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.
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.
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 2nd 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.
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...
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!
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
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.
Indie games don't tend to last long for me. Whether it's my mood, or memory in today's time, or just because a lot of them lack some senses of depth, a good majority of the time indie games tend to pass through. Then, there's others, which I stubbornly cling to or at least replay like normal games. Ones I can't put down, or have even bought multiple times. Some comfort me, others are just too fun, and some are so simple it'd be pointless to just not come back in with a clear mind. I'm setting some minor rules here which will omit a couple. Namely, Minecraft which hardly feels indie and I feel it's mostly been a returning factor for split-scree, and I know Towerfall isn't worth it without split-screen. As such I just don't want to count that sort of thing, because I'm not coming back for sheer desire, but rather restriction because it ain't like much AAA or Journey allow it. I'm also not counting anything special Indies have brought back, unless it was solely an indie project to begin with, so stuff like the incredible Turok Remaster, or the Duke Nukem 3D Atomic Edition port don't count. Finally, I'm adding a cut-off so that stuff I've only played just last year like Gungeon,, Aragami, and Dungeon of Endless don't count. I want more of a sure test of time, and who knows maybe I'll even wind up placing the disappointing Moon Hunters on that kind of list. For now they're all too new in my opinion. Finally, if they've fallen off completely, I won't count them. Like Cortex Command, I've just had my interest wane, and I get the feeling it might not be so enduring in the true long run.
Journey
Let's kick this off with something simple I've mentioned time and time again: Journey is one of the best games ever. Period. It is a miracle and mastery of sound, visuals, multiplayer, immersion, and minimalistic story telling. Furthermore, it's just a really fun game that never fails to put a smile on my face. It's still a lot of fun to this day to go back, play with the kite creatures in the desert, chirp along with somebody, and... heck why not just complete the story while you're at it? I really shouldn't have to say anything more, just read back on all my other praises of this wonderful game.
Armello
...and the very thing that made me realize this article was needed. I don't know any Indie game that just comes back around this much in my mind in some way. The story, the constant awesome updates, or just the fact that it's fun. The game is a really great transition from boardgame concepts, to video game form. Meanwhile it has some brilliant Nintendo-esque style story telling, where there's no serious story on the surface, but so many little details, theories, and smaller things that it keeps the player creating their own while enjoying the world as bits are put in front of them. Oh and of course, the complex but fun game of chance, strategy, and gameplay is real cleverly designed so that it's both fun, and surprisingly makes sense within the context of the lore. It's comprised of cards, RPG questing, dice rolls, and turn based strategy all within a 10 day cycle. It's a really awesome experience, and you're missing out if you still haven't played it. Meanwhile I keep coming back, and even after several other indie disappointements or phases... well, I come back again.
Terraria
I don't play this super frequently, and wonder if this counts but so much, but... when I do play it, the day is gone. I do find myself coming back to it time and time again, just in some fairly distant lengths... like maybe once or twice a year I'll pick it up. Still, once there, that week is annihilated. Terraria is the best Minecraft-ish build & survive type indie game I've played. I love the ease and yet complexity to building, and crafting, and then there's all the adventuring and finding your way to better stuff to fight and craft. The only thing is that I've always been bothered by some of the steep difficulty at certain points of the game, and how I still have to build a dedicate arena and stockpile just to stand a chance on the "first boss", but past that point that game is a lot of fun. It's obviously doing something right to have me keep coming back. The PC version that is, I don't see how on earth people get used to the console controls. This game just isn't built for a controller, despite it's SNES-ish type looks.
Crimsonland
A surprisingly old, but obscure game. I nearly didn't include it, because it's been so long since I played it and I only technically bought it for the first time last year. However, long time ago I used to play this game's demo to ridiculous lengths. It was one of those freeware client things full of trial games, and I loved this one. I played it till the end, then it's survival again and again, and then went back and replayed the campaign a slight bit more. Now I've bought it, and while I can't say I play it every day, or for a while each session, I keep coming back to it casually quite often. It's such a simple but effective top-down shooter, giving you random sets of perks, power ups, and a variety of weapons, and then you just literally paint the ground red with the death of enemies. It takes up like 200mb at most, and so there's just no reason to take it off, it's a great casual game to play on the Vita or PS4.
Aqua Kitty: Milk Mine Defender
Another obscure one, and one I wouldn't have expected. It looked like dumb fun, and I got it for a cheap price, so it was a fun light arcadey game to play. I got surprisingly far in it's campaign, especially on easy mode, and I really loved the art style of it. It's a basic Defender style game, and you might think I'm just complimenting it's style because cats, however it's not just cats. It's the fact that "missing" people on the scoreboard are put on milk cartons, it's the way the waves animate, the "mew" coming through your PS4 controller when a cat is abducted, and then the music that is so good I had to buy one of the themes. All the little things add up to make the presentation something clever, and just really enjoyable. On top of that though, is a fun arcadey game I wound up buying twice, and still occasionally play. It's especially at home on the vita.
Hotline Miami
And now we're back on things everyone has heard of, and with good reason. Hotline Miami is an amazing top-down shooter that turns combat into a big tactical puzzle game despite layered thick with arcadey elements, and psychotic imagery. It's worth going back to for the same reason it's just so much fun, you really don't know what you're going to get out of each run. I just enjoy picking a random level, picking a mask, maybe trying something with a new perk, and then running in and failing until I find a good route and path to take. It's just fun to keep coming back to, especially on the vita.... actually, the PS4 controls are just a wreck, so only on the vita. Meanwhile it's sequel was a little disappointing, but oh well.
Serious Sam (general franchise)
I was playing this over and over again before I knew what indie even was. Serious Sam never felt indie, and we probably didn't even have that term around for games at the time, but it was still a lot of fun. However while I keep coming back to it, there's no single one game I keep coming back to, and very little rhyme or reason for choosing any particular one. There's so many different versions, and they all nail the core idea: run into giant arenas and shoot down massive waves of enemies with ridiculous weapons while Serious Sam mocks them or other FPS games. As an FPS fan, this is certainly one good indie I never quite walk away from.
Hoard
Back to obscure "who the heck is that!?" land! Well for starters, you'd be certainly right to say that about the dev team who made this one game, disappeared into 72live, and you can't find a damn thing on what that company is on google unless you search up their defunct Big Sandwich Games title first. However before they met that horrible fate into further obscurity, we got Hoard, one of the best dragon games ever.... on a list of 3, in between Spyro and Lair, so it ain't much. Still, this game is a lot of fun, and as a dragon fanatic I especially love it. It's an isometric point driven experience that sort of simulate old dragon treasure tales, and brings them to life. You play as a dragon in an evolving medieval world, and you wreak havoc and collect plunder, upgrading alongside the world and it's damages. There's a shocking amount of depth and yet simplicity in the system. Castles upgrade over time, knights get sent out to rescue princesses, towns go up with each building type representing a different strength or problem that can occur, and then random stuff like giants can come in and throw a wrench in the system, but on top of that maps will have you compete with other dragons and even fighting for cities to honor and send sacrifices to you. It's really awesome for an unheard of game, and one of my favorites on the PS3. Shame it never got the proper support, and the dev is basically nothing now, but it's a fun game I keep coming back to regardless,
Dust: An Elysian Tail
Dust is a game that isn't quite as famous enough to be the icon of indie awesomeness, but it's very mention will bring out a ton of fans nodding vigorously about how excellent it is. I've even heard some name it among the best games to ever come out. I have to say it's quite a phenomenon. Made mostly by one guy, voice acted off of a ton of small time youtuber audience worth also finding and enjoying, and yet it's this really incredible adventure game that mixes up all sorts of cool genres and mechanics. Part metroid, part hack & slash, part platformer, and part anime mixed with Don Bluth animation, this is an amazing journey that is just all around perfect as a game. It's not perfect on any specific one ground, but it comes together feeling that way. It's music is great enough, it's game length is just right, it's story is just gripping enough with a good balance of drama, humor, and adventure, and it's gameplay is just awesome enough. It all comes together to be fantastic! I don't find myself loading it up and playing it often because it's a single adventure, but when I do, I'm reminded why it's never deleted or thought less of. It's an incredible game I come back to on occasions for just comfort in how awesome a passion project of one indie dev can be. Heck, it's a fantastic reminder of how great all mediums really are! Animation, music, gameplay, story writing, just activating the game is a feel-good activity. So yeah, Dust concludes my list on awesome indie games I know I'll keep coming back to.
