Picking GOTY the Right Way

Every year The Game Awards disappoints us all by choosing a list of five or six games to contend for Game of the Year that usually makes little to no sense. They always nominate the arguably but not necessarily correct choice, a correct second choice when compared to the first, two or three games that are justifiable but not really contenders, and inevitably one game that just absolutely should not be there, ultimately robbing a more deserving game. For this post, I only want to talk about the Game of the Year category from The Game Awards. I won’t discuss any of the other categories.

This year the nominees for Game of the Year, listed in the order as shown on The Game Awards nomination page are:

  1. Control
  2. Death Stranding
  3. Resident Evil 2 Remake
  4. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice
  5. Smash Bros. Ultimate
  6. The Outer Worlds

As soon as the nominees were announced, the debates and vitriol started to hit social media, as is tradition. This happens to be one of those really divisive years that always happens when a Kojima game is involved. I ended up tweeting a long thread about my views on how GOTY should be picked but then I realized that writing a blog post on the topic would be more appropriate because it would let me expand and describe my thoughts on the subject better than a string of 280 character blurbs. If you’d like to see the original twitter thread you can find it unrolled for easy viewing here.

Nominees.pngI want to clarify that the purpose of this post is not to try to tell people who to vote for specifically but rather to create an objective system for how people should approach voting for GOTY in general. This isn’t meant to be applied to any particular year of nominees but rather should act as a general guide that could be applied to any list of nominees in any year.

I think the first and most important part of choosing a GOTY is first defining what the term “Game of the Year” actually means, or more specifically should mean. As with real politics, a lot of people think GOTY means the nominee they enjoyed the most. This is incorrect thinking, in my opinion. GOTY, as with actual politicians, isn’t meant to best quantify your tastes in the options available. It’s meant to best exemplify the traits/values that define the award. In other words, you’re not supposed to vote for the thing you like but rather the thing that best exemplifies the topic you’re voting on. If you’re asked to vote which number is higher and the candidates are 5, 9, and 42, you’re supposed to vote for 42. It doesn’t matter if you like 5 better than 42. 42 is the highest number and thus the correct nominee to vote for. I believe GOTY can and should be approached with the same level of objectivity. The subjective portion is the debate about which of the nominees best meets the criteria of GOTY, but the criteria itself should be objective and the only basis of voting applied by each individual voter. That is to say, we might not agree on which game should be chosen as GOTY, but we should all agree on what GOTY is supposed to mean and be voting for whatever nominee we ultimately chose for the exact same reasons.

right waySo let’s define what GOTY actually means, or more accurately is supposed to mean. Listed on The Game Awards page as the description for the Game of the Year category is the following: Recognizing a game that delivers the absolute best experience across all creative and technical fields. That’s what GOTY is. It doesn’t say “Game I liked the Most” or “Game that got the Best User Score on Metacritic”. It’s supposed to be the game that best exemplifies the craft of overall game design and implementation within the highly competitive and comparative medium of video games. Let’s unpack that.

I believe that choosing the GOTY, based on the described category by The Game Awards, requires looking at several factors while considering a number of key points in order to keep things fair and balanced between the nominees. I’ll go over each one, in no particular order, separately before making a final conclusion on what I believe the GOTY pick for this year should be.

5 Pillars of GOTY.jpgA Game is made up of 5 Equally Weighted Factors

 

There is always debate about what matters most in a game. Is it the story, the gameplay, the graphics, or something else? Are certain factors more important than others? Can developers get a pass for cheaping out in specific areas of development? In my opinion the answer is always no. At base value a game consists of five areas of creativity that define its presentation to the player: Gameplay, Writing, Graphics, Audio, Length. None of these factors are more important than the others. They are all equally important in the creation of a video game and should all be weighted equally when comparing games. This is similar to how I have always approached reviews save for a larger focus on replay value and cost. The category isn’t Shooter of the Year. It’s GOTY. So the gameplay shouldn’t outweigh the story, because the story is no less important than the gameplay when “recognizing a game that delivers the absolute best experience across all creative and technical fields”.

A GOTY has to do all five things in tandem better than all the other nominees. The art of game development is understanding that there are limits to what can be done in each field with the time and resources available during development and deciding what can be sacrificed while maintaining an overall standard of quality higher than all the other games released that year, and ideally in previous years as well.

All-for-one-handsI’d like to take some time to discuss length specifically because it’s always a topic of debate. The appropriate length of a game is a very subjective topic that is often muddied by concepts like replay value. In my opinion, length also needs to be directly tied to actual value as defined by cost. I also think that a game being too long is just as problematic as a game being too short, but when factoring in value the longer game is always better than the shorter one. Replay value needs to be factored based on the level of direct repetition and the actual value of replay as opposed to subjective enjoyment.

A game that’s only 20 hours long that you enjoyed enough to play twice isn’t equitable to a game that’s 40 hours in one playthrough. Because it’s not accurate to say that everyone will want to replay the game. Replay value can only be counted towards length if there’s a legitimate reward of value for taking the time to replay it. This is hard for many games to do well; especially in the current landscape where nearly 100% of gamers are backlogged. There is no objective value in replaying Cuphead on the harder difficulty after completing it on the standard difficulty. If you completed it without using the easy mode then you experienced everything it has to offer content wise. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t replay the game on the harder difficulty if that’s what you want to do. But the game doesn’t magically double in length compared to the length of other games because you want to take the time to play it again. There’s no additional content, no meaningful rewards, and no alternate/additional story content gained from replaying the game on a harder than normal difficulty. It’s simply for love of the game, which can’t legitimately be applied because not everyone will love the game enough to want to play it again just for the fun of it.

replay value smash brosMultiplayer replay value is not authentic replay value. The length should only be counted based on the time it takes you to experience it all once. An hour of maps that you play 50 times is not objectively 50 hours of added gameplay. It’s one hour of gameplay you replayed 50 times. Length should only be defined by the amount of time it takes at face value to experience all the content the game has to offer one time.

GOTY doesn’t have to be replayable. It simply needs to provide the correct amount of gameplay for the best overall experience. A well-crafted one and done is no more or less valid than a game that asks you to play it multiple times. Especially if those replays offer little in the way of actual value outside of subjective enjoyment.

Each of the five topics should be weighted equally but compared separately between games. A game with shitty gameplay and great story is not better than a game with great gameplay and shitty story. Both are equally bad and should lose out to a game with both above average gameplay and story. But again it’s best of five categories. A game that does length, story, and audio better than a game that does gameplay and graphics better should win between the two. Because it’s a 3 factors to 2 factors comparison at that point. And three is higher than two. Now ideally this isn’t what ends up happening because it would be odd if in a given year the winner had garbage gameplay and graphics but the other nominees all had garbage audio, were too short, and were terribly written.

The Game Awards Nominees NoteThe Nominees Are the Nominees

The Game Awards gets the nominees as a whole wrong pretty much every year. There’s always at least one that just shouldn’t be there and there’s always at least one that absolutely got robbed. Last year it was Celeste that shouldn’t have been nominated. This year it’s Control. And make no mistake, no matter how much you personally may have liked Control, it wasn’t a more qualified contender for GOTY than Devil May Cry V, Astral Chain, and Fire Emblem: Three Houses. I have my thoughts about why Control was nominated but it doesn’t really matter. The nominees are the nominees and we can’t change that. Rather than fight about would should have been nominated, we should just accept the nominees and pick the appropriate choice from that pre-determined list of games and make sure not to allow the off pick to win or it could have devastating long term ramifications for the industry. It would have been absolutely horrendous if God of War and Red Dead Redemption 2 had lost to Celeste last year. And I’m speaking as someone who enjoys playing Celeste.

1200px-Port_of_Cape_Town
It’s a Port . . .

Ports, Remasters, Remakes, and Reimaginings

There is always debate about the validity and fairness of reused, rehashed, and remade games being contenders for GOTY. It’s a valid question and it’s hard to create a completely objective set of rules, but there are definitely obvious points that shouldn’t be considered debatable.

The issue comes down to comparative fairness, effort/work put in, and not allowing double counting. A game gets only one chance to win GOTY. Many games have come over the years that in other years would have definitely won GOTY. But that’s not how it works. A game has to be the best in the year it was released because all the games previously made were made with the knowledge of how the market responded to those past games. Letting a game get considered twice gives it an unfair advantage and more chances to win than every other game. It’s differentiating original games and their rereleased counter parts that’s tricky, but I say when in doubt always error on the side of caution.

02 The Last of UsThe question of fairness comes down to work put in compared to other studios in order to achieve comparable results, in each category. When given two games with similar levels of quality and no clearly superior choice, the one that did more work should be considered the winner.

Reimaginings don’t really need to be debated. If it’s a true reimagining where everything is redone, rewritten, and changed to the point of it not even being the same original game, then of course it should be considered as a potential GOTY candidate. Ratchet & Clank (2016) is an excellent example of a true reimagining that was absolutely valid to consider for GOTY. Note that “considered” does not mean “had an actual chance of winning” in this context.

20 Ratchet and ClankPorts and remasters by their very nature aren’t new games. Updating the graphics and adding a little DLC doesn’t compare to creating an entirely new game. The amount of time put into concept development, art style, visual assets, story development, voice acting, and so on just doesn’t compare to making a new game of similar quality. A port already got its chance at GOTY in its original form and shouldn’t be considered again. Remasters are glorified ports. A bit more work may have been put into improving them, but the bulk of the foundational work still doesn’t compare to all the new games released in a given year. Looking at examples like The Last of Us and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe from years past, it should be fairly obvious that like ports, remasters have no business being reconsidered as GOTY contenders.

Remakes are where things get tricky to define. There is no objective criteria for defining a remake. Some are little more than glorified remasters while others are completely new games. Some are able to reuse tons of assets while others have to start almost completely from scratch save for writing. So they need to be judged on a case by case basis. The one thing I think should be 100% undebatable is that in the event of a tie the remake should always lose out to an original release in the same year. Again, we need to take into account all five categories. The problem is that a true remake, such as Link’s Awakening, involves almost no creative development. The writing, assets, music, and length are all predefined. Yes a lot of work needs to be done to recreate those assets, but the creative aspects of the project simply don’t compare to that of making a new game from scratch. But again, it’s all comparative. If a remake looks genuinely better than all the original nominees in a given year then you give it the point for graphics. But if other games look similar or as good, then you award that point to one of the original titles. Directly ported things like writing shouldn’t be considered as valid for comparison. The points should never go to the reused content.

resident evil 2 remakeThis year’s nominees include Resident Evil 2 Remake. At face value many people do believe it was GOTY for 2019. I have to disagree. From what I’ve heard, the only thing about it that’s truly original is the gameplay. It’s been essentially redesigned. Everything else is pretty much a spirited recreation of the original game. That’s not to argue that Resident Evil 2 Remake isn’t a good game. Not including it is more an issue of fairness than an issue of quality.

I’m sure this issue will come up again with FFVII Remake next year. The difference is that Square Enix has stated that it will be intentionally different from the original. Having already tried the gameplay myself, I can say that it certainly looks and feels like a completely different game. But until we see how much of the game has changed from both a narrative and length standpoint it’s impossible to comment on whether or not it’s actually fair to consider it.

KojimaProductionsGame of the Year Doesn’t Mean Studio of the Year

A major issue that comes up a lot when judging games is the consideration of who made the game. This shouldn’t actually matter when picking a GOTY. The studio, director, actors, and so on are irrelevant. No matter how much you love Kojima, that doesn’t make Death Stranding a better game than it is. No matter how much you hate Ubisoft, that doesn’t make Ghost Recon: Breakpoint a worse game than it is. Games should be judged in a vacuum that only takes into account the comparative quality of each nominee. External factors, with the exception of how much content is actually original in the case of remake and remasters, should never be considered when choosing GOTY.

sekiro__shadows_die_twice_gxSales Numbers Matter, Long-term Popularity Doesn’t

GOTY implies it’s the game of the year for everyone, or more accurately a large percentage of gamers. That means that people had to actually play it, which implies they had to actually be interested in it. This is the sole reason that Control wasn’t appropriate to nominate. If a few people absolutely love a game, that’s great. But it’s not GOTY material. Because games are experiences made for an established gaming market. Making games that don’t appeal to that market may be innovative, but that’s not the point of GOTY. A contender needs to actually appeal to the community in order to be considered worthy of the title. Regardless of how much some people like a game, if few people were even interested enough to try the game then it’s not GOTY material. That doesn’t mean that the bestselling game in a given year should win that year. But there does need to be a minimum number of units sold to be able to imply that it appealed to a large percentage of gamers. Because GOTY is for everyone. Not just a small subset of people within a specific sub-group within the gaming community. Every gamer should be able to look at the GOTY and acknowledge it as a legitimate choice even if it wasn’t their favorite game in that year. That’s what was so good about the 2018 nominees. While there were two fairly clear frontrunners, five of the six nominees could have been chosen and no one would have legitimately been able to say the choice was biased. All six of the nominees were highly acclaimed and sold well. “Everyone” loved them all. Celeste wasn’t up to the standard of the AAA titles which is why it shouldn’t have been nominated, but other than that any of the games in the running appealed to gamers as a whole as opposed to a niche audience. You can’t say that about necessarily any of the nominees this year, mostly because the wrong games were nominated, but some games get closer than others. The ones that get closest are the ones that should actually be considered for GOTY.

Jedi Fallen Order WallpaperThe problem with the entire concept of GOTY is that it takes a year to decide on the nominees. That means that a game has to stay in people’s heads for a year. Honestly that’s a ridiculous ask. Because as I’ve said, one and done games are perfectly legitimate GOTY contenders. Take a game like Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order. It just released in November 2019. It will be included in the running for GOTY 2020 because it missed the 2019 cutoff. The reviews are great. The public loves it as well. It might be the best EA game we’ve gotten since Mass Effect 3 and the best Star Wars game since The Force Unleashed II. But it’s ridiculous to think that we’ll still be talking about it in November 2020. Why? Because we’re about to go through a year containing Cyberpunk 2077, Nioh 2, The Last of Us Part 2, Marvel’s Avengers, Final Fantasy VII Remake, DOOM Eternal, Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot, and Yakuza: Like a Dragon just to name a few of the games coming in 2020. Even if Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order is the objectively best game to release in the next year, we absolutely won’t still be talking about it after reaching the end of this gauntlet of big budget games and power house IPs. That’s not a fault of the game. It’s just the reality of an ADD ridden consumer base coupled with a constantly moving stream of new noteworthy games. It’s ridiculous to think we should still be talking about games we’ve already finished and moved on from after playing five or ten other impressive games released after it.

cyberpunk-2077Currently a lot of people are saying Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice isn’t being talked about anymore so it shouldn’t be nominated. That’s an irrelevant point. Since that game released in March, we’ve gotten Yoshi’s Crafted World, Mortal Kombat 11, Days Gone, Judgement, Super Mario Maker 2, Fire Emblem: Three Houses, Astral Chain, Monster Hunter World: Iceborne, Daemon X Machina, Link’s Awakening Remake, The Surge 2, Ghost Recon: Breakpoint, Luigi’s Mansion 3, Death Stranding, and Control. Of course we’re not still talking about Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice. Why would we be? And this was considered a mediocre year by the way. It’s this thinking that I believe ultimately led to Devil May Cry V getting robbed of a nomination. It’s simply too old by this point, because it came out before Sekiro did.

It doesn’t matter if we’re still talking about a game when the awards season comes up. What matters is how the game compares in the five expressed categories compared to the other games released that same year coupled with whether or not it reached the unwritten popularity by sales threshold. Remember that Sekiro was the third highest selling Japanese game ever to release on Steam. It sold over 2 million copies worldwide within 10 days of release. It absolutely deserves to be considered as a legitimate contender for GOTY.

death strandingInnovation Doesn’t Mean GOTY

Innovation is a good thing in the gaming industry. But only if the innovation pans out as a positive thing. Games are still products made for consumers in an established market. If a product doesn’t appeal to that market, then it shouldn’t matter how innovative it is. Look at the Wii U. It was extremely innovative. People didn’t like it. We didn’t award it console of the year simply because it dared to be different. Nintendo went back to the drawing board and tried again. Now we have the Switch, which is super successful. Awarding GOTY strictly because of innovation is incorrect thinking. A game still has to appeal to the market and hit all the other points I’ve expressed in order to legitimately be considered for GOTY. Innovation is good, but a lack of innovation isn’t automatically problematic. If the people want the same old thing then a studio can and quite possibly should choose to give that to them. Because remember what GOTY means: a game that delivers the absolute best experience across all creative and technical fields. The fields never change. How studios approach them does but the same five categories are set in stone and will be for the foreseeable future. This is the question that needs to be asked about Death Stranding. A lot of people have argued that it’s the most innovative game in years so it should win. I disagree with that thinking. It may very well be the most innovative game we’ve seen in years. But does it beat out the other nominees for gameplay, writing, length, audio, and graphics? Maybe it does. If you think it actually does then that’s the game you should vote for. If you think it leads in innovation but not in a majority of the actual categories, then it’s objectively the incorrect game you should be voting for this year.

controlIn conclusion, your GOTY vote shouldn’t be for the game you personally liked the most. It should go to the game that you believe best meets the criteria set by The Game Awards which is defined as “recognizing a game that delivers the absolute best experience across all creative and technical fields”. All the nominees should be compared based on all the major factors that make up a gaming experience: gameplay, graphics, audio, writing, and length (based on value as defined by price).

Looking at the nominees, I have to say that the wrong list of six games was nominated for this year. But as I said, the nominees are the nominees and that can’t be changed. So we must compare these six games and make a GOTY selection based on them. The fact is that Control didn’t sell well and we don’t really have any sales figures available for The Outer Worlds other than the phrase “exceeded expectations”, whatever that means. Honestly both of those games weren’t nearly as popular as they needed to be to consider as legitimate GOTY contenders. I don’t think they even need to be compared to the rest of the group. Death Stranding I actually feel like is getting hyped due to Kojima and how close to the nominations announcement it released, so I will absolutely acknowledge it as a contender but I don’t believe something that niche would have necessarily been nominated over many of the games that got snubbed if it had released earlier in the year. Resident Evil 2 remake was definitely popular, definitely well made, and definitely a safe choice to nominate. But because of the fact that it’s a remake, I believe there are games that didn’t get nominated that are at least as if not more worthy for a nomination than it was. So I won’t consider it a legitimate pick for this year either. Really it comes down to Death Stranding, Smash Bros. Ultimate, and Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice as the only objectively acceptable picks for GOTY based on this list of nominees.

Nominees top 3 2019It’s interesting that two of these three nominees are console exclusives (at the time of nomination) and all three are Japanese developed games. Smash Bros. Ultimate is the most massively appealing with more than 12 million units sold the month of release as a console exclusive. But sales figures aren’t the only thing that matters. In fact, it’s not even close to the most important thing. So let’s go down the list of categories one by one.

Game of the Year 2019 Assessment

Gameplay

For gameplay I’d say Death Stranding is the most innovative, but it’s also the least appealing to a general audience of gamers. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice has the most controversial gameplay, having spawned an online controversy about accessibility in games. Smash Bros. Ultimate has the most accessible gameplay, but I’d also say it was the least innovative because this is several sequels into the franchise. But a lack of innovation isn’t a bad thing if it appeals to the consumer base. And the amount of additional fighters has drastically impacted the gameplay, even if only marginally to casual players. So I actually think that an argument could be made that Smash Bros. Ultimate wins out for gameplay not because the gameplay is necessarily superior but because of the three it’s the most widely liked/tolerated gameplay with little to no real controversy surrounding it.

Graphics

 It’s easy to say that Smash Bros. Ultimate has the least impressive graphics because of the art style but it also has the largest number of characters, settings, and objects of the three games in question. Counting it out really comes down to bias for art style more than objective comparison. That being said, many of the assets used in Smash Bros. Ultimate have been recycled from past games. Death Stranding has a much more expansive map than Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice but I wouldn’t argue that it’s necessarily a better looking game. Sekiro also has a lot more movement and interacting elements than Death Stranding. Between the three, I would give the win to Sekiro but I believe an argument can be made to award it to Death Stranding as well. Remember that the grading is subjective by nature. It’s the approach to grading that needs to remain objective.

Audio

 Comparing these three games for audio is tough. For music, it goes to Smash Bros. Ultimate. It has the largest library of music that pretty much any game has ever had. The sound effects for this fast paced fighting game are also fairly accurate and of great quality, especially for the hardware the game runs on. I’d probably award the audio category to Death Stranding over Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice but having not completed either game yet, I’m willing to acknowledge that my view on that could be inaccurate. When considering that most of the audio library for Smash Bros. Ultimate isn’t original content, I have to award the audio category to Death Stranding.

 Length

How do you compare length between a game with countless repetitive side missions, a die countless times Soulsborne title, and a fighting game? Honestly it’s hard to really define the length of any of these games and it’s even harder to decide if at least two of the games are the correct length for what they are. According to How Long to Beat, which isn’t necessarily a perfectly accurate rating system for game length, Sekiro is 27.5 hours for the main story while Death Stranding is 36. In general, longer is better if we assume neither game is longer than it needs to be. But there is an assumption that dying countless times to the same boss counts as fun. Equally so, there’s an assumption that delivering packages over and over is fun. The difference is that delivering packages is the point of the game, while dying is more of a repercussion of not playing the game well. The speedrun times for Sekiro come in at under 30 minutes while the speedrun times for Death Stranding come in at more than five hours while skipping cutscenes. So between the two I think Death Stranding beats out Sekiro for length. But we need to talk about Smash Bros. Ultimate. This is a fighting game, but it’s probably the most comprehensive fighting game ever made. There are 69 default characters plus six more DLC characters. If you play just 10 minutes per a default character, you’re already at 11.5 hours. The World of Light story mode is easily a three or more hour experience on its own. The spirit board mode is constantly updating. Plus there are a number of other modes like Classic Mode and the later added Homerun Contest all at no additional cost. Even if you never replay a single match and don’t play any online or PVP matches, you’re still getting way more bang for your buck from Smash Bros. Ultimate than you are in Death Stranding without having to arbitrarily add length to the games. So objectively speaking I have to award length to Smash Bros. Ultimate.

 Writing

At a glance most people will award the writing category to Death Stranding simply because it’s Kojima. I am not one of those people. I have always held that Kojima is a mediocre writer with interesting ideas. The fact that he uses names like Die Hardman, Deadman, and Mama for his characters is proof that he’s kind of an overrated hack when it comes to writing. That being said, his general narrative ideas are fairly good. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice isn’t necessarily amazing writing, but it is some of the best writing to come out of FromSoftware in this genre for the simple fact that the game actually has a running narrative with a defined main protagonist as opposed to the usual character creation lore fest with no actually story they use in Dark Souls and Bloodborne. Smash Bros. Ultimate needs to be commended for having actually created a story mode that had an actual story. Was it high writing? No. But it was a huge leap forward for the franchise as far as narrative content is concerned. Really all three games can be awarded this category for different reasons depending on how much stock you put into innovation, outside the usual box development practices, and your own narrative preferences. So I actually won’t award this category to any one game and will leave it as a three way tie.

the-game-awards-2019Final Conclusion

Based on my assessments, here are the final results.

  • Gameplay – Smash Bros. Ultimate
  • Graphics – Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice
  • Audio – Death Stranding
  • Length – Smash Bros. Ultimate
  • Writing – Three Way Tie

Based on these results here are the final scores.

  1. Smash Bros. Ultimate – 3 Points
  2. Death Stranding – 2 Points
  3. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice – 2 Points

My Vote GOTY 2019Ultimately I voted for Smash Bros. Ultimate as GOTY. At first glance I had chosen Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice and had even tweeted as such when debating it with someone who had read my original thread. But after taking the time to really examine the games, I came to the conclusion that the objectively correct choice for me was Smash Bros. Ultimate, as I have shown here.

Now again, I’m not saying you should vote for Smash Bros. Ultimate. I’m saying that your vote should be justified with an objective criteria that adequately meets the definition of the GOTY category as defined by The Game Awards. Your vote should not simply be the game you liked the most or that was the most popular on social media. Even the game that had the highest Metacritic score isn’t automatically the correct choice. Only by comparing the games with an objective set of criteria that is fairly applied to all of them with as little bias as possible can we hope to accurately choose the GOTY. Voting for this year’s GOTY is still open until December 11th at 6PM so so make sure you vote and do your best to vote objectively.

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.

GTFO Alpha Review

I’m not particularly a fan of horror games. Nor do I like FPS titles. Especially not the ones that “require” four player co-op to play. So really it makes no sense that I would have any interest in the upcoming Steam Early Access game, GTFO from 10 Chambers Collective. And yet I am part of their ambassadors program. This is because while I don’t have a personal interest in the type of game they’re making, I do have a general interest in independent games and the studios that create them. I also tend to take an interest in learning about game projects that claim to be at the next level of horrifying to play even if I don’t generally like playing scary games. I still remember the very first thing I read about the first Dead Space (2008) long before that name meant anything. It was an article in a printed game magazine, though I can’t recall which one, that was specifically focused on the design aspects that the sadly now dead Visceral Games was implementing to create “the scariest game ever made”. This intrigued me.

20191029000554_1The discussion within the Dead Space article about the design philosophy of creating a really scary game was what I took an interest in. Not getting scared myself, but how developers defined and created fear within games. Over the years I have seen a great many games that were sold as scary. I’ve played through very few of them myself but I have observed other people playing them out of this almost masochistic interest in the creation of horror. I remember watching a friend play parts of F.E.A.R. (2005) and being very impressed with some of the subtle elements of how the game’s atmosphere was presented. It’s this interest in the creation of horror games that drew me to follow GTFO. Not a personal vested interest in playing it, but really more an interest in seeing it and establishing for myself just how scary it actually is and why. So please take my judgement of the alpha with a grain of salt, because as I’ve already stated clearly, this is not traditionally a genre I particularly enjoy playing myself.

Last week was the first closed alpha for GTFO. As a member of the ambassador program, I was granted access to the alpha and given the ability to invite up to three friends to play with me, since the nature of the game is four player co-op. Sadly I was not able to get three friends to play concurrently. I was only able to get a maximum of three players concurrently, so off the bat my experience with the game was not perfectly authentic to what 10 Chambers Collective intends for the gameplay experience to be. But I still feel like I can give an informative review of my experience that will hopefully help interested readers make an informed decision about whether or not to keep an eye on and possibly invest in this game. I use the word invest here because it is an early access game as opposed to a traditional straight release.

20191029002246_1In all honesty I have to say that I was really disappointed with this alpha both from a horror standpoint and from a gameplay standpoint. GTFO’s definition of horror is dark underground warehouses with crab walking knock off The Last of Us clickers. That pretty much sums up the game visually. The atmosphere is not bad. The graphics, though not AAA quality, were fairly solid. I actually really did like the underground world they built with dim lighting, intense shadows, and lots of junk scattered around. But I wasn’t really impressed by the enemies. They really do just look like clickers with no clothes on. And for some reason some of them crab walk while other walk/run on two legs. The only other type of enemy I encountered was a really tall clicker that moved slowly compared to the normal enemies. I can’t say at this point if there are other enemies in the game, because I couldn’t get very far into the map. More on that later.

I felt the buildup at the start of the game is actually scarier than the game itself. The menus and opening cinematic leading up to actually playing the game are really well done. They’re very bleak and barebones with a fairly ominous presentation. I definitely went into the gameplay expecting to get scared. But ultimately this didn’t happen and sadly a large part of that was due to the gameplay, which I’ll get into later. The alpha ran fairly smoothly, but everything looks a bit unpolished. This is especially true in the menus and map. On one had this helps set a tone that is bleak and scary and that works fine for the menus. But that map is unacceptable. It needs a complete overhaul with much clearer indication points, a mini-map function, and the ability to set beacons. Not getting lost in that system of caves and doors is a challenge all on its own.

20191028234321_1My biggest issue with the alpha has to be the gameplay though. The game is being sold as a “hardcore” FPS experience but when did the definition of hardcore become little more than not enough ammo and no health regen? The gameplay is not hard. The shooting isn’t particularly difficult. The enemies, though resilient and usually in decent sized groups, are mostly fair. They shoot a long range projectile that makes no sense based on what they look like, but I never felt like the encounters were unfair. My only real complaint about the combat is that the gameplay loop is nonexistent. Shooters work based on the idea that each encounter is challenging but for the most part disconnected from all other encounters, in most cases. You kill the enemies, you get additional ammo and health, and then you find and kill the next group of enemies. But that’s not how it works in GTFO.

Rather than an established gameplay loop, GTFO has a single continuous gameplay line that never resets until you die and start over. Imagine playing Dark Souls with no XP or bonfires. That’s what this game is like. Everything resets at the end of each excursion. All the doors you opened, all the enemies you killed, and anything else you’ve accomplished reset every time you die. It’s not even that the encounters are particularly hard, even when playing a man short. The game is only hard in the fact that when you finish a battle you never seem to find any ammo or health restoration so over time you just sort of run out of ammo and then die in the next encounter. I also couldn’t get my special weapons to fire at all. I’m not sure why but they just wouldn’t activate.  This meant playing the game with just two guns and one of the most useless melee attacks I’ve seen in a shooter. You carry this big, slow sledgehammer that takes forever to use. But it doesn’t get one hit kills on basic enemies, which is just ridiculous.

20191028235350_1I can honestly say that in the hour that we actually played the game, we didn’t find a single ammo pack between the three of us. This is really just unacceptable. And since you always restart in the same place, we never made it noticeably farther than in previous attempts from round to round because we always ran out of ammo too quickly. Perma-death and limited ammo are both mechanics that can be used to make a game more difficult. But the two should never be used together. The game needs to drastically alter its ammo system so that you refill from drops after every fight. This one simple change would transform the gameplay experience in a considerably positive way. It was the lack of progress that ultimately drove us to quitting out of boredom. And that boredom came from constantly dying due to being out of ammo. I would also attribute the lack of horror to this issue as well. You’re so focused on ammo problems that you don’t even have time to get scared.

Hardcore should mean challenging, but not unfair. It should mean you have to shoot at a high level of accuracy and work together to watch each other’s backs. But making it so that players can’t play the game because they keep running out of ammo and can’t refill it is not hardcore game design. It’s bad game design using faux difficulty as a shield from criticism. The game needs a properly functioning gameplay loop from encounter to encounter. A few simple changes could establish this fairly easily.

20191029000615_1I was fine with the game’s audio. It wasn’t as intense as it probably needs to be for the game to be as scary as they’d like, but it sounds fine overall. The real problem is that the game doesn’t have a voice chat function . . . yet. So coordinating your team audibly requires outside software. We ended up just using the text chat, which was probably the best working thing in the game.

The writing was not really present in the alpha. I got the impression that there was at least some level of plot development that’s pieced together as you find clues within the caverns, but I never found any such clues myself while playing. It’s obviously not meant to be a plot focused game. But I do hope there’s an endpoint you’re actually moving towards as you progress farther into the game.

20191029001226_1It’s impossible to speak on the replay value at this point in development, but based on the perma-death mechanics, my assumption would be that it’s all replay value that you eventually just get bored with without ever actually getting to leave the underground setting.

I had/have really high hopes for GTFO. The marketing was fairly strong for an indie shooter and the horror aspect was pitched in a very convincing manner. But sadly this alpha left me highly disappointed. Obviously it is just an alpha build and still has a ways to go before being finished, leaving it a lot of room to grow and be changed before launch. But in my experience the sorts of changes required to make this game better very likely won’t happen. There are good ideas here but if they don’t redefine what “hardcore” means they will ultimately release a game that fails to obtain a healthy player base because it’s simply not fun the way things work now. Also, for the love of gaming they need to add public lobbies and matchmaking.

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.

PS5 – The Waiting Game

A few weeks ago, the PS5 was officially announced. I can’t say I was particularly surprised, but I will say that I didn’t personally want that announcement to come so soon. And based on the responses from many I’ve seen on social media, I was not alone in that opinion. The PS5 was of course bound to happen and I’m glad that it will. But the truth is that it feels very early. This probably comes from the fact that console generations seem to be getting shorter while the leaps in performance from generation to generation seem to be getting smaller, from a purely practical use standpoint. Numerically we’re seeing large leaps into 4K and even 8K performance, but most people don’t really see a difference, most people still don’t own 4K televisions, and the way games are played still hasn’t really changed much since the PS3. And if we disregard online aspects and DLC, then really games haven’t changed all that much on PlayStation since the PS2.

Graphics have gotten better, loading times have gotten faster, and more buttons have been added. But the general concepts in most games remain mostly unchanged. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I like the consistency of PlayStation consoles and games. I like that it’s called PS5 rather than some weird confusing name that’s not really grounded in obvious logic. And I like that the controller hasn’t changed much since the PS3. I’m also really happy to hear that PS4 controllers will be directly compatible with the PS5, saving me a ton of money. But my point is that the PS5 feels early. I think the fact that the console industry has also shifted to half console releases like the PS4 Pro also plays a large role in my feelings about this “rush” into the next generation.

The Force UnleashedTo be fair, the PS5 is releasing seven years after the PS4. The PS4 released seven years after the PS3. The PS3 released only six years after the PS2. So in general Sony has stayed consistent. In fact they’ve stayed more consistent than Microsoft with XBOX and at least as consistent as Nintendo. So it makes perfect sense that they’re releasing the PS5 next year. But again, the PS4 Pro, which I personally don’t own, seems to throw things off. But I actually think it’s even more than that. When I got my PS3, two things had happened that were undebatable for myself and really most users. The first was that there were basically no more games available on the PS2 that I wanted to play and couldn’t also get on the PS3. The second was that games no longer looked and played well on the PS2. The last game I played on the PS2 was Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (2008). This was two years after the PS3 had already released. It was not the last game made for the PS2. But it was the first game I played on the PS2 that was also available on the PS3 that looked really bad. This is when I knew it was time to upgrade. The PS2 just couldn’t live up to the standard of the games being released anymore. So after I completed that last game I boxed the PS2 and never used it again. I still have it sitting in the same box.

My transition to the PS4 was similar to that of the PS3. The last game I played on the PS3 was Dragon Age: Inquisition (2014). It released 1 year after the PS4. This game was the first game I played on the PS3 that just didn’t perform well due to purely hardware based limitations. It froze, sputtered, deleted my save file, and just generally looked bad by comparison to the PS4 version. I knew long before I finished the game that it was time to upgrade to the next PlayStation console. This is how I have always moved from console generation to console generation. I use a console until it’s no longer viable for an acceptable gaming experience. That’s when it’s time to upgrade. To upgrade purely because something is new is nonsensical and wasteful. To refuse to upgrade for the sake of nostalgia is equally nonsensical. There’s a time and a place to upgrade to the next generation console. The issue with the PS5, in my opinion, is that 2020 just isn’t that time.

Dragon Age InquisitionI already said that there were two conditions required for me to upgrade to a next generation console: games available exclusively and performance. In my opinion, the PS4 is nowhere near dead performance wise. I’m still using a PS4 regular and I’m very happy with the performance. My games run fine. They look good. The controls don’t lag. The loading times aren’t bad. It’s still a very viable machine for gaming. And this is even more true for PS4 Pro owners. The PS4 Pro launched in 2016. That means if you bought one as your first PS4 then this generation has only lasted four years for you when the PS5 drops. That’s not long enough for a console generation. Even Nintendo does a minimum of five years per a home console generation. And supposedly the PS4 Pro kicks the crap out of the basic PS4 performance wise. That means pretty much no one normal is unhappy with the current performance of their PlayStation console if they bought a PS4 Pro, because as I said I’m using the basic PS4 and it still runs games great. So that second condition simply hasn’t come into play yet and I doubt it will within the next year based on the games I’ve seen announced to release within the next year. That means games will be the deciding factor for the PS5 at launch.

sekiro__shadows_die_twice_gxWe are arguably in the golden age of gaming when it comes to high quality options. I won’t argue that games are the best they’ve ever been in the more than two decades that I’ve been gaming. But I will absolutely argue that there are more games worth taking the time to play today than there have ever been before. And with all these remakes of older games, that list is growing exponentially on the PS4. My backlog has never been longer than it is this generation. There are so many games on my PS4 I still need to play. And I’m not talking about junk titles or unknown indies. I’m talking popular, well received and reviewed AAA titles. And that’s not even counting my PC backlog, which I don’t even really want to get into. I’m so backlogged this gen. I still haven’t even played Final Fantasy XV, Dark Souls III, or Horizon: Zero Dawn. I don’t even own Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, or Devil May Cry V yet. These are just a few of the titles I will absolutely be playing on the PS4 before I even consider buying a PS5. And there are still games coming to the PS4 this year that I will absolutely be playing before I upgrade. Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order, Shenmue III, and possibly Death Stranding if it’s not the garbage I think it will be. Plus there’s a list of titles coming out for PS4 next year that are must plays like Nioh II, The Last of Us Part II, and Cyberpunk 2077. There’s simply no practical reason for me to upgrade from my PS4 next year.

Jedi Fallen Order WallpaperNow it’s very likely that some of the unreleased games I mentioned will also be available on the PS5. And with the backwards compatibility announced, all of them will absolutely be playable on the PS5. We don’t know how the backwards compatibility will work yet, but we do know that the option will be there. Personally I’m hoping my entire digital PS4 library will be available to play on PS5 for nothing more than the price of a PS Plus subscription. Anything more than that and Sony is basically telling me not buy a PS5 for no less than three years, and that’s an extremely generous estimation of how long it’s going to take me to clear my current PS4 backlog without including not yet purchased and/or released PS4 titles. But the backwards compatibility is a double edged sword for Sony. On one hand, not losing out on my PS4 library motivates me to be comfortable upgrading sooner. But on the other hand, knowing that I won’t lose any of my PS4 games when I do upgrade motivates me to purchase them on PS4 and play them there until the system simply won’t run anymore because I know I won’t lose any of them when I do finally upgrade to PS5. If anything that security blanket is a reason to just wait for the inevitable PS5 Pro. Because maybe by that time I’ll actually be done with my PS4 backlog, the price of the PS5 will have dropped, and the PS5 will already have a large library of released games that have dropped in price. So it doesn’t make any sense for me to upgrade to PS5 at launch or even in the first year. And this is all without even considering my Switch and PC backlogs to tide me over. Even if I didn’t have another PS4 game I wanted to play, I still could wait out the PS5  Pro without getting bored. I haven’t even played The Witcher 3, Doom, or Middle Earth: Shadow of War yet (all games I own on PC). And Pokémon Sword and Shield have already been preordered on Switch, so that’s gonna take some time as well.

The Witcher 3Obviously I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t know anyone who isn’t backlogged. And I don’t know any realistic people who think the PS4/PS4 Pro runs like shit at this point. So it just doesn’t seem practical to launch the PS5 in 2020. The PS4 has a gigantic market share that’s still technically growing. And it’s a strong, stable base of players, most of which are very happy with their PS4. So happy that I don’t think they want a new console anytime soon. So I just don’t see the PS5 launching successfully next year. For the first time in my life as a gamer, we are in a prime waiting position to upgrade. As I’ve clearly shown, there is no reason to rush to the PS5 as a PS4 owner. Maybe XB1 owners will finally come over to Sony with the PS5 but PS4 owners simply don’t have to pick one up any time soon. I’m sure plenty of people will buy one at launch just to say they did, but in practical terms it’s unnecessary. There has never been as many games worth taking the time to play at the end of a generation as there is today. And the current generation hardware has never been so strong in comparison to the next generation hardware as it is today either. The practicality of buying a PS5 in 2020 as a PS4 owner simply isn’t there. So I will be playing the waiting game and I can wait a long time. The only way Sony will get me to buy a PS5 any time soon is to guarantee me that all my PS4 games will work on PS5 at no extra cost to me and release some amazing exclusives that aren’t also available on the PS4 and able to run adequately on it. I just don’t see them delivering all that in 2020.

Will you be picking up a PS5 near launch? If so, why? Let me know in the comments.

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.

State of Play Episode 3

Last week, we saw the third episode of PlayStation’s State of Play series. I thought I’d review it since it’s become a bit of a habit to do so. While not the most exciting gaming presentation we’ve seen this month, it certainly had its moments. So let’s get right into it.

The interesting thing about State of Play, is that Sony does time better than Nintendo. Nintendo’s most recent Direct was just under 40 minutes. They showed a lot but in a lot of ways the presentation sort of dragged on. I feel this way about most Directs. They cover a lot but there’s also a lot of fat that makes the presentation feel longer than it needs to be. I’m fine with this and actually love the way Nintendo does Directs for the most part, but it is something to acknowledge. The best way I can describe it is that when I get to the end of a Nintendo Direct I’m usually ready for it to be over. I wouldn’t say that about State of Play.

nintendo direct 9-4The third State of Play was about 20 minutes. By the end of it I was shocked that it was already over. It’s so streamlined with almost no fat to trim at all. And it gets right to the point. There’s no speaker introduction or speech about the happenings on at Sony. It’s just right into the games, which I personally really appreciate since I’m always busy when trying to watch them. The presentation opened with a new game. It was indie but it was effective. You instantly know why you’re there and what to expect. And in that 20 minutes they showed quite a bit.

My one peeve, which both Sony and Nintendo have become guilty of, is that they keep using these presentations to plug merch and hardware. They brought up Death Stranding, but in true Death Stranding style, didn’t actually say anything about the game. They just used the time to announce and advertise a Death Stranding themed PS4 Pro bundle. That’s not the kind of content that should be featured in these sorts of presentations. Just stick to games and gameplay content focused announcements and showings. But again, the presentation was so short that it didn’t really detract too much with that wasted time anyway.

death strandingNow let’s talk about the specific announcements that were made during State of Play Episode 3, in no particular order.

The Last of Us Part II

The Last of Us Part II got another trailer with more story details and a huge reveal of Joel making his way back into the game. This was definitely expected but it’s important that this news was finally confirmed. Also we were given a hard release date of February 21st, 2020. That’s not far off at all. I really need to take the time to play The Last of Us Part I DLC. The game looks great and it’s certainly going to be a GOTY contender for next year.

PlayStation Plus Free Games for October: The Last of Us Remastered & MLB The Show 19 

The free games for October were announced during the presentation. I don’t necessarily like time being wasted for that, unless it was the day the games were going live, but they clearly did it this way because it tied into The Last of Us Part II news. Honestly I get why they did The Last of Us Remastered but I don’t like the decision. Because it’s not even the first time they’ve given The Last of Us on PS Plus. We definitely got it before. Not for a long time, but I’m sure it was a freebie previously. I don’t have a problem with MLB The Show 19 being given, but it’s kind of cheesy to give out a sports game when we know the annual sequel is about to drop soon anyway. Both games are extremely low effort freebies hidden behind AAA veneer. I won’t be playing either of them because I already beat one of them and have no interest in the other.

ps plus 10-2019The Story of Modern Warfare

I don’t buy COD. I’ve never bought COD. I never will buy COD. But I do appreciate that since Advanced Warfare back in 2014, the franchise has made it a point of trying to make single player campaigns that matter. They’ve taken the time to invest in quality actors like Kevin Spacey and Kit Harrington over the last several years and they really do care about not being seen as the PVP shooter with garbage writing now. And I will say that the story trailer they showed during the State of Play was quite intriguing. And that’s not the first time I’ve said that since Advanced Warfare. So while I won’t be buying this latest Modern Warfare, I do commend Activision for finally taking single player seriously.

Humanity

The State of Play started with this crazy looking indie puzzle game that reminded me of games like The Last Guy. It looks weird and very Japanese and I’m totally interested. For an indie price and a good demo, I’ll definitely be picking this one up. And the fact that Sony decided to start the presentation with that instead of one of the heavy hitters shown in this State of Play is really cool.

Introducing the Limited Edition Death Stranding PS4 Pro Bundle

As I said, this sort of thing really annoys me and it’s not even the first time Sony has done it in only three State of Play episodes. Taking time just to plug yet another PS4 bundle rather than talk about the actual game is annoying. And honestly the PS4 doesn’t even look that good. It’s the controller that comes with the bundle that’s much more interesting. If they’d sell that separately they’d probably sell a lot more units than bundling a PS4 Pro this late in the gen.

death stranding ps4 bundleMediEvil PS4 Demo

I’ve been excited about this MediEvil remake since the first announcement. In Nintendo style, they dropped the demo during the State of Play and included a special bonus item for playing it. Conceptually, that’s really cool. But honestly that demo is trash. It was so short and uneventful that they might as well have just given me the special helmet just for downloading it. I completed the demo in just 26 minutes and more than half of that was reading books and watching cutscenes. There wasn’t even a boss fight in the game. I tried it before the demo at Gamescom and was already sold and I do appreciate getting the special item for playing the demo, but from a gameplay standpoint it was pretty much a complete waste of time.

Civilization VI Comes to PS4 November 22

Taking another page from Nintendo, they’ve ported Civilization VI to the PS4. I don’t really care since I don’t play Civ and the game came out three years ago, but I guess I appreciate the fact that games are getting ported to more platforms. I guess the port looked fine for Civ.

Arise: A Simple Story

This indie game looks beautiful. It’s seems to be a fantasy journey with a foundation of dark themes and puzzle based gameplay. The art style is beautiful yet subtle. And the protagonist is an older guy that’s past his prime, which is something I always like in storytelling.

Wattam

I love Katamari Damacy. I still remember when I got the first one for PS2 from a GameStop near my childhood home. And I only discovered it because Toonami did a review of it back when they used to do game features. So when I heard that a new game was coming from the creator of Katamari I was excited. But Wattam looks really weird. It wasn’t as clear as Katamari is at a glance. I didn’t really understand the gameplay after watching the trailer. But Katamari is weird so there’s no reason I shouldn’t give Wattam a chance. I hope they release a demo so I can make an informed buying decision.

L.A. Noire: The VR Case Files for PS VR

I don’t really care about L.A. Noire, which is funny because I’m from LA and I’ve often complained about the lack of games set there outside of GTA, if you count Los Santos. But L.A. Noire has never seemed interesting to me. Making it a VR game with special cases is a good idea, but I’m certainly not buying it. And I do take issue with the fact that it’s already on PS4 so people are being asked to repurchase it for a VR version.

la noire psvrAfter The Fall on PS VR 

Another VR FPS game. But this one has four player co-op so that’s nice. The game doesn’t look bad. I just don’t care about it because I’m not a fan of the genre and I don’t have a VR headset.

After-The-FallGorn on PS VR

Gorn is an interesting look battle game. It seems a bit more the type of game I’d want to play in VR. I think a lot more can be done with PSVR and I’m glad we’re finally seeing some more innovative stuff like Iron Man and this.

Stardust Odyssey Announced for PS VR

It’s hard to say at this point what I think of Stardust Odyssey. It looks like a space VR game in the style of No Man’s Sky leaning a little towards Starlink: Battle for Atlas. But the trailer showed during the State of Play, like the NMS pre-release trailers, makes the game look more impressive than it probably is.

Stardust-Odyssey-psvrUltimately I didn’t find this State of Play that impressive but I once again will commend Sony for using these presentations to show indie games that most of the public otherwise wouldn’t be aware of. And doing the release demos during the presentation thing was a great way to directly connect the audience with the content. And not just the content shown. By announcing the MediEvil trailer, I ended up going into the demos section of the PSN store and discovered a number of other demos I didn’t know even existed. Like Code Vein and Contra Rogue Corps. So this State of Play was even able to connect me with other games on PSN that weren’t shown. That’s the absolute best a company could hope for with these sorts of endeavors. There was some blatant fat that could be trimmed from what was already a short presentation. But if they did these more often then I’d be less irritated by the unnecessary hardware plugs and junk announcements. I do hope we continue to see this concept grow for Sony.

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.

Ghost Recon: Breakpoint Closed Beta Review

This is a little late, but as my schedule has been hectic with my wedding and moving in the last few weeks, it’s a wonder I have been able to do any gaming and/or writing at all. A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to try the Ghost Recon: Breakpoint closed beta. While I was only able to play for about 10 hours, I still wanted to take the time to write about my experience since the game will be launching next week.

I really need to commend Ubisoft for creating a shooter franchise that I actually like playing. I don’t like shooters or gun focused games in general. I have played a number of them over the years, but they are never my go to genre. I’ll take a third person shooter over a first person shooter any day of the week but in general I try to avoid shooting games altogether. I do find myself playing them more often in recent years though and mostly from Ubisoft. I played The Division 1 & 2 and I’m currently playing Ghost Recon: Wildlands as I gear up for Breakpoint. Other than that, Mass Effect: Andromeda is the last shooter I can remember playing that wasn’t completely cartoony, a la Ratchet & Clank. There’s probably another one I missed in there somewhere but in general I don’t play them often. I’ve completed a single Halo title (Halo 2), no iteration of COD or Battlefield, and when someone says GOW I automatically think God of War. To Ubisoft’s credit, they produced three of the four shooters I remember playing most recently as well as the next one I’ll be playing. And if you want to count Watch Dogs, then put that on the list for Ubisoft as well, making them 4/4 once Breakpoint drops.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-6-23-12-50I think what I like about Ubisoft shooters is that they don’t feel like traditional shooting games. They’re always in third person, which is my definite preference, but have effective first person sniping, which is always my weapon of choice in shooting games. They lean much more heavily on story and dialog than gameplay and contain RPG elements which differentiate the experience of playing them from traditional shooters. They also don’t require me to have any interactions with other players, outside of raids in The Division, unless I absolutely want to have them, for me to have a fulfilling experience. One of the things that worried me about Wildlands was the four person team. The Division has no AI teammates so I assumed that the AI in Wildlands would either be non-existent or lousy. Even though I’ve owned the game for years, it wasn’t until seeing Breakpoint that I finally decided to actually play Wildlands. I’m happy to say that while it’s by no means a perfect game it’s much more enjoyable for me than I expected it to be.

While this is a review of the Ghost Recon: Breakpoint beta, I think it’s useful to compare it directly to Wildlands, and since I’m playing it right now and started it before the beta, I’m well equipped to do that.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-6-23-30-47While Wildlands is all about the team effort, Breakpoint is about the solo hero. Both games allow you to play solo or as part of a group, but the way the games are constructed for these differences in play are very dissimilar. Wildlands was made to be played as part of a four man squad. It’s the reason they hand you three fairly decent AI teammates from the start of the game. Sure you can abandon them and go it alone but the game isn’t balanced properly for solo play so only very advanced or extremely patient players can play solo effectively. This is why the multiplayer aspect works so well. Playing with others is a smooth experience because it’s how the game was meant to be played. Breakpoint is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Though it has the functions needed to play with a four man squad, it’s not intended to be played that way. The game does not hand you AI teammates and it’s incredibly well balanced for solo play. You can play with other human players, which I did try once, but it doesn’t improve the gameplay experience in the way it does in Wildlands.

Breakpoint was constructed for the solo player and it is really fulfilling to play solo. It’s perfectly balanced to make you feel like a badass without feeling easy. No squad required. The first thing I did once I finished the tutorial and the game opened up for me was buy a sniper rifle from the shop and storm a base. Storming a base in Wildlands is hard even with a squad. You get discovered too quickly even when sniping from afar. Reinforcements show up too quickly and too often. Stealth infiltration is possible but far from practical in many if not most non-mandatory scenarios. All this makes sense given the setting that is a Bolivian narco state crawling with Santa Blanca gang members, working internet connections, and cell phones. The countless enemies, quick communication between them, and overwhelming odds are a feature not a flaw. But that sort of scenario is unruly and unenjoyable for the one man wolf pack player like me. I rely on the AI when playing Wildlands. In Breakpoint, not only do I not need the assistance, I don’t even want it.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-8-0-16-7The setting of Breakpoint is an isolated island with limited connectivity, limited resources for everyone involved, and mostly isolated settlements and facilities scattered around a cluster of islands. It’s the perfect Rambo scenario. You can snipe your way through an entire base without having to worry about reinforcements showing up. You can track entry points from settlement to settlement because of the limited roads on the island that enemies will inevitably take because of their reliance on vehicles. Your drone gets plenty of range for the size and scale of the facilities being infiltrated. You still have to be smart and patient, but you don’t have to be an above average player to bring down a facility without help. And it’s not necessarily that there are fewer enemies. It’s just that the enemies are trained military personnel that aren’t standing around in giant clusters, making them lethal at close range but very manageable at a distance.

Breakpoint’s combat also has a number of quality of life improvements. Sniping, for instance, has a focused breathing function that allows the player to concentrate for a temporarily less shaky scope. Customizing weapons and gear plays a much bigger role in this game. You actually have a gear score which delivers noticeable changes to your ability to succeed. And yet the game is still a straight shooter. Enemy gear scores denote their lethality and armor level, but not your ability to kill them. Whether you’re weaker, evenly matched, or stronger than the human enemies, you can still take them down in one hit with a well-placed shot to the head. But you are not only fighting humans in this game. Drones are the bigger problem in Breakpoint and require a lot better performance and strength to bring down than humans in some cases.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-8-0-15-23I never felt stuck when playing the beta. I never felt lucky. I surveyed the area, made plans, and executed them with little to no surprise. And that’s a good thing. I don’t like it when I take the time to form a plan and it just falls apart for some stupid reason. I enjoy the methodical, calculated approach that allows me as the player to feel like a spec ops agent rather than a thug. The gameplay is clean and reliable. The character development system works, though it could have slightly clearer explanations. I often found myself wondering what certain stats represented because just about everything in the game is represented with non-text symbols and the occasional abbreviation rather than clearly written out explanations. This was true for a number of weapons related things. The game makes a lot of assumptions about your previous experience playing shooters. For instance, I like to use a sniper rifle in most shooting games. But I don’t know much about guns in general and don’t play many shooting games. So while I knew right away that SNR meant sniper rifle in the weapons list, I had no idea what DMR meant. Looking at it I thought it was a sniper rifle, but officially it’s classified as a “designated marksman rifle” in the game. I had to Google it to learn that. This should be written out in the game somewhere. Even a digital manual in game would be fine. The same goes for those weapons stat symbols. Without a legend, I was making assumptions about what I thought they meant. This was one of my only complaints about the entire beta.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-7-23-55-37While the game wasn’t built for playing with others, the multiplayer system works fine. I wasn’t able to try the PVP mode because it wouldn’t load for quite some time until I gave up. But I did try the campaign with a single additional player. Though many will not agree, I feel like playing with another player detracted from my overall experience. During this co-op session, we used the text chat instead of mics. The text chat is way more accessible from a menu navigation standpoint than in other Ubisoft multiplayer games I’ve played on PC. Playing with even just one other player makes a huge difference combat wise. The two of us stormed a facility and easily dominated it by using natural strategy. I found a high point and sniped while he played the ground and drew everyone into my killzone. It was beautiful. It was artistic. It was organized. It was fun. It was a bit too easy. Whereas in Wildlands I have died multiple times while playing with a four man squad (me plus three AI). In Breakpoint, the two of us had no problem storming that base, or anything else. The only two times we died during our session was when I was completely out of ammo and couldn’t find a refill, and when we went up against two ridiculously over powered tank drones. They were so over powered that we managed to die even though we rolled up in a literal tank. While I’m fine with feeling OP in games, I do feel like groups of players will feel the game is too easy.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-8-1-34-46One of the worst aspects of playing with another random player was how this affected the map and navigation aspects of the gameplay. One of the coolest mechanics in Breakpoint is the maps system. In Wildlands, you are handed points of interest on a map. You go to those points and then they reveal other points with missions or special objectives/items. It’s textbook open world Ubisoft and it works fine. But it’s super unrealistic in the fact that the map means absolutely nothing. It’s just a platform to tell you which way to travel and where to fast travel to. In Breakpoint, you have to actually read the map. You aren’t given specific locations from finding intel. Instead you use intel to gather information about the whereabouts of locations based on map landmarks which you then have to find on the map and explore in game to ultimately find your target locations. This was so cool for me. The clues are clear but subtle in nature. They use landmarks and directions like “north of snake river”. Then you mark a point on your map north of the river manually and have to go there. But that doesn’t mean you’ve found your objective. You’re just in the vicinity of it.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-7-15-16-51The game makes you actually explore the area and locate what you’re looking for like you would in real life. That’s actually how I found the first base I stormed accidentally. My objective was near there and when I was exploring I found a base. I thought that was the objective and cleared it out only to discover that it wasn’t my objective at all. While that would probably annoy some players, I thought it was extremely realistic and made the game way more interesting. But unless you’re playing with people who aren’t ahead of you in the game, this aspect of the gameplay is lost. The guy I played with was way ahead of me. I don’t even know why he was playing with me at all. My gear score was at like 19 while his was at 45. He had already cleared pretty much everything in the beta. This meant that every time I initiated a new objective, he already knew where it was. He would just mark it on the map for us and fly a helicopter there. That’s really realistic in a shared intel sort of way. And it’s very efficient when you aren’t in the mood to explore. But the fact that I was losing out on the exploration aspect of the game by playing with him made me want to play the entire game solo.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-7-23-52-25The graphics are quite good. I tried it on both PC and PS4 and was happy with both. PC definitely looked slightly better, but I’m also running a fairly beefy rig. The landscapes are beautiful and the character models, though not Uncharted 4, are quite a bit improved over Wildlands, which was already pretty good. I was also really happy with the sound. Specifically the enemy dialog. You can use it to help pin point enemies and plan strategy around their locations in close quarters. It’s definitely a AAA quality game.

The beta didn’t go too far into the plot but it did establish the seriousness of the situation, justify your lack of an NPC team, and present a villain fairly well and quite expediently. What it didn’t give me was a why. And really that’s what a beta is supposed to do. Peak your interest but not give you enough to warrant passing on the game. I got my John Bernthal moments, though he never officially made contact with me during the beta and I understood the significance of him, a fellow Ghost, being the villain. It was a bit on the nose that your character has personal ties to his character, but in general the dynamic of Ghost vs Ghost plays really well for dramatic effect. What I didn’t get from the beta was any sort of establishment information about the Wolves, the rogue Ghost organization you’re fighting against. What I like about Wildlands a lot is the background videos that tell you about the structure and organization of the cartel. The beta didn’t give me any of that other than a similar character map of the hierarchy of the enemy organization. But at this point I’m not entirely sure if everyone on the map is an enemy or not, which actually makes for better writing, in my opinion.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® Breakpoint Beta2019-9-6-23-39-25Overall I really enjoyed the Ghost Recon: Breakpoint beta. It played extremely well and got me excited for the full game. I’m fairly certain that I’ll be playing the bulk of the game solo but I can’t speak to the PVP mode since I wasn’t able to get it to work during the closed beta. I think this game will do really well but I can see a number of people complaining that it’s too easy in co-op mode. Sadly I won’t be able to finish Wildlands before it releases but I haven’t decided if I’ll wait to play it or not. I probably will because it feels quite a deal better as far as gameplay and going backwards mechanically in games never feels good.

Thankfully the open beta for Ghost Recon: Breakpoint starts tomorrow, depending on your time zone, so if you’re interested but still on the fence you can try it for yourself. “Sadly” I won’t be able to play the open beta because I’ll be traveling for my honeymoon.

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.

What Makes A Male Character? (Cyberpunk 2077)

Last week it was announced that CD Projekt RED’s next game, Cyberpunk 2077, was doing away with gender options in its character creator. To no one’s surprise, the gaming community spent a preposterous amount of time arguing about it. Half the internet was happy about it and the other half was angry. The same tired, usually illogical, and almost always irrelevant and nonsensical arguments were made by both sides. You already know what they are so I don’t need to take the time to go into them. Suffice it to say that many people still seem to care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes when playing single player games.

Now I actually don’t like character creators in story driven games. Not because I have any issue with people designing their own characters in games. And not because I particularly care what types of characters people design. My issue with character creators is that they almost always lead to hollow, sub-par writing devoid of real impact and personality for the character being created. It’s very hard to write a story that carries the same amount of context, realism, believability, and personality for an ambiguous character as that of a narrowly defined one. For instance, Lara Croft is a young, British, heterosexual female that comes from a wealthy Caucasian family. Her experiences are specific and meaningful in her development as a character. The way she would realistically respond to things would be completely different from the way an older, American, homosexual male that comes from a poor African-American family would. And this is true for many if not most situations. There would for sure be some overlap in their responses to things, depending on the situation and setting. But when it came to character building and interactions with other characters they would have completely different responses in most cases.

tomb raider 2013 victimLet’s take a scene from Tomb Raider (2013) as a specific example. There’s a moment in the game where it’s implied that Lara may be sexually assaulted by one of her much older male captors. Now for starters, that wouldn’t even happen to the other character I described in most cases. Not all, but most. And if it did happen, the character wouldn’t even necessarily have the same reaction, or even possibly aversion, to the situation as Lara Croft does in the game. And that is not to imply that older gay men are OK with being raped by other older gay men. It’s just to state the very true point that a young inexperienced rich girl and an older, presumably much more experienced man simply wouldn’t respond to the situation the same way. That’s exactly why specified characters and the context of those characters matter. But when you can create your own character in a game, many of the scenarios that specified characters can experience simply don’t happen and shouldn’t happen because they just wouldn’t make sense in many if not most cases.

Say I created a character in a game that was intentionally unattractive, horrifyingly strong, and gigantic in stature. That character simply isn’t going to be sexually assaulted. It’s not going to happen in any realistic scenario. And if it did happen in a game, any person would rightfully think “that doesn’t make any sense”. So game writers, knowing that, wouldn’t include a scene in the game that includes a possible sexual assault because there’s no way to guarantee that it would make sense to all player created characters at all times.

fallout 4 ugly characterThe closest way to making a character creator make sense without watering down the content is to write multiple story lines that mostly overlap but have some key differing plot points based on certain parameters entered into the character creator, such as gender. You might force the player to choose male or female and then depending on the gender they chose the game would decide whether or not the assault scene would be included. You could take this a step further by adding sexuality to the character creator. This wouldn’t address the intentionally ugly problem, but you’d get closer to the plot making sense for all players regardless of the character they built. At the same time though, this would require multiple story lines to be created which would mean more development time translating to higher development costs. So it makes more sense just to water down the story and not include anything specific to a certain type of character, which is my entire point about character creator games leading to watered down plots.

Some games over the years have managed to do a pretty decent job at storytelling even with the presence of a character creator. The Mass Effect trilogy comes to mind. Yet I played the games with the default male character and so did many other players. That’s why even though the game allowed for character creation, Commander Shepard’s face is so iconic. In your head right now you’re thinking of a white man in his 30’s with short hair, light stubble, and blue eyes. Even though the game had a default female version, and many people played the game as a female, most people don’t picture the female Commander Shepard when they think about Mass Effect. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single Mass Effect meme featuring the female version of Commander Shepard save for maybe a meme that showed both default gender options. So it’s very possible that while I think the game was written extremely well for a game with a character creator, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe if I had played it as a character that was a homosexual female of Latino origin I wouldn’t have felt like the character driven aspects of the game were that well written. I can’t say for sure. But I can say that a lot of games, including those that are praised highly, actually aren’t that great as far as developing the player’s created character. Dark Souls is a great example of this.

commander_shepardYou can create anyone you want in the Dark Souls games. You can make a person with blue skin, orange hair, and enough wrinkles to make Emperor Palpatine look youthful. But the games won’t give two shits about the way your character looks. The NPC’s won’t comment on it. The enemies won’t react differently to it. Your appearance and identity mean absolutely nothing in those games. And that doesn’t make them bad games. But I wouldn’t call the Dark Souls franchise an example of good character driven writing. The difference is that Cyberpunk 2077 seems to be selling itself as a character driven game where you can create any character you want. That’s a tall order and we’ve not seen CD Projekt RED even deliver a character creator game before. We know they can write because The Witcher series is one of the most compelling, best written franchises ever made. But they’re all focused on one heterosexual white guy who’s a social outcast and the closest thing to a hermit you can be without actually living alone in a cave. Meaning the character and thus the character driven writing has a defined and consistent context. And that’s exactly why it’s good writing.

All this is not to say that I have any problem with the fact that Cyberpunk 2077 has a character creator, or that gender options have been pulled from the character creator. All this is to say that I don’t believe that Cyberpunk 2077 will be even close to as well written from a character development standpoint as The Witcher 3. But let’s actually talk about the character creator nontroversy in the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077.

dragon's dogma-creationIf you’re not writing a character driven plot focused game, your character doesn’t really matter. Especially if you’re not applying conventional human norms to your character(s) to begin with, which would be the case in a Cyberpunk themed game most of the time. To be honest there’s almost no reason a character creator even needs gender in it unless, like in my previous examples, the story is actually affected by the gender of the character. Dragon’s Dogma is a perfect example of this. It’s a game with a story, but calling it a character driven story game is wildly inaccurate. You can create anyone in that game and it will change nothing about the gameplay experience. The only reason the character creator even has gender options in it is simply to speed up the character creation process. And that’s the case for most games with character creators if we’re honest.

It’s just much faster to ask people if their character is male or female so the limited number of default character models can be separated between having pronounced breasts and not having pronounced breasts. That’s pretty much the only thing of value the character creator in Dragon’s Dogma, among many other games, does. It just limits certain physical options based on a set of conventional appearance standards without having any actual effect on the gameplay. Body types, hairstyles, face renders, and voices are separated into two groups in order to speed up the character creation process. But really there’s no actual reason why a player shouldn’t be able to create a character that looks like Dwayne Johnson with pigtails and the voice of a Japanese schoolgirl while wearing a metal bikini. It would be uncomfortable to see for some spectators, but there’s no actual reason why anyone shouldn’t be able to create that character in a game where your appearance doesn’t actually matter. And thus removing gender limitations from a game with a story neutral character creator is and should be considered absolutely fine. Especially when you get into some of the more nuanced ways that people can actually look, act, and sound.

Saints_Row_the_Third_character creatorI once had a friend who was a five foot tall white female with long brown hair, a perfectly tight gym body, and the voice of a 30 year male smoker. That’s how she looked and that’s how she sounded, even though she was only 18 when I met her. Presumably, up until Cyberpunk 2077 it would have been extremely difficult for her to find a game where she could actually create herself in the game. She would have had little problem creating herself physically. And as she was a heterosexual, it would have been very easy to mirror her interactions with NPCs, where possible, fairly accurately. But getting her voice right would have been pretty much impossible. Now that’s not really fair. She wasn’t trans. She wasn’t homosexual. She wasn’t a smoker. She just had that preposterously deep and scratchy voice. In no way was that her fault, her choice, or a repercussion of any of her past decisions. Yet she was arguably a victim of game creator discrimination for all these years. Whereas I as a tall, heterosexual, African-American male with a stereotypically deep voice have pretty much never had a problem creating a character that looks and sounds close enough to myself, if that’s what I wanted to do, in a Western game.

Destiny-2-Character-Customization-1024x582I will admit that a lot of Asian produced games haven’t given me the ability to create myself, but I’m not their target audience to begin with so I don’t blame them for not taking the time to design assets for the handful of players that look like me that both will play their games and actually care about the fact that they can’t place themselves into the game. But for a Western developer that would be a huge problem if African-American men couldn’t create characters that resembled themselves in character creator games. And the truth is that many homosexual African-American male gamers can’t create themselves as far as voice and clothing options are concerned in Western developed games, and obviously Asian developed games but for an entirely different reason I’ve already gone over. So removing the gender limitations in a game’s character creator options isn’t a bad thing at all. And honestly, other than possibly making the process of creating your character take longer due to a lack of easily defined sorting practices, it doesn’t affect anyone’s gameplay experience in a negative way. It simply makes the experience for some players more positive by giving them the option to make characters they identify with on a more personal level. Again, if we’re not talking about a game where the context of the character’s experiences is driven by their gender, sexuality, or appearance, then it doesn’t really matter what limitations are or are not placed on the character creation tools from a gameplay standpoint. And for the bulk of games with character creators, it won’t. So I find it extremely ridiculous and illogical to be against this decision by CD Projekt RED. What I am against is the fact that they announced this development decision in the way they did.

Cyberpunk 2077 Mix It UpI have no issue with games being more inclusive. I have no problem with the gaming industry both on the screen and in the studios being more diverse. I still want character driven stories that are specific while making sense and having a clearly defined context, but in general diversity in games isn’t a bad thing to me. What is a bad thing, and I have written about this may times before, is using diversity as a selling point in order to pander to a specific audience. Especially when we consider the size of that audience within the gaming market. The way the removal of gender options from Cyberpunk 2077’s character creator was announced was via an interview. You can read an excerpt from the interview on this specific topic here. It’s very clear that this decision was made in response to the backlash of that supposed trans ad debacle. This character creation option is being used as an olive branch to the trans/entire LGBQT+ community so that people will stop calling CD Projekt RED transphobic and a “problematic developer”. That’s not diversity in game design. That’s not authentically trying to make things more inclusive for the LGBTQ+ community. That’s pandering for profits.

I get that game development is a business. I get that every decision, big and small, is profit driven. And most of the time I’m fine with all that. But I hate hypocrisy. I’m not one of those “keep politics out of games” people. I’m a writer. I play story driven games almost exclusively. I know games, and really all story driven entertainment, is political by nature. And anyone who thinks it isn’t is an idiot. Metal Gear Solid is political. Final Fantasy is political. Bayonetta is political. It’s all political. But I take issue with companies pretending their politics come from a place of support, love, and authentic concern. Because if it was authentic they wouldn’t have mentioned it at all. They would have just released the game with no gender options in the character creator and then people would have either noticed it and talked about it on their own or not talked about it at all. And LGBTQ+ players would have just played the game, thought it was cool that they could make the characters they wanted, and moved on with their lives. That would be authentic, non-pandering diversity in game design. If a company is doing something for recognition, it’s not authentic. And if they’re not being authentic then I don’t want them to pretend to be authentic.

mgs 3 patriotIf they had to say anything, I would rather have had a representative from CD Projekt RED just come out and say “Hey LGBTQ+ people, here’s a bone. We only did this to make you stop complaining about us. You never buy our games anyway, but hopefully now you’ll consider it.” That would be some real shit. I would respect them more for just coming out and saying it. Because right now they look like the good guys to one team and like they folded to the SJWs to the other team. But they know they can get away with it because all those people saying “I’m now not going to buy this game over this gender character creator thing” are clearly lying. There’s not a single actual gamer out there who was planning on buying Cyberpunk 2077 and now isn’t going to because the game won’t outright let them enter into the character creator that they’re a male. Not a single one. And CD Projekt RED knows that. So they can play both sides with impunity. And that is dishonest. Not to mention it strong arms LGBTQ+ gamers into buying the game. Because now that they’ve done this and got it reported all over the place, the only way to get other game studios to do it is to support the game and show that it has an actual effect on sales and popularity. It’s the female protagonist conundrum all over again.

remember meFemale gamers say “we want more female protagonists in games”, a company makes a game with a female protagonist, and it doesn’t sell. Then all the other companies get to say “well female protagonists don’t sell and we’re in the business of making money not political movements”. So every time a shitty game with a female protagonist gets released, women have to buy it or risk losing any chance of another AAA game with a female protagonist being made for a long time. The LGBTQ+ community is in the same boat. If they don’t support every game that offers LGBTQ+ options in it, they risk destroying any chance of another game with such options being made for literally years in the current market. I am 100% in support of CD Projekt RED’s decision to remove gender from their character creator, but I’m also 100% disgusted with the fact that they announced it this way. Don’t keep politics out of my games. Keep political posturing out of my games marketing.

I will be playing Cyberpunk 2077 and I will almost certainly be playing as a conventional looking, heterosexual, African-American male. I am 100% unaffected by the studio’s choice to remove gender from the character creator, but so many people aren’t. And instead of just letting them choose whether or not they want to buy the game based on the actual merits of the game, they’ve forced an entire group of people to give into their bullshit pandering tactics for the good of their group’s future representation in the video games industry by making a big thing out a fairly easily development change. It’s selfish, disgusting, and wrong. And the worst part is that because of how things work, people are and will continue to champion the studio for this PR move because it’s more than most studios deliver most of the time.

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.

Gamescom 2019

This year was my first time ever attending Gamescom. I would like to thank Ubisoft for inviting me to attend the event as a contestant in the Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle Grand Championship. While I was extremely depressed to have lost in the first round, and even more so to have lost because of a single error in an otherwise flawlessly executed match, I am still happy to have been given the opportunity to participate and attending Gamescom was amazing. I also want to acknowledge that the main reason my experience at Gamescom was so good was that Ubisoft was gracious enough to provide me with an exhibitor’s ticket. This allowed me special access and privileges that normal attendees just didn’t have, which in turn allowed me to try out way more games than probably anyone else.

Over the course of the show I was able to try/experience 22 different unreleased games that are mainstream and some additional indies which I won’t take the time to talk about in this post for the sake of time. I truly believe that other than press I played more mainstream games at Gamescom than anyone else. An exhibitor ticket gave me early access every day which meant I could skip at least one to two lines a day. For example, the lines for FFVII Remake and Marvel’s Avengers were right next to each other in the Square Enix booth. Both consistently had lines of at least 2.5 hours every day of the show. But I was able to enter the show floor an hour early every day. So one of those days I talked one of the Square Enix team members into letting me try Marvel’s Avengers before the official opening time. This allowed me to then be one of the first in line for FFVII Remake right after, allowing me to try two of the biggest games being demoed at Gamescom this year in under 30 minutes of actual show time. That was literally record breaking. And because there was no line at the Square Enix demo for Trials of Mana remake, because everyone was trying it at the Nintendo booth, I was able to try that game right after FFVII Remake. So I managed to try three mainstream titles within the first official hour of one of the days at Gamescom. I used similar tactics throughout the week in order to try literally every game at the show I wanted to try. The only two games of note that I didn’t try were Borderlands 3 and Control. I honestly didn’t want to try either, but after having read the reviews for Control, I do wish I had tried that game and could have if I had wanted to take the time during the show.

 

Gamescom Entrance

This was my first time visiting Germany and I really enjoyed it. Cologne is a great city and I could definitely live there. It’s a beautiful and large but still kind of quaint place with culture and character. And German people are so nice. That being said, German gamers suck. I’m sorry, and I know that’s a wide brush to paint with, but I have to say that of all the gaming and tech related events I’ve been to in three different regions (Asia, NA, EU) of the world, the Gamescom attendees, most of which were native Germans, were the worst, most selfish, and unprofessional people I’ve ever interacted with in a setting like this. And that’s saying a lot. I’m not talking about the staff. Save for a few exceptions, they were great. I’m talking about the people attending the event. So many selfish assholes. They can’t wait in lines like adults. They have little to no concept of what’s appropriate in a crowded public setting. And worst of all they defend each other’s bad behavior even when they aren’t actually guilty of said behavior themselves. I won’t go into specific details of the various ridiculous occurrences I experienced and witnessed, but for such a large event with literally thousands of visitors, I expected better from the attendees. The behavior I saw at Gamescom does not happen at Taipei Game Show. It does not happen at CES. I haven’t been to every gaming event in the world so I can’t say for sure if this was an isolated occurrence or not, but in my experience, German gamers need to grow up. And I’m speaking as a 30 year old man who waited four hours to try Iron Man VR.

This was a gaming event so of course we need to talk about swag. You know me. I’m all about that free stuff at events. I have to say that for quantity, Gamescom was not the best swag event I’ve been to. I make much better hauls at Computex each year. But I’ll also say that with so many more people and much longer lines in a way it’s possible that I just wasn’t able to access as much swag as there actually was. I’ll also say that the giveaways at Gamescom were top notch, but giveaways don’t really count as swag because not everyone can get them just from waiting in line. For example, I got four shirts (Watch Dogs Legion, Ghost Recon: Breakpoint, Everspace 2, and Biomutant). But of those four only one of them was given out for waiting in line to try a game (Biomutant). The other three were special privilege acquisitions. The Everspace 2 one I got for work related reasons and the two Ubisoft ones I happened to catch when they were thrown out into the crowd during presentations. That means really only one shirt was available as actual swag in my whole haul. I got 11 pins, which is awesome because I actually collect them. But two of them I paid for and one was another instance of a work related acquisition. So really I got only eight pins as swag, three of which were from Nintendo (Link’s Awakening, Luigi’s Mansion 3, and Pokémon: Sword & Shield). The three Nintendo ones weren’t even available until later in the week so if you tried those games earlier then you couldn’t get those pins. In my case I went back to the Link’s Awakening booth, because I tried that on the first day, and begged them for a pin later in the week. I managed to get two hats and a visor as actual swag. But the visor was a disappointment because it was for Cyberpunk 2077 and I really just expected better swag from CD Projekt Red for that game. I wanted a Cyberpunk 2077 shirt so badly. So all in all the swag was average at best for both quantity and quality.

pins

Now I want to take the time to give single paragraph reviews of each of the noteworthy games I tried at Gamescom. So pretty much the rest of this post will be games coverage. It is a lot to read, but like I said, I played a lot of games. I have listed the titles in bold so you can skip over the ones you aren’t interested in. Games are not listed in any particular order.

Trials of Mana HD Remake (Nintendo Switch)

This was awesome. I never played the original Mana series but I was considering buying Collection of Mana for Nintendo Switch. Now I’m definitely going to wait for them to remake the other two games in this style and then just buy a collection of the remade versions. Trials of Mana looks beautiful and plays so smoothly. For a remake of a classic game, it does not feel super retro. It’s nearly a normal action RPG. The combat was good, the real time party system worked well, and the boss fight at the end of the demo was exciting, challenging, and yet still well balanced. Highly recommend picking it up if you’re interested in this classic series and I hope we see the whole collection soon.

FFVII Remake (PS4)

My gosh this game plays well. I have been avidly opposed to this remake ever since they announced that they were changing the gameplay and making it episodic. But I will give credit where credit is due and admit that this gameplay is otherworldly. It is so revolutionary for the franchise and extremely well made. Even playing it in German felt great. I hate that I’m going to buy this game, but I am going to buy this game. The gameplay alone made sure of that. It’s a real time action RPG with the ATB system from FFXIII being used to implement the turn based feel from the original FFVII without slowing the gameplay down to the point of breaking your groove. It’s hard to even explain because I’ve never seen anything like it before. And the graphics are just phenomenal but that should surprise no one at this point. One thing I will say though is that the gameplay shown was used for multiple characters (Cloud and Barret), which leads me even more to ask what the point of episodes is because the original sell was that the episodes would essentially be different games telling one coherent story. That’s not what I was getting from this gameplay. This system can and will almost certainly be used across all characters so there’s really no justification to break this into episodes because the story aspect can easily shift between cutscenes. Changing your walking avatar from Cloud to another character is not a justification to sell a separate game if they’re going to be part of the same party anyway. In any case, based on what I played this is a must play.

 Marvel’s Avengers (PS4)

This game got a lot of flak after the E3 announcement and I really don’t know why. Visually, the demo I played did have some issues. It was mostly hair that I had problems with. Everything else was fine for an alpha build. It played smoothly, the controls didn’t lag, and I didn’t get any dropped frames. It’s a pretty standard brawler done in the spirit of the Arkham games. But each of the playable characters has a slightly different move set and feel. Personally I liked Hulk and Thor the most because they felt the most appropriate for the gameplay with Captain America in a close third. Black Widow was only featured in a boss fight so while she did work appropriately, I can’t speak to how she wields in normal combat scenarios. The demo was very linear with each character merging into the next one to tell a whole story, but I don’t have a problem with linear games. If the gameplay is good and the story is coherent while having enough length to justify $60+, I’m absolutely fine with a linear story. But the attendant informed me that the final product will be way less linear than the demo I played. I liked it and I’ll definitely pick it up.

Monkey King: Hero is Back (PC)

This game is trash. Which really depressed me because I love the Monkey King character and stories and was super excited to try this game. I didn’t even know about it until I saw the banner at Gamescom. I had high hopes because the character and settling are great for a game, but this was executed poorly. The gameplay isn’t necessarily stiff, but it definitely isn’t smooth either. The graphics are tolerable for the sake of the animated film it’s based on, but they aren’t good. The thing that angered me most was ladder transitions. To climb from one floor to another, even when it’s all part of the same interactive area, you have to wait for an animation clip rather than just climb the damn ladders. This is not acceptable in 2019. Especially not from the company that helped produce games like The Wonderful 101 and Final Fantasy XV. This demo was just unacceptably bad and I’m really, really depressed about it.

Asterix & Obelix XXL 3 – The Crystal Menhir (PC)

I actually only just found out about XXL 3 about two weeks before Gamescom. And honestly I only found out about XXL 2 a couple months before that. I used to watch this cartoon as a kid and play some of the games so I was really happy that they’re still making them and that I could try the newest one at Gamescom. This is by no means a AAA title, but it’s quite fun. I played it solo but you can play it with two player co-op. It’s a well-made top down brawler. A bit repetitive but not bad. Some of the puzzles, if they can be called that, are more annoying jump challenges than actual puzzles but nothing game breaking. It’s really more something you play because you’re a fan of the franchise than because it’s a great game. But if you liked the previous games then this one definitely won’t disappoint.

Link’s Awakening HD Remake (Nintendo Switch)

This was phenomenal. I waited three hours to play it and I don’t regret it. It’s beautiful, the gameplay is smooth, and it’s fun. I never finished the original Link’s Awakening but I will definitely be buying and beating this. Even playing it in German, which I don’t read, in no way turned me off the game. It’s just good. It’s not worth $60. That I will say. For $30, this would be a no brainer purchase. But at full AAA price, I’m gonna wait for a Black Friday deal. But it’s definitely a must play for me.

Doom Eternal (Google Stadia)

There are two main reasons that I wanted to play Doom Eternal on Stadia. The first was that I didn’t want to wait three hours to try Doom Eternal and the second was that I really wanted to try Stadia but the only other game they had available to try was Mortal Kombat 11, which I’ve already played on PS4, so it seemed like a waste of time to try that one. I will admit however that playing a game I had already played and comparing it to Stadia probably would have given me a more legitimate ability to judge the platform in a single 15 minute demo.

Stadia runs fine. What I mean by that is I was able to play Doom Eternal comfortably with no lag, frame rate drops, or any legitimate gameplay issues. The game ran adequately. Now I’m not 100% sure on the setup they actually had because they had a controller and other cables running into a table and then a laptop with nothing on the screen except the Stadia logo sitting next to a monitor, which the game was running on. So the implication was that you were dual monitoring a laptop and running Doom Eternal via Stadia on the monitor while playing with a wired controller, but I have no actual proof of that because they didn’t present the setup to me. They just sat me down, handed me a controller and declared it was Doom Eternal on Stadia. So I believe that’s what I was experiencing, but take this with a grain of salt because there’s no evidence to suggest that this was actually the case. The one negative I will say about Stadia is that the graphics don’t hold up. Playing Doom on my regular PS4 looks better than Doom Eternal on Stadia. The game looked acceptable but not beautiful. If you’re used to high spec PC gaming with a 1080 or more card, which I am, Stadia doesn’t hold up. It runs fine, but it’s not the perfectly crisp HD picture hard core PC Master Race gamers are used to. It’s more like playing games on a PS3. Looks and runs fine, but doesn’t hold up to current high graphics standards. So if you are a minimum spec gamer, it’s probably fine for you. But if you are a 120 FPS, 2080ti, 4K gamer, then you will absolutely not be able to play games on Stadia in its current form.

Doom Eternal was great. And that should surprise no one. It’s the same formula as Doom, and that’s a good thing, because the formula works. Even on the lacking graphics of Stadia, I was having a blast playing it. If you liked Doom, you’re going to like Doom Eternal. Enough said.

Ghost Recon: Breakpoint (PC)

I don’t think I’ve played a game since Destiny that required team work as much as Ghost Recon: Breakpoint. This was a demo where you were forced to play on a squad of four and it was tough. Granted the other players were native German speakers and I speak maybe four words of German, but we were all experienced gamers and we struggled. We failed (all four dead at once) multiple times. The game is hard but fair. We had to learn how to work together and be more conservative, but once we did that, we got through it. A big part of the game is fighting drones and robot type enemies. This is where the game gets really difficult because they don’t go down like people. But they mow you down easy. The game works well and looks great. My only real complaint about the gameplay is that you still can’t button to cover like in The Division. Like with Ghost Recon: Wildlands, you just sort of naturally flow in and out of cover as you move. I think intentional cover would improve the gameplay but many would probably argue that it would make it too easy. But in my opinion if being able to cover in a shooter makes the game too easy or less enjoyable, then it’s probably not a good game to begin with. I think Breakpoint would play just fine with button press cover and cover to cover movement. But in general it’s a great game that I’ll definitely be playing, so I can take on the Punisher.

Cyberpunk 2077 (Non-playable Gameplay Presentation)

Sadly I did not get to play Cyberpunk 2077, but the experience of seeing a narrated presentation was extremely informative and valuable. This presentation featured a person playing the game live while a presenter narrated the action. The focus of this presentation was to show how the character development system affects gameplay with what they refer to as a “fluid class system”. Essentially you don’t have classes. You just have skills which you level up with points gained through xp. The two builds they showed were one focused on hacking and the other focused on strength. The way they presented this was very effective because they showed the same mission twice done with these two different builds. The hacker build was much more about stealth and using your skills to clear obstacles and take out enemies strategically, with little direct combat. The strength build just ran in and destroyed everything directly. The best example of comparison between these two builds was during a fight sequence with several enemies and a turret near the middle of the room. The hacker hacked the turret and let it do the work for him, while the strength build used a human shield to get close to the turret and then ripped it out of its stand and used it as a mini-gun. Both approaches were amazing and I’m honestly not sure which one I would prefer to play. They said you could build however you wanted and potentially have features from both builds but they did not answer how much available xp there was in the game in order to reach both these builds simultaneously.

While I still would prefer the game in third person, watching this presentation convinced me that I could probably enjoy playing it in first person as well. The driving did go to third person though so I really hope a patch or mod is coming.

The Surge 2 (PC)

I was really excited to play this. I have The Surge but haven’t actually finished it yet. I do plan on getting it done though. I really like this IP because it plays like a stripped down Dark Souls set in the future instead of the past. I was really depressed that I didn’t get into The Surge 2 closed beta but finding out I could try it at Gamescom made me really happy. Now let me say that the Deep Silver booth sucked. The line for The Surge 2 was never long, but took forever. I waited 45 minutes and didn’t move an inch. I asked multiple employees why it was taking so long and no one could give me an answer other than “I don’t know.” I finally stepped out of line and was considering giving up on getting to try it at all. The only reason I got to play it was that a friend found a fast pass and gave it to me because he didn’t know the studio. While the booth was badly managed, the game is awesome. It plays really well. I especially liked that at the start of this game you don’t have a rig so you have to work your way through learning the combat without power and then once you’ve started to really get it you find a rig and get a real boost of power. It’s a great storytelling mechanic. That being said, it’s kind of a turn off if you don’t will your way through that opening phase of the game. Before you get your rig, you can’t even dodge. And you feel those limitations. But once you get a hang of the combat and then get a rig, it’s so gratifying. I also liked that you start off the game with a sort of boxing gloves type weapon. You get these metal fist covers that allow you to fight against opponents in rigs. I actually hope that in the later game you get supped up fist weapons and can fight boxing style because it works really well. But if you’re not getting weapons grade damage, it’s just not worth it once you get a rig. In general, the game plays great and looks decent enough. There’s also a more human focused story with real conversations and dialog options. The first game put you in a world of mostly robots. This game seems to put you in a world of mostly people after the robots revolted and were finally beaten back. I can’t wait to play the final version.

As a bonus, there was a boss in the demo and for defeating it during the 20 minute trial period, I was given a steel-book case for The Surge. This was an awesome surprise that I absolutely was not expecting. And since I own the physical version of the first game that makes it even better.

Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot (PC)

Sadly I did not like this demo. The controls were a bit overwhelming to learn in a 15 minute session. There’s actually a lot going on. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing because it means there’s depth to the game. It’s an open world with a battle mode which is initialized when you make contact with enemies that are seen on the map. This is all fine. The boss battles are slightly different from regular battles but not by too much. This is also fine. There’s a lot going on in this world. Lots of NPCs to interact with. Sidequests all over the place. Other characters that team up with you and travel the map with you depending on what part of the story you’re in. This is all good stuff. What isn’t good is how much crap is on the screen at one time. There’s so much going on and it’s all on screen at once. Beacons for objectives, a large HUD, NPC dialog boxes in the distance, floating collectibles, and just lots of general clutter. It’s so hard to focus on playing the game with so much on screen information pulling you out of the experience. Like imagine if in Assassin’s Creed the gameplay looked like the map. If all those objectives, side events, mini-games, challenges, treasure chests, and other map icons were all on the screen constantly while trying to play the game. Now imagine that on a screen of less than 27 inches. It would be a nightmare to play. That’s how this game plays. I hope you can turn a lot of that stuff off in menus because if you can’t it’s just too much junk on screen at one time.

Medievil (PS4)

Great remake. Absolutely buying this. It plays well. It looks good. It sounds good. I never played this as a kid, but I was aware of it and I’m so glad they made a good remake. For the most part, it’s challenging yet fair. The controls are accessible and run smoothly. It’s just a really well made remake. My only complaint, which I assume was present in the original game as well, was the resource management mechanics. Like you start off with a sword that I don’t believe can break. But you can pick up other weapons. But when you do you lose your sword. Yet those other weapons can break. So ultimately I got to the boss in the demo and my weapon broke and I was expected to fight the boss with no actual weapon other than my useless bone arm, which also removes the ability to use your shield. Even when I died, I respawned with no weapon. I found this to be a very annoying and unbalanced mechanic. But otherwise it’s a great game that I’ll definitely buy.

Concrete Genie (PS4)

I hate to say it, but this game is not good. The controls are trash. The painting mechanics are not intuitive at all. Making creatures isn’t nearly as accessible or effective as you want it to be. It just does not play well. And I didn’t even get to any of the evil monster sequences. The demo was extremely boring in that all you had to do was find light bulbs hidden around the town and paint them to turn them on. But even this simple task was so tedious with the broken controls. The graphics are OK but not as good as the ads made them seem like they would be. I was originally excited with the initial reveal but now it’s a hard pass for me.

Dreams (PS4)

I’m actually very interested in this. Writing about it is difficult because they didn’t demo the creator mode. What they showed were creations that were already active for you to play. And they were all so different. There was shmup flyer, a puzzle platformer, a soccer type game, a 3D point and click, and other genres. So many different types of games seem to be possible in Dreams. But because I didn’t see the creator mode I don’t know how hard it is to do any of that. If I’m honest, I’m not super interested in playing other people’s creations. I’m interested in creating my own games. The marketing makes it seem like this is totally easy to do. But that sounds improbable. It’s hard enough to make a good level in Super Mario Maker 2 and that’s built on a grid with pre-made assets. I’ll keep an eye out for this but I can’t really say if it’s good or bad at this time. All I can say is that it seems possible for people to create entire games. Now the question becomes will they be compensated for their hard work in the event that someone creates something actually worth talking about. Because the stuff I saw easily bested many indies you can find on Steam.

Biomutant (PC)

I was really excited for this when I first heard about it, and then it got delayed for like over a year. So I was happy to wait in line for about 90 minutes to try it. And it was worth it. The graphics are kind of weird. It’s like an adult cartoon. Not bad, but also not particularly good. Because the level of violence isn’t super cartoony, so it could have been more graphic. But the animal characters also make sense in a less gory tone. So it’s kind of in limbo visually. But the gameplay is superb. It’s fluid, well balanced, easy to pick up, and just really fun. I genuinely enjoyed every fight in the demo from start to finish. It also has different types of physical weapons. I started off with a saw blade, which was great, and then got a rocket punch glove, which was also great. It’s a must play for me.

Luigi’s Mansion 3 (Nintendo Switch)

I haven’t actually played any of the previous games, but I was very interested in this one after the E3 reveal. The gameplay was much harder than I imagined it would be. But not hard in the sense that the gameplay is hard. More in that the controls are very unruly. Even a friend who had played the previous games said it didn’t feel the same as the older ones. The mechanic for weakening ghosts so you can slam them wasn’t clear to me but I sort of figured it out through playing. The bigger issue though was the rotation. You can’t just turn in the direction you push the stick like in a normal Mario game. You have to actually spin around in a circle going in either direction. So if an enemy appears behind you, you can’t just instantly point towards them and attack them. You have to take the time to spin all the way around and then line up your attack. And aim matters in this game a lot. You can and do miss often. Especially in the boss fight included in the demo where you’re facing a ghost riding a horse. The graphics were great. And the concepts of the gameplay were quite good. But the controls just were not good for me. I’m still interested but I want normal Nintendo platformer directional movement. I do acknowledge though that this isn’t a platformer, but the rotating does not work well.

Darksiders Genesis (PC)

I was not happy about this game going into the demo at all. I like this franchise. I like the 3D action hack-n-slash Darksiders games. So when they announced a top down dungeon crawler in the style of Gauntlet: Dark Legacy instead of a sequel starring the fourth horseman, I was not happy. I only took the time to try the demo because I felt like it was something my readers would care about. While I still am not happy that this is the next game in the franchise, I must admit that Genesis is extremely well made. It plays so well for that genre. Maybe the best in the genre I’ve played. I genuinely enjoyed playing it. I wasn’t super enthusiastic about the text based story, but the gameplay is excellent. It’s smooth. You can swap between horsemen easily when playing in single player. The attacks work effectively and fluidly. It’s fairly well balanced. Even the boss fight in the demo was great. I’m not saying I’m going to buy this, but if some friends wanted to play it, I’d be totally in for it.

The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance Tactics (PC)

I’m an OG The Dark Crystal fan. I watched that movie on VHS so many times I’m surprised the tape didn’t break. So all they really had to say to me was The Dark Crystal game and I was interested. I played an alpha build and I got what they were doing. It was very similar to like a Fire Emblem or Banner Saga type game. But it was buggy. Again, alpha build, so that’s fine. I got the gist of what they were trying to do and I guess it works. I don’t love the graphics, but it is based on a Jim Henson puppet movie, so I don’t necessarily think the graphics are inappropriate. But at the same time, I don’t necessarily need graphics to be era appropriate to adapt a show/movie to a game. Like I get why Stranger Things: The Game looks the way it does but I don’t want it to look the way it does. I would have been much happier with just a higher visual quality game, 80’s themed or otherwise. The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance Tactics certainly looks better than Stranger Things: The Game though. It’s a game I’ll continue to look into but at this point I’m not sold on the gameplay or the graphics. It does appear to be very story intensive though, which I consider a good thing.

Death Stranding (Non-playable Gameplay Presentation)

*This video is more useful than the waste of time that was the Death Stranding “presentation” I attended at the Gamescom booth.

Screw Kojima. Screw Death Stranding. And screw that garbage presentation. The line was nonsensical and the presentation was trash. I’m not even going to discuss what was presented, because you’ve already seen it. They literally made us wait in a line to sit in a dark room on shitty box stools to watch four trailers that had already been made available online at the start of Gamescom. I could have taken that time to try another game such as Control or Borderlands 3 and would have if I had known this presentation wasn’t going to actually be a presentation. I thought it was going to be like the Cyberpunk 2077 presentation where a person who worked on the game was going to show gameplay or at least footage and talk about it. Maybe even answer some questions. No one was even in the room during the presentation other than viewers. They just marched us in there, pressed play, left, and then kicked us out after the four trailers had finished rolling. Absolutely ridiculous waste of my time.

Iron Man VR (PSVR)

I waited four hours to play this which was much too long. But I do consider this demo proof of concept. It was hard to control and the graphics weren’t as clear as I wanted. But I do think that may have just been the way the headset was put on me because even Astro Bot Rescue Mission was way clearer when I tried that earlier this year. I could barely hear the sound. Again, I consider this a setup issue rather than a software issue. But the gameplay worked, even though it was hard to control. I felt like Iron Man. Like it felt real. The demo started with me flying over water and I genuinely thought I was going to fall into the water at one point at the start of the demo when I was still learning the controls. It’s not so good that I’m going to rush out and buy PSVR. But with some tuning to the flying and combat controls that game could be one of the most satisfying VR games made to date. If you have PSVR, definitely keep an eye on this one.

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 (Nintendo Switch)

I have Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games (Wii U) and haven’t gotten any of the other games in this series. I honestly only got it because it came with a Wiimote for less than the price of buying a Wiimote on its own. This latest installment looks really good, but it’s really hard to play. I’ll admit that the directions being in German were a big factor here, but the point is that a number of the events aren’t intuitive. Some games were. I particularly liked the archery game. But the surfing game was impossibly hard to figure out how to do tricks. I was only able to try a limited number of events in the game, but it was a fair amount of them. What I really liked conceptually was that you could also play Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 1964. This was a mode where the graphics were all retro and the gameplay was made to simulate old school NES limitations. It’s a fun idea, but a lot of those events are even harder than the 2020 games. This game isn’t really my cup of tea, but if you liked the previous ones then this one seems like it won’t under deliver the same sort of experience.

Pokémon Sword and Shield (Nintendo Switch)

The line for this game was consistently ridiculous every single day of Gamescom. The only reason I got to play it was that on the last day of Gamescom, using my exhibitor ticket access, I went there at 8:20 AM and was first in line. I waited 40 minutes to be the first person to play the game that day. And it was worth it. Now honestly this was a garbage demo. I wanted to explore the world and catch Pokémon. The demo took place solely in a single gym, had me battle a few trainers, solve a puzzle, and almost complete the gym leader battle. I say almost because it cut out before I could deal the killing blow. But it felt so good. It made me feel like a kid again playing Red and Blue. It plays like any other Pokémon game. The formula works and need not change. But I’ll definitely be buying both Sword and Shield. I did get to try out the Dynamax mechanic. It was fun but not nearly as effective as I’d like because ultimately when used against another Dynamax Pokémon it just becomes a normal battle. The one thing about the demo that I both liked and disliked at the same time was that it gave me all three starters in my team. That’s not going to happen in the real game. Because it never does. I loved being able to try them all out and I did. I purposely changed Pokémon unnecessarily just to try all six that were available in the demo. And I want them all. But we all know the only way I’m actually going to get them all is to get both games and borrow a second Switch to trade Pokémon with myself. For sure going to buy both games though.

So that ends my Gamescom 2019 coverage. I know this was a long post, but like I said, I played more games than anyone else at the show outside of press. And I didn’t even include any of the smaller indie titles I tried. If you have any additional questions about Gamescom, the tournament, or specific games I tried, please let me know in the comments.

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.