What I like about the MCU Spider-Man is that both Marvel and the character himself are aware of his actual position on the superhero totem pole. In general, I like Spider-Man. I have been a fan since I was a kid. I’ve played many of his games, watched multiple cartoon series, and seen three different actors portray Peter Parker, my favorite Spider person, across 10 different live action films. But I do not love Spider-Man. He is a great character. This is fact. But he is not as great as everyone seems to give him credit for. He’s relatable, sort of, and I think that’s why he’s such a fan favorite. But in the grand scheme of the Marvel universe he’s not nearly as powerful, intelligent, or important as he’s often given credit for. If anything, I’d say a great many of his greatest moments happened more as a response to fandom than as organic character developments that warranted the fandom. But there’s no way to prove that one way or the other so I guess it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that Tom Holland’s Peter Parker is fully aware that he’s not nearly as great, qualified, or important as everyone else seems to think he is. And this is true both for the viewers and within the MCU itself. That’s probably the main takeaway I got from Spider-Man: Far From Home, and I liked that aspect a lot.
What I loved about Spider-Man: Homecoming was the human aspect. But more specifically, the youth aspect. This version of Peter Parker is a 16 year old kid who genuinely thinks like a 16 year old kid. He wants to hang out with his friends. He wants to have a girlfriend. He wants to protect his Aunt and make sure she’s safe, both from monsters and from interested men. The hero aspect of his life isn’t the most important part of the character. It’s not even who he really wants to be. It’s a responsibility that’s forced onto him, which is a great way to paint the character. Because “with great power comes great responsibility”. That’s the point of the character. He doesn’t want to foil alien tech heists, fight aliens, or stop petty criminals. He has to. It’s his responsibility as a person with super powers. But he just wants to be a 16 year old kid. That’s who Peter Parker is. And while Tom Holland is not my favorite Peter Parker, this version of the character is my favorite version because of how well and realistically written it is. It is the most human Spider-Man I’ve ever seen depicted in live action and Far From Home does a great job of continuing this character’s story.
I was worried about how Far From Home was going to follow Avengers: Endgame. Just about every movie in the MCU tries to top its direct predecessor film. That’s always been the idea. Bigger, better, and more impressive from one film to the next. With the exception of the Ant-Man films, pretty much every MCU movie actively tried to top the last one and usually did. At least in terms of stakes if nothing else. But we spent 10 years building to Avengers: Endgame. There was absolutely no way a solo film about a 16 year old kid was going to top that. Especially not one with Mysterio headlining as a not villain in the ads. So I had a lot of concerns going into this movie. Thankfully Marvel was not only aware of my concerns but used them to their advantage.
Far From Home followed Endgame perfectly because it actively goes out of its way to reference Endgame and let you know that we’re no longer playing at Thanos level stakes. It’s comedic. It’s personal. The scales and stakes are small. It’s simply not a story about an Infinity War class threat. It’s about healing from the many losses incurred during the Infinity War. And laughter is the best medicine after all.
The movie does a lot of bits that are just there to make you laugh. They talk about what happened when everyone came back from the snap and it’s hilarious. They talk about how half the world didn’t age for five years so now everyone’s age is off. There’s an entire subplot about Ned’s romance life that is just hysterical. This is the stuff that a 16 year old kid would be thinking about, superhero or not. Really the actual stakes of the film aren’t even that big to begin with, similar to with Vulture in Homecoming. Yes the bad guy getting away with it would have been terrible. Yes the possible long term repercussions if Spider-Man didn’t do his job would have been a net negative. But the world wasn’t/isn’t going to end. In fact, I’d argue that Far From Home ending with the bad guy getting his way might actually have been better for the planet’s overall defenses in the long term. In any case, the stakes are pretty small. Not Ant-Man small, but small. And that’s a good thing in the case of these Spider-Man films.
Story wise, Far From Home was as good palate cleanser. It rebooted the audience back to the Iron Man one days where people were just kind of doing their own things and dealing with personal villain problems with no big picture to worry about. Yet at the same time, this movie does acknowledge that the good old days can never truly return. I’d say this movie had probably the most plot significant post credits scene of any MCU film to date. It literally affects the way you view every single MCU film except for The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 3, and maybe Captain America: Civil War. It also possibly teases the focal point of the next phase of MCU plots.
Not only was Far From Home well written, but it was also well acted. Jake Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio was great. The character was different from the comics in a number of ways but extremely realistic and relatable. Not only did I believe that character but I sympathized with him quite a bit. As with Homecoming, the students, none of which are actually minors in real life, are extremely believable. Watching Far From Home reminded me a lot of what it was like to be a kid. The crushes, the romantic plans, the conflicts with other boys, the jealousy, and a general lack of assurance that anything you decide to do is actually the correct decision. These are the types of characters that make sense in the world of a 16 year old Spider-Man.
Visually speaking, this movie was great. The effects were top notch while also being very self-aware about the fact that they’re all fictional. The movie has many moments referencing the PS4 game, Marvel’s Spider-Man (2018), by Insomniac Games. It all comes together rather nicely to let the viewer know that not everything has to be so serious. Some things can just be fun and imaginative for the sake of being entertaining in a world constantly plagued by politics, misinformation, and greed. In my opinion, this is the entire point of the movie. It’s referencing the current issues of our reality by portraying those same problems in a post Thanos snap world.
Spider-Man: Far From Home is not the next Avengers: Endgame. It’s not trying to be and that’s a good thing. It’s just a nice movie about a 16 year old kid who just happens to be a superhero. It’s one of if not the most relatable film in the MCU because it’s simply about the struggle of balancing your life with your work and learning how to accept that responsibility without losing your personal life in the process. If you’re looking for the next epic MCU adventure, this isn’t it. But if you’re looking for a respite from all the doom and gloom from the last several movies while still having some overall plot relevance, this is the perfect film to follow Avengers: Endgame.
It seems more and more I’ve been forced to write posts defending corporations against “consumers” in recent months. This is really distressing for me. My mantra has always been “I fight for the user.” But I’ve never been one to blindly support gamers when they say/do/ask/demand stupid things. And I will absolutely never defend people trying to affect gaming, as either an industry or community, who aren’t actually gamers but want to change them for some sort of political agenda. In light of this, I find myself faced with not one, not two, but three glaring nontroversies that the gaming community, and so called “gaming journalists” have turned into the focal point of gaming discussion right now, while simultaneously ignoring much bigger issues. So today I write a post that I’m sad I even had to take the time to write.
I’ve long been a champion of transparency in the gaming industry. I hate when companies like EA feed us crap like “based on our research” and then proceed to make a statement that goes completely against consumer demand/desire without actually showing any documentation to confirm the results of this supposed research. It’s this continued lack of transparency that I think has caused many of the issues EA faces today. I’m not saying the research is false. I’m just saying that because they’ve never actually made any of it public that it’s hard to take their decisions seriously. Of course the counter argument to this transparency is that other companies will steal that research data. To me that’s a cop out answer. Because other companies having the data wouldn’t magically make EA unable to create competitive games in the market. They own multiple studios that people continue to buy from simply because of the names of those studios/franchises. But if they showed that research data, they could then justify things like paid DLC, loot boxes, and so on. Assuming of course that the data they have actually shows that these are things people legitimately want (Spoiler: It won’t.).
I truly believe that if all companies were more honest and transparent about their decisions, costs, and research that many people would accept their decisions peacefully even if they didn’t necessarily agree with them. Like I was really angry with the announcement that Final Fantasy VII Remake will be in multiple parts for most likely a premium price. But if Square Enix followed that announcement with pages of data and analysis showing that the company would literally lose money based on projected sales figures for doing the game as a singular $60 release then I wouldn’t complain. I wouldn’t necessarily be happy about having to buy multiple parts for a single story, but I would understand why it was happening and I’d have no justification for being angry about it. It’s because of this that I have more than once written about the need for companies to be more honest and transparent about games, their development process, and the costs of bringing them to market.
While I still think more transparency from the industry could be a good thing, recently I’ve been led to believe that maybe we, as in the gaming community as a whole, don’t deserve such honesty. Maybe we don’t deserve early announcements, developer interviews, and pre-release footage. Because it seems that all we ever do with that information is bite the hands that feed us at all the wrong moments, for all the wrong reasons. There are legitimate reasons for consumers to be angry with developers and publishers. Star Wars: Battlefront II’s ridiculous loot box system at release/right before release was unacceptable. It was not only good that we organized, protested, and made our demands met. It was just. It was the right thing to do as a collective of consumers. And I can name several other similarly righteous examples. But I can think of many more bad examples of the public attacking developers for showing us things in advance of release that people had no business getting angry about. At least not to the point of creating viral controversies. I just want to discuss three of the most recent ones I’ve seen, but there are countless more I could bring up as well.
That Cyberpunk 2077 In-Game Ad
Cyberpunk 2077 is arguably the most anticipated game set for a 2020 release. I’m still not personally sold on it, but CD Projekt RED(CDPR) has never failed me before and it has Keanu Reeves in it. Chances are this game will be amazing in every sense of the word. I won’t say that it will be better than The Witcher 3, but it will almost certainly live up to that standard. And CDPR, as well as Cyberpunk The Roleplaying Game of the Dark Future creator Mike Pondsmith, have been very open and seemingly honest about the game. They’ve showed more than an hour of gameplay, done several interviews, and have already given quite a few plot details. They’ve even announced that, like with The Witcher 3, there will be a lot of content in expansions. They’ve done more than most companies do to try to explain their game to the public almost a year in advance of its release. How did the public respond to this openness? By accusing Cyberpunk 2077 of being transphobic, willfully ignorant of the cyberpunk genre, and not meeting the original creative expectations set out by the original creator, Mike Pondsmith.
Cyberpunk 2077 is set in a dystopian future called Night City where technology, immoral behavior, and capitalism have all run amok. People no longer have value. In fact, it’s arguable that many aren’t even people anymore. In some of the released footage there’s a poster advertising some fictional canned beverage. The poster has a woman on it. The woman’s clothing and stature, to some, look like that of a trans woman. That is to say, some people think the woman in the ad has a penis. I can’t confirm if that’s true or not, but what I can confirm is that people apparently thought that this was grounds for boycotting the game almost a year before it even released. This is ridiculous. No context given. No confirmation from the company about whether or not the woman in the ad was trans. No interview with Mike Pondsmith to confirm if the game was truly meeting his vision. Just up in arms assault on the game and the company’s image based on a background decorative in-game poster. The worst part of all is that when Mike Pondsmith finally did speak about it and stated that he not only didn’t feel the poster was transphobic, but that he was very happy with the overall game and how CDPR really had captured his vision, people called him an Uncle Tom and a sellout rather than accept that his vision had actually been met.
This should never have occurred. This is a non-issue. And no I’m not saying trans rights are a non-issue. I’m saying this poster, that again isn’t confirmed to be of a trans woman, set in a corporate dystopia in the future where a majority of people have robotic parts and little to no actual value is a non-issue. To have attacked CDPR in this way in response to them giving the public so much information and content so far in advance of the game’s release is unacceptable on our part. I’m not saying everyone was involved in this, because that’s not the case. But the fact that this became a viral controversy that several gaming journalism sites covered, not favorably for CDPR I might add, is egregious. If I was CDPR, I wouldn’t say one more damn thing about the game until it releases. It’s already guaranteed to make a killing and clearly the public isn’t grateful for the openness anyway.
Marvel’s Avengers isn’t the MCU
A teaser was released for the upcoming Marvel’s Avengers game from Square Enix like two years ago. We didn’t know anything else about it until this E3 where they announced a shit ton of information. Now please note that I’m not advocating for the game one way or another. There are still many questions I need answered and I’d like to see, or ideally try the gameplay. But out of the gate they showed/announced a single player offline campaign with five playable characters, four player online coop, and free DLC expansions including additional missions, additional maps, additional Avengers characters, and supposedly no microtransactions.
This announcement presentation should have been received with a ton of positivity from the community. Instead “we” responded by complaining that the characters don’t look like the actors from the Marvel movies. Again biting the hand that feeds us. Not only that, but I am shocked at the number of plebs that willingly outed themselves as faux Marvel fans. If you saw that trailer and thought to yourself that the characters were wrong because they didn’t look like Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr. Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, and Chris Hemsworth then you’re not a real Marvel fan. You’re an MCU fan. All of these characters have existed for decades. The movie versions are barely a blip on the collective canon of the characters. Look at the original appearance/debut dates for these characters.
Captain America (1941)
Iron Man (1963)
Black Widow (1964)
Every one of these characters is more than 50 years old. In that time all of them have had multiple costume and appearance changes. Even Black Widow, with one of the most straight forward looks in the entire Marvel universe, has had multiple costumes and physical appearances. And let us not forget that even in the movies the costumes change all the time. That is the entire nature of comic books. The game isn’t set in the MCU. It’s not the same timeline as the MCU. Like Marvel’s Spider-man from Insomniac Games, it has literally nothing to do with the MCU. So it’s absolutely preposterous to complain that the characters, whether their physical appearances or costumes, don’t match those of the MCU. They’re not supposed to. The community could have and should have focused more on discussing the actual game announcements but of course “we” didn’t. Instead the social medias were flooded with memes and comments about how people wanted the characters to look like a bunch of actors not at all related to the project. Which is also a big “screw you” to the talented cast of voice actors being used in the game. It’s ridiculous that such a large percentage of people got up in arms to complain about something they clearly weren’t familiar with to begin with. Now unlike with Cyberpunk 2077, we haven’t seen all that much of Marvel’s Avengers and we don’t have enough confidence in either Square Enix or Crystal Dynamics for them to be able to decide to go dark with this game and hope to make a profit. But really “we” don’t deserve any more information until the game is ready to release because clearly people can’t seem to act right.
Tifa’s Boobs . . .
When I was in college, a professor assigned me (the whole class) to read an article from The Onion. Now at this point in my life I didn’t know what The Onion was. So I read it as a work of non-fiction reporting. When I voiced my opinions on the article in class, I was notified that it was satire. This article, which was very realistic because it was written back in the days when The Onion would do full on articles rather than just funny blurbs, reported that up until that point the reason female characters in games had such large boobs was because of limitations of graphics engines. The article went on to say that finally developers had pushed past this limitation and could now reduce the size of boobs in games to look more realistic. Oh how scary a world we live in where satire becomes reality and then gets blown out of proportion, pun not intended.
Because every English language gaming journalist can’t seem to properly translate Japanese. And because Japanese developers don’t practice the restraint that American developers do when talking about their games, boobs tend to come up a lot. Again, pun not intended. During a recent interview about the upcoming Final Fantasy VII Remake, one of the developers at Square Enix explained that Tifa, a well-liked female character from the game, would have a sports bra added to her costume to make her movements look more realistic. In laymen’s terms that means her still large breasts would now be restrained by a sports bra so that she could actually fulfill her role as a hand to hand brawler without her tits flopping around wildly. You know like real female athletes wear. But because Japanese developers don’t speak English as a first language and the translators that report this stuff almost always seem to suck, the story stated that Tifa’s breasts had been reduced in size. Once again, that’s not what the guy said. He said that their appearance would seem reduced because of the presence of a sports bra holding them in place and restraining them, as sports bras are made to do. But who cares about the actual facts?
The internet was and still is livid by the idea of Tifa having smaller breasts. Genuine rage and anger happened. And gaming sites kept reporting the story incorrectly and then following that by reporting on the outrage. Because it’s all about the clicks. Now first of all, the original model of Tifa is from 1997 on the PS1. The character models look(ed) atrocious. I don’t care what anyone says. By today’s standards the original FFVII looks horrendous. There are much better looking Final Fantasy games even on the PS1. Final Fantasy VIII, which I’m not arguing is a better overall game, looks way better. Tifa had ridiculously large breasts in that game for the same reason Lara Croft did in those days. Limited polygon counts. The only way to make sure you knew she was a female was to give her large breasts because they were unable to define chest structure subtly. It was either flat, which was used for male characters, or bulging unrealistically, which was used for female characters. There are also multiple looks for her in the original game, destroying any hope of consistency between how people view the character. Is the map mode Tifa the real Tifa? Is the cutscene Tifa the real Tifa? Or is the battle mode Tifa the real Tifa? They all look different. Tifa most likely wasn’t meant to have large breasts at all. They just didn’t have a choice. And even so, this is a remake. Square Enix can do whatever the hell they want with their characters. But internet gonna internet.
People have been asking for a Final Fantasy VII remake for more than a decade. It’s been called the most requested remake of all time for years. Square Enix refused to do it for the longest time and then finally gave in, because money, and how does everyone react? They complain about the supposed breast reduction of a non-main character. Yes Tifa is in the party and she definitely matters. But she’s no Aeris. She’s no Cloud. She’s no Sephiroth. It shouldn’t even matter that much. And yet here I am writing this article. Now honestly Square Enix doesn’t have to and didn’t have to say shit about this game. They could have kept it completely secret until the day it released and it still would probably end up being the best-selling game of its release year (2020). But Square Enix did announce it and has shown more and more information about it because they want to make fans happy. Do the fans deserve that kind of treatment? Clearly not. Again gamers bite the hand that feeds them for completely ridiculous and immature reasons.
The thing that makes me most angry is that not only are people always complaining about pointless bullshit in games today, when they should be thankful for the transparency, but that they’re putting their attention and outrage on things that don’t matter while serious issues abound and are ignored. Just last week the UK Parliament conducted a panel with reps from EA and Epic Games to discuss loot boxes and other gambling type mechanics in games. If you aren’t well versed in the details of this interview, you should definitely take the time to read about it, because it’s important. Here’s a short summary from Eurogamer as a jumping off point. Basically EA and Epic Games showed that they don’t care about consumers at all and that they will say anything to try to continue robbing gamers blind for useless skins. This is what gamers should be talking about. This is what should be trending and memeing and being covered by all gaming sites and causing uproar. People should be burning their EA game cases in the streets. YouTube should be covered in videos of people calling out EA for saying bullshit like “we don’t call them loot boxes – we call them surprise mechanics.” But that is not happening.
Yes some people are certainly talking about the UK Parliament interview. And some sites have reported on it a little bit. But it hasn’t been the main focus of the gaming community. My Twitter timeline hasn’t been covered in #SurpriseMechanics memes. But I’m still hearing about Tifa’s “small” tits. At this point, I don’t know why developers tell us anything in advance. The community continues to act childish, focus on the wrong things, and attack companies and individuals for not doing anything wrong while simultaneously letting the real criminals slide. It’s a shit show and it’s unacceptable. There’s really no other way to say it.
What is the purpose of E3? I’m not asking that in a philosophical sort of way. I’m asking that question in the most literal terms possible. Why do companies spend exorbitant amount of money to give presentations to a room full of “press” and influencers to talk about upcoming games and gaming related products and services? Because they believe it’s profitable is the answer I’ve concluded upon. But I’m certainly willing to consider other points of view. I don’t believe it’s for love of the fans. I don’t believe it’s to do actual business like at basically every other trade show. I believe companies show up to E3 as a means to market products based on the belief that doing so increases sales which, in most cases, increases profits. That also means that if companies believed they would take a net loss by showing up to E3 then they wouldn’t show up. Or at least that’s my opinion on this question based on the information I’ve seen and my own understanding of the gaming/tech industry based on my involvement through my job, which is related to gaming on the PC hardware side.
PlayStation didn’t have an official press conference at E3 2019. This was the first time they didn’t show up since the company first started attending in the mid-90’s. This was not a surprise since they made this announcement back in 2018, but it was still a much different E3 experience without PlayStation being there. Arguably, the lack of PlayStation, and to a much lesser extent Activision, not being there considerably lowered the value of even attending the show. That’s not to say that it wasn’t still worth going. I certainly would have gone if I had been able to. It’s just to give a realistic accounting of the cost benefit analysis of attending E3 in 2019 vs that of previous years. Remember that even though Nintendo doesn’t give a live presentation at E3 anymore that they still have a booth on the show floor, which in my opinion might even be more valuable than the presentations when it comes to attending these types of events. For example, I never attend the presentations at Taipei Game Show, but I go every year to see the booths and try out demos. It’s well worth the effort just for that.
Many people have argued that E3 suffered with PlayStation not being there. Even XBOX boss, Phil Spencer, voiced this opinion in an interview. The whole industry cares about E3 and the whole industry suffers when the caliber of E3 is lowered, even if it gives a company a leg up on the competition . . . at the show. Also let us remember that every company that doesn’t show up to E3 burdens other companies with having to show cross platform titles. Cyberpunk 2077, as an example, had to be shown at this year’s E3. It did not have to be presented by Microsoft though. But with CDPR not doing their own presentation and PlayStation not attending, that meant Microsoft had to take responsibility for showing that game, whether it was good for them or not. In this case it probably was good for them, but that won’t always be the case. If I’m honest though, I don’t actually agree with the opinion that PlayStation wasn’t at E3. In fact, I’d say that PlayStation was very much at E3 but decided not to present their in house exclusive titles. Allow me to explain.
As I said, showing up to E3 is about increasing sales, in my opinion. This means that anything presented that will potentially increase a company’s sales can and should be considered beneficial to that company regardless of when and where it was shown during E3. So for example, Ubisoft always does their own presentation, but any games shown by Ubisoft are usually cross platform. Meaning all platforms that will have Ubisoft games presented distributed on them benefit from Ubisoft’s presentation and thus can be considered to have a presence at the Ubisoft presentation. So in the case of Ghost Recon: Breakpoint, which was presented by John Bernthal (The Punisher), PlayStation, Microsoft (XB1 & PC), and Google (Stadia) were all present at/during this presentation. Nintendo, since Ghost Recon: Breakpoint will not be available on Switch, was not.
The real reason PlayStation doesn’t have to show up to E3 is because they’re now there by default. Outside of Nintendo, PlayStation runs the exclusive market. Meaning the only AAA titles you saw at E3, that weren’t presented by Nintendo, except for Gear of War 5 and Halo Infinite will be available on PlayStation hardware. Unless I’m missing another title. Furthermore, there were a few announcements made that were exclusive to PlayStation such as undisclosed content for the Marvel’s Avengers game. Sure there’s a few things XBOX showed that won’t be available on PS4 but pretty much all of them will all be available on PC and none of it was top shelf games. All other games showed from all other conferences, again other than Nintendo, that people will actually whine about not being able to play will be available on PS4. Watch Dogs Legions? PS4 title. Cyberpunk 2077? PS4 title. Marvel’s Avengers? PS4 title. Final Fantasy VII HD Remake? PS4 title. Anything actually worth talking about at E3 this year that isn’t a Nintendo exclusive will be playable on PS4.
PlayStation got free announcement after free announcement during most of E3. Because the fact is that even though you saw Cyberpunk 2077 presented by Microsoft, you are not going to buy it on XB1 if you own a PS4 (or PC). Until the exclusive market reorganizes itself, which it won’t anytime soon since Microsoft seems committed to the play on any device thing, PlayStation simply doesn’t have to attend E3. Every company is presenting for them free of charge. Imagine if E3 2019 had shown no games that will be available on PS4. Like every company just made it a point not to give any sort of free marketing to SONY. What would the show have looked like? These are all the games presented during press conferences at E3 this year that are not currently announced to be coming to PS4.
Gears of War 5
Ori and the Will of the Wisps (Originally announced before E3 2019)
Microsoft Flight Simulator
Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition
Phantasy Star Online 2 Remake
RPG Time: The Legend of Wright
Way to the Woods
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2
Luigi’s Mansion 3
Animal Crossing: New Horizons
Pokemon Sword and Pokemon Shield
The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening
Super Mario Maker 2
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3: The Black Order
Cadence of Hyrule ~ Crypt of the NecroDancer Featuring The Legend of Zelda
Fire Emblem: Three Houses
Dragon Quest XI S: Echoes of an Elusive Age – Definitive Edition
Dragon Quest Builders 2
No More Heroes 3
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020
Panzer Dragoon: Remake
That’s 31 games. Of those 31, 15 are Nintendo exclusives, all of which were presented via Nintendo Direct rather than live presentation, as Nintendo has done for the last few years. There were also some small indie projects that were mentioned offhandedly and not given any real stage time during presentations. Of those 16 remaining games, only two are AAA titles and neither of those are new IPs. That means without giving free marketing to SONY, we would have exactly two games worth really talking about from E3 2019 that were presented live on stage. And yes some of these games are timed exclusives for XB1, in the same way that Final Fantasy VII Remake is a most likely a timed exclusive for PS4. But do those actually affect sales by platform that much? Remember how badly Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015) did at release because of the timed exclusivity? No one is going to go buy an XB1 to play Cyberpunk 2077 a little earlier. If anything they’ll just buy it for PC. Which most people who have PC’s, myself included, were probably going to do anyway because that game is just asking to be modded and ran in glorious PC MasterRace settings.
For reference, here’s all the games I’m probably buying on PS4 after seeing them at E3.
Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order
Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot
Watch Dogs Legions
Fall Guys Ultimate Knockout
That’s compared to just one game on PC (Cyberpunk 2077) and nine games on Nintendo Switch. PlayStation sold me 38% of the games I’m planning on buying after E3 2019 and they weren’t even officially there. Microsoft sold me only 6% of the games I’m planning on buying and it’s for PC via GOG so they won’t even really get any revenue from it. And honestly the only reason I plan on going the PC root for this game is for mods. And if the game does ultimately get a third person mode, I’ll probably just get it on PS4 because that’s the only mod I really care about.
The fact is that PlayStation has solidified itself so much into the gaming industry as a whole this gen, mostly by controlling the exclusive market and dominating the console player base, that they are automatically present at E3. It’s almost how Steam is synonymous with PC gaming . . . well at least for right now (Lol Epic Games Store). If you play newly released console games on anything other than Switch, it’s more than likely that you’re playing them on PS4. That’s not an opinion. It’s a numerical fact. And because of that, every game you purchase that isn’t an XB1 exclusive, so pretty much none of them, will most likely be purchased for PS4. PlayStation was absolutely at E3. And between the lacking exclusives on XB1, the continued Epic Games Store controversy for PC games, and the lack of blockbuster cross platform titles like Cyberpunk 2077 going to Switch, it’s almost fair to say that SONY won E3 . . . except for Switch owners like me. I have a PS4 and I will be buying a number of games shown this year on PS4, but Nintendo absolutely won E3 for me based on the sheer number of games I’ll actually buy on Switch after watching the Direct. If things continue the way they are now and Microsoft can’t seriously turn things around with Project Scarlett, I wouldn’t expect to see SONY show up at E3 again for a very, very long time. Maybe they’ll show up to present new consoles in release years but other than that they simply have no reason to. Because why spend the money when you don’t have to?
Usually I make a post about E3 where I take some time to talk about the games shown and spend the rest of the post ranting about how the entire concept is outdated, biased towards undeserving members of the gaming community, and how it needs to be more accessible to the public or just die already. This year I’m not going to do that. Instead I’m going to just write my thoughts on a number of moments/topics addressed at E3 as completely disconnected mini-blog posts. There are some larger topics that I want to discuss in more detail and will in later blog posts, but this year for my E3 post I wanted to change it up ever so slightly. There will still be a fair amount of ranting though.
1. Who Won E3?
Usually you end with this but I wanted to start with it because it’s not actually the most important topic of E3 I want to discuss. So to cut right to the point, Nintendo won E3 this year. For me, winning E3 means garnering the most future sales . . . of games, not hardware. Now since I’m only speaking for myself, that means the winner of E3 is always the company that shows the most games that I leave the presentation at least 70% sure that I’m going to end up buying, preferably before the next E3. This was without a doubt Nintendo.
Now chances are I won’t buy all these games in the long run. But if I had an unlimited amount of time and money, these are all the games shown at E3 this year that I am not on the fence about wanting to buy. Meaning if they went on sale tomorrow and money was no issue, I would absolutely buy these games with no additional information. Note that I’m also not counting any games that I was already sold on before E3 because of previous announcements/presentations.
Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order
Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot
Watch Dogs Legions
Gods and Monsters
Roller Champions (Technically free to play but I’m counting it here anyway)
Fall Guys Ultimate Knockout
Luigi’s mansion 3
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2
Animal Crossing: New Horizons
Cadence of Hyrule
Collection of Mana
Panzer Dragoon Remake
Ni No Kuni Remake
The number of games I’m fairly likely to buy shown by Nintendo, again that I wasn’t already planning on buying going into E3, is more games than I’ll buy from all the other companies combined. Even if you remove the Breath of the Wild sequel because that was just a tease, it’s still overwhelmingly Nintendo with the victory. Nintendo won E3.
2. Screw Leaks & the People Who Leak Them
Every E3, as with every big gaming/tech event, there are usually some leaks. This was of course true for E3 this year as well. What I noticed this year, which may have happened in past years as well but went unnoticed by me, is that leakers were getting caught by developers/publishers and then people were coming to their defense. For instance, there’s this leaker on Twitter that was apparently contacted by Nintendo with a cease and desist order before the Nintendo Direct was shown. Because of this, they didn’t leak information about Nintendo’s presentation but did about basically all the other presentations. After they tweeted about Nintendo’s threats people came out of the woodwork to defend the leaker and get angry at Nintendo. This was of course not the only leaker but just one example. Even Jason Schreier tweeted in defense of leakers, which was shocking to me considering how much work he’s put into defending and supporting better treatment for developers.
I have been given a cease and desist from a lawyer representing Nintendo. They have my full name and everything. This means I'm not allowed to post any private trade secrets from Nintendo co ltd. This does not mean I cannot post things from other companies, but not Nintendo.
Personally I hate leaks. When I was young and uniformed, I used to think leaks were so cool. Now that I have a job in the tech industry, I think they’re the worst thing ever. And I get really angry when people defend leakers with arguments like “the billion dollar corporation won’t be affected that much” because it shows a complete disregard for people like me, the marketers. It is true that in the grand scheme of corporate profits, leaks have very little effect. But profits have nothing to do with why leaks are bad. Corporations, of all sizes, have employees, sometimes full teams of them, that are responsible for creating and executing marketing plans for new products. It doesn’t matter what kind of product it is. It can be hardware, which is what I do marketing for, or it can be software, such as new games. All companies, especially the ones that show up at events like E3, have marketing employees. These marketing plans take a lot of work. They’re planned sometimes months in advance. They take a lot of time and effort and often cost a lot of money. What most people don’t realize is that when leaks happen, those plans often have to change on the fly or get cancelled altogether. Imagine if months of your work was instantly destroyed because some asshat found out some privileged information by taking advantage and betraying the trust of a friend or business acquaintance and posted it to the internet for some clout. That’s what leaks are. And it doesn’t just end there. Companies have to adjust marketing plans based on the fallout from leaks. This is essentially emergency crunch time but for marketers. And it doesn’t matter when and what the situation is. You can be at home about to eat dinner with your family and suddenly get a call that a leak happened and an entire marketing plan has to be changed in the next day in time for an event. Then you also have to deal with the fallout of the leak internally. Some companies take this very seriously and will do an internal investigation to find the source. People can get fired. Entire teams can get fired if the damage is large enough and they can’t discover the culprit.
As fun and exciting as E3 press conference surprises can be, please don't let billion-dollar corporate marketing convince you that it's a "spoiler" to know about a game announcement two days before you're supposed to – makes for an unhealthy culture, really
No I’m not speaking in hyperbole. I’m speaking from personal experience. Last month was Computex. My company had a booth there. I was part of the team responsible for the show’s online and offline marketing plan. I personally wrote more than one of the press releases for the show. I also had to help setup the booth for the show the day before it started. Somehow we had a leak happen for one of our products the day before the show started. I was literally on site setting up the booth when a coworker rushed over to me with the news and handed me a laptop saying a press release had to be rewritten to adjust based on internet response to the leaked information. Now this was a low level leak. It wasn’t a flagship product, there wasn’t a huge marketing plan created for it at that point, and rewriting a press release in the middle of a soft construction site, though rushed and inconvenient, was not the end of the world. But that’s when a leak scenario is not that bad. Imagine if it was the night before E3 and you’re in a bar drinking celebrating the fact that your multi-million dollar marketing plan that took a team of more than 50 people months to plan and put into motion was finally finshed when suddenly you get a call from your boss saying the game has been leaked and the entire plan has to be shifted or even scrapped. That’s the reality of leaks for marketers. As much as people seem to care about developers, they never seem to care about all the other people involved in launching a game or product. Leaks have little effect on developers, especially in the short run. But they play havoc on the lives of marketers and marketers are not rich douchebags in suits drinking scotch laughing at the underlings. Marketers are the underlings. We’re struggling laborers just like any other employee at any other company. We’re not famous. People don’t praise and buy products because we’re creating the marketing assets for them. It’s thankless work that no one thinks about and it’s usually underpaid work, especially for the writers. So I hope the next time you hear about a leak you ignore it and remember that someone’s day is probably gonna be ruined because of it and that someone works hard for less than they deserve, just like you probably do.
3. Subscriptions, Subscriptions, & More Subscriptions
It seems my fears are coming to fruition. The age of subscription services will be in full force within the next year. So many companies announced new subscription services. XBOX updated the Games Pass to a premium version, of course for a higher price. But they also announced a PC only version which I do think is a nice surprise. But they also announced a new cloud service. Ubisoft will have a subscription service. Square Enix implied they plan on launching a subscription service. And then there’s Stadia, which I already hate the sound of. The worst part is that Ubisoft’s subscription service will connect to Stadia. Meaning you have to buy a subscription service to play games inside a subscription service you’re also buying. It’s a recursive cost that will probably multiply exponentially overtime. I fear a future where companies do away with buying single games altogether and they force you to do annual subscriptions that require subscription based platforms subletting on other subscription based platforms. Imagine if one day to play a PC game you need to use Microsoft Windows as a subscription service because you can’t purchase one off licenses anymore. But then you also need to subscribe to Stadia to run games on your lower range hardware. But of course you’re also paying an internet service fee to stream Stadia which will charge you a premium for bandwidth. Then you have to pay for the PlayStation cloud service subscription because you want to use your PSN account for your friend’s list and trophies. But you’re trying to play a Ubisoft game like Ghost Recon: Breakpoint so you have to subscribe to Ubisoft’s subscription service. Suddenly what used to cost $60 plus your extant hardware now costs like $19.99 to the power of 5 monthly. It’s a depressing dystopia for the gamers of tomorrow. I fear the day that GOG and Steam jump onto the subscription bandwagon.
4. Devolver Digital Made Light of My Fears
I’ve actually never watched the Devolver Digital E3 presentation before. To me they’ve always been kind of an odd duck. They make/publish indie class games that I rarely ever play. I’m not saying they make bad games by any means. I actually own nine of their titles and I’ll almost certainly buy Fall Guys Ultimate Knockout. I also really liked Luftrausers and The Talos Principle, which I never actually finished sadly. But to me they’re also kind of an enigma. I almost never realize a game is published by Devolver Digital even if I’m very aware of the game. So I wasn’t even planning on watching their presentation this year. The only reason I did was because a friend told me I’d really enjoy it and that they made fun of a lot of things I talk about often. So I watched it and it was excellent, but it was also scary. They ironically discussed a number of issues and trends in the gaming industry that I’ve been talking about for years. It reminded me of when Ajit Pai did that skit about being a paid shill for ISPs. In the age of games as service models, loot boxes, unfinished games supplemented with paid DLC, and other such bullshit, I found it equally refreshing and horrifying to see a publisher talk honestly about these issues while simultaneously making fun of them in the pursuit of profit. It’s a weird time to be alive.
5. Star Power, Star Pricing?
When I was a kid, Hailey Joel Osment was a famous child actor because of his ability to see dead people (that’s a TheSixth Sense (1999) reference). When it was announced that he would be voicing the main character for the English version of Kingdom Hearts, it was a special moment. While I don’t assume he was the first legitimate movie actor to voice a video game character, he was the first that I could remember being fairly famous for acting in movies at the time of doing the game. It was common with TV actors, such as TC Carson as Kratos, but they never had as much value demand as movie actors and still don’t in most cases. The fact that Hailey Joel Osment stayed with the Kingdom Hearts franchise all these years and returned to voice Sora in Kingdom Hearts III is actually really cool. But what’s important here is that Hailey Joel Osment was never really an A-list star and more importantly he got into video game voice acting in a time where even A-list stars weren’t as meaningful to the public or as expensive as they are now. The other really important detail is that Hailey Joel Osment’s likeness wasn’t actually featured in the games he was voice acting in. The first truly epic actor I recall playing a character in a AAA video game and showing their full likeness was Kevin Spacey in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (2014). I’m not saying that this was the first instance of this happening. I’m just saying it’s the first one that I can remember. Also note I’m not counting movie tie in games because that’s a different animal. Now we’re starting to see the use of top tier actors in games as actual characters in the games become more commonplace.
At E3 this year both Keanu Reeves and John Bernthal presented games because they are featured characters in those games. This is cool. It’s also expensive. My fear here is that publishers will try to leverage this practice to ultimately raise the price of games. They’ve been trying to increase that $60 MSRP for like two generations of consoles. Every time a new gen is announced, a company, usually EA, mentions the prospect of game prices increasing, the internet goes into an uproar, and then it doesn’t happen. But what if instead of tying the price increase to hardware or development costs, like they usually do, they tie it to star power? Who could actually dispute the argument that John Wick costs more to include than normal video game actors? Does it not make perfect sense that having the Punisher play the villain in a game would cost considerably more for development than say Troy Baker? Not that I’m knocking Troy Baker’s talent by any means. But it’s ridiculous to think that he costs as much to put in a game as Keanu Reeves. Suddenly we’re seeing fairly successful and notable stars pop up in games way more often. Norman Reedus, Mads Mikkelsen, and Guillermo Del Toro will all be in Death Stranding. And people are eating the star power up. Keanu Reeves’ presenting Cyberpunk 2077 at E3 is being called the best moment at E3 by a wide margin. Do you think all these actors are working because of their love of video games? Not likely. Now hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully prices won’t increase and rightfully they shouldn’t with loots boxes, paid DLC, season passes, microtransactions, and so on. But if you start hearing companies say things like “games have moved past AAA” then those should be warning signs that price hikes are on the way.
6. CDPR Reinforces Bad Behavior
It seems every year there’s some diehard fan and/or paid shill that just yells too loudly and too often during these E3 presentations. I work in the tech hardware industry so presentations like this are usually attended by introvert tech nerds, some highly analytical, usually older media, and other industry members who can no longer be asked to get too excited about an increase in processor speed or the inclusion of additional RAM slots on a motherboard. So yelling during a press conference basically doesn’t happen in my neck of the woods. But gaming events are attended by gamers. Not only that, but they’re “press” events which in 2019 means streamers, YouTubers, and other people who make a living by being obnoxious, self-absorbed, and lacking in basic human behavioral standards. Not to mention a lot of them are too young and inexperienced to actually understand the concept of professionalism. So I get why yelling occurs. But as we saw at the Bethesda conference this year, yelling during the presentations other than at specific scripted/expected times can be burdensome to both presenters and the audience. It’s a problem that can’t really be solved in any intentional way, other than not letting those damn internet personalities in of course. What can be done though is that companies shouldn’t encourage it. Sadly CDPR did the opposite this year.
Bethesda Front Row Hypeman Squad freaking out over every other sentence is honestly the funniest thing I've seen all day. pic.twitter.com/XnxntXzNPB
In a rather sincere moment during the Cyberpunk 2077 presentation, Keanu Reeves was sort of struggling to talk to the crowd because honestly talking to a live audience of gamers isn’t in his normal wheelhouse as an actor who says little in most of his parts to begin with. But he was genuine and sincere and people appreciated that, rightly so. A YouTuber screamed out “you’re breathtaking” to Keanu Reeves and he shouted it back. It was a nice moment. It was a cute moment. It was a moment where members of the audience once again showed their lack of professionalism. I think it’s funny that no one is talking about the fact that literally right after this exchange Keanu Reeves flat out says “I gotta finish this” because so many people were yelling and interrupting and not just letting him talk. Now that’s fine. It’s fine for people to get excited. It’s fine for people to yell during the presentations. Like I said, it’s unprofessional but it can’t really be helped. But it shouldn’t be encouraged. CDPR encouraged this behavior this year by promising the “you’re breathtaking” guy a free collector’s edition of Cyberpunk 2077. Sorry but I don’t agree with that decision. A person is privileged enough to attend E3. They’re lucky enough to have a direct exchange with Keanu Reeves. They’re essentially handed an infinite amount of internet clout and articles written about them that will surely increase their YouTube presence, among other things. As I write this, he seems to have gained at least 1000 new subscribers since the event happened. They get all this for acting unprofessionally and then they’re rewarded with a $250 collector’s edition of possibly the most highly anticipated game of 2020. This is just setting up E3 2020 to be an absolute shit show. Every YouTuber, streamer, and other internet personality will be actively trying to have their moment during the press conferences next year. If anything, CDPR should have rewarded someone who wasn’t at E3 but was streaming or live tweeting about the presentation as a show of solidarity for those not fortunate enough to make it to the event. This was a great PR move but it sets a terrible precedent.
7. Roller Champions Alpha Demo
Out of nowhere, Ubisoft released an alpha demo for an upcoming free to play game called Roller Champions. It’s like Rocket League mixed with Jet Set Radio minus the graffiti. It’s surprisingly fun and I’ve already played it enough to win consistently. The demo will not be available by the time this post is published but you can check out the gameplay from when I streamed it here. If you like quick round PVP sports games then you’ll definitely want to check this game out when it drops. I just hope it’s rewarding enough because free to play PVP games tend to get stale rather quickly.
Well that’s my round up for E3 this year. Not a terrible showing, but there’s certainly been better years. I do think it will be a good year of gaming, at least on Nintendo with a few heavy hitters set to release on other platforms before the next E3. As I said at the beginning, there are a couple specific topics from this year’s E3, not included in this post, that I want to talk about in more detail. Those will be published as individual blog posts over the next few weeks. What did you think of E3 this year?
Last week, I finally saw John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum. The movie was excellent, as are all the films in the franchise, but this is not a review. Honestly there’s no sensible reason for me to review John Wick 3 because if you haven’t seen the first two, then you absolutely shouldn’t watch the third one. And if you have seen the first two then you’re absolutely going to watch the third one if you haven’t already regardless of any review written by anyone, good or bad. So writing a review for this movie would be an exercise in futility. What I want to talk about is the concept of a John Wick game.
I have been thinking a lot about what a John Wick game could/should be like. As with all movie games, the experience should emulate that of the movie. Specifically it should try to simulate the feelings the player got while watching the movie. In the case of John Wick that means adrenaline, rage, exhaustion, and a tinge of paranoia induced fear. Those are the feelings I get when watching John Wick movies. Those are the feelings I imagine the character gets over the course of the movies. So in my opinion, a proper John Wick game should induce these same feelings in the player.
If I had to narrow down the John Wick experience to a single core idea, it would be extremely visceral, perfectly executed, fast paced violence. Three concepts fused into one. The violence isn’t just acts of killing. It’s brutal acts of killing to a point that I couldn’t even imagine on my own. In the first 15 minutes of John Wick 3, he kills a man with a book. And it’s so brutal that I considered giving up literacy for an extended period of time. The violence is not just brutal but perfectly executed. My friend described John Wick 3 as like “watching someone complete a perfect run of a video game.” This is a fairly accurate description that can be seen in all three of the films. John Wick isn’t just good at killing. He’s consistently good at killing enemy after enemy with very few breaks in between foes. He kills with a rhythm that’s almost poetic in how flawless it is. It’s like watching Bobby Fisher play a game of chess. Finally, the action is fast paced. The movie isn’t built on monotonous build ups and slow paced duels between two knights on opposite sides of a war as they talk things out between clashes. It’s nothing so ceremonious. It’s just kill after kill after kill in rapid succession. Those three ideas together make up the John Wick experience for me.
A John Wick game has to have all three of these concepts blended together. Any singular one on its own doesn’t equate to the John Wick experience. Even delivering two of them perfectly would still be an ultimately hollow attempt. A game could be extremely violent and fast paced, but if it’s too forgiving and doesn’t require the player to perform at near perfect levels then it’s not really a John Wick game. If a game made the player have to execute every move flawlessly and delivered Mortal Kombat 11 levels of violence but had no component of time tied to the gameplay then it still wouldn’t be an authentic John Wick gameplay experience. The game would have to deliver all three concepts well to be deemed a proper John Wick game.
John Wick Hex, the soon to be released John Wick game by Bithell Games, may take on the name of John Wick, but it really doesn’t look like it will deliver the full John Wick experience. The violence may be there, but due to the graphics, it doesn’t seem like it will be all that impressive visually. The perfect execution looks like it will definitely be there. In fact, that seems to be the core concept of the gameplay. But the pacing doesn’t look to be there at all, based on what little of the game I’ve seen so far. John Wick Hex looks like they took the concept of chess, not speed chess, and applied it to a game about killing waves of people. While this can and hopefully will be an entertaining gameplay experience, I don’t believe it will be a true John Wick game.
I’m left with two questions. Are there any games that already exist that deliver a full-fledged John Wick style gameplay experience? Would such a game actually appeal to players? Especially in 2019. I’ve been trying to think of games that might be worthy of being called John Wick-esque. One example I keep coming back to is Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice. It’s violent, fast-paced, and requires nearly perfect execution. Obviously it’s not a gun game, as one might expect a John Wick game to be, but it does, for all intents and purposes, meet the three criteria of visceral, fast-paced, and requiring pretty much perfect execution. Based on those core concepts, Sekiro is just Samurai John Wick. But do people like it?
Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice is a game muddied by controversy. Most people agree that it’s really hard. Like even harder than Dark Souls. But people don’t agree on whether or not the game should be made easier. Arguably, a true John Wick game would need to be at least as hard as Sekiro. But would people like such a game? They’d probably like watching it be played by someone really good. Yet when it came to playing it, many people would probably just complain that it was too hard. But to make it easy just wouldn’t be the John Wick experience. It would at best be the illusion of the John Wick experience, which admittedly many people would like.
A proper John Wick game would probably be really annoying. I imagine it would play similarly to Superhot but the levels/engagements would be quite a bit longer. You’d also be able to take at least some hits, as the character gets quite roughed up in the movies at various points. One way to do it might be a constant stream of timed QTEs in the style of TellTale Games titles like The Wolf Among Us. It might play like a very polished version of the Dragon’s Lair games but obviously more violent and realistic. But a lot of people don’t like QTEs. So even if that method did get closer to the movie experience, that doesn’t mean gamers would like it.
The more I think about it, the more difficult the question seems to answer. I think this might be one of the reasons John Wick Hex was made the way it seems to have been. They went for the perfect execution aspect and some of the violence but appear to have left out the speed aspect as a sacrifice to the modern audience of lazy noobs. Better to appease the majority than make the most authentic experience possible. Especially when you don’t have the reputation of From Software to fall back on for justification.
I think a proper John Wick game is possible, but it’s certainly no easy feat to pull off. Either as a developer or as a gamer. I’m glad John Wick Hex exists because it means at least someone made an attempt. But I want to see a proper AAA John Wick game produced, successful or not. In any case, definitely watch all the movies if you haven’t. You surely won’t regret it.
Last week PlayStation released the second episode of State of Play. For those who aren’t aware, State of Play is the PlayStation version of Nintendo Direct. The first episode released in March of this year. You can read my thoughts about that first episode and the concept as a whole in this blog post. This second episode was in many ways considerably less impressive than the first one but, like with the first one, I think it shows that there’s a really strong concept here.
The first State of Play was about 20 minutes and showed 17 games. This latest episode was only 10 minutes and showed six games plus an ad/announcement for a limited edition PS4 and “Days of Play”, which appears to be their replacement for E3 this year, if I had to guess. When comparing the two episodes it’s kind of hard. This one had much fewer games shown, but the caliber of games shown was considerably better overall. We got announcements for a serious DLC expansion for Monster Hunter World, actual gameplay footage of FFVII Remake, which we haven’t seen in like three years, and a lot more substantial footage of MediEvil. Plus three indie projects, one of which will most certainly crash and burn, one which could actually do rather well, and one that’s quite possibly gonna be a sleeper hit. In general though, half of the games shown were important titles with a great amount of quality content shown. And again, this was all kept to 10 minutes.
As I said in my post about the first episode, I think the State of Play format works really well. It’s short, no nonsense game focused content. Yes they did throw an ad in for a limited edition console, but I feel like that’s appropriate here even if kind of annoying. The larger take away from that is that PlayStation is using this platform to make any and all gaming related announcements, big or small. I think that’s a great thing.
Many people complained that the presentation was too short and didn’t show enough, but I think that opinion shows a lack of perspective. The problem with E3 is that it’s only once a year. Companies have to make long presentations that impress because they’re making an impression that has to last an entire year. It’s expensive, time consuming, and forces companies to make announcements way earlier than they often should. And even after putting all that time, effort, and money into it they can still disappoint the crowd and have to deal with a year’s worth of anger and vitriol. Every E3 ends with a bunch of gaming journalists, YouTubers, and streamers doing “Who Won E3?” posts. But with something like State of Play none of that has to apply.
In a scenario where State of Play happens one to two times a year, both episodes were absolute garbage. Not enough games, not enough big announcements, and not enough details. But in a scenario where State of Play happens say bi-monthly, both episodes were great. And with that format kept to only 10 minutes, even monthly wouldn’t be that hard, time consuming, or costly to make. That’s what State of Play really could and should be. A short monthly update of any and all PS4 news, big or small. One of the games shown in this latest episode was Away: The Survival Series. This game has you play as a sugar glider trying to survive in a world post cataclysmic natural disaster. Honestly it looks great. I’m definitely biased because I have a pet sugar glider, but even if I didn’t I’d definitely consider playing it . . . If I found about it.
Away looks like something that would ultimately be a hidden gem. Or at least it would have been if there wasn’t a video presentation showcasing small indie titles coming to PS4. Few people would have heard about it unless it was like Cuphead impressive. And that’s a shame because an indie game shouldn’t have to be record breaking to be valued if it’s a solid game. That’s the true potential of State of Play. There’s not a huge list of big flashy announcements every month. But there are always indie games, new DLC, and other updates that players should be notified about but just aren’t. State of Play can be used to fix this. If it’s done fairly often, gamers will be trained not to expect bombs every time. Sometimes it will just be news of small titles and DLC. But that’s fine because we’ll know that the next State of Play is just a few weeks away.
Nintendo Directs are rare because the production value really is fairly high. They’re fairly lengthy, have real people hosting them often, and go out of their way to create high quality graphics. State of Play, on the other hand, is the bare minimum of production value. And that’s not an insult. All the excess is cut away. It’s a simple blue background, panels, and straight gameplay footage. A bodiless voice reads a fairly simple script and there are no impressive visual or audio transitions. It’s the perfect fast and friendly low budget games presentation. And that makes it perfect for taking the time to focus on lower profit indie titles on a frequent basis.
What are being called flaws should be seen as improvements from the first episode. It’s streamlined to just 10 minutes to show six games. 10 minutes of gameplay footage spread across six games is nothing. Especially if you consider that most people can’t play six games in a month to begin with. I could produce that in my sleep. And if they make the developers write their own game descriptions and provide gameplay footage for the presentation, it’s a cake walk. It’s one voice recording session and maybe an hour of video editing. The original replay link on the PlayStation YouTube channel was 25 minutes long. It’s only a 10 minute presentation. More than half of that presentation video was a static banner. Now it’s been cut down to 13 minutes. It’s way harder for PlayStation to cut the video down to 10 minutes than it is to get a measly 10 minutes of gameplay footage.
I think State of Play has the potential to revolutionize the way console companies present games and updates to the public. Keep them short, sweet, low budget, and publish them often. No content is too small in this format. Little puzzle games, hidden gem indie titles, and DLC expansions all have a place there. They can even announce sales in the presentations just to bolster the time if there’s literally nothing else to talk about that week/month. I really like what I’ve seen so far from State of Play and I hope it continues and thrives.
11 years ago I was in Thousand Oaks, California visiting a friend for his birthday. We watched Iron Man (2008). I was a freshman in college living in Philadelphia, single, and had no idea what I was actually going to do after I graduated. This past weekend I saw Avengers: Endgame. Today I have a B.A., live in Taiwan, work a full time job, and I’m engaged to be married. So much has happened since Iron Man both for me personally and the world as a whole. Like the MCU itself, there have been ups and downs. Advancements have been made, new entities have come and gone, and people have evolved at a personal level. As I walked out of the theater with my fiancé, she jokingly said “so what do we do now?” In many ways this question is extremely appropriate. If we’re honest, the MCU has had such a huge impact on popular culture that it’s hard to imagine a world where the Avengers don’t play a role in it.
This post is not a review, as plainly stated in the title. There will be some comments that would be very appropriate to place in a review, but I refuse to formally endeavor to try to review Avengers: Endgame for two main reasons. First, such an endeavor would be damn near impossible without spoilers. Because of what this particular movie is, just about every scene spoils something. What this film is more than anything is a wrap up to 11 years of interconnected films. So basically everything that happens is a spoiler or Easter egg for someone. For instance, this movie finally tells us where the name Jarvis, Tony Stark’s first AI assistant voiced by Paul Bettany who later became Vision, came from. So trying to review it with any level of depth without spoiling it is like the Hulk trying to life Mjolnir. The second, and in my opinion more important reason, is that writing a review for Endgame is pointless.
My school of thinking has always been that reviews are for people who haven’t yet experienced something. The purpose of them is to help people decide if something is worth their time and money. Reviews are not for people who have already played or watched something to circle jerk about how much they liked or hated it. That’s not the purpose of reviews and ultimately why I often avoid the comments sections for main stream reviews. Because the people there usually have no business reading the review to begin with since they’ve already seen the movie or played the game. Based on this mode of thought, I find the entire idea of an Endgame review laughable. If you’ve spent the last 11 or so years watching a total of 21 other movies, not to mention multiple other TV shows on multiple platforms, possibly read comics about newly introduced characters such as a Black Nick Fury, and all the other MCU related things I could mention, is there even a chance that you aren’t going to go see Endgame? Could anyone actually convince you that it was so bad that you’re better off not seeing the culmination of the largest interconnected film franchise in the history of the world? No. The answer to that question is an emphatic and absolute no. If you’ve watched the other 21 movies, you will absolutely go see Endgame regardless of what any and all reviews say. And honestly if you haven’t seen the other 21 movies, then I wholeheartedly recommend that you don’t watch Endgame. You owe it to yourself, and to everyone who worked on that universe, not to spoil the experience of watching that particular movie until you’re fully prepared for it.
Honestly speaking, Endgame isn’t the best MCU movie. I don’t even think I’d put it in the top five. It has time travel in it. Sorry if you consider that a spoiler, but it seems fairly obvious that would have been the case after the events of Infinity War. It’s understood that pretty much any plot that relies on time travel to fix a problem isn’t going to be a top shelf plot. But that’s OK in the case Endgame. The truth is that it wasn’t meant to be the best MCU movie. This movie was meant to bookend the largest, most impressive, and most impactful interconnected film franchise the world has even known. It didn’t need to be the best MCU film. It simply had to be the most emotionally gratifying to the audience. And again, the audience in this case is only people who have watched 21 other related movies over the last 11 years. Those people will leave the theater satisfied. Not necessarily happy, but satisfied.
I never cried in a comic book movie before. I’ve cried in tons of other movies. More so the older I get. But of the more than 60 comic book movies I’ve seen over the course of my life, Avengers: Endgame was the only one I can remember crying in. And I didn’t just cry once. I cried three separate times from three separate emotions. The first time was when my favorite Avenger did something that everyone had been waiting to see happen at least once. I was overwhelmed with excitement, awe, and happiness to the point of tears. The second was in the climactic moment when probably the most epic reveal scene in the history of film we’ll ever see happened. I was overwhelmed not by the majesty of the moment or emptions of the scene. I was overwhelmed by the history that scene represented. In one moment, more than 10 years of my life came crashing down on me. In a single sequence I relived every instance that the MCU had affected in my life over the last decade. Every movie viewing. Every nerdy conversation. Every date. Every debate. Every fan theory. It hit me like a wave at that moment. And I don’t think I’ll ever experience anything like that moment ever again in my life. Maybe if I have a kid I’ll feel that way when he/she graduates college. Maybe . . . The third and final moment that made me cry was near the end of the film in a deep moment of sadness that by all rights needed to happen. I didn’t predict it but it was the right decision and was meant to make you cry.
The feelings I felt while watching Endgame were supposed to happen. Those tears weren’t a coincidence. They were the intention of the movie. Like I said, this wasn’t meant to be the greatest MCU film ever made. That’s what Infinity War was intended to be. This movie was meant to thank people like me for being a committed and diligent fan for 11 straight years. It’s like playing The Citadel DLC in Mass Effect 3. It didn’t fully make sense that all these characters were in this location at the same time. But it didn’t have to make sense. It was fan service to thank the players for five years of hardcore fandom and literally hundreds of hours of story focused gameplay. That’s what Endgame is. There are plenty of plot holes. I left the theater debating my fiancé about time travel paradoxes. There were questionable plot decisions. Like why were so few aliens involved in a plot following half of all life across the universe being destroyed? But none of that detracted from the intense feeling of satisfaction you get when you reach the end of the credits. You leave the theater with a sense of completion.
The franchise isn’t even over. They’ve already confirmed multiple TV shows, at least two of them were set up in Endgame. They’ve already said Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is for sure happening, showed footage of Spider-Man: Far From Home, and have teased a number of other movies as well. But honestly this was the bookend. This was the last MCU film you absolutely need to watch. I do not see the next phase of the MCU being able to recreate what was done with this first collection of 22 films. Especially considering the characters that are now obviously retired for one reason or another, what ultimately happens to the Infinity Stones, and the lack of an all-encompassing villain that can truly affect all characters within the universe simultaneously. I’ve been trying to figure out who the next Thanos could even be and all I could come up with was Galactus or the Celestial(s)/Eternals. But those characters don’t have a wide ranging effect on the universe as a whole all at the same time. There’s no snap risk. Galactus eats one planet at a time. That might be sad for those people, but it’s a drop in the bucket to the rest of the planets and their inhabitants at any given time. Celestials potentially have that level of threat. Like with how Ego tried to destroy all planets at the same time. But there was no long term build up to that plan and he was taken down by just eight characters, only three of which had anything close to actual super powers. So really I think for all intents and purposes, it ends with Endgame. Everything else will just be icing on an already fulfilling cake.
The movie had something for pretty much everyone. No matter who you Stan in the MCU, if your character wasn’t already killed in a previous movie, there was a moment where they were honored in some way during Endgame. Even the female characters had an epic moment of feminism which I know lots of sexists will complain about online, but really it was just a nod to the A-Force and I’m fairly certain that all serious comic book fans appreciated it for what it was. That’s the point of the movie. Every fan gets a nod to their character. I Stan Cap. I was happy. I even got my wish fulfilled to have it confirmed that he wouldn’t die a virgin.
The only question I have left is where do we go from here? Not just in terms of the MCU. I’ve already made those predictions in a previous blog post. I would actually be careful about reading that post if you haven’t seen the movie yet because many of them were half confirmed and/or half correct in Endgame so it unofficially contains spoilers. But I pose the question more generally. As a culture. As a planet. As nerds, where do we go from here? Let’s not pretend the DCEU has even the slightest chance of rivaling the MCU for quality, longevity, or impact. Lord of the Rings is done and has been for several years now. Star Wars ends this year, and honestly for many people it ended with The Last Jedi if not before. Harry Potter, which was semi-niche to begin with, has been death rattling since Deathly Hollows Part 2. X-Men has never really had the impact of other franchises because of its continuity issues. What do we do with our time now? What do we nerd over as a culture. We all have our individual fandoms, but there’s really nothing else that sort of brings “everyone” together around the world. Arguably we haven’t had WWIII yet because literally everyone wanted to see what would happen with Thanos. Now that’s gone. And while the ending was necessary, poetic, and beautiful, the world is a little less bright because of it.
It’s over guys. This was the finale. I don’t think we’ll ever see something as beautiful and impressive as the MCU Infinity War ever again. I’m thankful to have been a part of it in my own small way. I’m thankful that each of these actors, many of which were quite famous before Iron Man (2008), stayed with it the whole time. This whole endeavor was, in the words of Taneleer Tivan, “Magnificent! Magnificent! Magnificent!”
I wanted to end this post with a quote from Avengers: Endgame that really stood out to me. I think it sums up the entire MCU quite well and also should inspire all the people who did watch these movies from start to finish over the last 11 years. I can’t actually say who the quote is spoken by in the movie because that in and of itself would be a spoiler, so I’ll just leave the quote anonymously.
“Everyone fails at who they are supposed to be. The measure of a person, a hero, is how they succeed at being who they are.” –Marvel Cinematic Universe (2008 – 2019)
As promised, I did not include any real spoilers in my post. But there are a few things I wanted to say about Avengers: Endgame that are spoilers. Some of them are jokes. Some of them are questions. Some of them are just statements I felt needed to be voiced. I wanted to put these here because I didn’t want to publish an entirely separate post of these. I also wanted to get them out as quickly as possible so other people couldn’t steal my thunder by publishing these thoughts first. There’s nothing I hate more than having an original idea that someone else gets famous for. So if you have not seen Endgame yet, definitely stop reading now.
Sam Wilson: I’ve been waiting five years to say that line to you, Cap.
The unsung hero of Avengers: Endgame is the rat in storage unit 616.
Did the planets that had already been halved by Thanos before the snap get affected again by the snap in Infinity War or did he give them a pass?
What about the Extremis in Tony Stark’s DNA?
Can Hulk finally have sex?
So that’s the Loki who will be featured in the TV show?
That boy you didn’t recognize at Tony’s funeral was the kid from Iron Man 3.
Cap returned Mjolnir to Thor with the time machine.
When did Pepper get that suit?
How the hell did that entire spaceship go through the time portal with 1 tube of Pym Particles?
If they each only had enough Pym Particles for one jump roundtrip each, how did Nebula get back and then bring Thanos’ ship back when she gave the tube of particles to Thanos?
How is it that absolutely no one else knows how to make Pym Particles after all these years and no records of the formula were kept by Hank Pym?
I really hope Thor is in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and that it starts with an epic battle sequence that doesn’t have Thor in it and then after the title appears on screen Thor drops in and saves the day. Then in hand written letters “AS” is added to the title changing it to “Asguardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3”.
Did Cap still live the hero life while married to Agent Carter or was he fully retired and living his best life for those 70+ years?
Edward Norton probably kicking himself right now.
The Ancient One said when you make a major change to the past you create a new branching reality that can only be removed from existence by reversing that change at the exact moment it was made. If Cap inserted himself into the timeline and married Agent Carter wouldn’t that have created a branching timeline? And if it did how did Cap end up on that bench at the end of the movie? Wouldn’t he have been in an alternate timeline and thus not been able to return to that same moment in time in that original reality?