Cut me in half and count the rings

So I was online the other day, and I got invited into a chat party on my PS4 while I was playing Overwatch. These guys, who I’d never played with before, started talking to me and asking me questions. One of them was: “How old are you?”

To wit, I responded: “Old”.

Now, in context – it was true. Turned out I had nearly a decade on most of them, and an actual decade on one of them. But, in reality, I’m not that old. I’m currently (shudder) in my early thirties. But, in terms of the demographic, I guess I am old.

I later related this story to my wife, who guessed that they were quite a bit younger than me, and we got to talking about gaming as it relates to age. Which made me wonder – is there an age where people say “I’m too old for this”?

True story: My grandmother is probably as old or older than this lady, and she still games on her NES/SNES. She’s a Donkey Kong Country boss. You need to know where a hidden banana coin is – she knows.

On point: I can’t say that there is a time in my life where I think I will no longer be interested in gaming. And thankfully, I failed 5/5 on this Cracked list of reasons you’re too old for gaming. So there’s that.

But the truth is – it’s pretty rare that I find myself playing with anyone older than me. In the last ten years, I can only think of two times where I was surprised to find out the age of someone I was playing with. One being a 70+ year old who was in my first WoW guild. And, strangely enough, the other guy was someone I regularly played Diablo 3 with. Maybe there is some corollary between Blizzard games and elderly gamers…But I digress.

The thing I find strange is this: to be an avid gamer is really a young man’s game. Mostly due to the kind of time requirements involved. Obviously, responsibilities and priorities change as we age. Significant others and kids, etc get in the way of the 10 hour/full weekend gaming binges we once knew. Though, I can also recall a couple I played WoW with who would parent while raiding high-level content. But, that may not be the best idea. The time constraints of life definitely factor out people after a certain age. I can even see this happening to me.

Simultaneously, though, having the kind of disposable income to keep oneself in games and new consoles is certainly the privilege of the otherwise employed. When I was a student, my gaming library was quite a bit more sparse. Thinking back to…2003/4 I certainly didn’t have much going on in the gaming department. I had my PS2, which I had gotten as a Christmas gift when I was still in high school, a Gamecube I got on sale for a whopping 99$ and maybe 10 games between the two of them before WoW came out. Then my gaming money went to the whopping 15$ monthly.

So, there must be a sweet spot somewhere in there for the ideal gaming age. But again, I digress.

Is there a time where we have to say “I’m too old for this”? I say no. Because I will always love games the same way I will always love movies. Do I foresee a point where I have to step back a little to focus on other things? Sadly, yes. But stepping back isn’t stepping away. Quitting gaming, for me, would be denying a part of my personality. It would be saying goodbye to something that makes me me. So, I won’t be doing that. Besides, giving up now would mean I would never get to use the Holodeck. Yes, that’s where I see things goes. And I won’t miss out.

What do you think? Will you ever throw in the towel? Are you already too old? Let me know below.

– The Ego

Here’s to the ones we love

I’m not ashamed to admit that I cried the first time I finished Final Fantasy Tactics (and I know someone will probably complain about spoilers, but if you haven’t played it by now – too bad).

When you find out that Ramza and Alma are dead – oh man, it pretty much crushed me. They were easily two of the only likable people throughout the entire plot. In terms of being good people, anyway. I mean, I love Delita Hyral – he is still one of my favourite characters from any media, game or otherwise, but I do tend to root for the villains. So when we see their graves, and people saying how great they were and how sad it was that they died – oh man – tear central. Of course, when they appear moments later you’re given to smile because they were faking it all along, but it doesn’t change the those moments where you thought they were gone.

But here’s what I ask you: Who is it and why do you love them?

Now, I’m not saying you always have to have an emotional investment for the characters to be loved by you – they don’t all have to reduce you to tears. But there has to be some kind of investment.

I think the leading reason has to be: time invested. Truth be told, there are times when bad things happen to main characters, even protagonists, who are good people – and I laugh, or outright just don’t care. So it isn’t necessarily that I hate to see bad things happen to good characters – like the Beoulves. Given that I probably spent over 200 hours with them – grinding their levels up and following their story, I think it’s easy to see why the connection was established. Hell, I still well up every time I replay that game and I already know what’s going to happen… On the contrary, when I play games like Skyrim that make you the protagonist – I don’t rightly care when I fall off of a mountain or get eaten by a dragon. Ironically, the fact that I’m supposed to be the protagonist makes me care less about the fate of the character. In defense of that sort of narrative – the ultimate fate of the protagonist is left open-ended because there is usually more game to play after the story is over.

The other main connection is generally made when you see elements of the character’s personality reflect aspects of your own. Or, to a much greater extent, traits that you seen in your idealised self.

I personally identify more with the villains in games because they were less hyper-moral. They tend to be moral relativists – which has a very appealing nature. Now, I don’t mean I like the despots and terrible people. But in cases like Final Fantasy Tactics – Delita is the “villain” because he’s effectively willing to do what he has to do to better the world (as he sees it) even if that means betrayal, murder, etc and generally not giving a fuck about the system in place. I can relate.

He displays ruthlessness, ambition, intelligence and integrity (a skewed personal integrity of course), and these are all traits I admire and would like to think I display (though obviously to a lesser extent, given that I haven’t personally overthrown any governments to date). And honestly, the motivations of the villains do tend to be more interesting, rather than the bland desire “to make things right”. Which is often the case. Of course, there are great protagonists, like Booker in Bioshock: Infinite, whose morality is shaken at best, and his personal quest is fueled by all kinds of relativist agendas and questionable actions.

So, all of that to say, there are a myriad of reasons to love a character. I’ve gone through some of mine. What are yours? Is there a game or character that really did you in? Let me know in the comments or on whichever platform you prefer.

– The Ego

 

Buy, Buy, Buy

Has gaming gotten too commercial?

I mean, at its core, obviously the industry is a business. With making money as its key component. I personally have never been one to shy away from a good collector’s edition and I can say for certain, I have more than a few gaming collectibles about my house. But the question I’m asking myself, and you, is: is there a line in the sand?

I’m not even sure that the auxiliaries are necessarily the problem. Expanding the market on an already commercial product is pretty much a given. I mean, if there is a way that a company can make up for a loss in profit or a short fall from one title in order to shore up a studio, make sure that quality games are still seeing the light of day, then I’m all for all of the licensed extras. Even if I don’t personally partake.

No, I think the problem – assuming there is one – lies in the development process itself. If companies start looking at games solely as vehicles for quarterly profits, then we start to see issues. Namely – because we start to see games that are rough around the edges, at best, and at worst – incomplete games.

I think that’s the central thesis here.

And I don’t necessarily just mean games full of bugs. Though – we have sure seen our fair share of those over the last few years.

Having worked QA testing for a bigger release I can say this: Sometimes it’s just not possible to attend to all bugs. Game release schedules are much tighter, budgets are lower and staff expectations are higher. That being said – I think we would all like to see less of things like this.

However, when I say incomplete games, I mean incomplete. As in, you get to reel three of the movie and all it says is “Reel Missing”.

I think of games like Fable 3 – if you’ll be so kind as to let me dredge up the past. I mean, that game had a huge following and made big promises. Now, I’m less concerned (for the purposes of this post) with the broken promises. But what I can say was missing was any kind of discernible plot. The game’s first half basically had you working towards dethroning the king. Once you accomplished that, it was preperation for the war to come. But then it came, and there was really no explanation as to why or what it was you were fighting. The game just comes to a crashing halt as you battle this ignominious enemy.

Or, if you want a more recent example – the much vilified No Man’s Sky jumps right to the forefront.

Now, at it’s core, I still think No Man’s Sky is a pretty good game. And, admittedly I haven’t played it since the “update”, it is supposed to be better.

But the idea that this game – devoid of the majority of its features, would actually launch, is a special kind of deviousness. Seeing this is the perfect example to me that the industry’s commercial interests have become pervasive. It tells me that the industry doesn’t care enough about consumers that they’ll just release whatever and hope we don’t stir up a fuss.

Worse yet, it’s a sign that they think we are placated enough that the majority of people will just buy. Regardless the quality of the product. And sadly, in some ways, we’ve proven them right. That’s not to say some fuss isn’t put up and there isn’t the occasional backlash. But there is a lot of complacency on the part of the consumer as well.

This is all to say that there is a level of acceptance on both sides that has become unacceptable. Though the responsibility still lies mostly on the corporate culture side of things. But we, as consumers (and gamers) need to hold everyone accountable and be willing to forgo the latest game if it’s being produced poorly.

– The Ego

Rebuttle

Ok, so this post is a response to the following article I read on IGN last week (PSX and GOTY took precedence over me writing this counter-argument). I recommend reading it before reading this.

Here’s the link.

First off, in case this hasn’t become abundantly clear through my use of u’s in my words, I am Canadian. So I won’t be addressing the American Dream/American conflict aspects of the article. I am, however, going to break down the three aspects of the argument where I think the piece falls apart.

Guns sell/Sex Sells

Yes, of course this is true. People love to be excited and titillated. And, just like sex in games and movies, if it’s just shoe-horned in there for no other reason than because ‘who doesn’t like a bunch of violence and some fucking?’ – then I agree it’s stupid and it’s hindering the game. I’m no prude or violence abolitionist – but when something is there for no reason but to serve itself (like 90% of the sex in shows like True Blood) – it annoys me. And in those cases, I would agree that it is just a hindrance. It won’t further serve the art form, and it won’t lead to more great games being made. But one could easily make that argument for a number of things that hold the medium back. Once again – there is no one thing that is stopping the progression of games from getting better.

The Bioshock Paradox

So, the “ludonarrative dissonance” mentioned as the main issue with the series is mistaken, flat out. The whole thing about Bioshock is it’s a morality tale in story and in play. Put a man in a chaotic situation and make him fend for his life – and survival instincts are going to kick in. But where the “dissonance” fails to rear its head is in the choices you make – slaughter the Little Sisters for power and become a monster. Save them, and be a hero. And this choice has nothing to do with guns. The Last of Us is a perfect game to go hand-in-hand with Bioshock on this point. Is there combat? Yes, but it’s presence is not the aspect of the game anyone is (necessarily) praising it for. The guns in this game are simply a vehicle. A mechanic to push the story forward in order to get the story out of it. Could you do it without the guns? Definitely. And it would make a great movie. Does the action/inclusion of guns as a medium hinder the actual story or the message that Ken Levine is trying to get across? Not in the least. If anything, I would argue that the gameplay, in this case, is the most minor part of the series.

Playing it Safe

Is there laziness in the gaming industry? Fuck yes. Like any industry. Sometimes it’s just easier to make another game where you just shoot a bunch of dudes and forget about it. Where the story is just a reason to shoot more people. I get that. The same way the music industry pawns off derivative clones of pop music stars whose albums are nigh-indistinguishable. And there are times where the guns are there for no other reason than people like shooting people in games. I do agree, in a sense, that FPS games like Doom, CoD, etc are safe AAA games to make. They have a following, and they don’t require much in the way of “creativity” to an extent. But the genre of gun-heavy games compared to the rest of the industry is a relatively small number. For every CoD there is a Portal, Skyrim, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Heavy Rain and the list goes on.

So, thesis statement: Are guns holding the medium back? No. Are there numerous games with heavy-handed (gun) violence shoe-horned in to create appeal? Definitely. But the medium, as stated, is in its infancy and it is already proving that it is more than a one trick pony.

– The Ego

Prey for me

I know from time to time we all get at least a little excited – delve into the hype so to speak – over a new game. One of those games for me was Kingdom Hearts 3. When it was announced, I was going absolutely nuts. Waiting for it though, has softened that blow a bit in the interim. But Kingdom Hearts isn’t what I want to talk about today.

Today I’m going to talk about my new hype wet dream: Prey.

Before I get into it, if you haven’t watched the new footage released by Arkane Studios, do it now:

Arkane Studios is one of those up and coming game makers – well that may be under selling them a bit. Having released both Dishonored and its sequel – I think they’ve made it. But what I mean is – they haven’t got a lot of titles under their proverbial belt. But everything they have put out has met critical and financial success and has been extremely well received by fans.

And in comes my newest obsession: Prey. Now, when they released the first trailer at E3 last year, it piqued my interested. And, in my spaghetti against the wall method of pre-ordering games, Prey was one of those games. I mean, worst case scenario the game turns out to look bad or I lose interest, I cancel. But I can say right now – this is a day one buy and play. And, saying that about any game for me is basically the highest praise I’d give it. Even if I hadn’t pre-ordered it at a discount, I would happily buy this at full price on day one.

The game seems to carry with it tropes from a variety of different and amazing games. The one that strikes me the most from the onset is how similar it looks to Bioshock. And, given that Arkane did assist in the development of Bioshock 2, I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. I digress. The similarity in level design and the HUD, play style are all great things. Arkane may end up turning Prey into the same giant success that Irrational Games was able to do with Bioshock. Of course, the story of Prey will determine whether or not it is able to reach those same heights. Prey also seems to be going along the same sort of upgrade RPG path as games like Deus Ex – using body modifications to upgrade the protagonist’s abilities. Of course, neither Bioshock nor Deus Ex had cool features to their RPG upgrades like Prey is currently boasting. As you’ll see in the video – using the alien mods  too often can bring about, shall we say, uninvited guests.

The thing that interests me the most about Prey is that even though it seems like a game we’ve seen before, it’s still showing that it has it’s own unique spin. There is still something that separates it out from the rest of the FPS and RPG games. And I don’t know if it’s the graphics or the style, but there is something about Prey. Maybe it’s the ingenuity it provokes the end user to employ to find creative solutions to progressing through the game. But it has that special quality that only truly great games possess.

Now, will it live up to the hype? That’s always the question that one has to wait out. Games like No Man’s Sky have proven that going too far down that road is extremely dangerous and leads to ethical and legal issues (despite being exonerated). Though, Arkane is good about letting just enough slip about their games to keep the appetite whetted but not enough to gorge ourselves on. And, like pretty much all Bethesda released titles, it will almost certainly be worth the wait.

As always, if there is a topic or game you’d like to see covered, let me know here in the comments or on Twitter or Facebook. Until Monday, enjoy your weekend and game like it’s your last.

– The Ego

Just when I thought I was out…

What’s enough to bring you back to a game. And I don’t mean a franchise. I covered Second Chances on Monday. I mean, you’ve got a game, you probably bought it a year ago, but it’s being published by one of those good studios who keeps giving you content (for free no less). But it’s been sitting on your shelf for the better part of the last year. So what kind of content is enough to bring you back?

Take Diablo 3 for example. Now, Blizzard is renowned for constantly updating and providing new content for all of their franchises, and Diablo has been no different in this respect. Here we are nearly four and a half years later and they are still giving us the goods. Recently at Blizzcon, they announced a new playable character and a new mode.

Yup, it’s the Necromancer from Diablo 2.

So is that enough? I know it’ll be enough for me to dust off the game. And frankly, if I’m willing to, I bet a lot of others will be too. I got the platinum for the regular release on PS3 and I got the platinum for the re-release on PS4. So suffice it to say, I’ve dropped hundreds of hours into the series already.

And it’s not like I don’t have other games to play. But I’m curious. Plus I feel like when companies go out of their way to provide free content and support after this long – I owe it to them to at least check it out. Plus the idea of playing the old Diablo on my flatscreen should be pretty cool. I wasn’t privy to the original Diablo games because I didn’t have a PC that could run any kind of games when I was growing up.

Rockstar and GTA V are another good example. Now, I have friends who play GTA Online and only GTA Online. Granted – it can be pretty fun. There’s a whole slew of things to do there. But after a while, I feel like greener pastures are calling. Playing the same sorts of missions against/with the same sorts of people gets dry and requires a break. But then they release major updates like Heists and Bikers. Again – for free.

With major updates to the game the likes of Bikers (giving you the ability to form a Motorcycle Club and buy and manage illicit businesses, run MC missions and purchase your own clubhouse) it’s a real game changer. And, again, something worthy of blowing off  the dust and popping the game in for another run.

Then again, there is also examples of games like Destiny. Where the running joke seems to be “People still play Destiny?”. They seem to be putting out a combination of free and paid updates to the game, and it seems to be a harder and harder draw towards maintaining and bringing back their player base. Though, that probably has more to do with the initial offering than the applicable content.

But is that enough? Is new content a good enough reason for you to come back or is playing the game while it’s new and fresh the only joy that can be derived from the medium? Especially in this trade and play culture that we have set up all around us. Once beaten, does it get dropped off for something new and shiny? What about when it’s not free? Are you likely to pick a game back up if it requires you dropping another 24.99$ to access the content and play with friends? Where is the limit as far as price goes?

You can sound off in the comments below, I always respond. You can also now find me on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. So please like, subscribe, follow, etc. Everything helps. And as always, if there’s a topic you’d like to see covered here, just let me know. The new plan is to release content on here every Monday and Friday. This will allow me consistency.

– The Ego

First Final Fantasy Foray

In an uncharacteristic show of competence, Canada Post delivered my copy of World of Final Fantasy first thing in the morning Thursday. Granted – it was two days late – but that was Amazon’s fault. I digress.

I know I don’t traditionally do reviews (they’ve reared their heads a few times) but I was pretty excited to check this game out – it was the outlier in all of my pre-orders for the next year or so. I’m only about 10 hours in, but I think I’ve got a good grasp on it.

Pros:

So this game plays extremely well. It’s a combination of the standard Final Fantasy trope and Pokemon. Basically you need to be constantly hunting down, capturing and leveling creatures called Mirages (basically Final Fantasy Pokemon).

The mechanics are solid, once you get used to them. The whole concept surrounds catching different typical FF monsters and recruiting them to your party and then creating stacks with your own characters. Once you dig into the way the whole thing works, you can come up with some pretty cool combinations. The only problem is that there are too many cool mirages to pick from! The battle system works somewhere in between some of the more recent Final Fantasy games (like FF13) and classic FF and it’s all turn based. I mean, you can use their new battle commands where you can short cut everything, or you can change it back to the old menu – which is what I’m obviously using. The other really cool thing worth mentioning is the appearance of tons of classic FF characters. Cloud, Squall, Sephiroth – just to name a few show up as “champions” which function as one of the summons in the game.

The music, for any old school fans, is something worth paying attention to as well. If you listen closely, you’ll hear a lot of classic tunes remixed for the game.

And so far – the story is pretty solid. There’s enough intrigue to keep me hooked, and the characters are interesting and believable…with a few exceptions. I mean, this isn’t Shakespeare, but it’s classic FF. Classic JRPG.

Cons:

I only have three complaints:

1. Graphics. Well, not the graphics persay, but the choice of art style. For some reason Square decided to go with a Nenodroid style of character for pretty much everyone in the world – including the PCs (except that you can also grow big to a normal looking character as well). Otherwise, the game is bright and colourful and looks great.
2. For whatever reason (I’m assuming for comedic purposes) they made the male lead (Lann) a total idiot whose reactions to things are long past hamming it up. I mean, Shatner would shake his head at this guy on his worst day. Now, I guess it’s good that they didn’t just automatically make the sister (Reynn) dumb by default, but I think they could have skipped making either of them stupid in some poor attempt to make them “funny”.
3. Finally: Tama. The dialogue coming out of this things mouth makes me wonder what Square was thinking? It’s so bad, it makes me wonder who I hate more. Tama or Navi.
   
   If I were a religious man, I’d wonder if the devil created Tama to test my willingness to murder. Basically: Tama puts the word “the” needlessly in front of words that just don’t make a lick of fucking sense. As a writer, it baffles me endlessly. As a gamer, I want to see bad things happen to whoever thought it was a good idea.

 

Would I buy it at full price? Yes. The mixture of the two tropes works. Square was smart to capitalise on the Pokemon gameplay and the classic FF aspects just work. It’s a colourful and fun to play game that boasts a 50+ hour campaign. Despite what IGN said – I don’t find the battle system wears over time. All I can say is: If you weren’t prepared to grind – you’re in the wrong game IGN.

– The Ego

 

Just a few days behind

Red. Dead. Redemption. 2.

YES. OH MY YES.

Sorry, I’ve got a hold of myself now. The funny thing is that the reaction isn’t even based off of the trailer. Which, granted, was pretty exciting though incredibly brief as per the Rockstar usual. But it just looked so amazing. Waves of nostalgia just swept over me. Back to the end of the first game and that heartbreaking moment and for the first time I saw GTA V.

And yea, I know this came out a few days ago, and I’m just getting to it, but I wasn’t writing then, and I am now. So lets talk RDR2:

Watching a true current-gen offering from Rockstar is like watching Cirque de Soliel for the first time. It’s beautiful, unique and stirs up a million questions. What can we expect? Unlike the majority of the articles that are kicking around the web, I’m not as concerned with the whole “Is it John Marston?” debate. Whether or not it ends up being him, or if the game focuses on a new/series of protagonists, is secondary in my opinion. What I want to know is: What has Rockstar got up it’s sleeve this time? How, pray tell, could the possibly out do themselves this time around. I mean, Red Dead Redemption is iconic. There are few games that have come out in my lifetime that are so universally loved. The only other series that has generated that kind of universal acceptance and admiration is the Elder Scrolls series.

So what can they add? The online was prolific for the time. It was one of the first online games I actually engaged in. The range of activities was pretty vast, and of course had the standard “oh look, there’s another person, I better just shoot them”. So, I’m not sure what they can add to improve it. I mean, I’m sure they’ll have something new in the offline game that will translate over to the online. My big concern with the online side is that they go the same was as GTAO has. Where only the online aspect of the game gets all of the DLC. And this is coming from someone who actively plays the online in GTAO. And given the extremely high quality of the DLC for Red Dead. Undead Nightmare – despite being yet another zombie DLC in a time where that had sadly become the norm – was incredible.

So far the single player looks like it’ll be true to form. The hunting will likely return and looks like they’re putting a greater emphasis on it. Of course, everything at this point is speculation. More of the same would really hit the spot. I trust in Rockstar. I know a lot of people have gone down the path, likening Rockstar to companies like EA and Cashcom – only being about the moolah via micro transactions. But it’s not the case. I mean, I know GTA hasn’t gotten any single player DLC like they did for GTA 4. That being said – every piece of GTAO DLC has been free. And let’s face facts – they haven’t disappointed so far. I haven’t played a Rockstar game since GTA 3 that wasn’t good.

The one thing I hope for is more fun little things like some of the trophies and the horses of the four horsemen. Dastardly  was probably one of my favourite things in the entire game – and that’s not just because I always root for the villains in the movies. Hunting the Chupacabra, tracking down the pale horse – also pretty damn awesome. I always find it’s the little things that make Rockstar games great. Like when you realise that Donald Love is a cannibal in GTA 3.

So this week past begins the countdown to fall 2017. That’s the one thing they do that I can’t deal with – tease (in the most literal sense) a game a year in advance. It’s hard enough waiting in between releases, but it’s worse when they give us just enough.

– The Ego

 

Glad tidings

So my faithful readers, Christmas – the gift giving part at least – has come and gone. I hope you all had a great day, ate well, lived life and did what makes you happiest.

The question I have is: What games were underneath of the tree this year? Being that, as I usually do – what with me being an addict and all – I purchased the majority of the games I wanted this year long before the Christmas shopping began. So when it came time to grab that special game – well, I already had it. But there was a game that almost became a throw back and a forgotten game. That game is Sword Art Online: Lost Song. It didn’t review very well. And, for what it cost at release, it seemed a little hard to justify the price tag for something Gametrailers gave a 6. But, it’s Christmas. And, in the spirit of the season, I decided to give it a second chance. So it’s sitting back in my apartment just waiting to be opened. Being a huge mark for the anime, I feel like the game will have to work pretty hard to earn my ire. I just hope it holds up well enough to get some enjoyment out of.

This year saw me buying and trying a lot of games that I had already said no to, or, never considered at all. Along with SAO, I had thrown back Destiny at one point. I gave up on it, having played through the beta twice, I didn’t see myself stepping back into those space shoes. However, I had some people I like peer-pressure me into buying it. Which, normally, wouldn’t work for a second. But, we all have to fold occasionally. I have to say – I don’t regret it. Playing with them is fun, and the game really does have a lot going for it. I reserve the right to pass final judgement on it when I actually hit the level cap, but so far, so good. Only thing I wish Destiny had of kept from its initial run: Dinklage. Don’t get me wrong, Nolan North is great at what he does. That being said:

1. I love Peter Dinklage
2. I would love to play a game where Nolan North doesn’t voice a character

Nothing exceeds like excess. There is such a thing as too much. Right? Destiny boasts an all-star cast of voices from Idris Elba, Nathan Fillion, Lance Reddick and Peter Stormare. Why couldn’t they just keep Tyrion? I’ll admit, there are times having watched the video below that I like what North did better in terms of his take on the dialogue, but the complaints people had about Dinklage (mostly that he was too dry) make more sense than the animated persona done by North.

Anyway, that was a bit of a diatribe, but it was something I’d been thinking about since I bought the game, so I wanted to get it off of my chest.

I think the main reason 2015 was such a great year for the industry was that it really felt like the current gen consoles really hit their stride this year. Which, I think, is the most important thing we should take away with 2015 closing out next week. The reason being: 2016 now is going to be (and really, has to be) the year where the new platforms have to show us what level we should set our expectations on. 2015, along with some extremely good games, showed us a lot of remastered games. It’s definitely an important step. Showing us what we have compared to what we just gave up. But now it’s time to hit the ground running. Bust out those new IPs everyone is waiting for. Show us that our collective faith in Sony and Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, Nintendo) wasn’t misplaced. Not that I think many people feel that way. But it’s time to make the nay-sayers and hold-outs get on board.

Merry Christmas.

– The Ego

Skimming off of the top

So, I’m sure it’s come up at least a handful of times already, but let me put it on the record again: I’m not crazy about DLC. Now that’s not to say that I refuse to buy it. So, I’m certainly a part of the problem. I think the majority of gamers are in the same lot. We hate paying for stuff that should be included in the price of the game, but we simultaneously love that games we enjoy are supported, sometimes, long after their launch. Micro transactions are currently the bane of the industry – on the consumer side. Now my feelings can best be summed up by a good friend of mine: when it comes to micro transactions for things that are cosmetic, and not game breaking I’m fine with them. Especially when the money raised from them fund the developer’s ability to release substantial pieces of content free for the rest of the users.

I think what is both interesting and infuriating is that every game seems to come with a “gold” or “deluxe” version now.

In some cases, like Star Wars: Battlefront, the up-sell is 10$. For your 10$ you get a few weapons, some cosmetic stuff and a DLC map. Not a lot for your money, but you’re not breaking the bank. It’s the sort of stuff the die hard crowd goes for, and I get that. But then there are games like Assassin’s Creed Syndicate or Rainbow Six: Siege. The regular games are already at the whopping price point (in Canada) of 79.99$. To acquire the Gold edition, you’re putting down 119.99$ – before taxes. That 40$ gets you access to the season’s pass. Now, most games don’t even give you a complete list of what you can expect, in most cases it’s a vague blurb. In the case of Assassin’s Creed – you get a bunch of missions and an extra “hour” of associated gameplay. The justification is pretty thin.

If you’ve been reading along with me for some time now, you’ll know that my opinion of Ubisoft has only been climbing this year. This isn’t something they and they alone are guilty of. It’s a systemic problem. Not localised to any one company or sector of the industry. And, my qualm (this time) isn’t even pointed directly at the day one DLC/built in season’s passes. My issue is if you’re going to go the way of making a season pass, and promising expanded content – you really need to make it something specific, something great and something that can give me a reasonable answer to the question: Why should I give you another 40$ for a game I’ve already bought, played through and completed versus me going out and grabbing a new game?

Because the truth is: There is always another game out there. Indies, AAA’s and a bevy of games are at the consumer’s fingertips. Basically all retail stores (with even a modicum of electronics) carry games now (even your local drug stores and grocery stores) and digital media is just a few mouse clicks/taps on the analogue away from adding something else to the library.

For 40$, I personally need to walk away from my purchase saying: That was a great decision. Especially since, unlike physical media, there is no returning software that you’ve purchased. Regrets cannot be an outcome.

Now, again, this isn’t me picking on any group or company specifically, but I will use the Fallout series as a perfect example of money well spent. Every piece of Fallout DLC is virtually deep enough to be as large (or larger) as some indie games. For the price of (approximately) 10$ per installment (the same price that games like Assassin’s Creed’s offer) there is no comparison.

So, to the companies forcing that extra attempt at grabbing those extra consumer dollars – just remember that what you put out there is the reputation you have to stand on. Make sure that when you tell me I should give you that extra 40$, that there are choices abound.

– The Ego