Find the Fake

...and the answer is the last one.

2019 Award Winners

It's a bit early this year, but the list is complete and there aren't really any major game releases until 2020.  So, without further ado here are the winners.

Avant-garde Award:

Say what you will about Hideo Kojima, the guy is always trying new things.  In the case of Death Stranding, he has taken the walking sim genre and melded it with the likes of Spintires and Truck Simulator to beef up the gameplay in what would have otherwise been a purely story-driven experience.  Some of the concepts work better than others, but I'm sure there are video game developers that will find inspiration in his latest work.


Backlash Award:

Bioware Studios has done a lot to squander consumer goodwill in recent years.  No more so though than in the case of Anthem.  A botched launch, poor subsequent support, and little to no transparency haven't done much to alleviate concerns over this game and, frankly, the future of Bioware itself.  While I don't know if it deserves all the ire it has gotten there has been a definite lack of new content and story progression.  Of course, it's probably hard to come up with a plan moving forward when the project managers keep quitting. 

Brutality Award:

Conspicuously absent for the last couple of years, this award category has made a triumphant return with Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice...or in my case a whole lot more times than that...ugh...dragon-rot everywhere!  Having played every Souls game and Bloodborne, I can confidently say this is the hardest FromSoftware game to date.  No amount of grinding for levels will avail you here.

Canvas Award:

Overland definitely has some areas of the game that could stand a bit more improvement.  That said, one thing it does excel at is visual presentation (particularly with regards to color pallets).  I especially enjoyed the contrast between warmer tones for stuff like fire, life and all things human against the cold and unwelcoming glow of the alien interlopers.  The game also starts off with a nice vibrant autumn sunset, but as the game progresses the look changes to the drained and bleached black and whites of invasive "reefs." 

Ecology Award:

Aside from the fact that it copies all the sights and sounds you'd expect in a Stars Wars game, Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order reuses quite a few gameplay elements found in other third-person action/adventure games.  A lot of reviewers have mentioned Dark Souls, but that's just scratching the surface.  This game is really a Frankensteinian amalgamation of mechanics found in the Zelda, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, and Prince of Persia franchisees, as well as the the Metroid Prime series.

"Engrish" Award:

English is a hard language to master, especially for non-native speakers.  That said, there's something special going on in Spaceland with lines like "you came here and you'll regret it!" and "for how long have I been in the sickbay?" It's as if these lines of dialogue were written by someone who was trying to impersonate what an American would sound like. "I'm a famous explorer of the farthest reaches of the galaxy."  Indeed, I can tell you've been away from home for a long, long time.

Esoteric Award:

It seems straightforward enough; roll dice and apply the results to cards.  Except the number of dice and variety of cards increase over the course of the game as do the available character classes and starting conditions for each dungeon.  Combine that with procedural generated elements and the strategy aspect turns into one of those probability equations that increase exponentially as the variables keep piling on until it overwhelms even the most analytical mind.

Lemon Award:

Fallout 76 won this exact same award last year, but I cannot give it to any other game; Australia forcing refunds, broken premium services, patches creating new bugs and re-instating old ones (plus making the game more of a grind), pay-to-win features despite claims the contrary, "real-life bugs" ranging from helmet mold to non-canvas bags.  The list goes on and on for a game so janky it even broke my award system.

Testosterone Award:

A kind of sci-fi spiritual successor to the more fantasy themed Slain: Back from Hell, Valfaris has just as much gore, twisted architecture and heavy metal music as its predecessor.  The whole look and feel of the game seems like it was pulled directly from sketches in some head-banging high schooler's notebook...and your female AI companion is a naked floating hologram wreathed in green flame because why not? 


Underdog Award:

The original Pathologic was one of those games that has lots of great ideas, but fumbles when it comes to executing on them.  Pathologic 2, on the other hand, fixes pretty much everything that was a problem in the original and gives the entire presentation a massive upgrade in terms of graphics.  Sadly, poor sales have resulted in hard times for the developer.  As is, only about a third of the game is story complete.  Hopefully, the Pathologic IP can gain enough of a following to fully realize the world envisioned by its creator.

Best Avoided

There are certain enemies in certain games that are a real pain to deal with.  Among those there a small select few that are downright panic inducing for some.  The first time I can remember it happening was when a friend of mine freaked out upon encountering a band of monks in the original Bard's Tale...needless to say it didn't end well for him.  I've heard people online claim that the psychic monkeys in System Shock 2 or headcrabs in Half-life 2 trigger a similar reaction, one of primal fear.  While I've never been all that upset by any particular type of video game enemy, there are a few that I have learned to dread.  Here's three in particular...

From Demon's Souls to Sekiro, Hidetaka Miyazaki has a knack for creating monsters the get under your skin (figuratively, and sometimes literally...).  The "winter lanterns" in Bloodborne can kill the player's character simply by holding line-of-sight with them for a short period of time.  Personally though, I feel like that enemy (troublesome as it may well be) is not nearly as bad as the croaking basilisks in Dark Souls.  Normally, when one dies in Dark Souls it's a slap on the wrist, but being struck down by a basilisk results in being cursed - a status effect that does not go away upon subsequent deaths.  It's a pretty big debuff and not easily removed although it does have a few minor perks as well.  Even so, in a game known for its punishing difficulty being cursed is the last thing most players want.

XCOM has earned a reputation for being quite challenging early on.  One of the most difficult parts of the game is the first terror mission involving chryssalids.  Believe it or not there was an even worse kind of enemy in XCOM: Terror from the Deep, the "tentaculat."  Basically a big floating brain with a beak and tentacles, the tentaculat bears a strong resemblance the the "grell" found in the table-top RPG Dungeons and Dragons.  Gameplay-wise, they are tough and have a high movement rate, as well as the ability to move vertically or horizontally.  Their form of attack is identical to a chryssalid's zombification, complete with hatching a new tentaculat upon death.  I had a full squad of veteran aquanauts nearly wiped out  by just a couple of these things...bad times.

The last example comes from Dwarf Fortress (a game I've been playing quite a bit as of late).  No, it's not the werebeasts.  Yes, those things can destroy an entire fort if proper quarantine procedures are not put into effect, but the enemy that has caused me the most grief is those accursed "bogeymen."  Fast, hard to hit, and likely to ambush the player anytime they travel alone at nigh, I have lost more good adventures to these guys than I care to count.  Needless to say, I'm glad the next version of Dwarf Fortress will be giving them a much less ubiquitous roll in the the game.  Although, it's my understanding that they might be even more deadly...

Hammerspace

The title of this blogpost is a term derived cartoons.  Particularly, instances where a character produces an item or object far too large to have been concealed on their person.  Often times this would come in the form of a mallet pulled seemingly out of nowhere.  Where did that come from?  For all intents and purposes it was tucked into some kind of pocket dimension, accessible to a particular individual at a moment's notice.  The old table-top RPG Dungeons and Dragons had a similar concept with the magical "bag-of-holding," essentially, a container that drastically downsizes anything places within.  Video games designers were quick to adapt the concept of hammerspace into their games, but I don't think they were ever (generally speaking) entirely comfortable with the concept.  Space Quest III's narration text, "You shove the ladder in your pocket."  Followed by the word "Ouch!" was the first instance I can recall a designer pushing back on the absurdity of it all, albeit for laughs.  So, why are game developers willing to turn a blind eye to something that is completely unrealistic on a fundamental level.

The simplest answer is they are not.  In fact, I get the impression that a lot of thought and energy has gone into trying eliminate hammerspace.  One of the most common solutions is an encumbrance system.  These weight limits were fairly ubiquitous in early table-top RPGs and (unsurprisingly) ended up being incorporated into a lot of CRPGs.  In more recent years, the concept has fallen out of fashion (Demon's Souls is the last game I've played that used it).  One of the problems with an encumbrance system is it still doesn't really reflect reality in that players can still haul way more stuff on their characters than would ever be humanly possible.  In some cases this would result in hilarity in games like Diablo and Dungeon Siege, causing a massive explosion of dropped equipment all over the screen when a player character was killed.  Another big problem with abstractly measuring weight is it doesn't account for bulk.  Some objects (say, for example, a big bag of fluffy cotton) aren't particularly heavy, but do take up a lot of physical space. 

One way to simulate both weight and volume is with inventory tetris.  It can be found in games like Betrayal at Krondor, Resident Evil 4 and Dead Space.  Again, it isn't a popular solution among gamers though it is perhaps a bit closer to reality.  The problem with such a system is instances where an object is very small but incredibly dense, such as a bar of gold.  Oddly enough, the original XCOM (released way back in 1994) had a system that accounted for both space and weight - calculating burden against the strength of the carrier and adjusting movement rates accordingly.  Even so, the system had its quirks.  Armor (or lack there of) was not factored into weight restrictions and a 80 item limit on missions was the result of programming limitations rather than some kind of lift capacity on the in-game air transport craft.

Taking a step back, it's easy to see why a lot of game developers give into the temptation of hammerspace.  Managing inventory is a tedious task and in loot-driven games can be an outright punishment in that it forces players to leave valuable booty behind.  That is unless a core aspect of the fun is logistical planning.  Darkest Dungeon, Astroneer and most recently Death Stranding are built around making important decisions based on limited inventory capacity.  In an interesting case of reverse cross-media influence the table-top RPG Torchbearer uses an inventory slot system very similar to what was invented in video games.  Another instance where this sort of restraint can be interesting is in the case of equipment definingly the character's role.  Some FPS games let the player carry all the guns, but others such as those in the Halo series force the player to decide on a class (made up of two guns) and stick to it.  An alternative approach might be to make encumbrance restrictions adjustable in the options menu, or perhaps tied to the difficulty setting.  Regardless, the takeaway here is developers that don't want hammerspace need to integrate the limitation in a positive way rather than a negative one.

A great example of how not to do it is Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.  Weapons degrade as they are used, and certain weapons are more effective against certain types of enemies.  This incentivises the player to carry a lot of (and a wide variety of) weapons.  However the game places a strict cap on the number of weapons Link can carry.  It should be noted that the number is (even at its lowest) still more than what is realistic.  Instead of this neither-here-nor-there system, a much more enjoyable approach would be to tie weapon usage into some kind of progression system.  Want the player to use more variety?  Give an EXP boost based on cooldown timers, or number of times used.  Want players to haul around fewer weapons?  Provide a stat boost (speed, damage, stamina, health, etc.) if they carry below a certain limit.

In truth, I don't mind hammerspace as a concept.  The "Tain" in the Myth series or "Dite" in Metal Gear Survive hint at the storytelling potential of having an in-fiction pocket dimension.  Alas, the vast majority of the time hammerspace it just hit points of a different color - concepts overused by developers because they lack the creativity to come up with an innovative alternative.     

One Straw too Many

Aside from the Homeworld series Warcraft and Starcraft were some of my favorite RTS games growing up.  For whatever reason I never got into Diablo (although my brother did).  I also never played World of Warcraft because, as I have stated in the past, I'm not a fan of MMORPGs.  As one might guess, I haven't been very interested in Blizzard's more recent releases either; Hearthstone?...pass.  Overwatch?...No, thanks.  Even Starcraft II failed to get my attention since so much design focus was placed on the E-sports side of things.  Still, I always held onto a glimmer of hope that the studio would return to the aspects of their games that interested me the most.  Sadly, ever since Blizzard was bought out by Activision, I feel like whatever talent the studio had remaining simply disappeared.

It's something that really began to show at the last Blizzcon with Wyatt Chung's rhetorical question, "Do you guys not have phones?"  In other words, their focus had become totally fixed on mobile platforms, microtransactions and tapping into the Chinese marketplace.  My understanding is that China is an especially lucrative place for video game companies, not just in terms of new player potential but a lack of stigma when it comes to loot boxes and pay-to-win gameplay elements.  Those things, along with free-to-play or fee-to-pay games, have become a plague on the industry.  The fun and interesting parts games are inevitably eroded away by more repetitive, more obfuscated, and more addictive gameplay whenever these revenue models are utilized.  It has reached the point now where playing live-service games is about as enjoyable as chain smoking.  Honestly, I don't see why that kind of electronic entertainment should be tolerated any more than regular casinos.  Taking the most unhealthy parts of video games and magnifying them to make a quick buck is as devious as all the glitz and glamour of Las Vegas...yet, despite all the awfulness associated with this industry trend, Blizzard keeps marching toward that golden grail of gambling in video games...piling those straws on that camel's back.  That is until just recently, when a big chunk of wood got chucked on top.

Actually, I'm not alluding to Blizzard laying off a bunch of employees despite record profits.  No, that was a big stick, but "log" I'm referring to here is the banning of Blitzchung by Activision/Blizzard/PRC for taking a pro Hong Kong stance.  It's one thing to be selfish and money grubbing, but quite another to be complacent in denying people basic human rights.  Upsettingly, this isn't even an issue unique Blizzard or the video game industry.  In fact, quite a few American companies such as Apple, Disney and Google (the providers of this very blog hosting service!) have been guilt of disturbingly similar behavior.  I've seen a lot of people trying to frame this as a free speech issue, but I fail to see what's controversial about being for human rights or opposed to hate speech for that matter...It's not taking a political stance so much as having an ounce of moral integrity.  Something a lot of the head honchos and these companies (and the NBA) seem to lack.  It's particularly duplicitous coming from places like Disney, who stylize themselves as being progressive.

Another thing I've seen some people online try to do is claim that this is actually just racism against Chinese people.  While I'm sure that is a motivating factor for some, I don't understand how it invalidates calling out American companies and the Chinese government on their human rights abuses.  Just to be clear, if we were to consider this form of whataboutism valid then it could be used to dismiss any criticism of any institution.  Don't like the way Spain is handling Catalan?  You're just racist toward Spaniards.  Don't like Brexit?  You just hate the Britons.  Don't like the way the American government handles...well...anything recently?  You're just prejudiced against fat, orange men with bad hair - You get the idea.

The camel's back is broken and this has been a long time coming.  Blizzcon is just around the corner and I hope protestors make things truly awful for all those executives and Blizzard and Activision.  I also hope that in the future things become awful for any corporate executive that doesn't have the moral fiber to put fundamental human rights before profit margins.