How I Learned to Love the Rabbids

For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past five or so years, Rabbids are these stupid rabbit like creatures that appear to be sentient but never seem to do anything other than make funny noises and cause trouble. They originally appeared in Rayman 4 (2013) but were so popular that Ubisoft decided to give them their own game series. I hate Rabbids. I think they’re annoying and add very little to no value to gaming history. I have gone out of my way not to play any game featuring them, including Rayman 4. But technically I haven’t played any of the Rayman games, outside of demos, so that doesn’t necessarily mean anything special. In any case, Rabbids irritate me.

It was my distaste for Rabbids that made me very unhappy when they first announced Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle for the Nintendo Switch. I actually really liked the idea of them making a Mario strategy game with a Banner Saga style grid battle system. While it isn’t canon, pun not intended, I was fine with them giving Mario and friends guns. The game seemed very interesting. But I could not stomach a Rabbids game. It felt so odd to see Nintendo allow Rabbids to enter the Mario universe. It was very out of character for the company and I’m still not entirely sure how it happened. It was the presence of Rabbids in the game that made me ignore it initially.

Mario Rabbids Combat

Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle was released just a few months before I finally purchased my Switch. I knew I was going to purchase a Switch and I knew when I was going to purchase it. What I didn’t know was that I was going to end up purchasing a Rabbids game on the same day. I had sworn the game off but then people started talking about it. So many people on Twitter were praising the game for its amazing gameplay mechanics. I didn’t have any particular reason to think the gameplay would be bad but my bias against Rabbids made me assume everyone was over exaggerating. They have in the past on multiple occasions. So I was still not planning on buying the game. Then the awards season hit.

Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, to my surprise, won four awards for best strategy game and was nominated for several other awards from multiple game awards shows. I was shocked it did so well. It seemed like people weren’t exaggerating and that it really was that good. I have owned every console Mario game since Super Mario 64, and many from before that as well. Part of me was devastated to be skipping this Switch Mario game. And the promise of amazing gameplay in a genre I hadn’t really experienced in a Mario game before was also very alluring. But I still said I wouldn’t buy a Rabbids game.

Episode - Screenshot 2018-07-11 01-37-15

It has always been a ritual for me to buy a stack of games when I first purchase a console. I’m not one of those people who buys a new system just to play one game. It needs to already have several games I want to play before I even consider buying it. On the day I went to buy my Nintendo Switch, multiple limiting factors came into play. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Explorer’s Edition hadn’t been released yet and wouldn’t be for a few more months. Super Bomberman R was sold out in all the stores I went to because it had just recently been brought to Taiwan. I did eventually get it though. Snipper Clips was a game I was buying specifically to play with my girlfriend so it didn’t count in my stack of games to play with purchase. I would kind of say the same about Just Dance 2018 but less so. This meant that the only games I was buying for my new Switch to be played for myself at this point were Super Mario Odyssey, obviously, ARMS, Sonic Forces, and Splatoon 2. Two of those games aren’t even real single player games. It was at this moment that the clerk, who I actually know very well and trust his recommendations, suggested Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle.

With only two legitimate single player games, the great reviews, and the awards, I ended up buying my first Rabbids game. It hurt even when I was making the purchase but I did it. I bought Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. I felt dirty. I felt like I had betrayed my morals. I did not feel happy about the purchase. But it was already done. And in Taiwan you can’t actually make returns for games so even if I wanted to change my mind, I couldn’t.

Episode - Screenshot 2018-07-11 01-35-49

It took me seven months to finally start playing Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. By that point I had beaten Super Mario Odyssey, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Sonic Forces, the Splatoon 2 single player campaign, gotten bored with both ARMS and Super BomberMan R, and had beaten other games on my PS4. It was time to give this game I had purchased a try. The start of the game was not promising. An annoying video that features the Rabbids prominently for several minutes before Mario even appears. I had to stomach through it and get to the actual gameplay.

Once you make it through the necessarily long tutorial and actually get to battle on your own, you realize right away that Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle really does have amazing gameplay. It’s different from any other Mario game I’ve ever played and it’s extremely well done. I was hooked so quickly. The other thing that’s really nice about it is that it has text based dialog and turn based gameplay. Meaning you can play it with no sound while doing other things and you don’t miss out on the experience much at all. I love to play it undocked while watching Netflix. It’s great. I don’t even have to hear the Rabbids making all their annoying sounds. The gameplay is creative, addictive, and convenient. And it’s easy to play just one battle and then step away. Jumping back in is fairly easy with the Switch’s sleep mode function.

Episode - Screenshot 2018-07-11 01-32-59

So let’s actually talk about the Rabbids. It took me quite some time but I will admit that the Rabbids in this specific game have grown on me. This is due largely to the dynamic Ubisoft has created by making copies of the Mario characters as Rabbids. Rabbid Peach is one of the funniest characters I’ve seen in a long time because of the dynamic she has with Peach and Mario. Alone she is just a ridiculous character that spends too much time taking selfies. But when interacting with Mario and constantly competing with Peach, I find the character hysterical. Other Rabbids in the game are funny too. Rabbid Donkey Kong looks so awkward that you can’t help but laugh. Rabbid Mario’s mustache looks ridiculous. I haven’t gotten Rabbid Yoshi yet but I’m sure that’s going to be hilarious as well.

It seems I’ve learned to tolerate the Rabbids in the context of this game and they actually make me laugh. I really have to commend Ubisoft for creating such an excellent game and tip my hat to Nintendo for taking such a large risk with their most important franchise. I’m usually very good about gaming predictions but have to admit that I did not see this coming out nearly as well as it did. I enjoy Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle so much that it will be the first Nintendo Switch game that I actually purchase DLC for. I regret that I didn’t wait for the Gold edition originally because I really want all the content for this one. Maybe one day I’ll even buy a second Rabbids game.

Blog Logo
As always, thanks for reading. Please take the time to follow my blog, leave a comment, and check out some of my other channels if you enjoyed what you read.
Advertisements

These Aren’t the Horsemen I Read About

Last week, THQ Nordic finally announced a release date for Darksiders III. This game has had a long, colorful history of problems, insecurities, and speculations. It was first announced quite some time ago, but it was never really a sure thing. Originally developed by Vigil Games and published by THQ, the Darksiders franchise began in 2010. A sequel, Darksiders II, was also released by the same studio and publisher in 2012, but sadly THQ went bankrupt soon after that. And since then the game has always been up in the air. In 2016, Nordic purchased THQ and founded the joint publisher THQ Nordic. For fans of the franchise like myself, this was good news because it meant we would hopefully get a Darksiders III, but it’s taken six years to finally get a release date. And it’s a new development studio . . .

I’m a big fan of the Darksiders franchise. I wasn’t a day one buyer, but I did purchase the original XBOX 360 version of the first game, which came with an art book and a physical copy of Red Faction: Guerilla, which is an amazing game that I never would have played if not for that free copy. I then pre-ordered the Limited Edition of Darksiders II (PS3), which I still have on my shelf to this day. I actually think I is better than II but I very much enjoyed both games. So I’m glad I’m finally getting a Darksiders III. But what I want to talk about is the playable character in the next game.

darksiders 1

Darksiders III will star Fury. Now before we go any farther let’s make a few things clear. Fury is a female protagonist. I have no problems with that. I don’t care if it’s a female protagonist. I’m sure some people will argue that it should be a male character because they’re the four horseMEN, but anyone with a basic knowledge of the English language knows that horsemen is the gender neutral plural term for people who ride horses. So Fury being a female character is no problem for me and it shouldn’t be a problem for anyone. Fury uses a whip as her main weapon. I have no problem with this either. One might want to argue it’s slightly sexist to give the female character a whip because of sexual overtones and stereotypes inherent in the image of women with whips, but that’s about as stupid an argument as saying that she should be a male character. Each game features a different main weapon, with sword and scythe already being taken. So unless you wanted to do axe, which is basically a scythe when it comes to controls, or a club, which would probably play similar to War’s great sword, there weren’t a ton of great options left. I like whip weapons. I think they’re cool. Put a blade at the end and you’re essentially Kratos, my favorite action hack-n-slash character/franchise, with half the stopping power and range. A whip is fine for me and it’s a fine choice for the next game. What I’m not happy about is that the character is named Fury.

If you know anything about the lore of the four horsemen, then you know it’s a Biblical story about the apocalypse. Four horsemen will ride over the earth and put humanity through a lot of struggles before it all ends. That’s a short, non-religious explanation of who the horsemen are and what they’re meant to do. The names of the horsemen are Conquest, which is debatable based on the passages, War, Famine, and Death, who was supposed to be the last one to appear, not the second. So my question is why are we getting a game with a character named Fury and then possibly another with a character named Strife?

4 horsemen

Now I know the real answer to this question. It’s most likely a combination of a few main things. The first is that the word famine doesn’t necessarily mean anything to many people today. War and death are still common use terms, but famine (mass starvation due to lack of access to food) simply isn’t a common term anymore. Which is kind of ironic considering the number of people in the world who are currently starving. So marketing a character with that name would be much more difficult than more common use words like fury and strife. To be clear though, those words are only slightly more common today than the word famine. The second is that the word fury is a more direct term for committing acts of violence, which is the premise of the game(s). Famine is a much more passive way for “people” to be hurt. So it’s not nearly as relatable or marketable for a game. But it’s the third issue that is probably the most important. What does/would gameplay for a character named Famine even look like?

Conquest I actually think would be easy to do, but the style and theme of such a word and character wouldn’t work in the Darksiders universe for two reasons. The first is that it’s not dark enough. The Bible describes this horseman as “. . . a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.” It’s almost noble looking and kind of nice in a way. A regal looking rider conquering the world like Alexander the Great. This is too colorful and positive for Darksiders. The other issue is that it wouldn’t work in the franchise’s timeline. The first game starts after the apocalypse so there isn’t really any conquest to seek after because all the people are dead. I mean they could still have put the character in but I think it would have been quite out of place in the aesthetic they’ve created in this franchise. If anything I would say they should have split the fourth horsemen into two with one being Death and the other Pestilence. But admittedly the word pestilence is just as dated as famine and no easier to characterize in a hack-n-slash game.

4 horsemen art

The Darksiders franchise is about taking on the roles of the four horsemen. Each one has a set of powers and skills, as well as their appearance, that directly correlates to their name. War looks like a warrior. He wears thick armor, carries a great sword, and has a large build. Death looks like the grim reaper. He carries a large scythe, has a thin skeletal frame, and wears a mask that looks like a skull. Fury, being a more vague term to begin with, simply looks like a warrior, which is fine as long as the fury comes out in her personality. I assume that in her characterization there will be character flaws/attributes such as hotheadedness, jealousy, and a thirst for revenge. Her fighting style will probably be very fast paced and less strategic, but ultimately lethal. This all works fine for a character named Fury, whose name should evoke her character in the same way War and Death have in the past games. It’s a lazy renaming of one of the actual remaining horsemen names because it’s much easier to deal with. I’m sure this happened because it was too challenging to figure out what a fast paced hack-n-slash game would look like with themes like famine and, if we follow my suggestion, pestilence.

Darksiders-III-Fury-Closeup

It’s an honest question that I have given a decent amount of thought to. What would a game starring a character named Famine or Pestilence look like? Let’s start with Famine. When I imagine a character named Famine they are very skinny as if they were on the brink of starvation. Their skin would almost be falling off their bones from malnourishment. Their armor would be dirty and made of something cheap looking like wood or copper. Their hair would be white or even almost transparent due to a lack of vitamins. They would talk very slowly as if they didn’t have the energy to do so. They would have a very depressing outlook on life as a whole. Describing who they are is easy though. The tough question is how would they fight? Assuming we have to remain in the hack-n-slash genre which, for the purposes of this franchise, I think is required, it’s not an easy question to answer. What would his/her weapon be? I think it would be a cleaver or other iconic looking butcher’s knife. Maybe two of them. Valid arguments could be made for why his pace of movement and attacking would be both fast or slow. If he’s starving, he would logically be slow. But if he’s starving that also means he’s really hungry and would seek out prey with greater intensity. Eating his victims would possibly be a component of his combat or at least finishing moves. The movement would be sporadic and there would need to be a component of endurance/energy that the player would constantly be fighting against such as in Dark Souls. The character wouldn’t have a ton of HP. Dodging would be just as important as attacking for Famine’s gameplay. This is all well and good on paper, but would it actually be fun? Who’s to say? My description of Famine sounds authentic, but would you want to play that game? Especially after having already played as War and Death. In my opinion, what I’ve described for Famine sounds like a much harder game than Darksiders I or II. And maybe that’s not a bad thing. But difficulty is only important once the game is fun. A lot of people like Dark Souls because it’s hard, but it’s not the difficulty that makes those games fun. It still comes down to design choices, mechanics, atmosphere, and controls. That’s why a lot of people prefer Bloodborne to Dark Souls. Personally, I prefer Nioh to either of those franchises but happily play all three.

famine

Famine would be difficult but manageable. Pestilence is just hard. Character wise, Pestilence would of course be very sickly. Constantly coughing while talking. Covered in sores and boils. Probably a number of scars or stiches. His/her hair would be haggard and missing in places. They would wear loose fitting clothing that’s dirty and bloodstained. I don’t even think they would wear real armor. In a lot of ways I can see this character more as a female than a male character because I think it would add to the visual effect. As far as gameplay, I really don’t know. Poison would need to be an aspect, but the method of delivery in a hack-n-slash game confounds me. Personally, I actually think a projectile weapon such as a bow would be the better choice, but we already agreed to respect the genre type for the franchise. Maybe claws with poison tips. And a kiss of death finishing move or hold that stuns enemies. I think Pestilence is definitely the most challenging to do well. But now I want to see a studio try.

This franchise is now a lost cause on this issue, but I genuinely want a studio to attempt to make a game where you play as the embodiment(s) of famine and pestilence, actual horseman or not. It would be easier in a franchise that isn’t locked to a specific genre, but in general I still think it would be quite the challenge and I would like to see it done. Even better if they tie it directly to the Biblical passages related to the horsemen in a way truer than that of the Darksiders franchise. All that being said, I will of course be buying Darksiders III and I assume it will be as enjoyable as the first two were. Hopefully it’s better written than the second one was though. How do you feel about the name changes? Would you want to see a game starring Famine, Conquest, or Pestilence?

Blog Logo
As always, thanks for reading. Please take the time to follow my blog, leave a comment, and check out some of my other channels if you enjoyed what you read.

Ant-Man & the Wasp Review – 7/10

I really liked the first Ant-Man (2015). It’s a very small, pun not intended, very personal story about a man just trying to do right by his kid while also trying to do the right thing and be the hero his kid wants him to be. And I think the story is made even stronger by the fact that he, Scott Lang, is ultimately recruited by Hank Pym, because he’s literally in the exact same situation. In a lot of ways it’s a story about fathers trying to give their daughters the lives they deserve. It’s not a huge plot with a super villain that’s threatening the whole world. The antagonist is just a scientist trying to make a name for himself with a technology that if put in the wrong hands could have terrible consequences. And yes it could end up changing the world, but the narrative keeps the story very enclosed within San Francisco to a small number of people. But that’s not what I wanted from the sequel.

ant-man-and-the-wasp-ghost-hannah-john-kamen

Ant-Man & the Wasp is set about two years after Captain America 3: Civil War and at the same time as Avengers: Infinity War, which Ant-Man does not appear in. In fact, it’s not until the very end of Ant-Man & the Wasp that they even make reference to Thanos and it’s very clear that’s it’s already too late for Ant-Man to even consider getting involved with that problem. Ant-Man & the Wasp is also a small scale plot with a limited number of players that again centers on the idea of fathers trying to protect and please their daughters. The difference is that in this film, romance, for both fathers from the first film, plays a larger role in the narrative. In many ways I would say this plot is even smaller than the first film. It’s not about trying to protect the world from a certain technology. There’s no evil scientist. Really there’s not even a proper villain. The film plays a lot more like Snatch (2000) where you have a number of different groups all seeking the same object for their own purposes, but none of them are out to do anything particularly good or bad with said object.

ant_master-2

One character, and his cronies, is out to sell the object for profit, but he’s not a super villain or particularly threatening. He doesn’t even really hurt anyone. He just wants the money. And at the beginning of the film he sincerely offers Team Ant-Man the chance to work together with him for profit, but they say no. The second group, which was sold as the villain in the marketing, is by no means a villain. She has a legitimate problem that is life threatening and she believes that it can only be solved by robbing Team Ant-Man so she’s trying to do that. But she doesn’t have some nefarious end goal and she doesn’t actually want to hurt people. She’s just in a bad situation. Finally, you have Team Ant-Man and they’re just as selfish as everyone else. They have a goal that won’t help anyone outside of Hank and Hope. It’s not going to hurt anyone, but by no means is it heroic or particularly noble. It’s just a self-serving goal that will enrich their personal lives. And it won’t even help Scott. In fact, the entire film is about how Hank and Hope are forcing Scott to help them even though he’s on house arrest with a few days left in his sentence and if he gets caught using the Ant-Man suit or leaving his house he’ll have to go back to prison and lose his daughter. So really the movie isn’t even about Ant-Man being a hero. It’s about Hank and Hope making Ant-Man help them get something they really want.

Ant_Man_Wasp_Luis

The problem with this small, in many ways pointless narrative, is that it takes place after having already seen Captain America 3: Civil War, which is mentioned a number of times, and Avengers: Infinity War. In terms of Ant-Man, I wanted more. This is no longer the ex-convict just trying to get his life back together. This is a man who fought alongside the Avengers, against other Avengers, and lived. This is a man who we believed had escaped with Captain America at the end of Civil War. Not to mention, we’ve already seen Avengers: Infinity War. Who cares about this little vignette about the lives of the Pym family? I expect Ant-Man to be playing at Avengers level now. That doesn’t mean every Ant-Man movie needs to have other Avengers in it, but it does mean that the stories have to really matter. In Thor: Ragnarok, Asgard was destroyed. In Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the entire universe was saved from a mad celestial trying to replace all life with himself. In Doctor Strange, an infinity stone was revealed and the world was almost plunged into darkness by an evil being from a magical dimension. Ant-Man & the Wasp, which is not a debut film for the main title character, is about the same scale as Spider-Man: Homecoming as far as importance. Except Scott Lang isn’t a high school kid. And even in that Iron Man shows up. This film just under does it in a time where the MCU and the character are way past the kid gloves.

Ant-Man-Wasp

I don’t want it to seem like the film was badly written, because it wasn’t. It was much funnier than the first one. The acting was great, including that of Michael Peña reprising his role as the over talkative friend. And most importantly, they really leaned into technology in this one. In the first movie, shrinking is used sparingly. It’s an origin film where Scott is just learning how to use it and really it’s under-utilized outside of a few fight sequences and sneaking around. In Ant-Man & the Wasp they use shrinking and growing a ton and it’s great. It was used realistically, as in they actually use it for pretty much all the things you would use it for if you had that technology at your fingertips. My only real complaint about the technology aspect was that way too many malfunctions occurred. It’s fair for a malfunction to happen once, especially at a really crucial moment. But there were multiple scenes where Scott’s suit, and only Scott’s suit, was malfunctioning. This was used for comic relief multiple times. But this is the second movie. By now the bugs should have been ironed out. Especially when they’re doing stuff like shrinking entire buildings and growing ants to the size of people. It just felt very lazy to keep playing the suit not working card over and over.

giant man

As per all MCU films, the movie looked great. The shrinking and growing effects were very clean. The cinematography was solid. The costumes looked good. The sound was fine. I was happy with the soundtrack. It’s by every measureable standard a modern day Marvel film. But it was by no means in the top five or probably even top 10 MCU films. In a lot of ways it felt pointless. It introduced the Wasp and possibly a couple other important reoccurring characters, but the film itself didn’t accomplish much. Like they very well could have sent the Wasp with Ant-Man in Civil War, which is brought up in this film, and it would have accomplished exactly the same thing. Unless they really leverage the two other possibly important characters introduced in future films, this was pretty much the same thing we got in Ant-Man except now he has a partner. Ant-Man & the Wasp is not a bad film, but I could literally tell you everything you need to know about it in one sentence. In a lot of ways it’s one of the only films in the MCU where I could say you could really just skip it and it probably won’t affect the rest of the MCU, or your experience of it, that much.

Blog Logo
As always, thanks for reading. Please take the time to follow my blog, leave a comment, and check out some of my other channels if you enjoyed what you read.

Anthem Year Two

In recent months, we’ve seen a lot about the upcoming Anthem. Anthem is a shared world mech-shooter being developed by BioWare, who is of course under the umbrella of EA. The game was first announced at E3 2017 and was shown again at E3 this year in a big way. We think we know a lot about Anthem already. The marketing has been very good. The trailers are amazing. But a lot has also changed since it was first announced. When Anthem was first being talked about, it was being called BioWare’s take on Destiny. The studio drew the comparison themselves in certain interviews. Then the whole Star Wars: Battlefront II thing happened and EA has been trying to fix their image ever since. And they have made moves. They removed the loot box system from Star Wars: Battlefront II at launch and stated that though it would be re-added, it wouldn’t be as predatory as originally shown. They have done their best to move people away from the loot box conversation and announced that Battlefield V, being developed by the same studio as Star Wars: Battlefront II, DICE, wouldn’t have any loot boxes. So it’s hard to know exactly how Anthem will be now in the wake of all the bad press and changes EA has taken in response to recent mishaps.

dead trooper

I am very hesitant about Anthem precisely because they’ve drawn comparisons to Destiny. If you read my blog normally and have for a long time, then you know I have very negative feelings about Destiny. I pre-ordered the physical limited edition and I have regretted it pretty much since the announcement of The Taken King expansion, which I never played. It angered and still angers me that I gave Bungie $100 before the game even released for them to provide me maybe half a story, some crappy raids, and then tell me I had to pay another $30 or more dollars to get some actual additional story content. But if I had waited, I would have been able to get all the content, old and new, for like $30. That pisses me off. And we’re not talking about something like The Witcher 3 where you get a full game that’s almost too full and then for another $25 you get like two more full games’ worth of content. That would have been acceptable. Destiny just screwed me over. I did not buy Destiny 2 and I haven’t purchased any other games from Bungie, Activision, or Blizzard since then. And I wasn’t really a fan of any of those companies before Destiny either so I was already taking a leap of faith, but I really enjoyed the Destiny beta so I decided to take the plunge. The last Bungie game I bought before Destiny was literally 10 years before with Halo II. It will probably be another 10 years before I even consider buying another game from them.

the witcher 3
Still the best there is.

That badly priced, content lacking experience is exactly what I’m afraid of happening with Anthem. By all rights I should just walk away now. But the trailers look so good. And I actually really do like BioWare. I haven’t played a single game by them I didn’t like. That includes Mass Effect: Andromeda, Dragon Age II, and Dragon Age: Inquisition. I wouldn’t say any of those are the best they’ve ever produced, but I consider all of those games and the others I’ve played by them to be fine titles. So I want to trust them. I want to play Anthem. But I don’t want to play another Destiny.

My issue with Destiny was not the gameplay. Mechanically, I thought it was excellent. It wasn’t the graphics. Visually I thought it was quite good, and I played it on PS3. My only real complaint, other than a number of unbalanced raid challenges which I consider forgivable, was the lack of fresh content for the price I paid. I don’t like replaying missions. I don’t like farming because of an unbalanced RNG rewards system. And I did not buy the game for PVP. I put a fair amount of time into the Crucible, but that’s not what I paid for. So I don’t have to consider that in my personal judgement of the game in terms of my satisfaction, or lack thereof, with it. This is not a review. I don’t have to be objective. I spent $100 of my hard earned money and didn’t get a full story experience. But I genuinely believe that if I had gotten all that year two content, as well as what I got in year one, for the $100 I spent, then I wouldn’t have left the game so unhappy.  If I had not supported the game from day one and waited it out like I do for most games then I wouldn’t even be writing this post right now. None of this is BioWare or EA’s fault. It has nothing to do with them. But the shared world shooter genre is spoiled for me because of that experience others like it such as The Division. Yet I still want to play Anthem based on what I’ve seen.

The Taken King

The problem with games like Destiny and presumably Anthem is that the player’s enjoyment of it is directly tied to the presence and influence of other players within the experience. That’s why we get conned into buying them day one. We take the risk of them dying if we wait and then we can’t really play them at all. The only thing worse than Destiny year one would have been Destiny year one with no other players. But this line of thinking gave me an idea.

Why do we play these games on their terms? Why do we let studios tell us when and how to enjoy games? It didn’t used to be that way. You used to be able to buy a game when you wanted and play it the way you wanted. You shaped and enjoyed the experience you chose to have. Why did we let that concept die? People will of course say that the nature of games has changed. What with daily challenges, special events, limited time offers, and pre-order bonus content, it seems impossible to play a game on your own terms and get the full experience. Then there’s of course the fear of missing out on the experience altogether. You don’t want to be left out and you don’t want to show up to the party after everyone else has already left. But what if we as a community chose not to be limited by these factors?

tc-the-division-year-one-content-roadmap

What I’m about to say is all theoretical. It makes a number of assumptions about BioWare’s long term plans/actions for the game. It assumes the game does well overall from day one. And it assumes that extra content will actually be added over time like in Destiny and The Division. None of these assumptions have to be true. They are very likely based on empirical data from the last several years of gaming. But it’s quite possible they all end up being incorrect assumptions, in which case the entire concept I’m about to suggest would be a complete failure before it ever began. And to be clear, even if all these assumptions do end up being true, which I do believe will be the case, that still doesn’t mean that I believe what I have devised will actually come to fruition, because it relies heavily on the actions of other gamers which is never a recipe for success.

I propose a plan that I’d like to call simply Anthem Year Two. If we assume that there will be an official Anthem Year Two campaign, then that means we can assume that there will be Anthem Year Two content. And because this game is being published by EA, it’s fair to assume that this Year Two content will be at additional cost to the players unless you buy a full edition a la Destiny Year Two Legendary Edition. Again, waiting for year two means missing out on year one content while the bulk of other players are playing it. Now that doesn’t really matter as long as you have people to play with that are going through the year one content at the same time as you. This might be a limiting factor for PVP but that assumes you’re playing for PVP, which shouldn’t necessarily be the case when Anthem isn’t even being sold as a PVP game. In fact, it won’t even have PVP options at release. So let’s, at least for the purposes of argument, assume you’re playing Anthem for the campaign content and your only reason for buying day one is that you want to make sure you have people to play with when you’re playing the year one content and so on into year two. But what if instead of forcing ourselves to play year one content during year one, we as an organized community of gamers fabricated year one conditions in year two?

anthem preorder

Here is what I propose. What if instead of forcing ourselves to buy Anthem day one, a large group, as in hundreds to even thousands of players, collectively committed to waiting for year two to buy the game? Say a large community of gamers all pledged that they would collectively wait for the Anthem Year Two Legendary Edition release to drop to $30 and would buy it the day it hit that price. And assume they all stuck to their word. What is the limiting factor in this scenario? Other than the waiting time, will our gaming experience be hindered in any way? Not really, unless you count possible spoilers as an issue. We could get all the content for a good price and have people to play it with that all started on a level playing field because we all would have started at about the same time. Just a year after the game was released. Why doesn’t the gaming community ever do things like this? I’ve never heard of a large organized group of gamers actively waiting for the second year content of a cooperative multiplayer game to be released before purchasing. We could shape the entire experience, down to the price, to our liking and needs. We would fully control the situation and be guaranteed a fair amount of content from the start with no wait time to access it. Why wouldn’t we do this? Why haven’t we done this? There are already huge gaming communities for just about every online game. No Man’s Sky was a steaming pile of crap and it had entire self-formed governments organized by players. So why don’t we just take control of the situation? Not just with Anthem but with every game like this. The Division 2, Jump Force, and the list goes on. We simply need to decide to wait as a collective, decide when the wait is over, and that’s pretty much it. It’s little more than a gaming union that doesn’t charge dues. Am I crazy or are we just all inpatient children too lazy to put in a small amount of effort for a better, more affordable overall gaming experience?

Blog Logo
As always, thanks for reading. Please take the time to follow my blog, leave a comment, and check out some of my other channels if you enjoyed what you read.