Does “The Last Of Us” Really Need A Remake?

What I’ve always respected about the games industry, is it’s remarkable ingenuity to adapt, develop and pave the way with a creative rigour that not only propels its own commercial activity, but directly influences the ponderous enterprise of movie making. One of the few aberrant forms of entertainment where sequels are often a rousing refinement over their predecessors. But something has changed in recent year’s. There’s been a dramatic preferential shift towards sustaining revenue, with the all too prevalent focus on commerce over craft. The common solution being to regurgitate an already established idea. The kind of homogenised posturing that developer’s entreat, to give the appearance of renovating something venerable. With the “Last Of Us” now perpetuating this popularised trend.

The “Last Of Us” is a rare breed. A game so revered that a sequel, equally if not better than the original, is still lauded as an exemplary surrogate for modern gaming narratives. Though I have some personal issue’s with aspects of the combat in both parts, those game’s, even the curiously polarising sequel, remain esteemed additions to the PlayStation library. But the curious decision to remake a game from the latter stages of the PS3 era, one that has already received a consummate remaster on the PS4, seems redundant. It’s the kind of cynical, capitalist service I’d expect from a movie studio, not an acclaimed and creatively assured developer like NaughtyDog.

But it’s disturbing just how readily people will defend a decision that – on the surface at least – is as creatively stagnate. NaughtyDog have attempted to extricate themselves from the critical public consensus that this isn’t a “Cash grab”, but a project worthy of approval, not ridicule. Now I don’t doubt the meticulous efforts that the team at NaughtyDog will submit for the “Last Of Us Part 1: 2”. Remaking a game with such an established, almost mythologised notoriety is always going to yield flourishing unit sales. And with the ability to polish a few of the games rougher edges and time worn maturity, its liable to be a superior experience. But is it really necessary? Is there such a dearth of original material that they had to refurbish an already fabled game?

With the movie industry stifled by its own creatively induced anaemia, bereft of any fertile concepts. As well as stilted by its reliance on the guaranteed revenue of superheroes, cinema has begun to depend on nostalgia to consolidate the interests of consumer’s. Ghostbusters, Top Gun, Star Wars. A huge influx of commercialised sentimentality on the big screen that has now begun to contaminate computer games. Where once gaming was a pioneering complex narratives, propagated by player agency, is now attempting to replicate an industry limited by its medium, dominated by the banality of Superheroes and marching to the beat of a drum they once played.

If NaughtyDog felt inclined to remaster one of their games, then it should really be one that would benefit from it, like the original Uncharted.”Drake’s Fortune” is ripe for a remaster, having aged like a fine vinegar. “Resident Evil 2” was a requisite adaptation into a new era. Retaining the same thematic attributes, while updating the antiquated graphics and mechanics. A game that was 20 years old. Not nine. Im not sure where the cutoff is for a remake to be acceptable, but this isn’t it. To me the “Last Of Us Part I” is a waste of valuable resources, when you think about what they could have made. Perhaps the “Last Of Us Part III”. So to my mind at least, the “Last Of Us” does not need a remake. Change my mind NaughtyDog!

Sony. Microsoft. Please Stop!

Okay you two, stop. Just stop. We get it – you’re both incredibly insecure, endowed with too much money, but equipped with a braille like penis. The point has been well and truly made! Let’s get on with producing quality content for your respective machines, rather than showboating for the cheerleaders that just want to relish in this reductive pissing contest, that is just going to end with all assenting juveniles requiring new shoes. This continued pursuit for asset consolidation is only going to further propagate division between the already fractured contingents.

I realise that you are both competitive and proud conglomerates. With institutionalised rivalry that prevents either one of you from backing down. But, for the solidarity of the gaming firmament and my sanity, stop. Watching you two flaunting your respective influences and indulging in your conceited affluence, by acquiring publishers like some entitled aristocrat, compensating for their flaccid endowment is obstinate. Presumably this shopping spree has been instigated to ensure the consolidation of specific assets and prevent the competition from utilising said assets. Unless your competitors want to incur some recompense for the privilege. Not because your intended scheme of appropriating a few thousand acres of protected woodland, as a means for hunting peasants is still regarded as a morally reprehensible act.

Perhaps instead of buying these publishers for the express desire of demonstrating your power, or illustrate your generosity as a billion dollar conglomerate that could help feed and house the homeless, by potentially allowing other platforms to use your titles, for a small incentive, that you perhaps stop buying them. Let these creative minds flourish, uninhibited by the whims of stifling corporate provocation. We don’t need publisher’s redistributed like a quarrelling couple going through an expensive, time consuming divorce. Dividing their once shared resources in an attempt to negotiate some desperate trade deal. Like an estranged father being allocated visitation rights with their children at the weekend.

Whether Sony decides to play nice with Microsoft, by allowing Bungie games to continue distribution on their system. Or if Microsoft extend Sony the same courtesy with their recent acquisitions, one question still remains: how does buying these previously ubiquitous devs, now owned and distributed by major corporation’s, benefit the consumer? Oh, that’s right. They don’t.

The Future Of Gaming…Is Limited?

At my age, sustained domesticity and work commitments, I have to be discerning with my gaming predilection’s. Gone are the day’s of concerted reticence and imposed isolation afforded by adolescents. To indulge in the exploration of some expansive, doom threatened Fantasy world, as an arbiter for moral virtue. With the unyielding resolve to vanquish every living creature that crosses my path, to further propagate my own power. Before inevitably collapsing into a cholesterol induced coma on a detritus of discarded crisp packets. Now I’m lucky if I can engage in a modest bowel movement, without being interrupted by the precipitous needs of my 5 year old that just so happens to need the toilet at the precise moment that I do. As such any reserved chance to game is restricted by the complete lack of time available to me. Being discerning becomes a recreational hazard. Investing your meagre time into a game that just isn’t for you, can be a demoralising thing. But in an age of disposable entertainment, where content is conveniently accessible – but also easily forgotten, finding the right game for yourself should be simple?

Streaming has revolutionised the way in which we engage with entertainment. With Netflix being the genesis that has spawned so many imitators to adopt similar formats. And in the interest of convenience, have completely diluted the experience of watching movies, television and now thanks to the likes of Gamepass and – to a lesser extent PlayStation Now – gaming.

Though I appreciate the convenience, affordability and variety offered by a subscription services. To have an accessible variety of games that satisfy almost any urge, whenever said itch needs scratching is very enticing. But I believe that you can have too much variety. It might well be considered the spice of life, but too much of that spice is going to leave your rectum as irritated as Joss Whedon’s publicist. Sure, you have all of this variety at your immediate disposal, but none of it is special anymore. Just another image in a virtual catalogue. You don’t own these games, merely rent them. The provisional nature of such services means that at any time, your favourite game could be subject to removal. This revolving door policy doesn’t sound particularly liberating to me.

There is of course a certain ambiguity to the concept of game ownership and what that actually implies. You could argue the traditional means of purchasing games, is more of an extended lease than acquisition. But I’d take a physical, tangible item that I can use whenever, rather than an ethereal product that can vanish simply because a contract has expired. I had access to PlayStation Now for a year, and only utilised its service once to play the last of Us 2. Everything I wanted to play was either something I purchased new or already owned.

I realise that this entire article is just me exposing myself as the out of touch, Victor Meldrew that I am. I also understand the irony of that analogy, as most of you probably don’t understand that reference. But services like Gamepass and whatever PlayStation’s belated equivalent ends up being, its not an environment I’m comfortable navigating. With Microsoft again flexing it’s rather sizeable financial muscles, as they continue to monopolise the industry, with the acquisition of Activision only further consolidating their ambition for proprietary dominance. Baiting Sony into acquiring another studio, for the explicit purpose of exclusivity. Thereby fortifying the war of attrition between two companies vying for market share. Once again fostering division between their respective fandoms and their competing corporate preferences. It just leaves you jaded.

The last thing I want to see is cartels using their substantial properties like collateral. With developers becoming commodities for larger, commerce driven conglomerates. And publisher’s like Square, Konami and Capcom used as bargaining chips, in the world’s most lucrative game of poker, solely to promote content to gamers. This isn’t an enviroment that nurtures expression, but gatekeeping. The future of gaming it seems, is limitation.

---

But what do you think? Are you happy with the direction of the game industry? Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.

Does “Days Gone” Deserve A Sequel.

The way in which we view things, depends entirely on a person’s perspective. Easily skewed by external interference’s and our ever divisive internal struggles. But I can’t help thinking that Sony really needs to take a step back, reevaluate their insular perspective and adjust their field of vision, to truly admire the inherent potential of a “Days Gone” sequel. And if comments by the people that helped make it are anything to go by, I’m not the only one.

Jeff Ross, Bend Studio director that navigated the development of Days Gone, has intimated that Sony’s “intricate” algorithm for calculating a games success, is actually measured by IMDb ratings, not sales. This admission came as a retort from Jeff after Sony sent a congratulatory tweet to “Ghost Of Tsushima” on reaching 8 million units in sales. A milestone already achieved by Days Gone. Yet, according to Jeff was considered somewhat a failure. Though this claim has since is somewhat contentious, if true, Sony and the community in general certainly have a distorted interpretation of success. Despite it’s adequate critical reception, Days Gone sold well, which is a measurable barometer for success, in an increasingly capitalist driven industry.

As well as calling out on his former corporate paymasters, Jeff also elaborated on the ideas proposed for a Days Gone sequel. A sequel subsequently rejected by Sony. Including the continuation of Deacon and Sarah’s story. A more diverse, almost autonomous game world. Swimming? Okay, that last one is hardly revolutionary, but at least it demonstrates a desire to expand. And hopefully details regarding that twist at the end of the first game were considered too. There’s such a wealth of potential to convert a solid game, if flawed game like Days Gone, into a legitimate, enviable PlayStation exclusive. Something comparative to the necessary revisions and advancements that made Uncharted 2 such a revered sequel to the introductory Drake adventure.

Although Jeff Ross does sounds like a man with a serious Axe to grind. Struggling to reconcile the games failings by projecting his own exasperation with its development onto Sony, I believe that Days Gone deserves the opportunity to redeem itself. Having already made my thoughts clear regarding the games maligned quality – a conversation I don’t want to dwell on again! But with a sequel that can rectify the elements that didn’t quite work, as well as polish the stuff that did, Sony could have another desirable exclusive, in their already well established cache of privatised eminence.

---

But what do you think? Should Days Gone get a second chance? Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.

Bloodborne: A Return To Hell.

Nothing can prepare you for the seditious trauma inflicted by Bloodborne. With the possible exception of the “Souls” series, “Sekiro” and perhaps “Busby the Bobcat”. Bloodborne is the gaming equivalent of stepping on one of your child’s stray “shopkins”. Shocking. Painful. With both often requiring a private little weep. When I attempted to play Bloodborne a couple of years ago, I just couldn’t get into it. The combat seemed slow. Dodging incoming enemy attacks felt unresponsive. With a barely perceptible delay that enabled combatants an unfair advantage. I just couldn’t adapt. As a result, I gave up. Believing Bloodborne to be just another sadistic fetish popularised in gaming culture.

But I always regretted my impetuous decision. There’s a very Lovcraftian aesthetic to the creatures and architecture that was just so compelling. It’s like “Bram Stokers Batman”, with the masochistic city of “Yharnam” reflecting the same vintage ambience depicted in Gotham City. As well as the questionable sanity of it’s inhabitants that would choose to live there! I think I’ve been so sheltered by asinine tutorials and the obnoxious hand holding that accompanies most lenient adventures. Coddled by a pampered simplicity, into an endeavour so challenging, that it can’t be placated by reducing the difficulty to match your own languorous vigour, which is rather jarring. And it wasn’t until I returned to Bloodborne that I truly appreciated the risk and reward style.

My own personal inhibition is equating “death” with “failure”, when really failure isn’t necessarily the opposite of success, but adjacent. You have to learn from these habitual mistakes. With the games emphasis on gruelling boss fights, it’s imperative that you adapt to the specific methods of your opponent, to ensure that you’re not on the back foot before you’ve even begun. Bloodborne rewards those that are aggressive, utilising resources when necessary without the player becoming reliant on they’re commodities. Of course you can’t just expedite the battle by charging in and hammering the attack button, depleting all of your stamina in the process and leaving you more vulnerable than a black man in a horror movie. There’s a nuance to it. A balance. As well as a great deal of tenacity required.

Sadly the ability to modify attack pattern has been my greatest weakness. I’m interminably debilitated by trepidation. Hindered by an inherent penchant to over think things, stalling any momentum in combat. My Google search history is now littered with serial killer search terms like “How to kill….” and “What’s the best weapon to….”. Only elevating my own apprehensions in defeating a cunning enemy, when you’re watching someone dispatch the “Blood Starved Beast” with ease using a dance mat! It’s very disheartening.

But I’m trying. With a renewed determination, an extensive library of expletives at my disposal and a Rocky IV style training montage, I am confident that within the next 100 attempts I will vanquish thine enemies! Though at this point the “Blood Starved Beast” has indulged in enough of my crimson fluids that I’m suprised it hasn’t slipped into a blood induced coma. Seriously, fuck that thing!