around casually, analyze stuff, watch some scenes, and then you're thrown into standard 3rd person shooter mode where you shoot up the rebels or wolves and that's a generalization of the game for you. Throw over the steampunk look, a neat plot, and a competent gameplay aspect, and I'd say yeah its overall fun. I love looking at things around the towns, I enjoy hearing the plot and context, I've stuck around to overhear extra audio, and I'm enjoying the combat enough. As for cut-scenes, my only gripe thus far is that it did one of those start with the future things and it kind of gives away any chance of a surprise for the main character's path, but by contrast everything else is good and I loved the first round table meeting. Its certainly not horrible as some want to make it out to be, but its nothing to take top spot of about any kind of list.

So overall its certainly worth grabbing so far, just not proving to me that I was wrong for skipping out on it at launch as its really not something I see $60 worth in. I might gladly return to the world at a lesser price, but of course first I need to finish the first tour here. I'll try and put together a review as well as a solid discussion on cinematic gaming at another time, but for now I need to keep at it while I have it. I want to do some more exploration, get more of the plot, and see the combat evolve as I go along with it all. Plus I've got an eye out for a sackboy easter egg I've been told about.

Making games easier, not stupider

So quite a while back EA wanted to toss themselves into a fire yet again when they made the declaration that games are too hard! Yeah we know that this is wrong to some degree or another, though more clarity is really needed. Here I actually encourage you to watch this video to save me a rant on streamlining and trend following for the sake of being similar and easy. Its a terrible thing and I'm getting kind of tired of it. It got to the point where seeing the circle button being the use button on shadow fall became a unique trait standing out against the norm for shooters... yeah that's just weird. So I could do this two ways: Rant and moan about how awful things are. Or the next and more productive option is point out better solutions. I'll go with the last plan, but I'm sure I'll manage to mix a little of both. So let me make an assumption that all EA wants is for more accessible, and intuitive games that respect the player's time. Ok lets look at some things the majority of triple A could make standard again and how it would benefit the entire player base.

Control mapping

That's a lot of control

I often hear one of the biggest barriers for anyone is actually within the controller. I can't relate so well, but I do have to admit that I can see some potential points to it. Some veteran gamers claim they need to slowly build muscle memory to a game, meanwhile from the casual perspective supposedly you've got the disadvantage of jumping in at a time where there's over 10 buttons, 10 genres, and multiple platforms where that layout can change. Now this isn't actually as big of a problem as some want to make it seem, because we didn't actually all grow up playing Atari and many old gamers could have easily gotten in through an old computer where you still had a full keyboard worth of stuff. However it still is clear that not everyone would be able to handle that, and looking back I remember struggling to learn how to jump right on a 2D plane in the original Super Mario Bros. I bet I could still get it over time without being restricted to a d-pad and two core buttons, but it might have been longer and other people are surprisingly impatient about learning stuff.

So we have two options here: Destroy all progress and make only games that run off of 5 or less core buttons, and render the default consoles and most of your keyboards, and likely plenty of genres obsolete. Yeah that's a ridiculously radical option and I guess we should just let designers themselves think about whether or not they want to design a simple Journey-like game or something more traditional.The other options is to make games open up their control schemes more so you not only can look at the controls, but alter them to your own desires and do things that feel right and intuitive. Good ideas for this might be someone that wants the highest face button (Triangle/X/Y) to be a jump control for any game with jumping, or the camera/aiming analogue stick to also click in for zooming or aiming down the sights in a shooter. Both functions are very uncommon features that could be subjectively intuitive to an individual, and to make matters more confusing they have been done this way as default controls under a minority of games. So clearly some designers out there even prefered them, but when games mainstreamed themselves into one line of thought for most controls with only minor changing pre-sets, people that may have gotten used to the minority function were isolated. I'm like this with the aiming example, I adore R3 ADS in shooters but for whatever reason I had to be forced into using a shoulder button to aim. Now on paper I can get that this was to make the controls parallel, and because triggers became a big deal for shooter, but this logic doesn't follow through elsewhere. The crouch button is almost always to the upper right of the jump button, or possibly the lower left, either way it is far from some parallel function. How do you fix this without losing anything for those complacent with mainstream practices? Simple, its called controller remapping and like I said it allows you to input whatever feels intuitive to you. Many PC gamers are used to ports that usually still have this function, but for consoles its for some reason a forgotten quality that used to be precent in at least a 3rd or so PlayStation 2 era games. For whatever reason now, we aren't allowed to remap controls in most games, with the major exception being either an indie game or Alien Colonial Marines of all games (which is likely only there because they kept it from its original PS2 function). Bring this back game designers. This will make gaming easier and better for all of us.

Lots of other options!

I love the Shadow Warrior game I got for christmas, and you're looking at one of the reasons why (A blury look at least). Well ok, its more like icing on a great cake, but its still some great icing to talk about. Games used to occasionally come loaded with options. You could totally redesign your Crosshair, customize some bits of your HUD, and occasionally some silly extra like changing the color of blood. On top of all that there were cheat codes to, some silly, some game changing. This not only gave you some personlization, but it made things easier and more suited to any player. On top of that cheat codes made a game more accessible. While the game should have a natural difficulty curve, and well designed levels, they could cover for someone's mistake as a difficulty spike was thrown. If we just sucked, we could also get by. We could also just enjoy a game longer if we could replay it while say... invisible and able to just screw with the AI. Still being able to set up our own HUD, change its size, change colors, etc helps with a lot of potential issues (like color blind-ness, or reading impairment), and just adds more to a game for some die-hard fan. I know I played Killzone 2 a few times with the self-imposed challenge of no HUD, but it would be a much better and smoother experience to do the same idea with only an ammo indicator. Its been proven before that both of these things can exist within a modern game, you just disable achievements with cheats, and take the time and care to give players HUD options.

Handling a multiplayer centric video game...

I've been consistently bashing forced matchmaking over last generation, and to this day I'm still baffled by the practice. You want games to be accessible, or even in the slightest bit advanced to show real innovation, then use or improve the system that has been with us since at least the 90's, because as it is most games have been backwards on online support. However I'm getting a bit out of touch with the subject at hand... imagine this: A newer gamer is playing one of their first online games. They were told by their friends it would be fun, they get it, and then they play a bunch of awesome private matches with their friend on their favorite map. Then... they can't quite get in touch with their friends because of a busy day, but they still have that urge to play. They try to connect to a public game and its just a mess. They don't like being instantly killed by some explosives, the map is unfamiliar and sucks, and they just weren't prepared for what was thrown at them. If only there was a system they could practice in, and/or some way to adjust the rules for a steadier learning curve or something more people could appreciate beyond the stock settings you're thrown into with 8-16 other players. Oh wait a minute, that stuff has been done before and its called bots and server browsers. However neither are standard, and one is pretty much as rare as the launch of a Duke Nukem game. Again this is something that makes life and gaming better for the casual and veteran alike. Weapon overpowered? Ban it! Want to see what a headshot only match is like? Do it! Want to take out regenerating health? That's usually an option. Campers too cheap? Well fix it so that you always see them on the map and people need to move. Just want to be dumb and have an all explosive low gravity party? Go right on ahead. That's the way of many server lists games, at least back when you could say "many". This is still possibly common place on PC, but you're screwing over a huge market of casual gamers by neglecting the console side, as well as just pissing them off. As a big fan of Starhawk and Killzone 2 I can proudly say there are console gamers who know the good side of this stuff, but the fact is many devs just stopped caring. However I will say at least EA themselves gets this a bit and has battlefield come with server browser support, thanks EA. However truth be told the bigger thing for casuals or those wanting to get easy access, bots pose a bigger solution. As much as I adore server lists, I've got to say this problem is better fixed with bots as that eliminates online stress, provides easier learning time, some customizable training, and is just a better way of learning how to come to grips with a multiplayer game. Now there is another aspect of MP that needs to be done just right, but that is worth its own section....

Don't screw up DLC

You know I get that at times gamers, including myself, complain too much and complain over some dumb things. However there is a damn good reason tied to certain DLC complaints. I suppose big games like Battlefield and Call of Duty get away with some of it, but the bottom line is you've got to double check yourself to make sure your DLC plan isn't causing people to back out of the game, and trust me quite a few actually are. As a guy that doesn't buy Battlefield because I've seen BF3 actually keep me out of the game when I wanted to give it another chance several months after its release, as a guy that didn't pick up evolve because I know its not going to simply let me play a deep and compelling game until I've purchased DLC later down the line, and as a guy who saw Destiny's path coming before it even launched because of how exploitative Activision could be with a fake MMO I know DLC can keep people out. You're not only having games keep casuals out because of DLC, but I know for a fact you're keeping experienced gamers out of it as well. Having a bad DLC plan is the exact same as trying to launch a broken game, people get frustrated and fed up with the idea that they can't simply play the game and let that speak for itself. The only difference is with cases like Evolve and Destiny you can see this kind of bad crap coming before launch because developers or publishers have no subtly about their season pass plans, where as a broken game is up to reviews (not likely though) and word of mouth. People just want to play your damn game and have fun, that's a lot less of an option when you're cutting the package up and making us feel like we're missing something but also too confused by the split models to know exactly what it is we're paying for even if we do try to get everything. On top of all that, if these plans and publishers had even half an ounce of common sense on marketing they'd know that people don't know how you're game is going to be until they're actually playing it. Trying to sell them expansion packs with terms, weapons, or characters they don't even understand because they have no experience to go on is just plain stupid, and its not helping anybody out. Furthermore, just stop making map packs! That needs to stop being a thing as that just splits the community. Its not only a disservice to late comers, and new gamers, but hardcore fans still watch as one of their favorite game's playercount drops.

Look DLC is a very diverse system that can be handled from many angles and many price ranges. You don't have to stop DLC, and I don't want anyone to either as I love seeing new content for a game like Killzone Shadow Fall. I love it when a developer supports their game way after launch like Naughty Dog does. I'm sure COD ghost players were surprised and delighted back when suddenly they were offered a chance to have R Lee Ermey narrate their matches. Things like that are nice, and can stay. Its just you got to be smart about it, and you have to stop shoveling out this stuff before a game is even launched, or just shoveling out things that will wreck the game by making it actually lack something rather than add. Make sure a new gamer is always welcomed, whether its a new guy ready at launch, or a guy buying the game at a discount 4 months from now. Either way he contributed to your game's lifeblood, he's probably offering you some funds, and it'd be a real shame if he simply backed out of the whole thing because before he even knows what the game is he's assaulted with various locked down paywall content. As it is some people are making it harder not to just play the game, but to even make a purchase of one to begin with. I plan on attacking this issue in its own article at another time as well.

Conclusion

Naturally one concern I do have to address is the one that someone will say I'm only asking for more complex games, and to a degree that is true. However I say each and every thing with accessibility in mind in addition to a better overall game experience. Each and every thing here outside of DLC is asking for more, but each and every one allows for users to reconfigure a game to a degree they'd be more comfortable in. Honestly if someone is simply so overwhelmed by help and options that they find that a draw back, then they never had any business with gaming and I've got to wonder if they have any business with almost anything else. Nearly everyone uses smart phones, some use tablets, we all have to fill out over-regulated paper work more than once in our life, and honestly if they can't be bothered to figure out what HUD color means or how to hit default if they mess up their controller then honestly I'm legitimately concerned for their capabilities and I don't think they would have truly sunk their teeth into the actual act of playing a game. This is an age in which you can look up practically anything and everything up in the palm of your hands, and that's what millions of people both gamers and non-gamers do in their routine life with this age of technology. So forgive me if I'm missing the problem with giving the users more options. As for dev work, this shouldn't be a ton to ask for seeing as how ancient games have had these options without a problem, and I'd be fine with them taking their time to put it in rather than rushing out yet another game that can't even be bothered to let you change volume pieces beyond "Master". Seriously, fuck you to some of the games even going lower than we've already been in option menus.

Games do not need dumbing down. Not everything needs to be streamlined. Time and time again we've seen new and old gamers alike engaged and loving tough, cryptic, and complex games. Thats what brought gaming an audience in the first place. Yes some things in the past were simpler, but the skill was still high and gaming is still something that has been picked up by people looking for accomplishment, challenge, and fun. Just look at some of the big popular games out there besides just Call of Duty. Its a unique medium in that you control it, and are actively asked to work a bit within it, and I think that needs to be capitalized on not just by letting games revel in some complexity but also by letting the user customize and engage in them on their own terms. You can have some simple and dumbed down games that will sell, but you must also allow room for complicated, deep, and engaging games that you can actually walk away from and feel like you've learned or done something new and feel amazing about it. That is the power of video games, and nobody should be fooled into thinking you have to make the gameplay itself easier for enough people to enjoy it. You just need to give them the tools to be a little more at home.

They can make it to the top, just give them good footwear

Time is valuable

Congratulations The Order 1886, you've inspired two articles in a row. Unfortunately this one is a bit more grim. While the last was sad because "game looks goooood" this time its sad because people are ratting out your time at around 5-6 hours... and I feel like some of the defenses are kind of missing the point in this panic. Lets take things back a step shall we? Several playthroughs have leaked out on youtube of The Order, and you can watch practically the whole thing and it appears like the time comes in somewhere over 5 hours, but barely. There's questions of skipped content circling around, and given the fact that I have neither played it nor am I stupid enough to spoil the entire game on youtube, I cannot tell for sure what's missing or what's whole. Still I looked at the footage enough to see they really are playing the real game, and it ain't exactly as long as I'd hope for. Also for the record, a lot of the time still is in big, big, big cut-scenes, so technically the youtuber I was looking over wasn't even playing the game for 5 and a half hours. Well the reaction to this is fairly standard. Some are throwing a fit while others are doing the whole "meh, make it good and I'll still grab it" thing. I'm... admittedly not very comfortable with any extreme here, but the common defense kind of bugged me so I wanted to discuss this a bit more.

Before I really dig into this I want to put out some decent little disclaimers. For starters, I still need to make an article further discussing the merits of short vs long games. The one you're reading now isn't totally and solely dedicated to my whole view of time for value thing, this is just a focus on this exact case and the myth that time is bad. That being said, the next thing I need to bring up is that if you are still going for this game regardless of length, and you have confidence in them delivering what you're looking for, good on you. I hope you enjoy it and find exactly what you're looking for (and maybe more). My criticisms of this decision, and my views on it from the marketing and gamer perspective are not to hate on your own individual decision as I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money. On another note remember that I have not played the game or been told of its quality by a trustworthy source, it is a mystery as to how long this game is. I want it to be good and lengthy so I'm keeping my fingers crossed the rumor is wrong. So I will be talking about this from the imaginary perspective that this game really is 5-ish hours long. However in the perspective of my own gaming habits, what I was looking for, and from a common folk's marketing perspective I've got a bit of a bone to pick with the idea of The Order 1886 being too short and those that brush it off because they think length is just a waste of time. The game developers have defended their game's length on multiple levels, which in part is interesting, but also convoluted and indecisive. They refused to give a number (even though in the past they said 10 hours per average joe), promised that some numbers were wrong, played the quality over quantity card, implied a 3 hour movie would probably suck, insisted that not all games had to play by a certain length, and have promised that the game aims to deliver high with the time goal they had in mind. I think they even brought up older game lengths. However I'm not sure all these counter-points are totally realistic at all. I mean fine quality is the best thing, that's what we pay for, period. Similarly yeah I agree that some small games, actually quite a few, are capable of hitting harder than the longest ones. However that's where most of this stops making sense.

Shhh.... Don't respond logically, they wont understand

The arguments are propped up like its playing politics, playing certain aspects up as "its this or that, one is good and the other is bad" while also sounding brave and bold, like your this great underdog taking on great things and being something more than it likely is. The reality is this is a $60 only campaign driven 3rd person shooter that as far as we know is just alterable by its difficulty modes. There might be "surprises" but based on what I know there aren't even collectibles or logs, let alone other modes. Saying quality over quantity isn't like debating mario levels, or discussing a unique indie game you got for $15, we're talking about a game that is put out there at the highest common asking price and receiving a content that is just a slice of practically any big market game out there. Now yeah some small games leave a major impact, but don't pretend you knew that going in. Don't pretend you would slam down $60 on any game that promised you it sacrificed length to give you some deeper meaning of life, because the fact is very few people take that high of a risk. Now even with that in mind, look at a massive difference between Gone Home, Unfinished Swan, Journey, and The Order1886. Most of those were focused and centered in slanted strange gameplay pieces that made the story what it was and gave you a more natural and interesting meaning through its focus. The Order is a shooter that in the team's own words is "tried and true", unless the story line is pulling a meta Spec Ops thing here you're not going to get a game that uniquely speaks to you in a big way as a video game like those small experiences. You're getting a shooter that cut back on a lot of content compared to its competitors, while still asking for the big bucks. You're not getting a magical companion lit adventure across the desert that needs to be enjoyed in one sitting, you're playing a very short shooter that plays like GOW with cool cut-scenes (shallow generalization, but you get what I mean). If you feel for something in there emotionally, it'll probably be from a good writing in a cut-scene and not an organic massive realization brought to you by unique experimental gameplay. A game that makes you feel through its cut-scenes isn't covering the same grounds as one that does so through its very existence. Journey will have a meaning you come back for and love, a good cut-scene on a bad game will still leave you feeling cheated out of the game. That being said I'm not saying The Order does have to be a weird game, I'm actually very glad to see a 3rd person shooter like this out there... its just that they need to remember they're a modest 3rd person shooter with some interesting ideas and not an edgy bold new experience. Lastly A 3 hour movie has no place in this discussion, its a sixty dollar game! How about you cut it all back to 3 minutes because I heard a really powerful song about that length? Oh right, you can't compare it to that because its blatantly stupid. Well so is this. There's different markets, prices, mediums, and competitors, so don't tell me its like I'm asking for a 3 hour movie. I'm not asking for a 3 hour movie, I'm asking for a reasonably lengthy shooter that is a sane and good investment.

Actually that wasn't the last point I wanted to bring up. The last major one up for discussion is on gaming diversity and standards. You see he's right that games do not need to all hit some magical number. As a matter of fact, the number of hours doesn't matter as long as its enough to accomplish what it sets out to do. This would be the case as an isolated statement where I just saw games as something to play through and enjoy in its own bubble, but the reality is I look at what else is on the market and pay what sounds reasonable and fun towards my tastes, so then there steps in a position of money, worth, and best deal. That's how the entire consumer base works, and keeping within a sweet spot of quality and value over other comparisons is considered being competitive. Nobody is matching a magical number for the sake of it, but they are looking at what is best for people's value and trying to deliver a lengthy awesome experience in the right time, tone, and way. If you're so far off that course yet charge the exact same, then you're simply not competing for the public's money and wont get much if they see this. Its what I was getting at earlier by bringing up small indie experimental games, those are the ones that are being sold as short amazing things, and those are the things selling themselves at a small price (which actually is comparable to movies, $10-20). However lets find a $60 bracket of those that fit more in the same genre as The Order 1886. We've got Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Last of Us, and maybe you could even count Assassins Creed and Metal Gear Solid. Every single one of those (except TLoU) in some way is getting a sequel release this year and has a massive amount of content instead of setting only for a 5 or 6 hour campaign. Actually all those in that example have multiplayer as well, and some other extras or alternate ways to play. Most major campaign driven shooter games clock in somewhere around 10-16 hours, so The Order is essentially being accused of being a 3rd of the normal campaign length of its competitors without any of the extras. It was already at great risk as it was being an IP with questionable PR, and now its got this. However what if it really is the best with its delivery and message? Well.... yeah sorry, but The Last of Us, Spec Ops, and MGS proved that you can deliver very strong emotions and big impacts without cutting corners on your length. Essentially if you have a good team of writers and designers, and have the time, you should be able to work with length and still make a meaningful result. If length really screws with your vision, than you need to adjust the price to be smaller as well. That's not me being a length=price guy, otherwise I'd expect every game to live up to Torchlight 2 standards (60-ish hours of vastly replayable and moddable fun for $15... not reasonable to expect of every game and genre). I'm speaking on a competitive and common sense marketing level, and The Order is simply not offering me anything as good as what I can get elsewhere. If they do have some secret sauce that beats everything... well I can't see it so I'm not risking such a large amount of money on it. Of course there is the concern that if this does succeed, just maybe this'll set lower standards for others which might be an even worse thought than someone being disappointed in this one game's length.

Finally this leads me back to a pretty common idealogy I hear expressed a lot now. Supposedly a short game is fine, as long as it delivers. However this is usually struck with more of an offensive tone with remarks about padding, grinding, and chores that come with length and I feel like this concept of time going wrong has gotten out of hand. Lets stop pretending that more time is somehow automatically bad, especially since the very same people are still praising lengthy awesome games. Its a strange hypocrisy that just seems weird. Remember The Last of Us? Big trek across America, multiple types of foes and ways to deal with them, a unique cast with some perfectly executed side characters, more than one big emotional moment, unique gameplay elements fused together, and two loved characters, and it all paid off with a heavy impact on the ending. All of this came from an adventure developing across 10-16 hours of play. I do personally believe it dragged a little at the beginning, but that was more due to the poor tutorial implementation and possibly to give Tess some decent screen time. The game still used each and every moment to bring you something, and it was what helps develop the characters, keeps people returning, and gave you such a big and tense sense of an actual adventure. It didn't suffer because it was long. Neither did Spec Ops, it used its length to set up context, hallucinations, character lines, and gave you some unusual conflict elements within it. Wolfenstein? It had a great campaign with well paced and timed hub sections to help pace things out and give you more time with the cast you're working with.

Nothing wrong with this lengthy campaign

Now by contrast lets look at most shorter shooters, which many are in the military sub-genre where they're considered throw away tacked on functions. The only game anywhere close to this genre I'm aware of that we've actually seen benefit from a big scale back is Crysis 2 to Crysis 3 (and arguably the original). This stuff isn't RPG talk. We're not saying time = grinding, this area we're usually covering length discussions in is instead usually an adventure from the perspective of a gun. Time is more likely your friend here. It gives you a better cast, more of the world to explore, more levels to replay if you loved the gunplay and balance, more places to stash extras, and more set pieces to be surprised by. Very few games ever overstay their welcome or screw with their plot in between 10-15 hours. Maybe some open world games and RPG games do, but this conversation is never brought up around those titles from what I've seen. Do I hear people worry about Borderlands length, Witcher 3, or Just Cause 3 despite the last one being a major grind-fest? Nope, its always linear or indie games where length is condemned. So my honest question is why are some people's response to short games is "we would have hated it if it was longer"? What do you have to gain from making such an assumption and being bitter about longer games? Do you really want awesome adventures to disappear in favor of short campaigns? Heck even if a game really was padding, what are you losing compared to the possible opposite of it cutting corners to be shorter? It don't want to make the same mistake of "it has to be quality vs quantity" fallacy like what the devs here did, but if I were to pick a 10 hour game with two extra filler levels or a 5 hour game with 4 chunky levels in total, I'd choose the one where I can jump into more levels and just relax and have a good time in. That's once again more level designs, more weapon variety, and more exploration per level, so its another piece of the game to enjoy even if it may not have been a necessary stepping stone. What was really lost in that? Well at worst, I would simply get to the ending a day later or maybe have that one level I didn't like as much. I'll take that over a game that leaves me feeling empty inside because the credits of a big game smacked me in the face on the 2nd sitting and the level select screen is too bare to turn back to.

Of course now that everything has been said and done, I want to clarify once again that this entire discussion is ify at best, and the game that is at the focus isn't even out yet. The product may easily be more like 10 hours, and even if the youtube video is a solid proof thing then I'm sure I'll still stretch it out an hour longer by my own slow pace. Still it is a bit concerning to me, as a guy that usually looks forward to cover shooters as a safe bet of a fun game I can really enjoy all the way through and then keep coming back to. I still stand by the idea that little can go wrong, but little length sure can sour the deal a little. If its a very short trip, that's less time to experience it, and less levels to be worth a replay. Of course the elephant in the room to anyone who's been a bit hyped should be this: They spent a load of energy into this project. Ready At Dawn have not proven themselves far beyond ports and portable games, but they went far here. Deep research, an imaginative plot, highly detailed animations, incredible graphics on an engine they built just for this game and the PS4, and the well picked orchestrated songs, and heck Sony has two separate collector editions made for a new IP. Looking through all the videos I have lately, its very hard to see this all going to rot in some small 5 hour game that was developed over the course of a few years and even delayed. They aren't doing multiplayer, there's no horde modes, there's probably not even little collectibles, so I have to wonder what on earth they were doing if all this work went into only a 6 hour campaign. I just... don't think that's the real case. I sure hope not, I want this game to be as great as it can be. However my lesson in the end is this: Time is actually way more valuable than many are thinking around this game. It can indeed be a key point, and I'm hoping the team didn't screw themselves over with it.