Everyone Disliked That Bethesda!

The world has witnessed and endured some truly mind boggling shit in it’s long and illustrious existence: Dozens of extinction events. Global, environmental degradation. Agricultural plights. Famines. Pestilence. War. Coldplay. Michael Bay movies. A Donald Trump presidency. Liquorice. Automated soap dispensers. Country and/or Western and a Lance Armstrong autobiography that attributes his success to “hard work”. Yet, through sheer perseverance to be publicly revered as the world’s most incompetent game developer, Bethesda, despite a myriad of equally inept competitors, have out done them all. Surmounting the most staggering ascent to the peak of mount “Everyone Disliked That”. Out of all of the confounding decisions made by Bethesda over the years, the decision to implement private servers, as well as other exclusive incentives in a game that by its very nature propegates a social, interactive experience, is probably the most baffling. And quite possibly the most brazen act of sabotage ever committed by a video game developer.

“Fallout 1st” is a premium subscription service that uniquely affords Fallout 76 users access to private servers, as well as other exclusive content for a modest £12 monthly excess. That’s an annual £144 surplus for an open world game, requiring permanent online connection to play, but now with the added support of being a traditional single player Fallout game. You know, the ones that didn’t need to be constantly anchored to a WiFi router! This contradictory philosophy would be alarmingly neglectful if it wasn’t so hopelessly redundant. Seriously, this might be the most absurd, insulting and egregious waste of everybody’s time. You’d think that the extensive issues Fallout 76 has suffered since launch would have prompted some contrition from Bethesda, perhaps even a little humility. The shoddily assembled Nuka Rum bottles. The systemic exploitation of the Atomic store. The pre-order gift canvas bags constructed from cheap nylon, as well as their patented brand of interminable glitches were already inexcusable. Yet the “Fallout” from 76 has become just another symptom of a greater malignancy: greed.

The pervasive consistency of Bethesda’s “ignorance” to glitches and aggressive monetization is far too coordinated to be an oversight. These kind of decisions would be reviewed extensively, with the expressed intention of achieving maximum benefit from nominal effort. Any persistent or lingering issues can be rectified in post when you’ve already recouped the revenue necessary to compensate for it. Which is a cunning expedient in the short term, but an artifice that becomes substantial more volitile once the loyalty of your consumers has been severely compromised. And perhaps the goodwill generated by Bethesda’s earlier successes has inevitably been eroded by the perfunctory efforts of a developer that has taken its fans for granted for far too long. Perhaps we simply underestimated their greed, or merely overestimated our own integrity in ignoring the problems. But if one disgruntled fan’s acquisition of the “Fallout first” domain name, for the purpose of humiliating Bethesda’s interminable idiocy is any indication, then perhaps Bethesda have finally gone too far.

The deceitful parlance and flagrant disregard for fan recognition has been sabotaged beyond refute. At this point their actions are irredeemable. They have routinely proven that they simply can not be trusted. And with the Elder Scrolls 6 in development, you have to wonder if this is their last chance to save themselves!

Mental Health Awareness: Why Talking Is My Greatest Challenge.

When it comes to socialising I’m not exactly the most effusive person to converse with. Often I’m perceived as somewhat of a miser, aloof to a point that I’d purposely seek out solitary reprieve from people. Being socially awkward is a temperament that I’ve adapted over the years to avoid people. Naturally occurring at a young age, shunning contact with other humans was a far less hedonistic tendency when I was a kid. Interacting with other children is easy when you’re not concerned with offending. You have no concept of provocation. There’s no berometer for upsetting or annoying another person because it can all be dismissed as juvenile ignorance. You could get away with saying stupid, vaguely incentive things, because you were young and didn’t know better. I’ve always been earnest in the way I express an opinion, promoting an open and honest approach to any conversation. Which as you can imagine isn’t always received warmly. I don’t intentionally offend, it just seems to happen. So my continued abstinence from verbal communication is further compounded by the genuine fear that I will inadvertently upset someone.

Yet ironically I seem to surround myself with people that talk incessantly, loudly, without really saying anything, as if they’re espousing some great machiavellian soliloquy or a dramatic stage monologue. In reality it’s just friends/colleagues engaging in normal, sociable conversations. With a rapacious wit, communicating information as well as confidence that people respond to. It’s alluring, something that people are genuinely receptive to. The only thing I really have to offer a conversation is bitter, openly saccharine deduction of our callous, cynical world or watching entire conversations play out without contributing a syllable. So you then gain a reputation as an introverted shrew people will actively avoid talking to, other than obligated courtesies and brief eye contact.

This reclusive disposition filters into my online identity too. Though I’m an active user of Twitter, the social aspect of it is a peripheral interference, as I primarily use it to keep myself appraised of the worlds witless stupidity. When online gaming, even those that promote and vigorously encourage a shared, gregarious community I resist, preferring to engage in public matches or favouring my own solitary participation. The very idea of having to prattle with some anonymous player I’ve never met to discuss strategies and logistics is even less appealing than talking to someone directly. It’s a fairly egregious social faux pa not to want to engage with others, even in an online capacity where social interaction is kind of implied?!

Now I don’t know if I refrain from conversations simply because I’m afraid of upsetting someone with an opinion, because of an instinctive rataliation to people or perhaps something more psychological. All I know is that all too often I isolate myself to feel comfortable. Safe. That’s not healthy.

I wish things were different, that I had the confidence to engage in a fluent conversation without being concerned about the implications of my words or feeling as though what I’m saying is tedious. This is something I’ve had to deal with for much of my life, that has exacerbated as I’ve matured. Each and every day is a struggle to act in a way that is deemed sociabably acceptable, without coming across as insincere or forced. When you have to grapple your own anxiety simply because you’re next to order something at a restaurant then you know you’ve got problems. This may seem small fry when compared to the thousand, perhaps even millions of people who believe suicide is a authentic remedy for depression. But to me this is a prolonged challenge I endure every time I come in contact with any human being.

You Can’t Trust Games Trailers With No Gameplay.

Talking about gaming to those that don’t play them tends to be a tedious display of cryptic exchanges, provoking all manner of scrupulous glances. With most either ignorant or politely dismissive of the activity, its usually a topic of conversation one attempts to avoid. You can say you spent your evening reading a book, watching a movie or even mocking last night’s episode of “Game Of Thrones” and be met with a reciprocal nod of approval, perhaps even a conversational signal to elaborate on what you thought/felt about what you read/watched. But mention gaming and watch as they avoid eye contact, trying desperately not to say anything trivialising about a form of entertainment they deem juvinile. Gaming is generally a topic best avoided if you want to engage in a mature, adult conversation. Yet sometimes gaming’s influence finds a way of piercing the veil between the ignorant and the woke. On this occasion an enquiry from someone that doesn’t play computer games, other than mobile ones came courtesy of my girlfriend.

My girlfriend doesn’t play computer games. Sure she indulges in a few mobile variations, pilfering coins from villages and alike but nothing I’d consider substantial. So when watching TV, with her being the pragmatic and acutely observant person she is commented on a commercial for The Elder Scrolls Online update “Elswyr” by questioning the use of footage that isn’t featured in the game. “If it’s not actual gameplay footage, then why is it in the advert?”. A valid and logical surmise I’m sure you’ll agree. But a question that can only really be answered with an ironically farcical, yet suitably accurate response: “To deceive consumers”. This curt reply didn’t surprise her nearly as much as it surprised me. Frankly all of these “not actual gameplay footage” advertising merely perpetuates the mendacious attitude and deceitful nature of developers/publishers that has become a prevalent, yet accepted ploy in a corrupt and morally bankrupt industry.

Dave Gorman, a British comedian examined the deceitful qualities exhibited by such advertising in his stand up, reflecting on the logistics and bewildering decision to not include actual footage from the game. “You don’t see adverts for tea with Not actual tea on them?!” being a particular highlight. What I’ve come to realise with the emergence of such duplicitous trailers is one beautiful and universal truth: if it doesn’t show actual footage from the game I don’t trust it. I don’t buy it. Because in all probability the reason for its absence is that the actual gameplay is garbage. Subverting player expectation is one thing, but advertising fraudulent content is downright treachery.

The Importance Of Physical Games.

The way the games industry operates isn’t something I can honestly say I understand anymore. Perhaps practices related to game development and publishing has always been this confounding and I’ve just been hopelessly oblivious. It’s a business like any other, sure. Often the trade can seem somewhat confusing, with dubious actions applied merely to accumulate an increased revenue. The beleaguered strategy of commerce over craft has become a customary ubiquity, so much so that its easy to resent an industry that for most part provides so much enjoyment. But it’s also worth noting just how much things have changed and not always for the better.

The advent of digital gaming has had a profound impact on the way gamers purchase their products. The convenience of playing a game almost immediately is powerful incentive for any discerning gamer. There’s no need to wait for a delivery of a package that has no doubt been treated as well as a bruised banana, delivered by some disgruntled postal worker with the hygiene best described as “optional” and no need to worry about storage. Digital downloads have revolutionised the way we play to such an extent that you wonder, in a time of high-speed Internet and global online accessibility, why we even need physical copies? Well there was some interesting news that occurred a few weeks ago so innocuous that you may not even have noticed. Startling news that presents troubling implications for the accessibility and conservation of computer games.

Lego Lord Of The Rings and its equally blocky precursor The Hobbit, titles readily available to buy for some time now can no longer be purchased from digital retailers. Though there hasn’t been any official confirmation as to why, its likely that licensing of the property has expired. After all these are games are adapted from the movies and subject to a finite period of distribution. Apparently. Of course such restrictions don’t apply to existing physical copies of the game, as there’s no way to enforce the same licensing regulations. So even if you don’t own a copy of the game you can still buy it, even if you can’t download it. With the ever progressive nature of gaming however and its explicit need to moderate and control how consumers engage with content, that physical alternative may not be available to us in the future.

It’s not unrealistic supposition to suggest that publishers would like to eradicate the physical market entirely, imposing its own policies on the trading of games. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that most are actively encouraging the likes of Sony and Microsoft to mitigate and eventual cease their viability. So with such hypothetical parameters applied to the Lord Of The Rings incident, how would you play these games if you didn’t already own them? Well, you can’t. And this is why I believe that the preservation of physical gaming is so important.

Over the next decade, probably even less, games will likely begin to shift into streaming territory. Offering a pay monthly service that provides users with access to hundreds of on demand games, without the customer owning any of it. This lack of control over our purchases is worrying. It’s not really ownership anymore, just an extended rental. And that’s not even taking into consideration the price or availability of high-speed Internet connection that will be an absolute necessity to use such a service effectively.

Physical games isn’t just about trivial vanity. Garish ornaments that clutter your alcove. It’s not just shelves of decorated opulence to impress visitors as if they are desirable works of art or first additions of War and Peace. These vibrant cases and their circular contents are the very essence of gaming. Without it games are simply vacuous, electrical discharges, comprised in a bulky inanimate devices.

---

Do you still buy physical copies of games? Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.

Fortnite Is Dangerous For Kids… Apparently.

There’s an inevitable predictability about the mainstream media. That these noble purveyors of justice, integrity and morality would find some way to condemn the “heinous” influence of computer games. Vilifying the industry as some sort of rogue cult that corrupts the minds of the young and the vulnerable with its unprincipled rhetoric of complicit violence. Once again irresponsible and neglectful parents across the country are now voicing their faux grievances at popular battle Royal game “Fortnite”. According to the fallacious miscreants at the Daily Mail, the reliable exponents of proprietary integrity and truth that gave us such thought-provoking, fact emblazoned headlines like “Dementia risk rises if you live near a busy road” and“Google, the terrorists friend…”not to mention the most scandalous of all “Is there no one left in Britain who can make a sandwich?” are now boasting further critical analysis that suggests Fortnite is having a “damaging impact” on the lives of children.

This proposed assertion originates from comments made by the UK’s cultural minister Matt Hancock, the leading authority of all things cultural and “hip”. “Too much screen time could have a damaging impact on our children’s lives” he explained. “Whether its social media or video games, children should enjoy them safely and as part of a lifestyle that includes exercise and socializing in the real world”.

Though his comments are considerably generic, condescending and rather pointless, not once does he specifically mention Fortnite as an example. The Daily Mail clearly taking liberties to elaborate on Mr Hancock’s comments. I’ve never played Fortnite myself so I can’t attest to its gratuitous and encouragable nature, but I doubt he has either. And I apologise that I don’t treat such general remarks as insightful context, nor regard him as a reliable moderator for modern culture.

“Matt Hancock. Culture Secretary. Down with the kids.”

The article goes on to propose that game developers must take greater responsibility to ensure that children are protected. That there are growing concerns from parents regarding games like Fortnite. Though the editorial fails to detail who these anxious parents are, presumably because this sweeping anxiety can be isolated to a handful of people. The most pressing concern being expressed is that children are being exposed to potential deviants who use the game to attract unsuspecting players for their own salacious deeds.

What this article does is adhere to the same arcane ideology that games like Fortnite are exclusively played by vulnerable, stupid teens. Published by a periodical that’s economical with facts and promoting yet another excuse for parental negligence . Could you imagine someone publishing findings that stated “A growing number of parents are concerned for the safety of their children as they venture outside to pursue activities that could potentially cause injuries, such as playing ball games, climbing trees or talking to strangers. Redwoods, oaks, footballs and paedophiles are encouraged to take more responsibility”.

It’s such specious reasoning to say that children are somehow more at risk playing games at home than they are out in the “real world”. It’s staggering to think that a game like “Pokémon Go” which encouraged exploration outside was criticised for endangering kids. Because of cause we witnessed a measurable escalation in “Pokémon Go” related molestation. Of course prolonged exposure to games or mobiles is going to have detrimental effect on anybody not just kids, but you could say that about just about anything that isn’t consumed in moderation!

Parents, its your job to raise your children, not Fortnite. Take responsibility. And stop reading that fecal wipe you call a paper.

---

Do you play Fortnite? Does it endanger children? Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.