Are Less Pokemon A Problem?

The Pokemon series isn’t especially renowned for being progressive. I think its fair to say its glacial like innovation is the equivalent speed of an asthmatic sloth shuffling home to fill in some tax returns. Moreover its always been a rather stubborn brand, anxious to make even the most minute alterations. Its reluctance to evolve as it were can largely be attributed to GameFreaks obsessive need to preserve. Their “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach has been an especially lucrative adage. With Pokemon being the second best selling series for Nintendo, having sold in excess of 300 million copies worldwide, only surpassed by Mario, its easy to understand GameFreaks reluctance to innovate. The proliferating success of the series has seemingly been suppressed by the frequency at which the games are released. With the exception of a few peripheral advances, most notably the introduction of a day and night cycle and a visible experience meter in gen 2, the former of which was actually removed from the proceeding game, the series obstinate adherence to commercial prevelance has always been Pokemons greatest weakness. That an the insidiously antiquated system that only permits one save file per game!? So with the announcement that “Pokemon Sword and Shield” will purposely omit many established Pokemon, I can’t say I’m really that surprised.

The ubiquitous “Gotta catch em all” slogan hasn’t really been a pervasive incentive for quite some time. With over 800 fictional species to collect, tame and battle, over the course of 7 widely fluctuating generations, its almost farcical to expect anyone to accomplish this thankless, arduous task. Having a redacted level of creatures to compile streamlines the adventure, enabling GameFreak to provide a greater emphasis on story. Unlikely as that seems considering Pokemons well established reluctance to change from the numerous derivatives of a young trainer exploring a region, gaining notoriety through battling Gyms and crippling a criminal gang seeking world domination. Perhaps there’s a degree of comfort from the familiarity, that the games rather simplistic nature simply doesn’t necessitate overly complicated themes or mature elements. I disagree though. There doesn’t need to be a drastic topical adaptation, perhaps a subplot concerning ecological unrest or the ethical implications of capturing Pokemon for the purposes of inciting violence. Something? But I digress. The point is…well, I’ve forgotten that too.

GameFreak limiting the number of formative species was inevitable. When the series next “creative” measure is introducing mineral and dairy based Pokemon as an actual logical development, then of course you’re going to limit the visibility of more interesting Pokemon. Though I’ll admit that an Ice cream Pokemon could have some rather devastating, super effective moves against a lactose intolerant Pokemon. Of course a diminishing roster of Pokemon isn’t the only controversy, as there’s also been prevalent speculation that GameFreak have been using 3d models from past games, to cut down on production, which GameFreak have vigerously refuted. This is a far less desirable revelation that can’t be defended, if the alleged allegations are indeed true of course.

What I’ve seen of Sword and Shield so far however is promising, if mildly concerning. I’ve been waiting the better part of a decade for a mainline Pokemon game that I can play on a home console, and I just don’t want it messed up. For the moment I’m edging on the side of pragmatism, hoping that any pessimism I have will be dismissed when Sword and Shield delivers on my lofty childhood expectations. No pressure!

Advertisements

Why Red Dead 2 Might Be The Greatest Game I Don’t Like.

Open world games are something I’ve always gravitated towards. Having a fully interactive environment that I can manipulate and explore at my leisure is such a liberating prospect. An open world denotes longevity, conveys a sense of scale and quality, which is essential for me if I want to get my moneys worth. Not that linear games are without substance or quality, but a game with a broader surrounding is a much more reliable investment. I’ve scoured the “Oblivion” plains. Cruised the roads of “Need For Speed: Most Wanted”. Pillaged the tombs of Skyrim. And mowed down the inhabitants of Vice City with a levitating tank. Of course without an equivalent story and gameplay, being able to explore an expansive terrain with any satisfaction is futile. But sometimes, even with the right components and expert alchemists blending, the resulting concotion can be somewhat ambivalent. For me the one game that applies to is Red Dead Redemption 2.

I really do admire this game greatly. Red Dead 2 is gorgeous, with a profoundly reviting narrative about the decline of traditional “Wild West” ideologies and dealing with the intruding escalation of civilised society. Yet, for some reason the overarching narrative becomes a little dry. Mirred in tedium and slow yet methodical progression of the campaign, that is admittedly intricate. Consorting with the Van Der Linde gang–whom are complicated and numerable, but largely unremarkable. Not to mention the fully actualized world that’s breadth and depth can only be matched by its detail and beauty. But is ultimately devoid of charm and is frankly a desolate place to occupy when not in the smattering of towns or settlements. The missions themselves feel perfunctory, trivial little pursuits that act as tutorials to exhibit the imposing world, as apposed to errands that benefit the characters motivations or the players genuine experience. The realistic overtures of the setting extols a particularly authentic sensation that I don’t always believe compliments the simulated fantasy of a game. Watching your horse galloping through camp, injuring occupants during a cutscene is hardly in keeping with the games rooted realism. But my biggest discrepancy can partially be attributed to the games lead protagonist, Arthur Morgan.

RockStar have prominently featured character’s that are morally contradictory. Protagonists that demonstrate great loyalty to friends and family, convey respect or compassion to those they’ve built a repour with and even demonstrate a tremendous kindness to strangers. But by the same measure are also capable of immense cruelty, violence and seemingly lack any moral fortitude. That somehow the former caring intermissions negates the latter masochistic tendancies, demonstrating the complicated duality of man is a rather predictable troupe. Are they good people doing bad things, or bad people doing good things? Frankly, who cares. Personally Arther Morgan plays like a side character that has been elevated above a far more interesting group of settlers. It’s baffling to me that a game that features John Marston so prominently in the background, a man that gained notoriety during these formative years and eventually earned penance for his crimes isn’t the central character here? (From the start I mean). To experience his infamous exploits that ultimately leads him to his eventual redemption seems like a missed opportunity to me.

No doubt this elaborate speech is going to antagonise a lot of fans, particularly as this concerns the single player experience, not the woefully dull online strap-on! Many of whom will be quick, yet articulate to rebuke my rather glib surmise as ignorant, stupid, misguided or just plain wrong! And I won’t fault you for it. I’m fully aware that Red Dead Redemption 2 is perceived as an incomparable triumph of visuals and storytelling that only Citizen Kane can emulate. But for some reason Red Dead 2 just didn’t click for. My lose I guess.

Is E3 Still Relevant?

Having fiercely opined early in the year that Sony’s absence from this years E3 would actually benifit the former industry only event, its kind of strange that without the manufactured conflict between industries holy trinity, that things would be quite so “bleuh!”. Reducing Sony’s visibility should have allowed other developers/publishers to showcase their products, without the looming shadow of one of the predatory corporations, ready to inflict its customery monotony and glacial paced conferences. Perhaps even allow Xbox to captilise on their burgeon popularity. To really stick it to their absent competitor with a jesting swagger. But really the only significant demonstration on display was the fundamental insignificance of E3 as a legitimate pervayor of quality.

E3 has always been densely frenetic event. Deftly attuned to the embellished marketing campaigns and hyperbole that makes the entire sordid affair such an absurd spectacle. You probably have your own treasured moments from past expos. Perhaps recall announcements that really got you shaking with anticipation and your wallet (remember those?) sighing with indignation. But when was the last time you could honestly say that about E3, especially this year? Its a bloated expository show, relying on the artifice of deception, gross exaggerated truths and false promises. When representives stride onto the stage, waving awkwardly like a contestant on a game show, detailing the inherent and explicit monetization as if it were a good thing, with all the gusto of a supermarket employee announcing a 25% reduction on hummus, you really do start to question why this fecal squilch returns every year?

You’ve got mobile games. Epic store exclusivity. Portable games. Just Dance 2020 released on the Wii. App games. Shenmue creators not giving refunds to their own crowd funded backers. Todd Howard. That “Yeeeeaaaahhhh” guy. Games for your phone (I don’t know how many more times I can emphasise that point?). Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria! The exhibition itself, with all of its multitude of attendants, could be condensed into much more succinct, user friendly experience. Providing a more fluid presentation, with an environment that promotes intrigue into a games detail by not saturating fans with dubious embellishments. I think this event also highlights the disparity between the faux optimism of the press and the vocal gaming community who aren’t exactly timid to express their disapproval. Mind you, when does anyone possess even the slightest notion of restraint on Twitter?

Frankly when highlights include Keanu Reeves existence and a rather boisterous announcer displaying a genuine affection for her job, you do have to start questioning the validity of a supposed apotheosis of the trade industry.

---

What do you guys think? Do you still enjoy E3? Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.

Surprise Mechanics?

Surprise mechanics?? That’s amazing. Genius. Wow! I laughed so hard at that that my initial chuckle slowly began to transition to a malformed chortle, then to a full scale belly laugh that not only roused my missus from a deep and blissful slumber but also caused me to choke on my own Mutley inspired guffaw. SURPRISE! Mechanics. Now I have visions of me trying to go to work tomorrow, starting to drive, my car suddenly hitting some unknown speed bump on my drive, only to discover a man in greasy overalls laying strewn underneath my front wheels. My wife startled by my panic shrieks comes bursting out of our house, trying to determine the cause of my overly dramatic, hysterical malaise. “Oh god!” I retch, trying desperately to alleviate the shock. “It….it…..i…..it was….. a….. surprise” the word choked as it clung to my throat. “Mm…m..m….Mechanic!”. “Not again” she sighs, fetching her mop and a bag of sawdust. That may well be the dumbest statement I’ve heard since my girlfriend admitted that she believed Flamingos only had one leg!

Representative’s from EA and “Fortnite” developer Epic Games were invited to participate in a discussion at Parliament concerning the measures, or lack thereof that are taken to protect their users, particularly those of an encouragable age. Besides their inability to answer even the simplest of questions or seemingly conduct basic research into the addictive nature of their games such as “Loot box’s”, Kerry Hopkins, a supposed executive released on day release from the EA asylum provided this peach of a quote, that by now is etched into the annals of worlds biggest “whoopsie!”. When confronted with the question as to whether EA considered the ethics of loot box’s, Hopkins felt compelled to amend the query by stating that EA didn’t consider their gambling mechanic as “Loot Box’s” but rather–and I’m struggling not to piss myself with laughter here–“Surprise Mechanic”.

Is this how we classify gambling now? “Oh no, this isn’t betting. Its a surprise investment”. “Surprise, its a duplicate”. Not to be crass but isn’t that like a suspected rapist describing the heinous act of defilement as “Surprise penetration?”. It’s this kind of corporate negligence that has inevitably lead to such government interventions. Parliament will likely impose some kind of regulatory restrictions on such deceitful practices, even though it never should have got this far. But I’m dubious that it will stop there. Don’t be surprised if this is the start of some big changes to the gaming environment. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t all good for gamers.

---

What did you guys think? I’m frankly at a loss here. Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.

Wait, “The Witcher 3” Is Coming To The Switch?!

Honestly, at this point I’d be less surprised if the Nintendo’s bullish little hybrid couldn’t solve climate change, whilst performing heart surgery on a tic and burping Bethovens fifth. And yet here I am again, aghast, bewildered but throughly delighted to see that “The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt”, through some mythical, Polish sorcery, will be coming to the Switch. Featuring not only the main game itself but the myriad of DLC’s, this ambitious iteration could well be the most definitive, despite the potentially compromising rendering limitations that are destined to burden the little console that could. But personally I think this is small price to pay for such portability. To embrace the true spiritual power of Nintendo Switch: as a mobile vessel that allows us to play games we already own, but on the toilet. This my friends, is the dream we all share.

---

Winner of over 800 awards, including 250 Game of the Year awards, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is an RPG set in a fantastic open world full of adventure, danger, and mystery. As professional monster slayer Geralt of Rivia, gamers must set out to find the Child of Prophecy — a powerful entity that may send the world spiraling toward destruction. Along the way, the witcher will find himself facing not only mighty foes, but also difficult choices, the consequences of which will ripple throughout the game’s epic narrative.

Ported to Nintendo Switch by Saber Interactive in close cooperation with CD PROJEKT RED, the game is set to launch this year both digitally and in retail. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Complete Edition for Nintendo Switch comes with the base game, as well as every piece of additional content ever released. This includes both story expansions, Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine, as well as all 16 free DLCs. In total, the Complete Edition offers over 150 hours of gameplay, for the first time playable truly on-the-go.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is the first game from the franchise to be released on a Nintendo console, introducing the series to brand new audience, as well as giving anyone who already played Geralt of Rivia’s final adventure a chance to experience it again on the go.

Finishing With Games, Before They’re Finished.

Have you ever finished with a game before you’ve actually finished a game? Just naturally reached a point where you’ve been thoroughly engaged for many pleasurable hours but are now adequately satisfied with the progression you’ve made? Sometimes the effect is gradual, so barely perceptible that you probably don’t even realise that you’ve had enough. And then, just like that, your done. It could be 10 hours in, 20. You may even be close to the intended conclusion of the game and just exhale sharply and ask yourself what else you could be playing. It’s not necessarily a result of apathy or sudden loathing of the experience, but the opposite. As if forcing yourself to complete an arbitrary set of objectives would diminish your otherwise gratifying experience. This premature contentment I seem to have seems to be largely associated with RPGs, particularly open world one’s.

Whereas the linearity of some games keeps you focused purely on the tasks at hand, an open world game yields an expansive freedom where objectives can be approached at your leisure. You can indulge in extraneous activities, perform errands for some destitute farmer, viciously beat a random civilian or simply ramble through dense thickets and saunter through crystal clear streams, all to discover whether that huge mountain in the distance can actually be scaled. But when you eventually return to your capricious duties as saviour and anointed role as “chosen one”, maintaining that same immersion after such unrestricted freedom becomes a laborious exertion. Suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain when your characters dies repeatedly! Respawning back as if your embarrassing mauling by an oversized rat never occurred is jarring, as is the general repetition of any game.

I have taken deliberate respite from many wonderfully enjoyable games to assuage my own weary senses. “The Witcher 3” features one of the most enchanting open world environments that I’ve ever had the fortune to be consumed by. Adrift in flourishing meadows and dense woodlands, replete with various malformed beasts that impede your leisurely stroll. By the time that I’d returned from my extended recreational excursion I was throughly exhausted! Same thing happened to me with “Horizon Zero Dawn”. I’d wander off to survey some unfamiliar terrain for potential rewards, encounter some large robotic dinosaur that I could vanquish and loot their remains for valuable resources. Or discovered a camp full of incarcerated prisons that I felt compelled to liberate, completely neglecting my duties as a heroine for the people of this hostile world. Super Mario Odyssey, Breath Of The Wild, Red Dead Redemption 2, Tales Of Vesperia have all been brushed aside because I experienced enough of it. I felt fulfilled, and admittedly regularly distracted by curiosity, side quests and shiny things.

I don’t think this is bad. They’re still great games that I played the way I wanted. I’ve experienced them in way that has satisfied my needs and left without remorse for my failings. Rather that than resenting being forced to complete a game I don’t feel inclined to complete.

---

What about you guys? Have you ever stopped playing a game because you’d enjoyed it enough? Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.

A Review Isn’t Bad Just Because You Disagree With It.

Growing up I accumulated a rather extensive collection of games magazines. Whether it was Games Master, Official PlayStation Magazine or some other interchangeable periodical whose name I’ve totally forgotten, I got them. This was the only way to keep appraised of all the latest gaming news and reviews at the time, imparting invaluable knowledge that I could dispense amongst my school peers like some self proclaimed guru of gaming. I’d notify classmates about release dates, latest gaming rumours and they’d say “Who are you? And what are you doing here!”. Fun times. But my favourite part about gaming magazines was the inclusion of demo discs. This was the best way of ascertaining if a game was worth buying for a relatively modest price. Playing these perfunctory promotions often yielded great insight into the quality of a game you were perhaps curious about, as well as introducing you to games you may not necessarily have heard of. Alas the emergence of Web sites, blogs and social media, as well as their universal accessibility has necessitated the decline of the game magazine’s as a physical format, and by extention demo discs. As a result consumers are now reliant on fallible whims of our own instincts and the arbitrary scrutiny of game reviews that seem to bring out the worst in people.

A review is, well you know what a review is: a critical assertion, derived from an individuals extended participation with a product, formally presented with embellished personal analysis. Structurally intended to scrutinise every element that is deemed pertinent to the individual evaluating it. The inherent problem with reviews though is that they are measured by an individuals opinion that may not accurately represent your own. Sure they can summarise factually accurate information about story, characters, graphics, general functionality or even glitches, but a games enjoyment is totally subservient to the reviewers discretion. The trouble is that people don’t like opinions. I think it’s fair to say that some are borderline afraid of them, particularly when it conflicts with their own.

The amount of vitriol directed at sites simply because a game they love unconditionally, despite not having played it yet, received a grading that doesn’t meet a players low expectations for unanimous perfection is staggering. Even putting aside the statutory, yet arcane numerical system that sites insist determines and encapsulates a games quality, the level of anger reserved for reviews is disconcerting. The same people that lament the inaccuracies of an opinion, dismissing them firsthand and claiming “I never trust what they say” are usually the ones that use reviews as a defence against criticism. The purpose of a review should be to give consumers an indication, from the perspective of an “individual” of whether or not a game can be considered objectively bad or subjectively good. Not a contrivance to fuel some kind of popularity contest.

Enabled by the advent of social media, people feel liberated. Free to share any intimate detail of their life so that perhaps others may see and approve. Now I don’t necessarily mean that as a detraction, it’s certainly feels good to express a desire or opinion and be validated by others similarly encouraged. But it also creates this rather antagonistic environment whereby opinions become fact simply because its backed by certain amount of likes and retweets. People see a review of a game they’ve been eagerly anticipating and feel personally victimised that it didn’t receive perfect scores. They then feel that they have the perogative to impugn something they disagree with, calling into question the validity of the opinion.

Reviews are not the zenith of truth. They certainly not beyond reproach or above criticism either. They’re opinions, expressive ones. Full of individual insights and subjective censure. Widely propagated surmises that accurately reflects their own opinion, that may in fact conflict with your own. Ask yourself does it really matter if a game you are enjoying only received a “meager” 8/10 score? I mean your not toxic, are you? Probably not. Take them for what they are, even the misguided ones. They really are the only real means of gauging whether a game will suite your needs without having to buy it first. And that can be an expensive commitment.