E3 2016 Predictions!

e3_2016_0001

Publishers may be spoiling all of the fun of E3 with early announcements and “leaks,” but I get the feeling there is a bunch of stuff we don’t yet know about. Recent trends that are taking the games industry by storm aren’t going to go untouched.

There is a lot of speculation surrounding companies like Nintendo and Capcom, but I’m here to lay those worries to rest (hopefully). There is my list of predictions for stuff we’ll see at E3 2016!

e3_2016_0002

NX isn’t a console…it is Zelda!

While Nintendo initially stated their only title at E3 would be the new Zelda, they soon clarified that other games would be present during their Treehouse presentation. Most people are looking for new details on the upcoming NX console, but I have a theory.

What if the NX is just Zelda. I’m serious, too. What if the NX isn’t a separate console, but an entire machine dedicated to one game. The Wii U isn’t powerful to allow the creative vision Nintendo wants for the next Zelda game, but they also don’t want to divide their user base with another console that will (most likely) fail.

So the NX is unleashed as being another box, but it only has one game. That game will be Zelda: The Something of Whatever! It will have Demon’s Souls like multiplayer features, a never ending supply of quests like an MMO and will feature constantly expanding and growing characters in a world that changes based on your actions.

Then again, maybe the NX is just a codename for Nintendo XTreme!

e3_2016_0003

What’s Old is New Again…Again

Hot on the heels of Battlefield 1’s announcement to take place in the past, EA will begin to restructure their focus on “retro” themed games. This will lead to things like Plants Vs Zombies: Mendelian Conflict, Medal of Honor: Gettysburg and SSX 95.

Activision will take notice and announce a spin-off Call of Duty set during the rise of the Greek Empire, Call of Duty: Thermopylae. Seeing as how their only other franchise is Guitar Hero, they will announce a classic rock compilation of 50’s tunes dubbed Guitar Hero Live: All Shook Up.

A deluge of not modern military shooters will follow in the coming years. We’ll all have the EA presentation of 2016 to thank for our inevitable hatred of the “past” and our desire to head back to the “future”.

e3_2016_0004

VR Man

Since VR is becoming a hot trend, I predict that all of the major console manufacturers are going to show off their own version of VR. I know this one is mostly confirmed (and Sony has already been demoing their VR headset), but there are still a lot of details that haven’t been made public.

Microsoft will announce that they’ve teamed with Oculus for a simple VR solution on the Xbox Two! That’s right; the revision model of the Xbox One will be labeled Xbox Two, completely sidestepping the fact that the second console in the Xbox family was titled the 360.

Along with Oculus Rift support, Microsoft HoloLens will be required to utilize any VR technology of the new console. With a headset and controller in tow, you’ll be able to literally interact with everything in the game, as long as you have a 24x15x8 room available for setup.

Nintendo will reveal that the NX (which I said will be a Zelda only machine) allows VR to let players get truly “immersed” in the world of Hyrule. Players will be able to punch pots and crates with their own fists and can then put rupees into their pockets as if they were truly there.

Sony will finally come out and proclaim that the Playstation VR will only ever support one game and will then be discontinued by the company. They’ll mention it next to their deceased handheld, the PSV or whatever, and begin a whole new line of “legacy” Sony hardware.

e3_2016_0005

Xbox Live as an ISP

Now, I want to preface this entry with my own opinion; I think this would be an incredibly smart move. People have seemed to drift away from Microsoft’s service over to Sony’s this generation. Both offer virtually the same stuff, at present, but Microsoft’s console hasn’t won any favors since its original announcement.

Years ago, I proposed the idea that Microsoft should just turn Xbox Live into an ISP. Along with monthly fees that are competitive with cable companies, anyone who signs up would be given access to Xbox Live Gold and all the features that entails.

Microsoft will finally realize that their system isn’t going to topple Sony. After having ceased development of Windows Phone and focusing on Xbox as a brand, Microsoft will announce that Xbox Live will now be offered as an internet service.

Gamers who sign up will be given access to Xbox Live Gold and some subscriber benefits that non-ISP users won’t have access to. While the service will be platform agnostic, there will be some speed benefits for Xbox users to give Microsoft a leg up over cable providers.

Sony and Nintendo will be stunned, but unable to fund their own comparable networks. Both will announce a greater emphasis on digital sales and subscriber benefits, though neither will be able to cut out the middleman required for internet service.

e3_2016_0006

Other than these predictions, I don’t see much else happening at E3. The past few years have been pretty lousy in terms of announcements and reveals. The widespread adoption of the internet has allowed many users to track down hints of games well before publishers are even ready to talk about them.

There has also been some pretty harsh backlash against companies using fake trailers to promote their games. Gearbox and Ubisoft have come under fire for the way they lied about Aliens: Colonial Marines and Watch_Dogs, respectively. I get the feeling that most companies are going to shy away from pre-rendered trailers in favor of showing live gameplay on stage.

Either way, I don’t have much interest in E3. I just wanted to write a sort of jokey blog about what I see in the industry. Maybe I’ll get lucky and have a few of these predictions come true. I’m not much of a prophet, however.

 

 

Advertisements

GOTYe Awards 2015

GOTYe_001

As 2015 winds down and we begin our reflection of the past 12 months, critics and gamers alike are starting their lists of the best games of the year. While I could take the easy route and explain some of my favorite titles, I wanted to put a bit more thought into such a blog.

I decided to take a different approach; comparing games to Gotye song titles. Why would I do that, you ask? Well, apart from comedic value, this is my blog and you can fuck yourself. So, with that said, let’s kick of the GOTYe Awards 2015!!

GOTYe_002

Somebody That I Used to Know Award – Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 5

It’s always sad when a cherished franchise becomes a former shell of itself. Activision had thoroughly milked the Tony Hawk license after the 5th game, but we kept getting sequels. I guess implementing things like dune buggies and tennis wasn’t enough, so Activision and Neversoft were content with throwing literally everything into a game.

This led the series to open-world territory, “realism” based trick systems and eventually a plastic skateboard controller. The series has been in flames for longer than my young cousin has been alive.

When Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 5 was announced, gamers let out a sigh of relief. We were finally going to get a game that properly continued the legacy of the original titles on a next-gen system. Except, that isn’t what happened.

The game we ended up receiving was a broken mess of an overpriced coaster that barely functional properly and had very little content. I mean, I’ll all for having Tony Hawk roll around on the ground like he’s having an epileptic seizure, but I’m not willing to shell out $50 to do so.

It just takes me back to being a teenager and playing the hell out of Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 3. It was the first game I bought with my own cash. It was the game that inspired me to listen to hard rock. It was also the catalyst to me becoming a completionist. THPS5 is basically a reminder that nostalgia is a lie.

GOTYe_003

Board With This Game Award – Yoshi’s Woolly World

At this point in time, I’m going to assume that Yoshi’s Island was a complete fluke. I was utterly captivated with the game upon it’s release. It was all my 7 year old self could think about. I was a big fan of Mario, but playing this new Yoshi title was so different. It was colorful, inventive, laid-back and beautiful.

All of it’s mechanics made sense, were implemented in creative ways and never got old. Even the music was timeless, with tunes stuck in my head 20 years later. When I had originally played it, I thought Nintendo would be able to make an ever better game with more powerful hardware. The SNES was old by the time Yoshi’s Island rolled around, after all.

That game has never been given to us. Yoshi’s Woolly World was the best attempt at recreating some of the old-school magic, but Nintendo appears to be more focused on targeting nostalgia then anything else. I miss the Nintendo that took risks with their IPs.

Mostly, I just found the game utterly boring. It’s devoid of challenge and plays things so safely that I often had to stop after beating a few levels to prevent myself from falling asleep. I love those amiibo that were made to commemorate the game, but they don’t make me forget Yoshi’s Island.

GOTYe_004

Here In This Place Award – Grow Home

When I saw Jim Sterling talking about an actual good Ubisoft game, I immediately got intrigued. I’ve been a fan of some of their franchises, but their more recent output has been plagued with bugs and issues that often cripple the entire experience. Even “classics” like Assassin’s Creed 2 had major game breaking bugs.

Still, Grow Home looked right up my alley. It was a free form game with a simple goal and endless opportunities to explore. I love exploring, I’m a fan of highly stylized art and I can never say no to original ideas. Grow Home may not be a classic, but it’s very charming.

It’s sense of scale is without equal. Climbing ever higher and peering down to the islands below is enough to take your breath away. It also makes your gut sink if you’re playing on a big enough television. The visuals may not be realistic (in any sense), but god damn if they don’t encapsulate exactly what developer Reflections was aiming for.

The sandy beaches, vibrant colors, endless sky and oddly shaped enemies make you believe you’re in a different world. It’s truly a great concept with awesome execution. It also reignited my love of rock climbing with some mechanics that correctly mimic the motions one makes while scaling a mountain.

GOTYe_005

Thanks For Your Time Award – Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

MGSV may not have been the send off for the beloved Metal Gear franchise we all hoped for, but it was a very well built game. It’s unique approach to stealth with an open world that felt like a real land mass made for some of the most intense and endlessly replayable scenarios in recent memory.

MGSV also did something that no other game really nailed quite as well; it acknowledged the player’s role in the legacy of Metal Gear. Sure, the ending twist is revealed in a sloppy manner and kind of muddles the already convoluted plotline ofMetal Gear, but the true message was that we are Big Boss.

We are the ones who have gone through all of the trials of tribulations of Snake. We have seen his best and worst times. We rose to the challenge to save this virtual world on multiple occasions. We started our own private army to combat digital mercenaries and prevent a nuclear apocalypse. Without us, Kojima would have never been able to create such an engrossing experience.

It’s sad to know that the future of Metal Gear is basically dead. Konami is a tired excuse of a once golden company. We can be grateful that Kojima won’t have to spend the rest of his days wasting away at a worthless sinkhole.

GOTYe_006

Like Drawing Blood Award – Mortal Kombat X

I was pleasantly surprised with Mortal Kombat (2009). While the game was maybe a bit too similar to Street Fighter IV, it took a dying franchise that once captured the attention of the United States and brought it back to life.

The older games were focused on making the most gory and explosive experience possible. The first two haven’t aged particularly well, but Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3remains a classic. It’s combo system, innovative block button mechanic and aggression meter all make the game feel unique and brutal.

The 2009 reboot captured that same essence. It has the gore factor in check (and jacked up to 11), it has lots of combos strings and move cancels and it’s got plenty of diversity with it’s cast selection. Mortal Kombat X is basically a lesser version of the 2009 game.

While it’s graphics are insane and the gore is even more stomach turning, the game just feels off. From it’s garbage PC port to the milking of DLC with almost literal cheat codes bearing a $1 price tag, the game just feels gutted.

The story mode that was so fun to play in it’s predecessor has been cut down to a measly few hours with no real purpose. The online functionality has somehow gotten worse, despite being on more powerful hardware. Even the DLC fighters feel like a wasted opportunity, going with film nostalgia over any real innovation on or celebration of the MK legacy.

For a game that looked so promising to basically fizzle out after being launched is just sad. Playing it is like visiting the doctor’s office. You don’t want to be there and watching the needle draw blood is enough to make you pass out. It really sucks, as I thought Mortal Kombat was going to be here to stay.

GOTYe_007

Easy Way Out Award – Call of Duty: Black Ops III

Another year, another Call of Duty game. A series that I once looked forward to is now a running joke with most gamers. It’s also a good case study for how to save on production costs between sequels.

Ever since Call of Duty 2, there has been a new game in this series every year. We are on the 12th entry in almost as many years. Having two developers working on a series should make for a fresh approach with every passing game, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Treyarch was, for a small while, attempting to do different things with the tired COD recipe. Black Ops brought things to the Vietnam War Era and Black Ops II attempted to inject some different gameplay elements into the mix, but Black Ops III just falls on the same bullshit as before.

I guess Advanced Warfare was a roaring success, because trying to actually distinguishBlack Ops III from the last title is a nigh on impossible task for anyone but diehard COD fans. The game doesn’t even make sense with the Black Ops name, having little connection to the previous games in it’s own trilogy arc.

Activision doesn’t care about that. Why try putting effort into your titles when you can take the easy way out and produce the same garbage year in, year out? For as much unfounded flak as the Call of Duty series gets, Black Ops III is an example of when the internet is actually correct about something.

GOTYe_008

I Feel Better Award – Bloodborne

When Demon’s Souls came on the scene, many people took notice. Here was a game that was going against the norm and actually challenging gamers to think on their feet. There was no floating arrow to point you in the direction of the objective. There were no easy ways out of difficult situations. If you sucked, you weren’t finishing the game.

While Dark Souls seems to have stolen everyone’s heart, I’ve always had a fondness for the smaller ambitions of it’s predecessor. I loved the level structure, darker tone and more challenging combat of Demon’s Souls. I wanted a game with more brutality and with a stronger sense of challenge.

Bloodborne delivered on that. It’s level design created a sense of tension and dread in the early stages that gave way to more expansive and mind-bending labyrinths in the late game. It’s enemies were fast and ferocious with stronger AI and a thirst for blood.

Beating any single area felt like a massive accomplishment, let alone surmounting the bosses. Coming to terms with the combat, getting a feel for the world and making forward progress all led to a really gratifying sense of fun. The DLC was just icing on top of the cake.

GOTYe_009

I’m not sure if this list ended up being as funny as I originally planned it to be. The whole Gotye craze that happened a few years ago seems to have disappeared. The guy clearly wasn’t trying to be a pop sensation, but the masses wised up to some decent music for once. It was frightening.

Regardless, I feel that “Somebody That I Used to Know” is still a part of the internet’s collective conscious. If you don’t get the reference, then too bad. Gotye certainly doesn’t care.

Anyway, happy 2015 everyone. Hopefully next year, I can think of some more Gotye related song titles to go with some awards. Or maybe it will just be “Smoke and Mirrors”.

Forever Alone?

After playing the Rainbow Six: Siege beta for a few hours, I’m not quite convinced that Ubisoft’s decision to axe a single-player campaign was the best choice. This has nothing to do with my own preference for campaigns, mind you, just that the netcode is pure garbage.

My memories of the Rainbow Six series are almost entirely dedicated to the online portions. I loved Rainbow Six: Raven Shield for it’s open-ended structure. It fit perfectly into co-op play and gave great competition to Counter-Strike for competitive play.

I played the hell out of terrorist hunt in Rainbow Six 3 on Xbox with my friend, Corey. He and I eagerly anticipated the expansion, Rainbow Six 3: Black Arrow, and continued to bounce between the two games in co-op campaign and terrorist hunt for a few years. We just loved experiencing that game style together.

As for the plotlines, I don’t really even recall what any of them were about. A tactical shooter is more about replicating a tense, life and death situation then it is about presenting any thought provoking questions to the player. Just take a look at how muddled the plot is in Rainbow Six: Vegas.

The sequel to that game was almost entirely a prequel. Apparently the first game didn’t make enough sense to enough people, so Ubisoft had to detail where the villain came from (I guess being Russian/Chinese wasn’t enough for Tom Clancy fans).

The Tom Clancy universe of games aren’t really tailored around being solo excursions. Splinter Cell was the first time that going alone made sense. Sam Fisher was a better ghost then the Ghost Squad and his mission was to leave as little a trail as possible. Bringing another player, while fun, wasn’t a requirement.

Even that series got expanded into a multiplayer affair. In the latest game of the series, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, the game is markedly improved when in co-op (since the AI is brain dead). It feels excellent to coordinate your attack with a friend.

Even with pointless BS like this.

Enough with Ubisoft games, though. How about the fact that the last gen versions of the upcoming Black Ops III don’t feature a campaign? Well, if not for the price tag, I wouldn’t see this as an issue. From my times working at GameStop, most people didn’t even know Call of Duty had a campaign.

People used to tell me that they would tinker a little with it or plow through the thing on Easy and then forget it existed. Why Activision keeps trying to bolster the campaign is beyond me. Instead of wasting money on putting Kevin Spacey in the game, I think Activision should be boosting the MP up with a larger map count and more modes.

I’m also thinking of one of my favorite shooter franchises, Unreal Tournament. It’s new pre-alpha just released and it’s extremely fun. What doesn’t it have? Any kind of extensive single-player mode. There are bot matches, sure, but nothing in the way of story or character development; the game is focused on delivering the most fast paced and finely tuned multiplayer experience possible.

Having a game forgo a single-player campaign isn’t that big of an issue. To use Hollywood as an example, two of the biggest film releases this year were Max Max: Fury Road and Pitch Perfect 2. Both movies didn’t try to appeal to anyone outside of their target demographic.

Men wanted a more action focused film and got just that with Fury Road. Women were dying to have an all female cast be represented in a way that wasn’t sexist or objectified and got that with Pitch Perfect 2. Funny how disregarding a huge portion of the general population worked in those films favors.

There is nothing men can relate to, so let’s just cancel the whole thing. – Stupid Movie Executive, 2015

With Rainbow Six: Siege excluding a single-player campaign, I think Ubisoft is realizing that the main attraction and lasting appeal of the series is online. Now, I’d agree with them under normal circumstances, but this is Ubisoft we’re talking about. They tend to abandon support for their games a few years after release, leaving online a wasteland.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the netcode is currently horseshit in the beta. I’d join matches and the entire game would be littered with pings of 380. I have a 50 MBPS download, so my ping shouldn’t be higher then 40.

I’ve seen this happen time and again with a lot of newer releases; developers rush the game out to meet some arbitrary release date and the lasting appeal suffers. All conversations focuses on the horrible launch and how disappointing the online experience ends up being.

With a single-player mode attached to Rainbow Six: Siege, I think gamers would be more forgiving of any online deficiencies. The game truly marks an arrival of next-generation style gameplay. Destructible environments and particle effects not only make the game looks expensive, but have a tangible impact on the gameplay.

With a strong internet infrastructure, I feel that Rainbow Six: Siege could be a game changer. Without that (which is more then likely going to be the case), I don’t think gamers will stick around. That lack of single-player is going to feel like a wasted opportunity.

For the most part, I feel that a lot of developers should focus more on the strengths of their game’s concepts then on ticking off some checklist for marketability. Just like Unreal Tournament doesn’t need a campaign mode, Rainbow Six: Siege shouldn’t require one.

Remeber how this game had a campaign? Yeah, I don’t either.

Games don’t exist to cater to everyone at all times. If you don’t fit into the mold of what Rainbow Six: Siege aims to do, then just skip the game. Don’t complain that Ubisoft made a bad decision to eliminate single-player. Don’t nag EA to provide an offline option to Star Wars Battlefront when the entire concept was designed with multiple players.

It’s pointless to want every game to be the same. Not all shooters need a campaign mode, just as how not every fucking game needs tacked on multiplayer. We need to stop having developers split their teams into single and multi-player offsets and combine their powers to make the best possible experience they can. If that happens to be multi-player only, so be it.

Meaningful Content

In the last generation, we saw games getting bigger and bigger and budgets ballooning out of control. As publishers were looking to get as much return as possible, games became bloated with side-quests that had little to no relevance to the main story mode.

Just this year, we have been given three games that do away with such fluff. Bloodborne, The Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid V. In each game, every bit of content feels just. You never waste your time in areas that plaster up invisible walls or grant absolutely no benefit; if you undertake a side-quest, the reward is readily apparent.

Take MGS V for example. At the very beginning of the game, you are unable to understand the soldiers in Afghanistan. This pretty much makes getting information a pointless endeavor. After finishing the first mission, you are informed of translators in the area that can be rescued. Doing so grants you the ability to understand the language in that area.

It’s an immediate payoff that gives the player a sense of accomplishment. Instead of including an activity because it’s cool, the developers thought to award some palpable sense of achievement within the game itself.

The Witcher basically has stronger plot points in the side missions then the main quest itself. One very early side quest has you tackling the mystery of a man’s wife who has gone disappearing. You get to be a detective and figure out what occurred and the impact this has had on the man’s life.

Did you take her?

It is supremely rewarding to dig into such a rich story. Most side quests can be boiled down to a few simple points; the game needs to be longer and the player can skip these. Since developers don’t want the player to “miss” any important content, one can reasonably skip the side stuff and still get the entire story.

Even before Wild Hunt, The Witcher 2 had an entirely different second act based on some decisions you made at the end of the first. It was a radical departure from what mainstream, triple A gaming was doing. That is getting a bit side tracked from my point, though.

With Bloodborne, while the world may not be entirely open as in Witcher and MGS, you can tackle most of the boss creatures in an order of your choosing. There are even a great few that you can entirely skip. A lot of the work in getting to them is shrouded in obscurity and requires one to think outside the box.

This leads to optional areas that are just as thrilling, frightening and meticulously detailed as the main game. More so, with the narrative being ambiguous and vague, the game encourages you to seek out as much information as possible. Without being told to, you are actively pushed to see the full picture.

This subtlety to approaching story in a game makes Bloodborne utterly captivating. Coupled with the brutal combat mechanics and steep difficulty and Bloodborne becomes a game that can consume your life for a good month or two.

Ah, yes, a good month or two….where is my cranberry juice?

I do remember games being like this in my heyday. Games on the NES, SNES and even PS1 were more about creating experiences that rewarded player skill and investment. Not every game was supremely long, but every bit of content was worthwhile.

I can’t think of a Mario game where I would want to skip levels (other then 8-3 in the original being a bitch). Shooters like Quake were so morbid, dark and terrifying that I was compelled to press on to see the corridors that lie ahead.

Then you look back at the last few years of gaming and you see pointless padding. Watch_Dogs, Assassin’s Creed, Grand Theft Auto, Tomb Raider; newer entries in these series had so much pointless content that gamers gave up caring. Why do I want to climb towers in every city just to spot “important” locations? What benefit does collecting feathers or journals or hidden packages have for me?

I was amazed when playing Sleeping Dogs and found out that a lot of the side quests have a tangible benefit to the player. Finding the hidden shrines would increase your maximum health. Getting all of the statues in the story missions unlocked extra finishing moves for your combos. It was wild to think that side content could actually mean something in the modern era.

Then you look at inFamous: Second Son and all of the side stuff does basically nothing. Sure, you can level up your skills, but the game is so easy that nothing else over your starting arsenal is really required.

It seems that for as big as we can make game worlds, there is some nagging need to include as much stuff as possible. It’s as if the game isn’t engaging enough, so developers have a desire to distract you from how mediocre it is.

“You’re right! I don’t even care!”

There are some complaints that MGS V is devoid of life (something lobbied at Ocarina of Time as well), but that doesn’t even hold water. When I actively want to explore the game world, I don’t care if hundreds of things are crawling around. I like exploring landscapes and seeing nature in a natural state.

Taking a hike through a forest doesn’t bring you to a lost tribe or hidden tomb (unless you happen to be lucky); one takes a walk through nature to escape the fast paced nature of their lives. It’s a form of escapism that brings you back to reality and the purity of nature.

It’s also not a waste of time. Even though you aren’t technically accomplishing anything, you are freeing your mind of the bullshit from your daily life. Your problems disappear for a few hours in a safe, fun and refreshing manner.

Where are all the damn side quests?

When a video game so perfectly encapsulates that (such as MGS V), why am I going to complain about a lack of visible life? I don’t want more stuff in my games, I want my games to feel more complete.

I just wonder why it took so long for developers to finally get around to making completely worthwhile experiences. I think that, in the years coming up, we’ll see more and more games that cut out all of the trappings and stick to gameplay and extra missions that actually matter.

That, or we can just look at Super Mario Maker and make our own stuff. I wish Project Spark were as open-ended as Mario Maker, because I would love to get in on manipulating my childhood memories.

I Need a Bigger Gun

As we progress into the future, games become more and more limitless. When hardware or storage capacity used to hinder developers, new formats and emerging cloud gaming have basically done away with old constraints.

Have you ever noticed how most newer games lack unique or memorable arsenals? With all the power at their fingertips, developers still rely on the tried and true Doom arsenal to pepper their games with variety. Nothing against Doom or iD Software, but that was 1994.

We are in the year 2015. The fact that I couldn’t recall any weapons from the latest Call of Duty is a tremendous problem. Even if the first game relied on period accurate weaponry, the series was known more for how it changed the way we utilize the guns more then the guns themselves.

Yes! That gun I’ve used in every game for the past 4 years!

Even with that, Call of Duty is eternally boring with it’s selection of firearms. You have the general ”Weapon” category and then everything to broken into sub-catregories. Rifles, Machine Guns, SMGs, Snipers; you name a real life gun, Call of Duty has it.

While this may make sense for a Tom Clancy game with it’s focus on realism, Call of Duty should be pushing the boundaries of the genre. The games are the most popular thing in the medium and collect ridiculous amounts of money every year. You’d think Activision would want to spice things up a bit.

To lay off that franchise, what about any other games? Grand Theft Auto is guilty of phoning in the weapons. I remember the stupid glee I had when I first obtained the chainsaw in GTA: Vice City. About the coolest weapon I found in Grand Theft Auto V was a golf club.

Even Assassin’s Creed has basically stopped innovating in terms of arsenals. Since Ezio introduced the dual hidden blade, every subsequent game has contained it. Ubisoft then started throwing in items that took away from the idea of stealth (who the hell wanted bombs?).

Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate looks to remedy this problem, but I don’t know if one game series is enough. As popular as those games may be, shooters still reign supreme and have been stagnant for a long time. I don’t want to always rely on an M4 or ACR in my games.

I used to love old-school shooters with their insane, unrealistic and creative weapons. I loved how, when Half-Life took a turn for a more realistic style, the weapons remained unconventional. I truly love how Unreal introduced two firing modes.

Even their “real” guns had different modes.

Painkiller, a game which was seen as a bit vapid back in the day, has probably the best arsenal of any shooter around. There are only 6 weapons, but each gun has an alternate mode that is basically a new gun. It doubles the arsenal without bombarding the player with different models or information.

To that effect, Halo has always been fairly inventive with it’s guns. While some are basically analogues for genre staples, the Needler and the Plasma pistol are wholly unique. The pistol is also god damned incredible with how well it balances the multi-player (as far as the first game is concerned).

Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena never had issues with balance as their arsenals were diverse and different. Obviously a rocket launcher was in both, but each game had a different feel and different fire rate. The rail-gun was a much faster sniper, while UT’s plasma rifle and ripper have never been replicated.

You can dig through iD Software’s past and find plenty of different guns. Quake had the lightning gun, Heretic had a damned staff and Doom introduced the world to the BFG 9000 (later upgraded to the BFG 10k for Quake 3).

And all was right with the world.

Then I go to my PS4, boot up Killzone: Shadow Fall and see weapons that can be replaced with any real world equivalent. It really makes newer games feel completely dated. What about when future warfare becomes a reality? Now these weapons will be old-school and worthless.

With the likes of old-school shooters, most of those weapons will never exist. Even if you could produce a facsimile, the game’s weapon would remain an entity unto itself. The fun wouldn’t be lost or feel lazy.

I would just like to see shooters try harder. The genre used to be a trailblazer for graphical technologies and creativity. Now, we pretty much have a paint by numbers system for creating first-person games. I don’t want that to be the standard.

The Impact of an Ending

Video games are a strange medium. Gameplay is paramount and story usually takes a backseat to fun. Sometimes, though, endings can bolster an otherwise lackluster experience into something worth venturing through.

That is the case with Suda51’s “Shadows of the Damned.” While not a bad game by any means, the gameplay is fairly conventional. Influenced by Shinji Mikami of “Resident Evil” fame, Shadows plays almost exactly like “Resident Evil 4,” with the improvements EA made with “Dead Space.” It’s fun, but it lacks creativity and originality.

What really sells the experience is the plotline and its ultimate ending. Not to spread too many spoilers, but when Garcia finally accepts his fate and the player is left powerless to change the outcome, the game comes full circle and you truly feel sad.

This contrasts with “The Dark Knight Rises,” the latest film I saw this weekend. I don’t have a lot of nice things to say about the movie, but suffice to say the ending is a complete disaster. Certain elements I was taking away from the film become null and void when the cop-out ending occurs.

I’m really not going to spoil that, but if you find yourself more intrigued by the Bruce/Alfred dynamic like I was, you’ll leave the film completely disappointed. Nolan throws a completely idiotic and ridiculous twist at the last second and it ruins all emotional build-up that could have saved the lackluster movie.

From everything I’ve read on “Mass Effect 3,” I can understand why people feel so angry about Bioware’s failure to capture a climatic and cathartic conclusion. Investing so much into the characters and their fates and seeing nothing come of it is just frustrating. I wish Nolan stuck to the red herring he planted instead of giving us the “Hollywood” ending.

One of my favorite series from last generation, “Splinter Cell,” did something very similar in its second outing, Pandora Tomorrow. During the climax in the airport, Fisher runs through a gauntlet of terrorists guarding a bomb that will decimate the airport. Once he finishes them off and confronts the bomb, he realizes that he cannot disarm it.

So what’s the only option left? Well, planting it in the middle of the airport and letting the police deal with it. In an unexpected turn of events, Fisher isn’t required for the ending and the player feels completely useless. Why did Fisher even go to the damn airport? Third Echelon should have just called the police and let them deal with the problem.

As for ending that improve the drab parts of the movie, Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds” is a shining example. I am not a fan of that film. The movie is typical Tarantino self-indulgence and most scenes linger on for 15 minutes longer than they should. Still, the movie is pretty much redeemed by the ending in the movie theater.

Seeing the Basterd’s plan come to fruition, even with failures from the group, is just thrilling. The unadulterated violence and cleansing feeling of seeing bad guys getting eviscerated is unparalleled. I’ll still argue with you that the film isn’t worth a watch, but bombastic endings like that really make it hard to stand by my own stance.

I’ve heard the counter-argument that the journey through something is better than the ultimate outcome. The only thing I’ve agreed with that on is the Bill Murray film “Broken Flowers.” Still, encapsulating everything that works with a film or game during the final minutes really sells a product for me.

So what if some of the set-pieces are dull or the game isn’t “innovative?” If your journey ends on the highest note possible, isn’t everything worth the struggle? Doesn’t that kind of reflect life, as well? My trips with shitty customer service at restaurants are sometimes worth it when the food is exceptional.

While this blog is pretty unfocused, I just wanted to share some of these thoughts. Endings, to me, are the alpha and omega of an experience. Maybe I shouldn’t put so much emphasis on conclusions, but I prefer having my media end in a grandiose fashion instead of fizzling out.

Indie DLC = Old School DLC

I’m not sure if I’m too old school, but all of this recent DLC is starting to wear me thin. Every time I see a new game come out, I immediately think, “Might as well wait for the GOTY/Ultimate edition!” A few of my friends have been playing Forza 4, but I refuse to buy it and see that “complete” version a week later.

This past week, though, I recently bought two packs of DLC. Two of my favorite games from last year, “The Binding of Isaac” and “Frozen Synapse,” released full scale expansions. Both include gameplay that is roughly half the length of their main campaigns and feature other cool, optional extras. How the hell could I pass that up?

This is the kind of stuff I gladly paid for back in the late-90’s, early 2000’s. Every time a game I loved had an expansion, I was all over it. The Quake series has some great examples of long campaigns with expansions that increased the length two-fold.

Even “Battlefield 1942” gave us discs that were more than simply map-packs (even if Road to Rome was a glorified one). I miss those days were my extra content wasn’t some gimped experience with a $10 price tag.

You can make the counter-argument that most of the expansions from the past were $30 where as DLC is significantly cheaper, but then I’ll ask you to show me an example of DLC that wasn’t free in the past. “Call of Duty’s” DLC is some of the worst, but it’s actually not that the value of the maps are in question.

No, what makes it suck is how Epic Games has never charged for a single “Bonus Pack” in the “Unreal Tournament” series and each pack included about 8-9 maps. Think about that. “Call of Duty” expects an extra $60 for a total of 20 maps when Epic gave away nearly double that for free on each game.


Entirely free and it was on PS3! What gives?!

I also take particular offense on “Free-To-Play” games that charge you a dollar for weapons and skins. I do understand that they need some kind of money, but I’m really struggling to figure out why there are count-down timers and cool-down periods for things you buy with actual cash. I remember the days where extra skins were unlockable and even fan made!

Not every modern developer is milking DLC for all it’s worth, though. Rockstar Games did wonderful things with the expansions to “Grand Theft Auto IV.” While the two episodes weren’t as full length as Vice City or San Andreas, neither one was a slouch in replay value or story content.

I know this will lead into the debate about how length of content shouldn’t be the deciding factor, but I’m getting sick of paying what is now a premium DLC price for content that shouldn’t even have a price tag. Developers are losing a lot of faith with their userbases and I think changing DLC policies to something more old school would be the way to fix things.

I know Activision will never listen to reason, but why not give away some maps from time to time. If you want people to play your stupid and shoehorned multiplayer modes, give them a reason that isn’t attached to their wallets.

If you want people to experience more single-player content, make it justifiable for them to drop money. Provide either another complete campaign, or give us short experiences loaded with extra content and easter eggs to discover.

It’s just strangely telling how I refuse to purchase DLC for big budget titles, yet I immediately (and without question) bought the expansions to two indie games. Maybe if EA or Ubisoft didn’t make such awful add-ons, I wouldn’t have problems like this.

I know DLC is here to stay and that my voice probably isn’t going to do anything, but I just lament the passing of the old days. Games may not have been better values back then and I fondly remember spending upwards of $70 for N64 cartridges, but DLC is just getting out of control.

Until I get something akin to “The Binding of Isaac” and “Frozen Synapse’s” expansions in the future, I’m just not going to be buying much in the way of DLC.