This could be an ever-changing thing for me. Every week, I may come across something I want to add or change. I think from now on, I may start them off with Jim Sterling's Jimquisition provided it's one that I want to talk about. (More than likely, I won't talk about the ones where he rants about Steam or the Epic store...) So without further ado.
I know I touched on the state of Anthem last blog, but I didn't really go into much detail about the work conditions of BioWare. If you don't have the time to watch Jim's video, he's basically saying that one of the worst issues with BioWare currently is working their staff to the point where they need to take stress leave. They literally have to take doctor mandated leaves because they're too stressed to work. This wasn't something that just started happening because of Anthem; it's something that's been affecting them for quite some time, especially since Mass Effect: Andromeda. Jim mentioned something called "BioWare Magic," which was a term that described the event of a BioWare game that is having problems being finished having all the pieces magically falling together in the end. But we haven't seen this with Andromeda. We surely haven't seen this with Anthem.
Developers and publishers applying pressure on their staff to finish up a game, which is called crunch time, is not healthy. There appears to be a bit of defensiveness when it comes to the workaholic culture. It seems common place that for a game, especially a AAA game where release dates are set and millions of dollars are at stake thanks to investors, that crunch time seems to be a rite of passage if you wish to be a game developer. You have to give up your weekends and miss out on seeing your family most of the week. I get if you're the head and this is your labor of love and you voluntary decide to give up most of your free time to work on the game, but forcing workers to put in extra hours with little reward is unethical to say the least. Not only that, but how many times have we heard stories of development studios being closed down by publishers not happy with how their game was performing? All those 60,70, 80... even 100 hour weeks you put in and for what? Now you're looking for a new job....
I wish most gamers cared about the business side - and even the political side - of games, because we really shouldn't be giving money to companies who treat their employees this way. Once again, it comes own to consumerism, which I've said for the past couple of blogs now that there's too much of it in the industry. We salivate and foam at the mouth for the next AAA game, not caring at all what it took to get that game on our plate and sometimes, like Anthem and Fallout 76, it turns out to be not what we want at all. We really got to say no to these types of games that come from studios that mismanage their people. There are millions of other games that come from better companies that deserve our time. I wish boycotts would work more often, because unethical companies need to see that what they're doing is wrong and will ultimately affect their bottom line.
Assassin's Creed: Boy Edition
Next, I want to talk about the rumor that the next Assassin's Creed game will be set in the Viking era. According to a GameSpot article, the next Assassin's Creed game could be placed somewhere between the ninth and eleventh centuries. More than likely, they're going to continue to use the RPG style they've been using with Origins and Odyssey and I really hope that's not the case. As much as I thought Origins and Odyssey were good games, I felt that the RPG style didn't really fit. The whole leveling mechanic affected the pace for me, but the real issue I took with the previous games were fighting gods. The franchise is based in historical and science fiction and gods simply don't exist as they're purely mythical. There's no way the ancestors of whose DNA you're reliving would ever come across an actual god. So if the next Assassin's Creed does take place in the Viking era, we're looking at Norse gods this time. This means we could be fighting all sorts of gods from Thor to Loki to maybe even the mighty Odin himself. Can't we just go back to killing targets in the shadows? I killed Norse gods in God of War and again in Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. I don't need to be killing them in an Assassin's Creed game.
The Hard Games Need Easy Modes Debate
I saw a tweet by boogie a few days ago commenting that his video didn't get very many views. His followers replied saying that they felt the topic was covered too much. They're right. Ever since Sekiro came out, people have been doing nothing but talking about whether or not brutal games needed an easy mode. Well sorry, I'd like to talk about that myself, so you can skip on to the next part if you'd like.
As you may know, I decided to pass on Sekiro largely in part because I wasn't in the mood for a notoriously difficult game (that, and I chose Yoshi's Crafted World as my game for the month of March). It's not that I can't handle difficult games. I've beaten all the Souls games, including Bloodborne. I've beaten games like Super Meat Boy and Celeste. I can do hard games but from everyone I've talked to who's played the game, Sekiro sounds like it's an order of magnitude harder. I think the debate of whether or not games need an easy mode is a valid one. Boogie's position is that they don't need them because people who can't "git gud" at them need to accept that not every game needs to be for everyone. I agree.. .and I don't.
True, not every game needs to be for everyone, but it should be encouraged to make games that are. Accessibility helps everyone. It helps more gamers experience more games and developers make more money from their games, which leads to more and more games. I get the argument of not wanting to compromise their artistic vision by making a game easier. If they want to make a brutally hard game, they have the right to do that, but they could make an easier mode and I think some people are confused by what's being asked by some people. True, a game that's meant to be hard but is modified to be easier for more people loses its impact, but adding an easy MODE does not change the default game itself. Players playing the easier mode in no way invalidates the achievements of those who've played it on the normal or harder difficulties.
It's interesting that this debate is going on at the same time I'm reading a book called The Toxic Meritocracy of Video Games: Why Gaming Culture is the Worst, which I'll talk more about later. The book's general theme is that video games are a meritocracy in that those with the most skill and talent are rewarded more than others. Although it seems like that would just be the natural order of things, it does create a divide among gamers. Those better at it feel that they're more deserving of games than those less skilled. This is why we see the "git gud" attitude and people who are adamant that hard games don't have any accessibility options for less skilled gamers. People who exhibit this attitude are quick to dismiss those gamers making them feel bad and less inclined to play games, which is why I can't stand "git gud". I've always felt gaming is for everyone.
I mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again because I feel it's that important. Video games are the only entertainment that some people consume but cannot fully enjoy because they lack the skill to do so. But if you're one of those types of people that feel you need to "git gud" to enjoy a game, consider something. The people complaining about Sekiro being too hard are less skilled than you, but what if From Software made the game harder than you could take it. Your attitude would probably change. You'd probably get tired of trying to beat a boss 100 times and wished there was an easier mode, or some way to exploit the system like the Souls games used to have. It's about empathy. It's about understanding what other people are experiencing. You can stand behind the belief that every game isn't for every person, and I agree for the most part, but to think you're better than someone because of your skill level is an elitist way of thinking, and that just isn't good.
Yoshi's Crafted World 100 Percent Complete
Last night, I just beat Yoshi's Crafted World for the Switch with 100 percent completion. I have to say, Nintendo lulls you into a false sense of security. They present you with easy games but once you beat them, then some true challenges arise. After you beat the game, you unlock boss challenges that feature three separate challenges to overcome to earn flowers. There's a time limit flower, a no hit flower, and unique conditions, such as hitting a boss from the back. I was able to do most of them myself but when it came time to do Great King Bowser and Kamek's challenges, I went ahead and looked up videos because I was getting tired of trying. So what did I get for completing the game?
Yep, that's it. Just a costume. Nothing else to do. A costume that I won't be using, because I'm done with the game. No ending stuff. No other areas or levels to do... just a costume. Seems rather anti-climatic. Here's an awesome video that shared most of my feelings about the game, although he seemed much more relaxed after the last few challenges than I was...
"Trust me, we're not in it for the money."
So Randy Pitchford is basically blowing smoke up people's asses by saying the exclusivity deal with Borderlands 3 being on the Epic Store and not Steam was not driven by money. I'd believe that if they didn't pay Gearbox a shitload of money for the six month exclusivity deal. I personally don't have any stock in the Steam vs Epic Store war because I'm not a PC gamer, but I can tell you I think it's a pretty shitty thing to do to pay a huge amount of money for the right to sell a game only on your store. I know countless stores have exclusives, but they're mostly limited editions. You can still go to just about any brick and mortar and buy a Borderlands game, but I've never seen a store like Best Buy or GameStop being the exclusive store to buy a Borderlands game. By snatching up exclusives and selling them on your digital storefront, you are in turn dragging your customers through your own muck. You're making them have to download all sorts of launchers in order to play the games they own. Some would say that having multiple launchers isn't a big deal, but the argument is that you shouldn't have to deal with it at all.
The Toxic Meritocracy of Video Games: Why Gaming Culture is the Worst
So now we arrive at this book. I only have a few pages left, so I decided I'll talk about it before being completely done, as I'd have to wait a week for the next Loot Box to do so. I knew I'd have to try to remain as objective as possible in reading this book because of its subtitle, "Why Gaming Culture is the Worst." It does run the theme that out of all of entertainment culture, gaming is the worst. When you're a gamer and you hear that, it makes it feel like it's an insult to you. Honestly, though, it made me reflect on how many people act in the gaming community in comparison to other communities. The author Christopher A. Paul mentions a few times that it's true there are jerks everywhere on the internet, but the jerk of the gaming variety tends to be more toxic. I hate admitting it, but it seems like there's a slight kernel of truth to that. Slight.
He does make interesting observations and while he continuously brings up examples of why meritocracy enables toxicity in the gaming community, I can't seem to shake off the feeling that he's writing from his own biased viewpoint. You see, Christopher A. White, like myself, is a typical straight white male gamer. He makes this very well known in his introduction and posits that straight white male gamers are more prone to be better at video games than other gamers because of structural advantages and how the typical games are aimed more towards us than others. It's a lot to take in and I considered stopping my reading because the introduction just kept going on and on. I really was curious about the rest of his book, so I powered through it and just kept reading.
Whenever he wasn't trying to invoke white guilt, and referencing Gamergate, the book was actually a bit interesting and brought up fair points about how gamers tend to act more toxic in regards to protecting the majority of their hobby's perks for themselves. It all has to do with meritocracy, a word I grew tired of very quickly because he must have mentioned it a thousand times before the book was done. To sum it all up, it's the "git gud" mentality. Those more advantaged (not just being SWM) than others tend to feel more privileged when it comes to games, thus making gaming itself feel less welcome for those less skilled. The book is politically driven and indeed biased, which sucks because the theme itself is interesting and explains a lot. I can't really recommend my fellow gamers read it, because I know it takes a good amount of patience and tolerance to swallow something like this. We want to just move on and enjoy our games, so we become bothered when someone wants to bring to light a negative truth of our hobby and community. If you have the patience for it, though... give it a shot. You can check it out at your local library.
Xbox One S All Digital
Oh boy... So what we here is a leak that reveals the specifics of what we all knew was coming, the all-digital version of the Xbox One S. The official reveal will be on April 16th, but here's what was mentioned in the video:
- 250 dollars
- Three pre-installed games: Minecraft, Sea of Thieves, Forza Horizon 3
- 1 TB hard drive
- Same size as the original Xbox One S
Now, the price may change when it hits the states. So far, all that's been mentioned about the release is that it will arrive in the UK on May 7th. If it'll actually be 250 dollars in the States, then that's a bit off... You can get a base Xbox One S for about 200 bucks. You can find many bundles for around 250. Although the all-digital version includes three games, they're pretty meh. I mean... Minecraft? Really? There's Sea of Thieves, which I heard is actually fun now after a series of updates, but then we have Forza Horizon 3. The current game is 4! With all the games that MS puts out on Xbox Gamepass, you'd think they could have at least slapped the current Forza Horizon on a machine that costs 50 dollars more than the base model!
Then we have the hard drive size. 1 TB is a lot of hard drive space but since you'll be downloading every game to it, it'll fill up very quickly if you buy a lot of games. Also as RG 85 said in the video, the appearance of the all-digital version looks exactly the same as the S. Why is that the case, though Why is it the same size? There's no disc drive, so also again, why is it more expensive?
I've been against digital-only machines since the PSP Go. I've always been a proponent for physical media because I believe in the right of ownership. I remember when MS tried to take their first steps against it in 2013 when they unveiled the Xbox One as an always-online machine. I'm glad gamers rose up against it, but it seems like the all-digital (notice they didn't word it 'digital only') Xbox One is a way for MS to try again. They're testing the waters with this machine and if it takes off, they may feel that those who've adopted the all-dig... I mean digital only avenue will finally be ready to adopt an all-di... fuck... digital only next Xbox. Don't try it, MS... That's when I stop supporting your shit.
I'm not entirely against digital games so long as they remain an option. If PS4 owners want to buy games digitally, cool, so long as there's a disc drive. Switch owners want to download games? Make sure cards are still available. Digital only across the board? No. That's a big fuck you. That's why I'm against Google Stadia and Apple Arcade. I want to OWN my games, not be dependent on your servers still remaining up for the next 30 years as I lost my console a long time ago and want to get my games back. Gamers who think digital only is the future need to smarten up and look at the bigger picture. Fight for your ownership. It's one of the few tools of power you have against publisher tyranny.
As always, thank you for reading and look forward to the next Loot Box.
Then we have the hard drive size. 1 TB is a lot of hard drive space but since you'll be downloading every game to it, it'll fill up very quickly if you buy a lot of games. Also as RG 85 said in the video, the appearance of the all-digital version looks exactly the same as the S. Why is that the case, though Why is it the same size? There's no disc drive, so also again, why is it more expensive?
I've been against digital-only machines since the PSP Go. I've always been a proponent for physical media because I believe in the right of ownership. I remember when MS tried to take their first steps against it in 2013 when they unveiled the Xbox One as an always-online machine. I'm glad gamers rose up against it, but it seems like the all-digital (notice they didn't word it 'digital only') Xbox One is a way for MS to try again. They're testing the waters with this machine and if it takes off, they may feel that those who've adopted the all-dig... I mean digital only avenue will finally be ready to adopt an all-di... fuck... digital only next Xbox. Don't try it, MS... That's when I stop supporting your shit.
I'm not entirely against digital games so long as they remain an option. If PS4 owners want to buy games digitally, cool, so long as there's a disc drive. Switch owners want to download games? Make sure cards are still available. Digital only across the board? No. That's a big fuck you. That's why I'm against Google Stadia and Apple Arcade. I want to OWN my games, not be dependent on your servers still remaining up for the next 30 years as I lost my console a long time ago and want to get my games back. Gamers who think digital only is the future need to smarten up and look at the bigger picture. Fight for your ownership. It's one of the few tools of power you have against publisher tyranny.
As always, thank you for reading and look forward to the next Loot Box.
No comments:
Post a Comment