Something to Look Forward too

There are a lot of games I'm looking forward to playing, but nearly all of them don't have firm release dates.  Even if they did, delays are an inevitable part of game development.  As such, it is a little bit hard for me to get excited about anything on that mirage-filled horizon.  Still, there is one game that is coming out soon and I am eager to talk about it.

Suzerain is a very special game to me because it is a visual novel that I genuinely like.  There are only two other titles in the genre that I can say that about (one is Eliza and the other Subsurface Circular).  Needless to say, it's a genre that I don't have much fondness for.  Regardless of all that, I am looking forward to upcoming DLC.

While there have been few details, this supplementary content takes place in the previously unrevealed Kingdom of Rizia.  The player's role is that of King Romas Toras.  The idea of being the sovereign of a relatively modern, yet monarchist, country is certainly interesting.  It's also fairly novel in that most games in which the player is royalty tend to be in medieval settings.  It will also be interesting to see if and how the narrative ties into the original game.

In all honesty, I was not good at being a president in the original Suzerain.  It took me three tries to get an ending that wasn't a complete disaster.  Somehow I doubt my attempts as a monarch will fare much better.  Despite my lack of political skills, I hope that the narrative is as branching as the original.  Suzerain serves as an ideal example of a game that really makes the player's choices matter.  Since the game is made by the same dev, chances are this design feature will be preserved in the new content.

The Bad Ending

It's pretty common for games to have multiple endings.  Generally, certain endings in said games will have better or worse outcomes for the characters.  In that sense, players tend to view some endings as "good" while less satisfying endings are typically seen as "bad".  It goes without saying that there are a lot of perfectionists who play video games.  So, more often than not, the good ending in any particular game is what most people want.  Unfortunaly, a lot of game designers like to hide these good endings behind some very esoteric requirements.  Let me illustrate with a couple of examples.

The original Silent Hill had it's best ending dependent on the player exploring a tucked away side area and finding a particular item (the "Aglaophotys").  This is actually an atypical way game designers gate off their best endings; acquiring a weird item that needs to be used in an unclear way.  On the plus side, this juncture doesn't come up until near the halfway point.  A few games (such as the SRPG Hoshiguma) have the ending dependent on a decision the player makes very early in the game.

Blasphemous is another example of the good ending being nearly impossible to achieve without a guide.  In fact the true ending is post-launch DLC which was added once the devs figured out what they wanted to do for the sequel.  Normally, I'd say this is poor design, but as someone pointed out online, it's not at all strange that a game about the Catholic path to righteousness is so inscrutable and easy to irrevocably screw up that nobody could ever be expected to successfully do it without the hand of god guiding them.

Fatal Frame 2 is especially meanspirited when it comes to endings because it's impossible to get anything other than the worse ending on the first playthrough.  Hence, the game requires subsequent completions in order to see anything other than a really downer conclusion.  Of course, the counterpoint to all this is sometimes the supposed good ending not actually much better.  The default ending to Vandal Hearts is (outside of a congratulatory message in the credits) the same as the "Vandalier" ending.  Plus, you don't have to grind through a bunch of side missions to get it.  Similarly the very-difficult-to-get 108 stars true ending to the original Suikoden isn't much different than if you just played the game normally.

On a final note, there are games like Bloodborne that has three different endings (none of which are particularly satisfying).  Sometimes you just got to choose what you want and stick with it (warts and all).  I defiantly feel like this applies to games that will have whole lot of subtle variants on a single ending based on what players chose to do throughout the game (see The Quarry for a recent example).  Sure...it might be fun to do another run using an entirely different approach just to see how things play out and note changes, but then again it can be good to accept what happened, leave it behind and simply move on to other games...either that or just watch the alternate endings on Youtube and call it good. 

RE4R

El Residente Malvado 4!

If you were to ask me what my favorite genre is I'd probably say survival horror, but recently I've been feeling less confident about that.  Signalis, Callisto Protocol and to a lesser extent even the Dead Space remake all failed to garner my interest.  Thankfully, the remake of Resident Evil 4 has reinvigorated my fondness for these kinds of games and reminded me of why I like them.

Specifically, the thing that always draws me into the survival horror subgenre is the need to harbor resources while still trying to complete objectives.  In the RE4 remake, that aspect of game design is in full effect.  Even the most basic weapon at the player's disposal, the knife, has a finite amount of times it can be used before it breaks.  Everything requires resources whether it be ammo for guns, herbs for health, or pesetas for repairs and upgrades.  Carefully stockpiling those items for when they are needed most is very much front-and-center here.  Having stated that, the gameplay isn't all that different from the original.  

Some noteworthy changes have been made to level layouts and, by extension, encounters.  In particular, there are some fun side missions that the player can engage in at their discretion.  Enemy types are largely unchanged.  Boss encounters, on the other hand, have been improved significantly.  A few things have been cut, such as the gondola ride, one minor out-of-left-field mini-boss battle, and the QTEs.  Overall, the changes represent welcome improvements over the original, but where the remake really shines is in terms of story.

While seen here as a mod for the RE2 remake, I kind of like Ada's tactical outfit
 more than the iconic red dresses she is known for wearing

Pretty much all the characters in the RE4 remake are fleshed out in greater detail by giving them more of and arc or backstory.  In particular, Luis and Krauser are much better in this new interpretation of the "Las Plagas" incident.  Sadly, one character is only marginally better.  While it's certainly a good call to have an Asian voice actress playing the role of Ada Wong this time around, the performance just feels off to me. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I always saw Ada as one of those classic "femme fatale" characters from pulp action stories and spy thrillers.  The problem is that archetype feels kind of antiquated now days.  I'm just guessing here, but the writers on the RE4 remake might not have known what to do with her in terms of updating the character which could have been the reason why we ended up with a somewhat lackluster performance.

How the heck did that wrench ended up in there?

Generally speaking, the moment-to-moment gameplay is extremely polished thanks to some well refined mechanics.  Which difficulty setting to choose when first starting the game though is a bit harder to pin down.  Just to illustrate my point, the first boss battle of the game ("Del Lago") is actually the most fun to fight on hardcore mode, but overall the balancing for the RE4 remake is kind of weird. Standard mode is pretty brutal unless your bringing upgraded gear from a previous playthrough.  Even then, I think some enemy types are a bit too hyperactive at times. It's pretty dang hard to line up the precise thermal scope shots required to take down "Regeneradores" on anything other than the easiest difficulty setting because they're so squirmy...at least if you are using a controller (and I say that as someone who got "S" ranks on all the shooting range challenges). Enemies, in general, are so aggressive and bullet resistant on Hardcore and up it's actually a better strategy to not use the environment much.  Just take a quick potshot at one foe before making a hasty retreat.  Then let the lot of them pile into a prearranged killing zone wherein you can chew your pursuers up all at once using shotgun blasts, piercing firearm shots and a liberal amount of explosives.  Hence, one could say easier settings allow the player to utilize the combat arenas in fun ways while harder settings force the player to rely on duller, but safer strategies.  Additionally, once you get the rocket launcher nimble but weak enemies (like infected dogs and oversized bugs) become the hardest to deal with in the game.  Meanwhile, big monsters and bosses are a complete cakewalk.  Granted, a lot of what I just pointed out might be intentionally designed that way for reasons I fail to fully understand.

I think a good way to wrap up this mini-review is with the question "what's next?"  I'm not talking about DLC for the remake of RE4, but rather which game the team is going to tackle next.  Resident Evil 5 would be the natural progression while Resident Evil: Code Veronica is the next biggest old game in the franchise that would benefit the most from the remake treatment.  The thing is though both of those games were conceptually not very good and as such might not be worth the effort.  Personally, I prefer the third-person perspective Resident Evil games over the first-person ones, so I hope that Capcom keeps making new games along the lines of the RE2, RE3 and RE4 remakes.  Maybe it's time for an original story?  Who knows...only time will tell.    

Winter Games

Winter is here!  Well, at least if you happen to live in the northern hemisphere...and that statement is doubly true if you reside in North America or Europe.  So, for those of you who are entombed under a mound of heavy snowfall, what better way to celebrate the season that with some winter-themed video games?  Here's three, in which not freezing to death is a key aspect of the game.    

Survival-strategy is an incredibly rare subgenre of which Frostpunk is the only recent entry.  Taking place in an alternative version of Victorian England, the player is tasked with keeping a band of refugees alive as the world around them is slowly swallowed up by an apocalyptic super-blizzard.  It's a grim game filled with difficult moral decisions that require a tricky balancing act between pragmatism and empathy.  On top of this the player has to gather and manage resources such as food, timber and coal; all while building a city radially outward from a massive central furnace.  This towering construct is the heart of the game because it supplies much needed warmth which is actually Frostpunk's most basic and vital resource.  

The Long Dark was successfully kickstarted in 2013 and subsequently released in early access on Steam in 2014, before ultimately hitting version 1.0 in 2017.  Since then, it has gotten more updates and content in the form of DLC.  The game takes place in the Canadian wilderness with players assuming the role of a marooned bush pilot.  The story goes he crashed his plane after a massive geomagnetic storm and now is simply trying to survive.  Despite the somewhat sci-fi premise, the actual game is firmly grounded in reality.  There are no zombies or other supernatural threats.  Hungry wolves and bears, on the other hand, pose a serious danger (as does the harsh climate), but at it's heart The Long Dark is a streamlined resource management and survival game.  Finding shelter from the cold and scavenging for supplies in an open-world setting is what this game is all about.

Not to be confused with Frostpunk, this final entry is simply entitled Frost.  It's an odd little indie game about a small tribe of Neolithic wanderers trying to survive an approaching ice age.  The gameplay is centered around a deckbuilding card game of sorts.  The art is simple, but evocative.  Cards the player has at their disposal are typically tools and resources which are used to overcome challenges.  These obstacles often take the form of imposing terrain features or hostile wildlife.  The music is pretty neat as well because it's entirely made with vocalizations.  The best way I can describe it is stone age beatbox.  Overall, the game is quite difficult (even on the easier settings).  There are several kinds of character archetypes to choose from as well (each with their own style of play).  Regardless of the individual though the goal is the same - don't let the cold get you.

Shimmy Simulator

The clear visor and internal helmet lighting are there
so you don't accidentally mistake Jacob for Riddick

Callisto Protocol (A.K.A. Splatterhouse meets Super Punch-Out) is basically the original concept for Dead Space.  Set on the titular moon of Jupiter, gameplay consists of linear third-person exploration and combat.  The latter of those two is further broken down into a fairly even mix of ranged and melee fighting.  In a way it reminds me a lot of the Condemned duology.  Like that pair of games, the sound design is second to none.  Aside from setting the mood, various audio cues are used to convey important information to the player ranging from the location and types of nearby enemies to the effect an attack is having on said enemies.  Graphics are also impressive from a technical perspective, but (in terms of art direction) are painfully bland.

What do get when you combine the common elements of every grim space sci-fi movie and television series from "Moon 44" to "The Expanse"?  It turns out you get Callisto Protocol in all it's generic glory.  Don't get me wrong...the game looks very genre appropriate.  It's just there is a severe lack of distinctive setting material.  The original Dead Space (for how derivative that game was) at least had a few things that made it standout; examples include Unitology, The Markers and Planet Cracking.  Here, though there really isn't anything unique.  Even stuff that could have been special, such as the exotic location, is made a lot more ordinary than it should be.  

Here's where it all began...

To demonstrate my point look at the moon of Callisto itself.  In real life, it's a big frozen ball with no atmosphere. The surface is nearly as ancient as the solar system itself and has almost one-hundred percent crater saturation.  In layman terms this means every new asteroid impact happens on top of an already existing one.  Underneath all that pockmarked terrain is the possibility of a subsurface ocean.  Imagine digging down through the permafrost only to emerge into some kind of cold underwater abyss roofed in ice with god-knows-what dwelling down in the dark depths.  It's a thalassophobic nightmare, that the game designers obviously had no interest in letting the player experience.  Instead, that terrifying encounter is only mentioned in passing and (as a substitute) we get a bunch of boring zombie mutants hanging out around what is definitely not OSHA approved industrial machinery.  Worse yet partial terraforming of Callisto has transformed the "dead moon" into basically Antarctica, complete with clouds, wind and snow.  I'm not sure why opening an airlock would suck people out if there's an atmosphere, but the game's creator (Glen Schofield) has a reputation for pointless scientific inaccuracies.  Case in point, Callisto (despite being a rather huge moon) only has 12.6 percent the surface gravity of Earth.  This seems to come into play a bit during one scripted sequence when the protagonist slowly falls down the side of a building.  The devs could have made up some excuse like "magnetic boots" to explain why low gravity isn't an issue onboard space ships or inside the prison complex, but once your out on the surface this fact should have really come into play.  Specifically, having to navigate around chasms and fences should have been trivial since you character can vault over them with ease.  It could have been an interesting change of pace from a gameplay standpoint...more of an open sandbox arena...also, zombies coming flying at our hero through the snowstorm would have been absolutely unnerving.

Speaking of the hero of this story, he fits the Dude McGuy roll perfectly in that he is a short-haired scruffy thirty-something that has little in the way of personality and no motivation beyond immediate survival.  I get that they were going for the everyman protagonist here, but give him a lisp, a tic, a phobia; make him religious or superstitious...something that the actor can work with! As is, his female counterpart would have made a far more interesting main character given that she has a backstory that could have shed some much needed light on the underdeveloped plot.  It's weird that known profession actors were hired to play the various character roles when they were given so little to do.  The real kicker though has got to be the ending.  Just as the story feels like it's starting to go somewhere the credits roll on a sequel-bate cliffhanger...got to justify that season pass, I guess.

To anyone on the fence about getting this game, I would recommend waiting until it's on sale in a bundle that includes all the DLC plus (as of now much needed) performance patches.  Only then will it be worth playing.  Unless you're in Japan, of course, in which case it's simply not available because it was deemed too violent.  To everyone else...well...you've already made up your mind, haven't you?  

Plants, Please

Somewhat of an indie darling, Strange Horticulture is simultaneously the name of a video game, the name of the plant shop in said game, and a pretty good two word summery of what the game is about.  Set in a fictionalized version of England's Lake District, players take the role of a shopkeeper and proprietor of houseplants.  As far as I can tell, none of the plants featured in the game exist in real life, so for better or worse I couldn't get in-game versions of any of the the half-dozen kinds of decorative plants I actually have in my home right now.  That said, a wide variety of visually interesting plants are featured in the game, including some which have very outlandish properties.  

The gameplay feels kind of similar to titles like Potion Craft: Alchemy Simulator and Papers, Please.  Customers come into the store, usually to request a plant by name or a solution to a problem they are having.  Either way, the player must then puzzle out which of the initially unlabeled stock is the correct one to give (based on clues provided by the customer or found in a specimen catalogue).  New plants can be acquired by traveling via a grid-like map, though knowing were to go involves following clues and tips provided from a variety of sources.  Later in the game a storyline involving a cult and a covenant of witches materializes, but I won't spoil that by going into any further detail.  

Overall, Strange Horticulture is an atmospheric puzzle game with a laid-back, albeit slightly sinister vibe.  The punishment for guessing incorrectly is mild and the process of figuring out what to do is just challenging in enough that it feels satisfying when the solution is found.  On top of that, there is a built-in hint system that the player can use if they're feeling stumped.  It would have been nice to see more sketches and artwork depicting what the wider world looks like, but that might be asking for more than what the brothers duo dev team can provide (given the extremely limited resources at their disposal).  As for criticisms, there are two things that I initially found slightly confusing.  

The first is the fact that ringing the countertop bell calls a customer.  Normally, it's the other way around.  Of course, I understand the reason for this.  The developers want the player to be able advance at their own pace.  It's just that this particular aspect of the game is pretty much the opposite of how it works in the real world.  

The other thing is the act of giving a plant to a customer doesn't actually deprive the player of that plant.  Presumably, a cutting or extra unseen specimen is what is actually being provided...still I found it weird at first.  Again, I understand why it's this way.  The process of growing more plants would involve harvesting seeds; not to mention worrying about things like soil, water, temperature, and sunlight.  Features like that would blow out the scope of the game quite a bit and, while great ideas to consider for a potential sequel, the implementation of them would undoubtedly makes things a bit more complex than what the developers probably had in mind.  Regardless, I'm looking forward to the announcement that "Audrey II" will be available in the form of DLC.

Update Pending...

A common complaint about buying early access games is you don't know ultimately what you're going to get.  This is certainly the case with Hardspace: Shipbreaker, a game that most people thought would eventually feature a wide variety of spacecraft to dismantle.  Counter to that expectation though, the full version of the game ended up focusing on the storytelling aspects of the game.  Don't get me wrong, it's a topical tale that is very relevant to the world we live in today.  Even so, I feel like it was (for me at least) one of the less interesting direction the developers could have gone in...well, it is a finished product for better or worse.  Some early access games have far less certain futures.  So much so, the real question isn't a matter of "what", but "when".

Developer roadmaps are nice because they let the players (current and potential) see what's coming.  The thing they don't show though is when, if ever, those updates are going to materialize.  In some cases it's understandable.  Stoneshard, for example, has some of it's dev team located in Ukraine - obviously not the easiest place to be making a game right now (with the war going on).  Satisfactory, on the other hand, seems to have lost some of it's momentum since the pandemic started in terms of frequency and substance when it comes to updates.  Still other games, such as Dwarf Fortress, have been steadily chipping away at their intended goals for what feels like more than a decade at this point.  Granted, that game will probably never truly be feature complete.  However, there has been a significant push in the last few years to get it in polished up state for it's release on Steam.  Thankfully, Dwarf Fortress is already extremely feature rich, so players have plenty to sink their teeth into while they wait.  For other games though, that's not the case.

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnaughts is an odd game.  Ostensibly, it's all about modeling surface engagements between opposing warships.  The thing is, surface-only navel warfare ended about the same time HMS Dreadnaught came down the slipway.  Starting around the First World War, submarines and aircraft began to play increasingly important roles in naval combat.  Ultimate Admiral don't model any of that (at least not yet).  As a sandbox simulator for iron-clads and pre-dreadnaughts it works well enough, but it's really weird to have World War 2 era destroyers without any anti-aircraft guns or depth charge racks.  In other words the game has yet to update to the types of warfare it's supposed to simulate.

Lastly, I want to mention a real oddball, ΔV: Rings of Saturn.  As far as 2D space sims go it's alright.  The zero-G physics are accurate and the technology in the game feels appropriately near future in design.  Updates continue to be common and incremental in terms of improvements, but then (seemingly out of nowhere) the developer introduced paid DLC that adds anthropomorphic crew members into the game.  Now, I'm not categorically opposed to this sort of thing...but suffice to say I won't be buying this kind of content either.  It's a weird digression that I can only assume the dev made in order to make some extra money off a certain subset of his player base.  Let's hope we don't see this sort of thing in other games like Darkest Dungeon II.  That game has had enough ups and downs throughout its troubled history as is.

Rekindling the Flame

What comes next after Elden Ring?  It's a question I've been asking myself ever since I finished the game.  The answer is "DLC...probably."  Obvious replies aside, it seems like Elden Ring sold quite well.  Hopefully that will give From Software the breathing room they need to take some creative risks in the future.  Specifically, I feel like the fundamental mechanics of their third-person action-RPGs (which began with Demon's Souls roughly 15 years ago) have more or less run their course.  Granted, Bloodborne and Sekiro did make some changes to the formula.  However, I don't think there's enough mechanical depth to make a sequel for either of those games and keep it feeling fresh throughout.  Capcom ran into a similar problem with Resident Evil awhile back.  Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3: Nemesis were all critically acclaimed successes with each selling better than the last.  Resident Evil Zero and Code Veronica, on the other hand, were a bit stale while the first-person shooter spin-offs Survivor, Gaiden, Dead Aim and Outbreak were simply not good.  Thankfully, the franchise got a major overhaul in the form of Resident Evil 4.  Even though their games are still of a superior quality, I think From Software would be wise to take a similar approach in this regard.  Now is also a good time to make the transition because of the jump in capabilities that comes with next-gen hardware (PS5/Xbox One X).  At the very least replacing their current (and rather old) engine would allow From Software to integrate facial animations in their motion capture process, as well as address long-stating camera control issues.

Setting-wise, I think the mastermind behind From Software, Hidetaka Miyazaki, is at his best when working on a new IP...which is why I'm going to bring up my idea of doing something in a sci-fi setting again.  Not necessarily hard science fiction...more like something along the lines of "Enemy Mine", "Forbidden Planet", or "Dune".  If you think of Bloodborne as Miyazaki's take on the Castlevania series, then imagine what his interpretation of Metroid would be like.  When you think about it, Elden Ring already has things like teleporters, time travel and elevators.  Swap out magic for psionics and monsters for hostile xeno-organisms and you're halfway there.  Of course, art direction and level design at From Software continue to be some of the best in the industry.  So, no need to fix what isn't broken.  That said, any new game coming out of that studio (regardless of setting) would benefit greatly from major changes to the way it plays.

The oddly named Youtuber "DJ Peach Cobbler" claims that while Elden Ring is a great game, it feels like an ending rather than a new beginning.  Another (more blandly named) Youtuber, Noah Caldwell-Gervais, echoed this sentiment in his lengthy retrospective on the Dark Souls trilogy by pointing out that making sequels to a game that is all about how clinging to the past invites disaster feels like a misstep in principle.  Every fire eventually fades.  Miyazaki and his talented team of game developers have linked the first flame that began with King's Field many times now.  The question is when will they let that fire burn out and usher in a new age?    

Not Better or Worse, Just Different

See that mountain
You can...well...let's just move on...

Having finished Elden Ring, I decided to go back and take a look at some of the older Souls series games to see how they compared.  It was an interesting experience, but the title that caught my attention the most was the PS5 remake of Demon's Souls.  In particular, Bluepoint Games had the unenviable job of trying to update this PS2 classic into a modern action-RPG.  For the most part, they succeeded.  However, I do find myself mystified by what they chose to change and what they decided to leave as is.

Take, for example, the Dragon God boss battle.  It was overly simple even by the standards of the day.  For whatever reason though it was left unchanged.  I can't help but feel like this was a missed opportunity.  A more egregious example is the shattered Archstone.  Originally cut content that was intended to be added later in the form of DLC, From Software ultimately decided to simply move on to Dark Souls instead.  Some of the level geometry and even a few foes that would have resided there were discovered thanks to the tireless effort of data miners.  It's odd that Bluepoint did try to make there own version of this area considering it was partially finished.  

Of course, the reason is because they didn't want to take creative risks...except they kind of did.  In some cases they were well implemented, such as with alterations made to certain items and multiplayer.  In other cases though, I'm not sure why they decided to make changes.  For example, the line of dialogue "Art thou done?" was replaced with "Art though finished?"  Other lines of spoken dialogue were dropped completely in the remake.  Due to audio quality issues, all voice acting had to be re-recorded and for the most part it's just as good or even better than the original.  Particularly when it comes to Patches..."Trusty Patches"..."the Hyena", "the Spider", "the Unbreakable", "the Untethered"...or if you want to go way back "Patch the Good Luck".  On the other hand King Allant and the Maiden-in-Black are noticeably less impressive.  Overall, I do like the addition of facial animations.  When it comes to From Software titles, even Elden Ring is still lacking in that regard.

Despite these criticism, I have to praise Bluepoint for being receptive to feedback and making changes accordingly.  The Flamelurker boss underwent some visual alterations after fans pointed out that the new design seemed a bit generic.  I also noticed a few tweaks made after the reveal trailer, but before the final release, with the express aim of making the color tone and oppressive gloom match more closely with original game.  Still, much like Capcom's Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes, I feel like they just missed the mark in terms of greatness.  

Shrunk to Excellence

I often write about the 4X genre (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate) of games here on this blog.  Stellaris, Master of Orion, Space Empires and the long-running Civilzation series are some of the go-to examples, but as I have mentioned in the past none of them were my introduction to this particular strategy subgenre.  That honor belongs to Spaceward Ho!  Originally launched in 1990 the game has since gone through a number of revisions and updates with the current version 5.0.5 released in 2003.  As one might notice, it's an old game, and fairly simple despite all the updates.  In-game technological advances are represented by simple numerical values with bigger being better than smaller.  There aren't any alien species to choose from just different styles of cowboy hats to represent each faction.  Heck...the "galaxies" don't even have stars, just planets floating in the void of space.  Any notion of realism is discarded; starships can look like giant cybernetic sharks or have a giant boxing glove on a spring strapped to the front of them.  The appeal of the game doesn't lie in its presentation, but rather the underlying mechanics.  Many times over the years, I have wondered if there could be a game that bridges the gap between the simplicity of Spaceward Ho! and the modern sleekness that has since been introduced to more recent 4X games.  Tactical battles, for example, consist of nothing more than rival vessels blasting each other back and forth with no way to implement maneuvers or formations.  Perhaps a bit more could be done there...?  Until recently this sort of game was merely a hypothetical concept born out of wishful thinking and an overactive imagination on my part.  As it turns out though, such a game exists and is appropriately named The Final Theory.

In fact the title of the game is less about the meta aspects of 4X design and has more to do with the in-game goal itself.  In order to win, the player must develop an unproven scientific device capable of remaking the entire galaxy.  There's a lot to do before getting to that point though so let me go over the gameplay.  Much like "metal" in  Spaceward Ho! starship construction requires a finite resource called "tacknium" found in certain sectors of the galaxy.  Final Theory doesn't bother with individual planets or even star systems, nor does it care about colonization.  Instead, it cuts off the beginning and end bits of most 4X games in order to focus on the most exciting parts that tend to happen in the midgame.

Much like Isaac Asimov's original "Foundation" trilogy, the galaxy has already been fully populated and now consists of four renegade factions as well as the remnants of a once all-encompassing interstellar empire.  Color coding is the only visual difference between each of these five rival entities (unless you want to buy some cosmetic DLC that provides alternate looks to each faction's starships).  Incidentally, the ships themselves are divided into traditional nautical nomenclature: frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship and dreadnaught.  Each ship type is made distinct by the offensive and defensive weaponry at its disposal.  Battles take place on a two-dimensional hexagonal plain.  Ranges, firing arcs, movement speeds and the potential to inflict damage (based on whether a particular weapon system is more effective against shields or armor) are all factors to consider.  Thankfully, turn-based combat means that the player can take as much time as they like weighing the pros and cons of each of their many options.  The hulks of destroyed ships act as obstacles, adding another dynamic to the battlefield.  This variety of things-to-be-considered also extends to the strategic layer of the game in that each sector has a specialization.  Sometimes this consists of the ability to construct ships of a certain class.  Interestingly enough, once built, the vessel is moved to a "reserve" from which it can be deployed to any sector containing construction facilities regardless of the category.  This is an especially important mechanic to keep in mind since each faction (including the player's) can only move one fleet per turn on the galactic map.  So, sometimes deploying an all new fleet is quicker than moving an existing one to a desired location.  The size of individual fleets is also limited, but can be expanded by taking control of sectors that specialize in increasing that particular stat.

One aspect of The Final Theory that initially confused me was the various resources that the player accumulates and spends.  Aside from the aforementioned tacknium (needed for ship construction) there are engineering points, development points, and enriched tacknium.  All three can be acquired simply by controlling sectors that produce them in small, but never ending quantities.  Engineering and development points can also be gained through victory in combat.  The former is used to upgrade a particular class of ship, unlocking new abilities and allowing players to tweak the relative strength levels of armor, weapons and shields.  Development points work similarly, but are for smaller more specific upgrades.  Typically these sorts of modifications increase the damage or reduce the cooldown time for one ability found on a particular ship class.  Despite the name, enriched tacknium is only tangentially related to regular tacknium and is used solely to detonate a special bomb capable of wiping out an entire fleet (while simultaneously creating a nice new deposit of tacknium to mine).  There's also "data" that is gained through conquest and needed to trigger the final theory device that ends the game.

A few other gameplay mechanics worthy of note are as follows:

• A new harvester can only be placed in a sector every other turn.  This somewhat limits how fast any of the four upstart factions can expand their fleets.
• Access to a sector can temporarily be blocked once every four turns using a FTL disruptor.
• Starships can be recycled for half their original value in tacknium.
• Once a faction reaches a certain size they can launch a propaganda campaign once every other turn in an attempt to gain control of a neighboring sector.  The chances of success depend on a number of factors that I won't bother going into here.  Needless to say, it serves as  a nifty way to snatch up sectors of limited strategical value.

As you can see, there are a number of subsystems at work in The Final Theory.  Overall, it's still less complicated than say Stellaris, and yet not as simple as Spaceward Ho!  Some of the mechanics might feel needlessly restrictive but, much like rules for a well thought out board game, they exist to present the player with lots of meaningful decisions...and at the heart of it, isn't that what strategy gaming is all about?     

Dustrunner

Years and years ago, before the dark times, I played the demo for a rather unique driving game called Spintires.  It was little more than a technical showcase involving various Russian-made trucks and jeeps in a wilderness setting.  No objectives existed, but players could drive down muddy unpaved roads, ford rivers or even go cross-country through forests and swamps.  There was a day/night cycle, as well as a distinct atmosphere that I can only imagine is what Siberia feels like in the middle of summer.  Eventually, an early access version of Spintires was released, but I never played it due to a somewhat convoluted legal controversy surrounding the game's development.  I wont bother to go into detail...suffice to say, the original team moved on to a new project called Mudrunner.  I did purchase and play this game, which is very similar to Spintires just with an increased emphasis on transporting lumber from the forests where it's harvested to the mills where it is processed.  As far as concepts go, it was interesting in that (unlike other driving games) player have to pay special attention to pathfinding and logistics.  I never played any of the paid DLC, but my understanding is some of it takes place in the USA which turned out to be foreshadowing for what came next.

Snowrunner is, in my opinion, the full realization of what began as that original Spintires demo.  Gameplay takes place across three distinct locations: Michigan, Alaska, and Taymyr.  Objectives are quite varied and consist of hauling everything from supplies and construction materials to massive machines such as oil drilling rigs.  More incentives have been added to scouting and exploration.  There as also numerous recovery missions involving vehicles that have become trapped or disabled due to environmental hazards.  Overall, it feels like a much more fleshed out experience.  I even developed a bond with some of my favorite trucks to the point that I couldn't bring myself to sell a few of them even when superior replacements were readily available.  All that said, I have yet to finish Snowrunner.  I played the game quite a bit when it first launched, but chose to leave the Russian third of the game largely unfinished.  In part, this was due to the game needing a bit more polish, but more so because an extra map for the Taymyr region was in the works.  Well...that piece of content is out along with a bunch of paid DLC.  I haven't touched any of the DLC yet (maybe when it goes on sale..), but I have since began wrapping those loose ends.  As I chip my way through the few remaining tasks, I find myself wondering what comes next.  Will there be a sequel to Snowrunner?

A post-apocalyptic setting might sound cliché these days...even so, I think there is an opportunity for the developers of Mudrunner and Snowrunner to put there own unique spin on it.  Unlike...say... Mad Max, there doesn't need to be bands of raiders.  Instead, this hypothetical follow up could have the danger come from mother nature.  When you think about it, stuff like sandstorms, radiation zones, wreckage and rubble can pose all manner of challenges for players to overcome with the overall goal being to help humanity move onto to a post-post-apocalyptic world.  Vehicle customization could be greatly expanded upon since it wouldn't be necessary to adhere to particular makes and models of trucks.  When you get down to it the developers  have already dabbled in this genre a bit what with flooded-out Michigan and long-neglected Taymyr feeling like they have experienced an apocalypse.  Not to mention the fact that the local residents are looking to player to help them get back onto their proverbial feet.

This sort of setting could also provide the framework for greater mission variety.  There could even be some nods to the classics with players doing things like delivering a water purification system or establishing a local postal service.  Personally, I like the idea of having to disarm old boobytraps the makers of which have long since been lost to history.  Environments are another area that can potentially posses a lot visual variety.  Keeping with the three distinct regions in Snowrunner, there could be the ruins of an overgrown cityscape, a desert with scorching salt flats and sunbaked cliffs, and a frost-covered wasteland pockmarked by craters, dead trees and rusting hulks.  Anyway...I think I have said enough to stimulate the imagination of most people.  Time to get back to it.  These bricks aren't going to deliver themselves.  

All Because of an Axe

Respawn Entertainment (makers of Titanfall) released a game a little while back called Apex Legends.  It's one of those Free-to-play multiplayer titles capitalizing on the battle royale craze that is sweeping the online shooter market.  By most accounts it's a good example of the sub-genre, but there has been one big catch; the parent company of Respawn is none other than Electronic Arts.

Yup...EA, the video game publishing company that has become the embodiment of bad business practices is pulling the strings.  So, unsurprisingly after reviews had come out praising the game, the dev team decided to introduce an "event" involving pricey cosmetic DLC sold via loot boxes.  Introducing "surprise mechanics" in video games still seems to be EA's modus operandi despite all the controversy and backlash surrounding this particular monetization scheme.  Predictably, there has been a lot of community friction recently.  To say things have become ugly would be an understatement, I think.  What caught me off guard though was the development team's reaction.  After trying the "we're sorry (but not really)" approach certain employees at Respawn decided to vent their wrath on customers.  Basically, the counterattack headed by the community manager and project leader has been spearheaded by claims that the player base is being overly hostile and abusive.

It's accurate to a degree, but doesn't address the fundamental issue - exploitative  monetization practices.  Complaining about socially inept basement-dwellers being mean on twitter or reddit feels suspiciously like an attempt to deflect criticism and draw the discussion away from what started the problem to begin with.  It's also worth mentioning that some of these toxic elements are teenagers who are irate because they are being psychologically manipulated.  Are these kids being articulate when it comes to expressing frustration with being treated like idiot cash-cows?  In many cases certainly not, but in their defense they're not adults.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure everyone working at Respawn and EA is in their 20s and 30s (if not older).  Yet, some these people who hold positions of power in a multimillion dollar corporation sink to the level of irate children when called out on their scummy behavior.  It's a sad state in that the opportunity for a grown-up conversation has been lost because of all the temper tantrums.  Sign of the times, I guess...

Of course Vince Zampella (the president of Respawn) eventually did step in and attempted to clear the air with an apology message...which failed to address the fundamental issue of quasi-gambling in-game microtransactions in any way shape or form.  Instead, the discorse is entirely framed around who's the victim here - gamers or game creators.  The truth is both are...at the hands of triple-AAA publishers like EA. 

RE2.5

It's a little difficult to find the right term for the new version of Resident Evil 2.  Is it a remake?...a remaster?  It's not a reboot, nor is it a reimagining.  Personally, I kind of like the notion that it's Resident Evil 2.5 since there was an aborted attempt by Capcom to make a sequel to the original that fans have dubbed Resident Evil 1.5 (there's even a nod to it in the new game in the form of one of Claire Redfield's DLC costumes).  Labels aside, I sort of forgot how much RE2 is like the movie Aliens.

Goopy hives, embryo implantation, and monsters bursting out of people chests are some of the more obvious similarities.  In a broader sense there is the transition from a purley horror original (Alien and RE1) to a more action-driven sequel.  The relationship between Ripley and Newt feels mirrored in a lot of ways with Claire and Sherry.  There's also some reworked themes having to do with government institutions falling prey to corporate influences (swap Weyland-Yutani with Umbrella Pharmaceutical and Colonial Marines with Racoon City Police and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.  Heck, in both film and game a lot of time is spent poking around the the ruins of a fortified position.  On top of all that, the finale has a surprise fourth act involving a final showdown right after a self-destruct sequence.

Gameplay-wise, the new RE2 is superior to the old PSX version in almost every way.  Even so, I feels like the dev team missed out on an opportunity to more tightly intertwine the stories of Leon and Claire.  I also miss the ability to head stomp leg-biting zombies.  Ada's high-heel shoes seem really out of place to me too.  I know she's supposed to be a femme fatale and all, but those shoes?...with all the walkway gratings?...and monsters about?...and after that nasty thigh wound?  This might sound like an insane nitpick, but remember she did have much more sensible footwear in the old game.  Nitpicks aside, the game is pretty darn scary in places; zombie ambushes and that T-00 (a.k.a. Mr. X) got me pretty good a couple of times.

I've heard a rumor that the team behind the new RE2 will be doing a similar treatment of Resident Evil 3 next.  If so, I't be interested in playing that game as well.  I have fond memories of playing cat-and-mouse with the Nemesis bioweapon through the streets of Racoon City.  Certain aspects of that game may require a more serious overhaul than what was done to RE2 though.  I can't see the quasi-QTE's of that game being well received these days, nor the anti-climatic showdown with the secondary antagonist Nikolai.  Still, counting spin-offs, I can honestly say RE3 is better than the majority of Resident Evil games and as such I think a RE3.5 has potential.

Sticking the Landing

I've recently been reading through "Swords v. Cthulhu" - an anthology of short stories.  For the most part, it's an interesting collection of fantasy/horror fiction.  The one big exception being an annoying tendency for many contributing authors to fumble the conclusion.  It's not a problem exclusive to creative writing.  Far from it, most forms of entertainment media have the same kind of issues to varying degrees.

Sadly, when it comes to video games, I can't say it has been a recent problem.  Many older games have had notoriously awful endings, in no small part due to the assumption that few players would actually ever make it the finish before moving on to something else.  Hence, developers rarely felt the need to put real effort into that last bit before the credits roll.  A couple of games that I think concluded on a strong note are Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Vandal Hearts, Ghouls and Ghosts, as well as the original Valkyria Chronicles.  Contrary to expectation, a large number of highly regarded story-driven games kind of drop the ball at the end.  Pretty much all the Silent Hill titles have overly obtuse finales, and the Soulsborne series (for all the attention I give it) unanimously finishes up in a manner far too abrupt for the amount of time and effort it takes to make it there.  That's not to say every game needs to conclude with an hour long cutscene, but when you look at the amount of building up the Mass Effect trilogy did you're left wondering what the heck they were thinking by slapping on those half-ass red/blue/green endings.

The problem can be so pronounced within the industry at times I sometimes think that, when coming up with a narrative arc, game designers should figure out the ending first and then work their way back from there.  Otherwise this whole player-not-finishing-the-game-because-of-crap-endings becomes a self-perpetuating loop.  One way I've seen developers try to circumvent the issue is by playing up the idea of a trilogy, or at the very least a definite sequel.  Everything from triple-AAA titles like Halo 2 to indie games such as the Banner Saga 2 try to pull it off.  Occasionally, it works out well enough, but more often than not we get Half-life 2.  Some games don't even make it that far.  The Order 1886 just stops abruptly at what would normally be the second act in a three act story with no sequel forthcoming.

These sorts of screw-ups are why I prefer self-contained plotlines that give a sense of closure even if there's a sequel in the cards.  From a business perspective, I get it.  Publishers are convinced they'll make more money off their IPs if they leave the customers wanting more.  Sometimes these sort of monetization techniques can get blatantly exploitative; such is the case in Dead Space 3's real ending being paid DLC.  Obviously, a non-trivial number of players got sick and tired of all these half-baked story arcs to the point that companies like EA and their ilk decided that narrative driven experiences are no longer profitable.  Gee...I wonder who made it like that...?  Maybe it's not good business sense to trash an integral part of game design just to make a quick buck.

Two Pronged Attack

"It's the 90s all over again!" when it comes to video games and government legislation.  In the wake of recent school shootings the president of the United States wants to (maybe?) have a meeting with the ESA to discuss violence in video games and the potentially negative impact it's having on the youth of today.  Coming from the opposite direction is a grassroots push to get loot boxes and other quasi-forms of gambling mechanics out of mainstream gaming.  Should enthusiasts of this beloved hobby of ours be concerned?...eh, yes and no.

If you asked me ten years ago about what the World Health Organization is calling "gaming addiction" I would have told you it's a load of crap.  However, given the direction over the last decade or so of publishers going out of their way to introduce psychologically researched methods of manipulating players out of their money, it's not hard to see how some people might get hooked into becoming a "whale."  I still think that the underlying vulnerability to these sorts of predatory practices is caused by issues such as OCD or depression.  Treating that fundamental problem should be the overriding priority since gaming addiction is at worst a symptom of a much larger concern.  Additionally, there are still a lot of games that do not deal in micro-transaction based revenue streams.  The vast majority of games with "addictive" mechanics are MOBAs, MMORPGs, competitive online shooters, and free-to-pay (not a typo) mobile games.  If you are like me and not really into any of these particular sub-genres then I'd say you're relatively safe.  The thing is companies like WB interactive, EA, and Activision are pushing hard to turn the industry into nothing but these sorts of games; all branded under the "live services" PR label.  Speaking as someone who enjoys single-player narrative-driven experiences, I can't say I have been very happy with the direction the industry is going in for a long time now.  Does that mean that I welcome government regulation?...not really, but what other recourse do we have?

Boycotts have proven to be notoriously ineffective.  The ESRB/ESA are as corrupt and useless as the teamsters union cercia World War II.  FYI, did you know that the ESRB doesn't actually vet any of the games it tags with those E, T, M or AO labels?  The publisher just submits some paperwork, pays a fee and that's it.  What do they do then?  Well...aside from pocketing money for next to nothing, ESRB does pass some cash over to the ESA for bribes - excuse me - "lobbying" government representatives to look the other way.  Back in the 90s when the ESRB first came into existence they did a good job of compromising between the opposing groups.  Concerned mothers got their MPAA-style rating system while simultaneously not having to violate the first amendment.  This time around though, things are a bit different.

Contrary to Extra Credits' claim, I don't see any artistic value or merit in loot boxes.  In fact removing them from the hobby entirely would probably greatly improve things from a developer/consumer perspective.  The only real beneficiaries here are publishers, who (suprise-suprise!) give a lot of money to the ESA.  It's really just about profiteering, although that hasn't stopped some groups from trying to play the censorship card anyway.  The ESRB's attempts at self-regulation this time around are also a joke.  Unlike their original rating system, which is a step up from what the movie industry uses, this decision to tag any product containing in-game purchases is not only overly broad, but easily circumvented in that a company could introduce loot boxes through software updates anytime post-launch and avoid the label altogether.

So should we be concerned?  It depends on who you are and what you stand for.  More than anything else though it's a matter of a rich and powerful few getting to decide things for all the rest of us...and that sucks...even more than having to pay real money for additional save-slots in Metal Gear Survive.

Meta Games

In the indie space it's fairly common to see developers experimenting with the limits of what video games can achieve.  One direction I've seen being pushed increasingly the last couple years is in a meta direction.  "What is game?" is a question that was first brought to my attention with the Stanley Parabola about four years ago and is one which I'd like to address here by pointing out three specific examples.

What starts out as a VR adaptation of Duck Hunt on a pseudo-NES, turns more sinister the longer you play.  I won't get into the story details, but I would like to mention that the game uses the virtual reality headset to allow the player to see through the eyes of a child (complete with a 1980s home built around playing one of those third generation video game consoles).  It's all rather immersive in that the player can swap out cartridges to try out different games, stick in a VHS tape and watch live-action video on an old CRT, or even interact with various objects in the house.  Although you're limited movement-wise the weather outside the house seems to imply a hot sunny afternoon.  Perhaps the environment was crafted based on one or more of the developers' childhood memories from a leisurely summer school break.  Funnily enough when you pop in the Duck Season game cartridge the player is quite literally drawn into the TV set and a version of the game that feels much more consistent with a modern adaptation of Duck Hunt rather than the 8-bit version it's supposed to be based on.  Oh and that hound has a Donnie Darko thing going on...just replace Frank the Rabbit with the Dog from Duck Hunt.

Advertised as a text-based adventure game it actually has more in common with an old television series like Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone.  The story is broken into three seemingly unrelated episodes and a fourth info-dump that ties everything up into a big metatextual ball.  This is one of those games that sets up players with a series of extraordinary events and then hits them with an ending twist that's actually very mundane.  If you've played The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Firewatch or Gone Home you probably know exactly what I'm talking about.  If not, then let's just say it's not my cup of tea.  Performing medical/scientific procedures on an unknown specimen is intriguing.  Relaying weapon deployment codes from a remote base somewhere in the frozen wastes of Greenland?  Riveting!  Even the first episode which features the double layer of the player using his or her computer to manipulate an in-game character to play a text-based game on their computer (which in turn seems to affect that reality) is trippy and bizzare in interesting ways...alas, learning that it's actually just a daydream fantasy made up by an ordinary loser who made some questionable life choices is kind of a let down.

Billed as an educational game, the demo version of PC Building Simulator has been freely available for download off the internet for the better part of a year now.  However, a more fully realized version of the game is set for a January 2018 release.  From the perspective of trying to teach people how to build PC desktops without make costly time consuming mistakes, I can see why this piece of software might have a degree of widespread appeal.  That said, the whole notion of using your computer to build another computer in a simulated environment is more than a little weird when you take a step back and look at it objectively.  When we're done building a simulation of a PC are we going to use that PC to run a simulated version of PC Building Simulator and build another PC in that one?  If so, things are starting to look a lot like one of the endless series of reflections you get by placing two mirrors face to face.  I suppose this sort of game coming out was inevitable considering that there are over 200 unique pieces of software for sale on Steam (not counting DLC) that have the world "Simulator" in the title.  Maybe a better name for PC Building Simulator would be Simulation Simulator...or is that too meta?

Tools of the Trade

"Now, where did I put the Rifle Spear...?"

Over the New Year's break I noticed a Bloodborne sale on PSN with all the DLC included.  So, I finally decided to pick myself up a copy.  I'm a big fan of Demon's Souls and the first Dark Souls, but Dark Souls 2 gave me a severe case of franchise fatigue.  As such, it took me a long time to work up the motivation to play yet another one of From Software's brutally difficult third-person action RPGs.  For the most part Bloodborne is an excellent next-step in terms of design.  A lot of the needlessly complicated baggage that muddled aspects of the Souls series has been refined and streamlined in Bloodborne; the number of character attributes has been reduced, the complex system of equipment upgrade trees has been greatly pruned, the repost technique has been modified by replacing parrying with "boomsticking," and the weapon list has been mostly stripped of redundancy.  That last point is a bit controversial amongst Souls fans in that some prefer a wider variety than what's available in Bloodborne.  I would argue that the greater variety found in the Souls games is actually an illusion though in that weapon categories sharing the same moveset usually have one among their number which is undeniably superior in every way, a fact that renders all the rest undesirable (at least in the long run).  Regardless of what individual fans feel about the limited arsenal, I think there's one thing pretty much everyone can agree on - weapons in Bloodborne are kind of weird.

The closest there is to a
Bloodborne table-top RPG

Before continuing, I should clarify that last statement by saying particularly when it comes to melee.  Given the faux-historical setting blunderbusses, wheellocks, and other black powder firearms are a logical fit.  That said, "hunters," as they are called in-game, have some bizzare tastes when it comes to doing their job up close and personal.  Take, for example, the iconic starting weapon - the Saw Cleaver.  To me it looks suspiciously like an oversized straight razor.  Similarly, the Whirligig has a shape reminiscent of a pizza cutter.  The Flamesprayer has an uncanny resemblance to a plant mister (with the obvious exception that it shoots fire instead of water).  The Kirkhammer might actually be an exceptionally large meat tenderizer, while the Tonitrus looks more like a scepter lacking in adornments rather than a precursor to the stunbatton.  The Threaded Cane is just that, a cane (that happens to be made of segmented joints).  Then there is the Logarius Wheel which is...yes, you guessed it...a wagon wheel with some nasty bits attached to it.  Meanwhile, weapons like the stakedriver, church pick and hunter's axe feel more appropriate for use in construction work than combat.  The Burial Blade is basically a swiss-army scythe (great for harvesting wheat and it folds up nicely!).  Based on it's own descriptive text, the Fist of Gratia is really just a lump of iron with some crude finger holes in it.  In other words, if it were a bit rounder you could go bowling with it.  The Rifle Spear looks like an enlarged version of a penknife.  Lastly there's some creature's arm, a beast's claw and a parasitic organism, all of which can be used in battle (although they might be better suited to a jar of formaldehyde sitting on some biologist's specimen shelf).

As I said before, not all weapons in Bloodborne are such strange combinations of utility and deformity.  Ludwig's Holy Blade is most definitely a sword, as is the Chikage.  Even the exotic reiterpallasch is actually based on real-world renaissance era prototypes of attempts to combine firearm and blade into a single weapon.  Having said that, realistic weapons are definitely in the minority when it comes to a hunter's arsenal.  Then again, when you're up against werewolves, vampires, and the Cthulhu Mythos (in all but name) the best option might be to fight unconventional foes with unconventional weaponry.

Wash Up and Eat Properly

There's been a recent uptake in discussions regarding the cost of game development.  In particular single-player story-driven experiences are, according to certain triple AAA  publishers, no longer financially viable as a one-time 60 dollar charge; hence the reason we see companies like EA abandoning the market space, while other publishers (such as WB) try to cram as much DLC, loot boxes and other microtransaction driven schemes into their games as possible.  Personally, I have doubts about these claims of infeasibility...it's not like any of these companies are allowing us inspect their accounting records.  Sure making video games has become a much more resource intensive process than it was during the 8 and 16-bit eras, but to offset that there's a wealth of third-party development tools available, in addition to a much larger potential customer base.  However, for the sake of argument let's presume that they really are in the red.  I can think of three easy ways these poor publishers could get back in the black.

Rumor has it that some of EA's past games were marked on budgets equal to the amount actually spent making the game.  In other words, they could have reduced the development costs of certain games by nearly 50 percent simply by dumping all the thirty second advertisements in lieu of sending some free copies out to Youtubers and Twitch streamers.  It seems silly to do otherwise considering word of mouth has, for a long time, carried more weight than simple product placement.  Visceral Studio, the now defunct makers of the Dead Space series, was based out of San Francisco...one of the most expensive cities in the world.  When you look at companies like IBM, they have all but deserted their corporate offices in large part because it's no longer necessary to have everyone under the same roof.  A variety of video games, including Kerbal Space Program as well as Ori and the Blind Forest, were made by a team scattered across the globe that coordinated their development efforts via the internet.  This sort of dispersed workforce brings up the question of executive supervision.  Former EA employees have gone on record saying that the company has a nontrivial number of people who get paid a lot to do very little.  Reducing wasteful administrative spending though is only one part of the problem when it comes to leadership.

Asset creation is a time consuming process that needs to be channelled by a strong directorial vision.  Too many games waste time and money on stuff the player doesn't notice, doesn't care about, or is thoroughly unimpressed by.  When you look at games such as The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, or more recently Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, it's amazing what a relatively small team can accomplish.  Could they have added more provided they had the time/money/people?  Sure.  Would it have improved the experience significantly.  Not really.  Some developers have a bad habit of stretching the scope of their game in the vain hope that bigger equals better.  This often leads to over budget hot garbage, or titles that are trapped in an early access limbo for, seemingly, an eternity.  In other words, it's better to come up with a tight concept and execute on it rather than faffing about half conceived notions of open-world games with crafting and rogue-like elements.  Fun isn't going to materialize from the ether just because you keep attach more bells and whistles.

This brings me to my final point which is trend chasing.  As far as I know nobody has gotten rich making Minecraft clones or Clash of Clans copycats.  Worse still are flash-in-the-pan hits like Angry Birds and Farmville.  Real success comes from franchises like the Soulsborne series...which, I should stress, wasn't an instant hit; Before Demon's Souls there was King's Field and before Command and Conquer there was Dune II: Battle for Arrakis.  It takes time, money, effort and a few iterations on an idea to cultivate something that is both innovative and entertaining.  Hitting paydirt straight out of the gate is exceedingly rare and in most cases fleeting.

Of course most businesses only see the future in terms of next quarter profits, and as such often screw themselves when it comes to sustainable profits.  They can scoop whales and dolphins out of the water for awhile, but how long until that well runs dry?  More importantly, where's the respect for the craft?  I'm not going to climb on my high horse and claim video games are art, but at the very least they are supposed to be for the express purposes of entertaining the people who buy them...not to abuse and exploit.  This is rapidly degrading into a rant so I'll wrap it up by simply saying developer harassment and death threats are not acceptable, but publishers and shareholders that push this kind of garbage need to engage in some serious introspection rather than dumping their problems on enthusiasts of the hobby.