Gamer's aren't your audience...

So... it has been quite a long time since gamergate; and I feel like the cultural relevance of that time has started to erode. Heck, even the GARMES URINALISTS have mostly shut up about it... and then; this happened:

Aphe-wat?

I hadn't even heard of this game, it wasn't even a blip on my radar; it looks pretty shite.

So, where's the link to gamergate, then? Well... who's the writer? Yes... it is one of the glorious alumni of that terrible time: -the- Leigh Alexander. A name that had mostly faded from my memory... and then, watching an Asmongold video making fun of, what he called: the "Unsung songs of Concord (2026)"; a hilarious list by the by, and her name came up as the writer of this boring looking, 3rd person walking sim. It appears to be an extremely preachy game about climate change, ho-hum.

Well, I guess her 2014 article "Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over." was prophetic regarding her own output, rather than relevant at the time. Who could have guessed?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hah! More like "Gamers'" don't want to be her audience, and I suspect her career would be entirely over if she weren't employed by a company that appears to get tax payer funds!

Ah! There are many problems in gaming these days, but at least I can laugh heartily as, it seems, life set up some long cure time hilarity in the form of arrogant, incompetent and self-important so-called writers, getting a little comeuppance... and just a little bit of criticism. :)

I eagerly await her next obviously brilliant contribution; regardless of what form it may take.

Now, I have to end with an important statement: I'll refrain from any more Schadenfreude; at the end of day, I would prefer a good game rather than yet another terrible one, so I hope someone learns something from this... but I doubt they will.

Starfield and Baulders Gate 3

Oh how the mighty have fallen. Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, even Valve... when is the last time any of these so called triple A companies actually made a great game?

Don't even get me started on Bethesda; a company that has literally re-released the same game at least ten times; a game they recently put paid modifications into... with a patch that broke a lot of free mods. I mean, really? Great mods and modders already get decent money without Bethesda's help but where there's an easy profit to be made; there is Todd, waiting with cap in hand and a cheesy grin on his face. Ready and willing to spout whatever is necessary to get a woop from the crowd for whatever slop is just about to come out.

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies, eh Todd?

When I first heard of Starfield, from a friend on discord around a year ago;  the best I could do was grunt and dismissively respond with something like "So what? Haven't I been scammed by Toddy enough?". I hadn't heard of the game, hearing about it didn't excite me, it barely moved the needle for me in any way except that I might have something to laugh at in the future... and laugh I did.

But at that stage, cyberpunk 2077 was still kind of shit, and there weren't many great games around... but now here we are; at the end of 2023. We now have Balders Gate 3; the cyberpunk expansion as well as all of those free updates, impressive indies and boomer shooters... and what do we have from Bethesda? Staryawn and paid mods for Skyrim. Thanks Todd.

While I'm focusing on Starfield, Bethesda and Todd Howard... these are really just convenient examples that are relatively easy to compare to BG3; as a game, studio and talking head that might once have elicited excitement and anticipation... but are now, at best, playing second fiddle to what might be called a double A production. Those other companies don't get out of it just because there's one particularly excruciating example of ineptitude; I just care less about them atm and I find Bethesda's track record to be particularly egregious except perhaps compared to Blizzard... it's just that I see Blizz as a lost cause by comparison.

Starfield sucks; it looks and feels empty, there's no actual role to play, it's content for the sake of wasting your time, it's full of bugs, the engine is bursting at the seams, the combat is shallow with mediocre gunplay, there's no real decisions to make... why play it all? Because the graphics are nice? They haven't even got the respect for the people that actually make their games passable; with no official mod support until at least "early 2024". Let's see exactly how long that actually takes.

I strongly suspect that some companies that have been mainstays for some time are going away; in particular I see Blizzard and Bethesda on the chopping block. Microsoft won't just erase them, but I suspect that if there isn't good performance they'll gut them and just use the names to sell other crap like many before them (Westwood, Bullfrog, etc, etc). So hopefully they start making better damn games!

We'll see, I guess.

Lately thought, there's been this backlash against this idea; people attempting to claim that BG3 is some magic special game that can't be used as a stick to beat crap games down because it'll kill studios and suffocate indies or something... The MEGA GAEM!

Stop; all AAA games have dumb, anti-consumer elements that are all about money; and that's the better ones, the worse ones tack on excruciating bugs and missing content or are just simply terrible games. All of this can be avoided and doesn't involve indies at all. I didn't mention Indies above, and most people are not referencing indies when making similar arguments. Ok? Ok.

Balder's Gate 3 isn't some strange anomaly; it's more like a return to form... games in the past were more like BG3 than Diablo 4, we should demand better and not allow anyone to tell us otherwise. And better doesn't necessarily mean bigger; it means QUALITY and CUSTOMER FOCUS. What does the player actually want in the game? BG3 delivers, in small details all the way up to the whole world. How about Diablo 4? Yeah, I thought so.

I love indies, and it makes utterly furious to see them wielded as a shield for the filthy practices of AAAs... almost more angry than the practices themselves, almost.

Mechanics or Meh-canics

This was originally written in January this year; but I re-read it and I think it's awesome so I'm going to review and push it out. :)

**********************

Something I've been thinking about a lot recently, is how it seems that almost without fail... that sequels to great games will be better in almost all ways except the actual game mechanics.

I'm not really talking about remakes, such as XCOM or Dues ex, though it's true there too. I'm really taking aim at sequels released by the same publisher, developer and often the same team (though presumably not exactly the same...).

My prime example is Rome, Total War 2 against the original Rome and Dishonored 2 vs Dishonored. Both games are perfect examples; Rome 2 with it's lackluster physical interaction between troops where they move around as if the solders are just water flowing around and mixing. Dishonored 2 with it's baffling move away from deterministic movements and instead making everything scripted.

For Rome, I feel this takes away from a few critical elements but also immersion; watching soldiers float around when they clash instead of hitting and looking as if there's real momentum and impact just feels stupid and surreal. It actually make several simple strategies fall over because there's no such thing as a truly solid mass of troops... as well as losing simple cool elements lost from the original game, such as when a "cilvilised" army like the Romans has units make way so that others can pass through them faster.

For Dishonored 2, it's a little more difficult to explain; because for most players you won't even notice it... I didn't at first, but in short: in the original game when an enemy made an attack then they would make some sort of movement and their weapon; normally a sword, would move through space and if you were in that space then you'd get hit when it made contact. In Dishonored 2 when an enemy makes an attack a script runs immediately and decides if you've been hit or not. What that actually means, is that in the original you could dodge or do something to simply avoid an attack; in the sequel you either hit the specified block button at the right time and block the attack or you get hit and that's it.

I learnt about this one from people who spent a lot of time making videos for YouTube of cool runs in Dishonored 1 and 2; you can actually see a different between how videos feel between each game, it's amazing.

So; what does this mean? What can we do? Do "we" even care?

I care, so what I do is play the older games. I'm not really interested in Rome 2 or any of the later Total Wars for that matter; and I've never played Dishonored 2.

If this is something you've not seen or noticed; dig a little into your favorite games and try to understand how your game functions... if nothing else it might make you a better player.

Ownership

This was originally written in July 2021; I've decided to review it and push it out because it's a decent article and an issue that continues to be more apparent... so here we go.

******************

I have a concern; it's not a new concern to any modern gamer but I think it is one that now cannot be denied by the various corporate shills that make up the current cadre of games journalists.

Not that I'm a particularly big fan of those vestigial waffling morons at the best of times.

We don't own our games anymore.

Yeah, I know; it's been at least 10 years since this was true. Steam was the first real step towards this but recent actions by Blizzard really brought this home to me. There are two prime examples:

1. Warcraft 3 "Reforged"
2. Diablo 2 remake

For both games, the remake was announced and we were told the old games would likely be taken offline; we were promised that the old game would be accessible via the remake. The Diablo 2 remake came and went with poor player response that I didn't even notic but if you know anything about modern gaming then you already know that the Warcraft 3 remake was an epic disaster.

1. Remake graphical upgrade promises were not kept
2. Connection problems made actual multiplayer matches fail regularly
3. Edits to the story made fans angry
4. Many features from the original game were broken or missing

The above can be summarised thusly: The remake was a worse product than the original. They should have left well enough alone... and if you wanted to go back to the old game you could not... your "license" for the original had been revoked.

I actually wouldn't mind loading up Warcraft 3 and play through the single player again, but I refuse to pay for a remake I didn't ask for and is inferior... and since Blizzard won't allow me to play the original it seems my choices are to find a pirate version or just forget about it.

I like playing old games quite often, so it makes me quite sad to know that any games from the 'always online' era will eventually disappear and I'm not given a choice... and I know as someone trained in software engineering that these developers could easily design the game such that they could release a "last patch" prior to shutting down a server to allow for determined players to continue enjoying a game when support ends... you know, like every non-always online fucking game since Pong!

I think it's time for governments to at least threaten deep and broad regulation of software companies; where these bastards simply aren't allowed to sell mere "licenses" to use software but an actual share or something like property in said software... Licenses can be revoked, a share is property and that implies a right that can't simply be disregarded.

This is something that should be considered at least as seriously for commercial software like AutoCAD or Windows itself if not more so; as the problem there is how often companies are trying to turn all useful software into a damned rental... they'd do that with games if they could, but people mostly play a game for a while and then forget them, so it doesn't work and thus we get always online and DLC up the bum instead.

Imagine a hammer you HAD to rent... or a toaster, frypan, TV...

I'm not suggesting that this model of software shares and such would mean that companies would have to support the software in perpetuity... that's not viable. But what it means is that the company could be compelled to ensure that access to the software and all basic functions are available. What do I mean by "basic"? Well, for example: warcraft 3 would allow single player and multiplayer via LAN, direct IP (maybe some 3rd party multiplayer support?), etc would be usable. While the servers and such for Bnet would be considered an "advanced" feature.

Essentially, basic features are all features that do not require continued financial resources from the developer/publisher to use. If I play Dune 2 on my PC right now, I don't need Westwood to do anything... which is good because Westwood disappeared a long time ago. Much of the warcraft 3 experience can be considered basic though much of what doesn't work or just straight up missing in the remake can be considered advanced anyway. Whoops.

This is not a simple problem... but it could be fixed or mostly avoided if the big companies like Blizzard/Activision, EA and Ubisoft would just stop being a bunch of cunts with their shitty live service games.

I'm sure this will continue to be an issue until the next AAA game crash (that as of 2023, might actually be coming); unless we get lucky.

We need to regain ownership of not just our games, but everything.

Warhammer Total Bullshit

Or...
Napoleon Total war 2: Electric boogaloo

I own Warhammer Total War; it's a good game... now there's Warhammer Total War 2... around a year after the first. As a long term fan of the Total War series since Rome Total War, with hundreds of hours invested...

Way too much time wasted...

...I remember when Empire: Total war was followed in short order by Napoleon Total war... Both were inferior entries in the series and there was very little time between them. It's clear looking at these games the same engine, similar rules, nations, etc, these are practically the same game. I attempted to play Napoleon, probably some time in 2015; and it was a buggy mess. Particularly when fighting the AI in sieges especially when they were defending... This was after they had essentially "fixed" the game and weren't offering any more major updates.

The defenders, such as they were, would form up in a line.... this line did not conform to their fortifications and would often cut across them in amusing ways; also they wouldn't advance... or retreat. All they would do is wheel around to face your army and SOMETIMES their soldiers would auto-fire when you marched in range.

Total Incompetence.

...get it?

Anyway, Total war empire wasn't any better, ultimately Napoleon was the better game... but the release of what was essentially a clone that barely did any better was just shocking to me. Of course, SEGA and Creative Assembly have shown themselves to be just as good at scamming their audience as any other AAA publisher or dev so in retrospect it isn't really all that surprising.

All I can be certain of, is that I put off getting either of the above until both were heavily discounted and I still felt ripped off.

With the above in mind... here comes Warhammer Total War 2... And I'm supposed to pony up brand new $60 video game money for what looks like an admittedly large DLC pack?!? Nah mate, pull the other one... it's got bells on!

That's all really, not particularly surprising behaviour from SEGA and Creative Assembly; proving once again that the customer is always wrong, and should always be prepared to throw more money to get something approaching the full experience.

I've had enough of SEGA and CA, I won't pay full price for their games ever again.

Keeper3 - Publishers gonna publish (i.e. be complete arseholes).

Shantae: Half Genie Hero

Half Genie; fully hot!

Ummm hello there Shantae, um... oooh...

I mean, it's good and stuff... yeah!

Full disclosure: I kickstarted this game.

So, a platformer with a character I'd never heard of by developer I'd never noticed... so I kick-started it; WHAT COULD GO WRONG?!?

lol no

I don't remember why, but when I saw Shantae I was ready and willing to kickstart it, for Mighty no 9 I had no interest... anyway, this is about Shantae!

Solid gameplay

I've never been a huge platform gamer, but when you play a good platformer the thing you notice least when it's done right is the basic mechanics of movement and combat. Looking back at my playtime I'd say the basic gameplay works well, shantae just moves well and responds quickly most of the time. One problem I have with the gameplay as it goes on is the dances that let you take animal forms... you end up with 12 of them! It can be annoying as the menu system cycles through the whole 12 in batches of four but at least the gameplay pauses while you do this.

Each animal form has a specific use but many of them can also be used elsewhere for some utility to skip some annoyance in a level or some such.

Ultimately though, it's rare for you to feel like you've been cheated by the controls or game mechanics... the game could be a little harder though?

Lovely graphics, art style and writing

Lovely...

It just looks gorgeous; I love the resurgence of pure 2-D sprites and such. It's great!

Colourful, well drawn and animated, and simple things like making sure the foreground enemies and dangers don't blend into the background. It's just great.

And the writing! It's no Shakespear, but there's humour, warmth and enough compelling story here to make a good experience.

Too much Backtracking

Shantae games are famous for requiring backtracking, and I've never been a big fan of this. I think it's an interesting way of reusing areas but sometimes you just get sick of coming back to area A or B so many times... Still, it's not quite enough to wear out the welcome of the game I just think they could back it off just a little.

Often you'll do everything you can do in a level the first time you go through it... and barely be a quarter done with it because you don't have this or that animal form or you don't have the attack for a form; most forms are helpless initially without the attack for that form; meaning you have to get nearly 24 collectables in order to complete all the levels properly!!!

Ultimately

Shantae is good, it'll soak up 4 to 5 hours on your first playthrough... it looks great, plays pretty good and has a decent story to boot. It is a bit short in my opinion, but it's a $20 game; not like a Kane & Lynch $60 piece of BS.

Maybe kickstarter isn't all bad?

Shutup.

Keeper3 - Quality platformers in 2016/17? No wai!

Doom (2016)

This one shall be short and sweet...

If you're tired of the stupid modern chest-high wall modern FPS... if you find yourself booting up quake or doom 2 and find yourself getting far too much satisfaction from blasting demons with a double barrel shotgun... Doom is for you.

It's not perfect, but it is fun; very fun. And challenging!

...just ask Arthur Gies of polygon, the worst Doom player in the universe!

DUH HOW I MOVE AND SHOOT GAIS?!?!?!?!111?!!!?!?11!eleven

Ahhh Polygon, your ineptitude is like the cherry on top of my delicious old-school doom sundae.

Watch it, it's a laugh and a half.

I haven't touched the multiplayer, but the single player is worth the cost of entry... there's some replay value exploring the levels and messing with the different weapons. The harder difficulties are actually really difficult and you really have to move to survive...

If you've stayed away because you can't imagine doom being remade in the modern age; you're wrong. Play it.

Keeper3 - Doom is the new doom... and your doom!