Dark Souls III looks like shit, and here's why

So I've been observing snippets of news and hands-on previews of Dark Souls III by From Software. Typically, when I am scouring the internet for news on upcoming games it is because I am looking forward to, or feel excited by the prospect of playing said upcoming games. However, with Dark Souls III my interest is purely academic (well, it is now anyway).

You see, I find From Software's series of games - Demon's Souls, Dark Souls I and II, and Bloodborne - fascinating in that they typify precisely why modern gaming journalism is rotten to the very core. I mean, Demon's Souls was a great game, and helped meet the urge that many of us feel when playing a game that properly challenges us, and isn't afraid to throw us in at the deep end. Demon's Souls felt fresh, invigorating, and unique (though I do acknowledge the influences of the King's Field series, here). Sure, the visuals were a little janky in places, the framerate was horrific during particular phases of gameplay (such as dragons throwing fire at yo' ass), the controls were overly clunky and stiff, and some of the game's content was more a chore to endure than something to be enjoyed (how about that swamp in Valley of Defilement?). But I was willing to give it a free pass - to an extent - on these obvious flaws, because it was an original game with bright ideas and, seemingly, a bright future. What happened next, though, would cause me to feel agitation and sorrow in equal measure.

This was the original, and best, Souls title. Original. Thrilling. Unique.

Initially, it appeared that those 'journalists' who played Demon's Souls saw the merit of its executions, and praised it accordingly. However, it is worth stating that Demon's Souls took a fair while to release in Europe (and other territories, I'm guessing), and so any buzz surrounding the game was disjointed and unconvincing to those on the fence. Then came Dark Souls on both PS3 and Xbox 360. Dark Souls was, essentially, a bonafide 'Greatest Hits' version of Demon's Souls, with reworked geography, and some not-so-subtle switching of keywords regarding narrative (instead of Boletaria, we were now in Lordran, but it was essentially the same place), to help ease the transition of the franchise away from Sony, and towards a multi-platform audience. Aside from these subtle changes, however, little else was different, particularly regarding the visuals and gameplay. In the old days, Dark Souls would have been released as a mere expansion-pack for Demon's Souls, since the core gameplay, graphics engine, and everything else important to game design was, essentially, the same. This was nothing more than Demon's Souls 1.5 Edition. This was fine with me, though at the time I had already had my fill of Souls and found Dark Souls too lacking in innovation to even bother completing it (I played maybe 10 hours, or so, before getting bored with the samey graphics and gameplay). What did 'reviewers' say, though? Most of the 'big' websites spoke of the game as if it were an original concept, and so approached the game as many of us did with Demon's Souls. To Xbox 360 users, it probably was a new concept. In other words, Dark Souls was Demon's Souls to many. Considering the subtle switch of the franchise's title, and the shedding of console exclusivity, I could somewhat understand this process. Even so, Dark Souls, to me, wasn't as good as Demon's Souls because it was essentially the same game, and did little else to move the formula forward.

Then came Dark Souls II. Again, a copy & paste job. Same weapons. Same armour types. Same enemies. Same bosses. Same graphics. Same UI. Same. Same. Same. Sure, there were some new locations, and new enemies, and new weapons, but it was - once again - akin to a £20 expansion pack PC gamers used to buy back in the day; a game that looks the same, feels the same, but offers some extra content. Dark Souls II is Demon's Souls 1.5.5. The law of diminishing returns is killing the franchise. The worse part is, I managed to put some 100+ hours into Dark Souls II, but that was purely because it was on PC and I could enjoy some slightly better visuals and a more stable framerate. But it was still the same shoddy PS3 engine, and little had changed for the better (if at all).

Dark Souls looked and felt eerily familiar to Demon's Souls.

With Dark Souls II, surely 'reviewers' must have finally realised that From Software had not improved the formula whatsoever? The short answer is: no. Once again, 'journalists' fawned over From Software's creation, and failed to mention anything regarding visual decay, technical limitation, lack of innovation, and archaic gameplay. Then came Scholar of the First Sin. An expansion pack, of sorts, for a game which was already an expansion pack itself. But the reviews continued the praise.

My problem with all of this? Two things.

1. The unwillingness of boneheaded 'journalists' to stick to any sense of objectivity essentially helps reinforce From Software's belief that they never need to innovate, as their Souls games will be successful regardless. When a From Software developer reads a glittering IGN 9.0+ review, with little-to-no criticism, he is thinking 'great! no need to innovate: we can just pump this shit out over and over until they finally get sick'. It is the role of reviewers, no matter the medium, to engage with, observe and assess a film, a book, a game, in the means to not only tell us whether it is good or not, but also to give the creator or the developer feedback on their product. When you have the entire section of 'gaming journalism' bestowing infallible praise upon Dark Souls II, it sells the players short - since Dark Souls II isn't a superb game, by any stretch of the imagination - and it sells the developers short as they lack any credible information on how they can improve their games.

If you think this first point is a load of rubbish, then let me ask you this: what if, instead of rendering PS2-era textures, Dark Souls II had a visual style akin to The Witcher 3? What if, instead of a maximum of 5 detailed enemies on screen t once, you could fight dozens upon dozens of huge, fully detailed monsters? What if, instead of having to meet obtuse criteria to summon a friend for co-op, you could play the game in full co-op from beginning to end? What if, instead of fumbling around with a lock-on system better suited to a Nintendo 64 game, you could fluidly target multiple enemies without having to sacrifice time, effort or the competence of the game's camera? All of these things are not impossible. Take a look at a lot of games and you'll see developers pushing technology to its limits, like they're supposed to do. But no, we're still stuck with an early PS3 version of a game which has so much more potential. All because 'journalists' are grotesquely incompetent at their jobs. Just think about that.

2. For all the praise Demon's Souls 1.5.5 receives - despite being essentially the same game three times over - 'journalists' are seemingly over-eager to bash other games which employ the same tactics. Batman: Arkham Origins? Too samey as Arkham City; doesn't innovative; too derivative. Madden NFL 16? Too similar to last year's iteration; doesn't do enough to warrant the price of admission. Yet, for Demon's Souls 1.5.5, which employs precisely the same design philosophy as Arkham Origins and Madden 16, the praise is unparalleled. This is beyond infuriating, and makes me want to individually throttle each 'journalist' who persists in overrating From Software titles with each passing year. They are killing journalism with their lack of informative and objective criticism. They are a cancer to gaming as a medium. Games cannot evolve when gaming media is overloaded with idiotic, easily pleased, juvenile and pathetic writers.

Dark Souls II: SotFS. Looks and feels exactly the same. Again.

So, finally, onwards to Dark Souls III (or, as I shall now call it, Demon's Souls 1.5.5.5). Today I watched a 13-minute snippet of the game from PAX. Now, as anyone who has ever played a Souls game before, is it honestly fair to say anything in that gameplay video is original? The only thing new(ish) is the faster pace of the combat, ripped directly from - you guessed it - another From Software title, Bloodborne. (It is worth pointing out, at this stage, that Bloodborne also utilises the exact same technology as Demon's Souls, and so is also technically abysmal, but at least makes a concerted effort to mix it up with the game's setting and combat.) Aside from that, the graphics are precisely the same. The weapon and armour look precisely the same. The enemies look eerily familiar, and utilise the same boneheaded AI philosophy. The UI is precisely the same. It is also too late to have any hopes that this early build of the game will evolve too: this is exactly what Dark Souls III will look like and play like on launch. At this point, I think gamers will become increasingly weary by playing the same game yet again. Reviewers? I'm predicting another 90+ rating on Metacritic.

Ultimately, Dark Souls III, based on the PAX gameplay demo, looks like shit. It looks like a budget game developed by a small Japanese company who completely missed the boat with the PS4, and are only now deciding to port it over and hope nobody notices. Except From Software are not a small developer. They have the means and the capacity to utilise the PS4's, Xbox One's and PC's infrastructure, yet they are not doing so. They are, instead, doing what Activision, EA and Ubi-Soft get lambasted for almost every year: they are shipping the same game, year-in year-out, with minimal changes. The difference is, they have the gaming media onside. As a gamer, and as someone who really enjoyed Demon's Souls, I feel robbed of a thrilling Souls experience, because I know what more can be achieved. Any other Souls fans, in all honesty, should feel the same.

The Problem with From Software, Souls, Bloodborne, and Gaming Media

Back in 2009 I remember reading a review over on Eurogamer about some game called Demon’s Souls. From the sounds of it at the time, this was a rather obscure, unique and hardcore (on that generation of hardware) Japanese title that looked as though it had little chance of ever arriving in Europe. Even so, I was fully enticed by Keza MacDonald’s glowing review,[1] of a game with huge depth, with considered and challenging combat, and with a hybrid online system that was neither an MMO nor fully single-player. Like the game itself, the coverage of Demon’s Souls evoked the type of mystery that oozed from Boletaria, the game’s fictional fantasy setting. Having decided Demon’s Souls was likely a game I would never get to play living in the UK, I bought a US imported copy from eBay and thanked the Gods of technology that Sony had decided to keep their system region-free.[2]

So, how was the game? Well, most gamers are now, surely, probably aware of the quality of Demon’s Souls, since it was that game which sparked the current craze over From Software’s current fantasy action-RPG titles. However, when I played Demon’s Souls I was a member of the first wave of gamers encountering these type of games. Of course, there existed countless of others who had previous experience with the King’s Field series too. Regardless, to us born in the 70s and 80s, these games represented a reawakening of the type games which became the foundation of our gaming ability. Back in the day, if you died in a game you were punished. You had to get good; you had to learn. These days most games are too afraid of punishing players, and aim to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but by skewing the content of games away from challenge, and skill, and precision, there immediately arises a new market of gamers looking for something different; in a way, to spite the fact that too many games are simply too basic, and too eager to molly-coddle players. Of course, the setting, the atmosphere, the mystery, and the sound of the Souls games are also as valid as the gameplay, but the latter plays a huge part in drawing in bigger audiences who feel bored with existing “triple-A” titles.

Demon’s Souls, then, rekindled a standard of gaming most of us had not seen since the 1990s. But it was also a genuinely good game; but not perfect. MacDonald’s praise was, by and large, accurate but – as is often the case – she let the rose-tinted glasses get in the way of criticisms which are obvious for all to see. For a start, From Software, for some unbeknown reason, felt that platforming was a viable option for this and other Souls titles. The problem is, that movement and jumping are hugely clunky in these games, and assigning a jump function to an analogue-stick is usually a good indication that certain design aspirations are clearly not meant to be. Yet From Software went ahead and put sections – however brief – into the game which require some form of balance and platforming. But trying to manoeuvre a double-decker London bus across a tightrope would be beyond a joke in reality, which is exactly how it feels to play Demon’s Souls at times. Furthermore, the framerate drops substantially during certain sections of the game. This usually occurs, as is often the case with some games, when the game’s engine buckles under heavy load; too many enemies on the screen, too many particle effects, and so on. Finally, those who wrote about the Demon’s Souls lauded the perceived fact that the game was “challenging, but fair”. Again, this is somewhat untrue. For, perhaps, 85 per cent of the game, if the player dies it is through their own mistakes, which is great. However, there are sections of the game which are clearly designed to be unfair on the player. One section, in particular, sees the player wading through a swamp-like environment, where entering the knee-deep water (which is unavoidable) slows the player substantially; dodging becomes much more difficult, as does general movement. Yet enemies maintain the same movement speed and attack capabilities in the water as they do on land. There exist specific enemies called ‘Phantoms’ who also loiter in this area. Phantoms are essentially the NPC equivalent to your character, yet in this environment they, again, can move at full capacity regardless of the swamp. How is that fair? Furthermore, there are countless occasions where death is almost inevitable; to encourage trial and error. Again, setting up a trap that even the most conservative of players will fall foul of is not fair design; it is cheap.

That Demon’s Souls has noticeable flaws is, then, undeniable. However, such flaws are only minor blemishes on an otherwise solid 8/10 title. A game that, if improved upon, could go on to achieve great things. Surely, the upcoming “spiritual successor”, Dark Souls, would go above and beyond its predecessor, with From Software acknowledging the newfound popularity of Demon’s Souls, and fully willing to push themselves further to go one more beyond their first title; to go from ‘solid’ to ‘superb’. That was my theory, anyway. In reality, however, Dark Souls was a disappointing failure.

Dark Souls, released a couple of years after Demon’s Souls, was essentially the same game as its predecessor. The combat was the same. Movement was the same. The graphics engine was the same. Many of the weapons and armour looked eerily familiar. This was, simply put, Demon Souls 1.5. Many will argue that the tweaks to use of magic, or the multi-layered, multi-faceted environmental design, or need for new boss-tactics was original ‘content’, but the core argument remains true: Dark Souls is almost exactly the same as Demon’s Souls bar new locations, new weapons and armour, new music, and new bosses. This was what we older PC gamers would call a traditional expansion pack, of sorts. That would have been fine, but From Software, somewhat unfortunately, had the gall to peddle Dark Souls as a fully-fledged and improved sequel (with a full RRP to boot), which it clearly is not. Dark Souls is a lazily designed game, clearly intended to bridge the gap between audiences of Demon’s Souls on the PlayStation 3, and new fans to the franchise on Xbox 360 (and, eventually, PC). From Software merely took the same engine and pumped out some content, rebranded as an entirely new game, and shoved it out the door for quick gains; on the back of the unexpected but huge success of Demon’s Souls, but also on basis that new fans would be acquired across multiple platforms. Personally, I can understand this tactic from a business perspective: using existing design software to create a more-or-less similar game to keep existing fans happy, but also to release on more platforms to create a greater market share. It’s hugely cost-effective, but it is, like it or not, hugely lazy. From Software made no attempt with Dark Souls to push the formula forward, and they did absolutely nothing to suggest that they had any new concepts or ideas to utilise within this or future titles. However, since Dark Souls was, in actuality, a cost-effective and successful business decision, I am willing to give it a free pass for the time being; a lazy but nonetheless decent 7/10 title with diminishing returns for those who played Demon’s Souls. That’s fine, I guess. As such, I was fully anticipating and expecting Dark Souls II to finally illustrate what From Software had really been working on for all these years. Dark Souls II would, surely, be the first foray onto new and better technology, with new and original concepts, and a genuine feeling of “this is a sequel” about it.

Oh, how wrong I was. Yet again, From Software, with a staggering 5-year gap since the original Demon’s Souls, pushed out the same game yet again. The graphics engine was the same. The combat was the same. The weapons and armour were even the same. From Software even had the cheek to reuse enemies and entire boss battles from the previous title! This was laziness on a new scale. I was staggered that, after 5 years of utilising PlayStation 3 technology, From Software were still content with pumping out the same game yet again. Where is the inspiration? Where is the desire to push the envelope? If anything, Dark Souls II was a complete regression for the entire series, with recycled textures, enemies, weapons, armour, sound and graphical effects, and the almost complete lack of narrative or context. Here we were, in 2014, with a game that still had NPCs with no lip-syncing to speak of, with framerate issues when too much was happening on screen (less noticeable on PC, granted), and, one again, with ridiculously clunky platforming sections. Watch a YouTube video of Demon’s Souls and then watch one of Dark Souls II and be astonished at how little difference there is to distinguish between them. Call of Duty and Assassin’s Creed get called out every year for recycling repetitive content, yet here we are, with a popular “hardcore” title doing the exact same thing. Why are we not calling From Software out on it? Dark Souls II is the epitome of design laziness. I loved Demon’s Souls, grew bored of Dark Souls, and felt Dark Souls II was an insult, especially when, once again, a full retail asking price was required to play the game. Diminishing returns is killing this series. Dark Souls II is a 6/10 game. It is a game that has quite literally squeezed the tube of content as far as it can go, yet the media lapped it up. What is happening here?

Once again, what is happening – and all that as ever happened – is that the gaming media is showing itself to be entirely incompetent, uninformative, and entirely absurd. This is a collection of journalists who will comply with a level of double-standards that is beyond incredible. In a 6/10 review for Batman: Arkham Origins, GameSpot reviewer Carolyn Petit argues that the game has little ‘surprise or innovation’; that the game is, essentially, identical to Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. As it happens, I do not disagree with these sentiments: Arkham Origins is, undoubtedly, lacking in originality and relies upon the same graphics engine, combat and stealth design, and overall design philosophy of the first two games in the series. Diminishing returns makes it a lesser game. However, GameSpot then go on to award Dark Souls II a 9/10, where mention of lazy design, diminishing returns, and lack of ‘surprise’ or ‘innovation’ are completely omitted. Why does Dark Souls II – identical to Arkham Origins in terms of its copy and paste philosophy – get a free pass? This is hypocritical beyond belief, and merely evidences the amateurish nature of modern gaming journalists. They are an embarrassment to the journalism profession.[3] The problem with having such blatantly bad reviewers is not insignificant, either. When From Software consult Metacritic, for instance, they will feel contented that Dark Souls II is a success with little-to-no need of improvement. Since they’re a Japanese developer, they’re not likely to look under the bonnet of mainstream media – they will not look at blogs like this, or forums, or the comments section on reviews. I know most people who play these games are happy with what they’re getting, and that’s great, but some of us want and expect more. Having idiotic reviewers blow smoke up From Software’s arse does not bode well for further Souls titles, as the same copy-and-paste, recycled and lazy design will continue.

So, what about Bloodborne? Ironically enough, the exclusivity deal with Sony has actually meant that From Software have been forced to alter the formula somewhat. This time, we have a game with a radically different setting, and a substantial shift in combat design. However, much remains the same. The graphics engine is exactly the same one as utilised for Demon’s Souls, for instance, which is beyond shocking. The UI is eerily familiar. Picking up items looks and feels the same. NPCs still have no lip-syncing. The load times are laughable (a patch is meant to alleviate this, but I’m unsure how successful it is). I’m happy that From Software are attempting something slightly different, to be sure, but should we not expect new and better technology by now? And, again, why are the media saying absolutely nothing negative in this regard? It seems like gamers and journalists alike have been completely swept-up by the nostalgia of “hardcore-ness” and “challenge” that they have lost all faculty to highlight obvious flaws with these games. By the same token, it is fair game to call Call of Duty derivative, or Assassin’s Creed repetitive and boring. Yet Activision and Ubi-Soft are doing nothing different to From Software. It is bizarre and hugely annoying.

Ultimately, there is very little I can do as a one insignificant blogger on a webpage that likely gets as many as 3 hits per year. But what I can do, regardless, is vent my frustrations and write down my thoughts in a way that feels more constructive than continually moaning to my friends about it. With that in mind, here is what I would suggest to From Software if, in some parallel universe, they ever asked me for my opinion on the Souls titles:

-       - Firstly, it is time to upgrade the technology and have the Souls games at least on-par with existing current-gen games (which it fails at miserably as things stand)

-       - Secondly, introduce new gameplay concepts and ideas. Bloodborne is cool in terms of basing combat on dodging and counterattacks, but how about adding that as an additional class-based dimension in the Souls series (e.g. as a rogue or dual-wield warrior type, on top of existing classes)?

-      -  Thirdly, sort the controls out and make movement and jumping more fluent and less clunky. If you insist on placing narrow-ledges and jumping sections in the games then you’d better make sure the gameplay can accommodate that without players feeling frustrated.

-      -  Fourthly, sort the multiplayer out. Demon’s Souls was great for the way it mixed a unique style of offline and online play together. However, after four games it has gone past the point of stupidity that I still cannot summon and play with a friend co-operatively, from start to finish, without jumping through countless hoops and ensuring abstract criteria are continually met each time one of us dies.

-      -  Fifthly, having the player rely on item descriptions to glean parts of the narrative is not good writing or game design. Again, Demon’s Souls was allowed a free pass because of its initial glory, but it is entirely plausible to offer a game with mystery and a sense of isolation without necessarily resorting to the anti-Souls trends of cut-scenes or hours of NPC dialogue (see: ICO and Shadow of the Colossus).

-       Sixthly, try and simply up the scale of the games. It is clear that just about as much that can be achieved has been achieved in these games. New technology should allow a broadening of content, of environments, of enemies, and of the sheer amount that can happen at any one time. As it stands, trying to hit 30 frames-per-seconds on consoles, and trying to avoid framerate meltdown ensures that inspiration is kept in check. Future titles can be less restricted and so could offer much more.

-       - Seventhly, modernise the bloody UI! The UI and menus look like they’ve been torn straight from the PS2 era. It doesn’t need to change the aesthetic style of the game to simply tidy-up and polish non-gameplay components. This is really something that has annoyed me since Dark Souls, as it simply evidences a “can’t be arsed” attitude from the developer when it is one of the things most easily upgradeable with sequels.

So there we have it. Seven bullet-point improvements that I would like to see adopted in future Souls titles. There are likely more to be added, but at the current moment these are the most pressing concerns. Of course, the odds of any of the above being implemented any time soon are slim when reviewers are constantly assuring From Software that anything they touch is almost-perfect. As it stands, however, I can be content with knowing that I have contributed something – as minor as this is – to a debate that seemingly doesn’t exist, but should.

---

[1] It is worth noting that I actually respected MacDonald at this point, but she appears to have diminished in objectivity and genuine journalistic agency over the past few years, and is no better or no worse than the countless other useless gaming “journalists” contributing their laughable drivel to various websites and print media.

[2] Of course, the game did eventually make it to Europe based on its huge popularity in Japan and the US.

[3] It is worth noting that this trend is not only apparent with Dark Souls II: many other games have often been dismissed for being too similar to previous iterations, while others – if the reviewer is feeling particularly bone-headed – are be praised with little-to-no mention for diminishing returns.

GRID Autosport -- Review (PC)

Released: 2014. Developer: Codemasters.

In 2008 Codemasters released their first instalment of the GRID series with Race Driver: Grid. In 2013 they released GRID 2. It took 5 years to develop a sequel to the first Grid yet, in 2014, GRID Autosport has already arrived as a sequel to GRID 2. The fact that it took roughly 1 year to develop, then, makes GRID Autosport feel like a bridge between worlds; something to fill the void until Codemaster’s next big title. It is, after all, the third game of the series on the same hardware. The visuals are roughly the same and the gameplay philosophy remains mostly intact. PC gamers are generally starved of big racing titles (no Forza or Gran Turismo games for them) so Autosport is probably a welcome addition to a sparse library of racing games. Autosport is, however, otherwise unremarkable compared to what went before.

One of the more noticeable and key aspects of modern racing titles is their visual fidelity. Sure, intricate gameplay and depth are also important, but racing titles are – by and large – major showcases of what gaming hardware is capable of. Lush vegetation, highly-detailed tarmac, 3D crowds, detailed trees that flow in the wind, leaves blowing off the tracks, and – of course – the hot waxed beauty of gorgeous supercars all help to encompass racing games as benchmarks of modern technology. Autosport, in this regard, ticks all those boxes and looks incredible. The lush beauty and misty air of the Hockenheimring is excellently contrasted with the sexy and stylish roads of Paris. The variation in tracks and locations helps keep Autosport fresh and varied. The selection of cars is intended to suit different track designs too, with touring cars for professional circuits and tuned street cars for night time city racing. Tearing up the roads of sunny Barcelona in the majestic McLaren F1 never felt better. The overall amount of tracks and cars is impressive, though it is unlikely anyone but the most dedicated will grow to appreciate such depth. Indeed, because Autosport is the third instalment of a series spanning roughly 6 years, the game suffers from diminishing returns.

Autosport offers several driving disciplines, each with its own career progression.

By their very nature racing games find it increasingly difficult to evolve. The core concept of racing – especially in the context of a ‘serious’ racer like GRID – can only ever be expanded upon until realism is reached. All that is left is visual upgrades, new cars and new tracks. The obligatory levelling system and perks can be added to keep-up with modern trends, but it was always going to be challenging for Autosport to innovate when GRID 2 came out just over a year ago. Developers can occasionally revolutionise with great ideas; Autosport was never destined for that fate. This in mind, it is difficult to suggest the visuals and gameplay in Autosport are worth seeing when playing GRID 2 is just as feasible and will yield the same results at a lower cost. Autosport may as well be viewed as an expansion pack. A full RRP expansion pack, it is worth adding. If you hammered GRID 2 and need more tracks and new cars – and have money to burn – then Autosport is ideal. For everyone else, though, Autosport serves as nothing more than an overpriced quick cash-in game for Codemasters to fund their next big title.

The best position to be in as a potential buyer of Autosport is to have not played GRID 2 at all. In that regard, players can appreciate the actual advancements Codemasters did add once upon time. The ‘flashback’ system is still one of the most innovative features of modern racers and helps counter the age-old frustration of losing a 20-minute long race because you crashed right before the finish line. The Forza method of letting players add or remove driving assists is also welcome but, again, is not unique to Autosport. For example, the amount of flashbacks available can be reduced to increase experience gains, or racing lines can be turned on to help newbies ease into this semi-hardcore racer. Races themselves, too, contain mini-objectives to keep the player engaged, with specific rivals to beat and teammate coordination encouraged. Moreover, the fact that a racing game – on the PC of all platforms – contains a split-screen mode is still commendable. Neither innovative nor unique, split-screen gaming is nevertheless an old tradition that should never be abandoned – something Codemasters deserve credit for. All these features, that were once unique and refreshing, are still great additions to any racing title, but their effects in Autosport are diminished. What made previous GRID titles great now makes Autosport functional at best. Solid, but functional. Even so, while Autosport retains all of the best elements of previous titles – and of most other modern racers – the persistent flaws that were present before have still not been dealt with.

The in-car view makes a return.

Upon this review of the game Autosport has been out for a few weeks or so. Yet, despite that, there are numerous issues surrounding the game from corrupted save files to bizarre online shenanigans. One glitch sees AI drivers failing to set-off from the starting grid which leaves players stranded on a never-ending result’s screen, ultimately unable to complete the online custom cup/events competition. Furthermore, the online balancing of players and cars is massively out of sync, with new players almost always racing against players with more skill and better cars. Lower levelled players cannot access car upgrades until they are at the required level and have enough money to purchase such upgrades, therefore they are typically at a huge disadvantage when Autosport matches them against higher ranked players. Meanwhile, GRID 2’s damage indicators return to show players how good or bad you race in relation to smashing their doors in, but clearly this system was not deemed radical enough. Indeed, Autosport now charges players in-game cash for damage caused. The problem with this approach is that, typically, crashes happen as a result of general gameplay; players can end up paying out huge costs even if they race fairly. In all, the online component of Autosport feels rushed and underdeveloped. Worse still, weeks have passed since Autosport’s release yet there appears to be no news of patches or fixes for these annoying bugs and imbalances.

There are more general flaws, too. For one thing, the career mode still requires far too much grinding unless you are able to race without any assists turned on (in which case, good for you). There is still no licensed (or any) music to listen to when racing (engine sounds are great but the option of music would be nice). The difficulty leap between medium AI drivers and hard AI drivers is ridiculous – there is no middle-ground between too easy and too hard. Furthermore, the gameplay still feels like it does not properly reward the best driver; someone can crash and bounce off walls but as long as they have a faster car they can still win. The latter issue was more pronounced in GRID 2 and is noticeably better in Autosport, but the game still lacks the finesse and grace required to elevate it to the pantheon of truly great racing titles.

The game looks great, but has not advanced beyond what GRID 2 had already established.

What keeps GRID Autosport in (mostly) high esteem is the fact that not many mainstream driving games exist on the PC. Had Autosport to contend with Forza Motorsport, Gran Turismo or Driveclub then its inability to evolve or fix existing issues would probably be all the more worse. As it is, Project CARS or the next Need for Speed appear to be its only potential rivals in the coming years. Regardless, the insistence of a full retail price for an otherwise glorified expansion pack is something Autosport can rightly be criticised for, with or without competition. A single year’s development cycle was never going to amount to much beyond what GRID 2 already offered – that much is abundantly clear to anyone who plays Autosport for more than an hour. The content is, indeed, fine but does little to inspire amazement. The cars and tracks look and play well, and there is enough to do until the grinding gets too much, but the retaining of existing flaws from previous instalments, as well as a near-abandonment of its online functionality, leaves Autosport as a rather disappointing, if somewhat functional distraction until Codemasters’ next big racing title arrives.

6/10

The Chronicle

Hi all.

So I am writing another post to outline the name change of my blog and update the reasons why it exists.

Firstly, Inta Wild was just a daft name I used because of its uniqueness and because, truly, I do not think I had any real belief that the blog would ever ascent beyond the ramblings of myself in-front of an entire audience of, well, myself. Of course, the blog still has not risen beyond a place for me to write about stuff that nobody else particularly cares about, but Inta Wild was/is just a painfully stupid and non-useful name for my 'site. Croft's Chronicle is, to be honest, hardly much better, but it was the only title I could conjure-up without stealing the name of someone else's website. Maybe I'll change it again should inspiration strike. I would also like to have the page header look smoother and blend with the orange background but the picture formatting on Google's blog kit-set is piss poor, to say the least. It'll have to do, for now.

Secondly, the reason Croft's Chronicle exists is for more-or-less the same reasons as it did before. It is merely an online space for me to vent my views and opinions whilst also archiving my written work. When I first created this blog I was intended to use it purely for leisure, but now - as a student of history at Teesside University - I would like it to serve as an online portfolio of my writing abilities. It can serve as a catalogue of my time as a novice writer before college and university and, also, as evidence of how those institutions have improved my writing and research skills as I move into my third and final year at university. In short, then, Croft's Chronicle is a chronicle of my written works; a place for those interested to see what I can offer. Otherwise, the blog will also continue to be a place for me to talk drivel and to have fun.

And that, as they say, is that.

"Remember to never cross the road until the little man turns green" - Sergeant Moue, Broken Sword and the Shadow of the Templars

Why Mass Effect 3 typifies everything wrong in gaming

Old News is Good News

This was a post I had written around when Mass Effect 3 came out, but never published. Not sure why. Anyway, here it is.

Since the original Mass Effect arrived on the 360, gamers and media alike have conveniently ignored what BioWare are capable of and almost-universally gushed over a mediocre third-person shooter with RPG-light elements. Of course, anyone who has played the brilliant Knights of the Old Republic for any length of time can immediately deduce that Mass Effect was not of the same quality, in any regard. Bad, clichéd writing, laughable dialogue, and combat that can - and is - bettered by guff like Syphon Filter on the PS1 leads to a space experience, quite frankly, not worth having. The awful B-movie dialogue, sloppy pacing, and general throwaway cinematic experience remained intact for the sequel, but the actual game side improved in Mass Effect 2; combat was tighter, glitches less frequent, graphics were cleaned up, and side-content was actually worth completing for fun, rather than for the necessity to achieve 100% completion.

A lot has seems to have changed since Mass Effect 2 and the recent release of Mass Effect 3. Sure, day-one DLC and pre-order incentives were around - and employed - by EA for Mass Effect 2, but with the third game the whole concept of the aptly named 'ripping-consumers-off-as-much-as-possible' is in full swing. There has been a common news story doing the rounds saying how your Mass Effect 3 experience is not 100% content filled unless you are willing to fork out £200+ for all the extra DLC deals, pre-orders and such. Of course, day-one DLC exists already on the disc, and requires a small download (see: unlock key) to access, but this is seemingly fine and dandy in today's gaming society. A few gamers complain, but are eventually drowned out by the mindless festering cretins that populate this medium - as long as you can have sex with blue aliens (as long as it's not male gay sex; heaven forbid!), shoot robots while you clumsily move from cover-to-cover, and convince yourself the story isn't grade A horse manure, then all is good for gamers.

Cutting-edge and deep narrative in full swing during Mass Effect here.

But all this is just a standard affair for gaming developers/publishers these days. Every other week Capcom are doing their best to ensure as much content is ripped from their discs, then released as extra premium content to stuff their wallets further (with little protest from the media, obviously). However, with Mass Effect 3 BioWare and EA have gone on further. Ignoring the ridiculousness of people actually taking Mass Effect's narrative seriously, the ability to deliberately input a fake ending in the knowledge that fans will clamour and - more importantly - pay for a 'proper' ending is a sound strategy to employ. Immoral, and utterly utterly fucked-up, but sound.

Amusingly, if something like this happened in the film industry, or with music, or TV, the sheer absurdity of it would render the makers of such content a laughing stock and - most likely - bankrupt within a working week. Hey, here's a new season of Mad Men! We'll give you 4 episodes as usual, but if you want to see the rest you'll need to pre-order the DVD from Amazon for episode 5, and Play for episode 6. Also, the season finale is bullshit, but if you give us an extra £15 we'll happily fix that for you and release a small premium update to give you the proper ending! (Note: I believe the 'ending' DLC for Mass Effect 3 was free upon release, but my argument about charging for everything else remains valid. In fact, if I were a betting man I would suggest that my prediction of a 'paid-for DLC ending' is not far off, especially from the likes of EA. Maybe a possible avenue for Mass Effect 4?)

I mean, really? Are gamers that idiotic? Really? I wish I didn't part-take in this hobby so much. I wish I could disassociate myself with this gaming trend. But alas, I still love gaming. More fool me.

Gone Home -- Review (PC)

Released: 2013. Developer: The Fullbright Company.

It is becoming increasingly easier to look at contemporary gaming at face value and bemoan the lack of inspiration. Indeed, the apparent obsession with ‘Triple-A’ titles – with shooting, with killing, and most other elements that are usual relevant within Halo or Call of Duty – does little to endear gaming to a larger audience (beyond young males, in any case). However, no matter how bad things look, no matter how many violent shooters are premiered at each year’s E3, there are always games out there that can restore our faith. There will always be games that remind us of why this medium can continue to inspire and excel without being constrained by big publisher requirements. Gone Home is one such title.

Because Gone Home is an indie title it does not need to adhere to the ‘guaranteed sales success’ formula of larger games. Of course, Gone Home is not unique in this regard; indie gaming is probably the strongest it has ever been for a long period. However, Gone Home is worth particular attention because of its unique draw, and the way in which it executes this unique element through the narrative and gameplay structure.

Your journey begins here.

Essentially, Gone Home can be broken down into a game about audio-logs, letters, notes or anything else of that nature that you would typically collect in other games. The Last of Us leaves scribbled notes scattered throughout the world to add context to Joel and Ellie’s adventures. BioShock, meanwhile, utilises audio-based devices that relay character’s thoughts through vocal expression. A large portion of games employ these ‘extras’ in attempts to add further layers to the environment and atmosphere experienced by the player. Where The Last of Us or BioShock centre around exploration, puzzles and combat, and relegate letters and audio logs to extras, Gone Home instead shuns the conventions of combat or mechanical puzzles to focus primarily on letters and notes.

The player takes the role of Katie Greenbriar, a young American woman who is returning to her family home after travelling around Europe. The house is empty when Katie arrives and so she must explore the mansion to figure out where everyone is and what has transpired. In this respect, a mere crumpled note discarded in a bin is effectively Gone Home’s bread and butter. Reading month-old correspondence between Katie’s mother and her workplace is your main purpose, for there is no combat and no puzzles here.

Each room presents new information to progress the narrative.
Such information can take the form of notes, discarded letters, and other objects.

A routine quickly develops after you acclimatise to Gone Home’s structure. You will open a door to an unexplored room, search for a light-switch, and begin scrutinising the surroundings. Almost every item and physical thing can be interacted with, no matter how mundane or completely pointless it may seem. Draws, cupboards and fridges can be opened and shut; pens, cans, cups and books can be lifted and thrown; you can also put tapes into cassette players or listen to vinyls played on record players. Such depth is appreciated but the game never manages to achieve that feeling of the home as having being lived in, mostly due to its rigid videogame ascetic. Furthermore, the calculated placing of notes and relevant items was always going to look beyond the realms of plausibility due to the nature of the game. It is much easier to organically place notes and objects in games where they serve as extra context setters. Gone Home, though, necessitates that the player must see and interact with relevant materials and so their placement is more awkward. This awkwardness certainly shows throughout.

Gone Home is set in the 1990s, and in that regard it feels wholly authentic. From the grunge-rock music Katie’s sister, Samantha, listens to on her cassettes, to the lack of mobile phones and reliance on using typewriters for sending letters, the aura of the ‘90s is exact. Of course, being set in such a period also allows the developers – The Fullbright Company – to remove the obvious solutions access to the internet would otherwise provide, should such an event occur today. Weirdly, the lack of internet provides an eerie sense of freedom, but also fear, another theme the game undoubtedly revels in. The rooms are mostly dark before you switch the lights on and the mansion itself is very old; the floorboards regularly creak while the thunderstorm outside ensures you remain constantly anxious. The atmosphere is, in this regard, well developed.

Gone Home relies on charm and '90s trends to add colour to its setting.

Of course, all of the developer’s efforts put into the design and layout of the mansion, the amount of notes, books and letters, and the atmospheric tension would be for nothing if the central narrative itself was weak. Indeed, the very design of Gone Home constitutes that the story must be of good quality or else the whole game falls flat. You would be, essentially, playing a game about reading fictional notes and opening virtual cupboards for no other reason than gameplay. If that were the case then Gone Home would be a huge waste of 2 hours and a chore to play. Fortunately, the layer of care and attention put into the narrative along with some excellent writing ensures that the experience is worth it. The writing successfully sets out a gripping and believable story, one with characters that you grow to care about despite the notion that you might never meet them, and one that deals with mature issues in a way that other games would – and do – cause embarrassment over. Furthermore, the voice acting ensures that the writing is effectively delivered with the voice actress for Samantha being particularly superb. Samantha’s voice can be heard when you discover relevant letters, notes or objects. The genuine emotion in her voice and delivery of her lines makes each extract a treasure to behold. Hearing the next chunk of Samantha’s diary serves as the core incentive of Gone Home’s progression; her dialogue is poignant enough to ensure most will play to the end. The Fullbright Company also ensure that each written piece of information oozes with levels of believability and charm: Samantha’s school essays with little doodles, formal letters with business logos and professional wording for dad’s work correspondence, and fancy joined-up writing with flower-laced borders on a letters from a friend of mom’s.

Gone Home is a game about reading notes and piecing together a large jigsaw. It is ultimately successful in this aim through a gripping narrative and an undeniable layer of charm and passion evident within the game’s many notes, letters and diary entries. A mechanical and rigid ascetic – which lends itself to Gone Home’s chosen engine – somewhat dampens the allure of the game, as do instances of design that are not natural or believable. Nobody would ever leave notes of relevance scattered in such a manner that they could only be discovered in a certain sequence (unless they were being facetious!), and let us not even get started on combination locks. Regardless, as a game about collecting letters, notes and physical objects – as its primary driving force – Gone Home could have been a disaster. Good writing, superb voice acting, and excellent attention-to-detail, however, ensure that Gone Home stays long in the mind even after reaching the ending credits.

8/10

Lost Odyssey -- Review (Xbox 360)

Released: 2008. Developer: Mistwalker.

Final Fantasy is a gaming series that, before 2010, looked set to pass Microsoft and its gaming divisions by. The original Xbox never received an official Final Fantasy release while the Xbox 360, too, seemed destined to remain a stranger to Square Enix’s mammoth franchise. This all changed, of course, with the multi-platform release of Final Fantasy XIII in 2010. Regardless, in 2008 Microsoft were intent on having their own contender take on the might of Sony’s (former) JRPG ally in the form of Lost Odyssey. Better yet, to ensure their champion had a fighting chance, Microsoft hired the original creator of Final Fantasy itself, Hironobu Sakaguchi. With this in mind it may come as no surprise to state that Lost Odyssey is, for all intents and purposes, a Final Fantasy game in all but name.

Lost Odyssey does not pretend to be anything other than what most JPRG veterans have come to expect from the genre. The main protagonist, Kaim, has amnesia and must navigate his way through a world which combines fantasy magic and 19th century industrial advancements. The major characteristic of Kaim – and a few other playable characters – is that he is immortal and cannot ‘die’ during combat. It is, undoubtedly, rather cool to see Kaim get back up after a few turns during combat, shrugging off the damage, and quipping along the lines of ‘sorry about that.’ Of course, if all party members (five maximum) are knocked unconscious during combat then it is still game over, regardless of whether Kaim is on the field of battle or not. The turn-based combat is very reminiscent of previous Final Fantasy titles. Physical and magical abilities are selected from menus, while items and consumables are also usable during battle. The animations and artistic style to some of the moves is impressive, as are the designs and variations in the monsters you will encounter. Summed up best, Lost Odyssey’s combat is functional. Physical attacks give the player a chance to line-up circle prompts on the screen for more effective damage, but it is hardly enough to keep combat truly engaging. As with many JRPGs, grinding the same enemies for experience (XP) or loot dilutes the enjoyment to be had with an otherwise traditional take on JRPG combat. Boss encounters can keep things tactical and refreshing, while the wall/defence positioning of characters adds a small layer of depth. In all, there is probably enough here to keep most JRPG fans fairly happy for the game’s 60+ hour playtime, but those who have grown tired of JRPG traits will find little to adore here.

Kaim, the cliched generic JRPG amnesiac protagonist.

Kaim’s travels allow him to encounter and recruit a decent array of followers to prevent the journey becoming too much of a chore. That said, Lost Odyssey does not delve too far into narrative complexity or character development; what you see is what you get. The antagonist is a typical evil genius able to manipulate those in power to meet his own ends, all the while emoting dastardly laughs without a hint of irony. Kaim himself is a drab figure. Intended as the silent brooding type, he says little and conveys not an awful lot beyond anger or frustration. Some of the other characters do add some colour to the journey though, particularly Kaim’s grandchildren, Cooke and Mack, who clearly defy the age restrictions attached to fighting 20-foot monsters. Again, this is all functional JRPG stuff, but Lost Odyssey ultimately ends up shooting itself in the foot. During a mid-game cut scene the game tries far too hard to convey despair, expecting the player to share in the on-screen tragedy with floods of tears. Unfortunately, the game falls way short of this expectation particularly when paired with Kaim’s complete inability to look anything other than constipated. Meanwhile, the game also allows the player to locate and read excerpts from Kaim’s memories which are scattered throughout the game world. These short-stories are written by someone external to the development team and are of a much different tone and vision to the game’s own story. Where Lost Odyssey never really attempts – or completely fails – to convey depth or proper emotion, the short-stories based on Kaim’s memories are beautifully written and are accompanied by tracks from Nobuo Uematsu’s (another Final Fantasy veteran) superb soundtrack. These heartfelt and emotional written stories are a complete contrast with the generic narrative of the core game and illustrate how things could have been so much better. As it is, Lost Odyssey achieves very little when compared to some of the more memorable JRPG narratives out there.

Lost Odyssey is a by-the-numbers JRPG and there is no getting away from that. What made it stand-out in 2008, however, was its technical and visual fidelity. This was the first real JRPG using the Unreal Engine and Microsoft clearly wanted players to identify the game based on its horsepower. In other words, Lost Odyssey was one of the first major Xbox 360 RPGs to showcase the console’s capabilities. In screenshots the game looks fantastic but in practice Lost Odyssey does not achieve the technical feats many had hoped for. It is clear that the developers, Mistwalker, struggled to mould the graphics engine to their liking. Textures sometimes display incorrectly while the framerate struggles to remain consistent at times. The lack of v-sync is also a shame and sullies the excellent artistic flair on display through frequent screen-tearing. On the other hand, the level of graphical detail on characters, monsters, and the environment is impressive – it is when the game is in motion that things can go awry.

Players explore the varied environments in Lost Odyssey as they would in other JRPGs: talking to static NPCs; searching for lootable cupboards in town houses; climbing the occasional ladder; buying and selling to vendors; running from point A to point B; locating save-points, and so on. Battles will occur randomly as Kaim explores the world. Monsters are rarely visible on the environment itself and so battles appear out of nowhere. Exploration can be interesting in patches but most of the environments are rigidly linear with the occasional minor puzzle to solve (like pushing a mine-cart, for example). The game manages to offer compelling and enjoyable landscapes, such as the lush and beautiful Ipsilon Mountains, to the mundane, repetitive and utterly boring, such as the Great Ancient Ruins with its obtuse and frustrating levitating elevator system. Most locations are well-designed but some are clearly intended as padding content. Uematsu’s soundtrack, however, truly elevates the ambience and enjoyment of exploration and proves to be one of Lost Odyssey’s finest assets.

The world of Lost Odyssey can be beautiful at times.

The word ‘functional’ frequently occurs when considering Lost Odyssey. It does absolutely nothing to further JRPGs as a genre and is often found drenched in the same annoying tendencies associated with similar games. There is grinding, invisible enemy ‘random encounters’, an amnesiac lead character, and a generic narrative. Technical issues are also apparent which damage the otherwise superb art design. On the other hand, the game has plenty of content to discover (including secrets and side-quests), a superb soundtrack, decent combat, exploration, and offers enough going for it to entice fans of the genre. Most of all, though, Lost Odyssey has clearly been designed with plenty of passion and care. The game treads too far on the traditional path at times but its core quality is rarely in doubt. The main criticism that can be aimed at Lost Odyssey, then, is its lack of innovation. The game relies too heavily on the outdated concepts of past Final Fantasy titles which other JRPGs, such as Persona 3, Persona 4 and Square Enix’s own Bravely Default, have largely evolved beyond. Having to find save-points, or grind for XP, or navigate mundane environments was already dated by 2008, so playing Lost Odyssey today highlights Mistwalker’s naivety. (At least Mistwalker can take solace in the fact that Final Fantasy XIII is also justifiably accused of not evolving.) In all, Lost Odyssey did a fairly decent job to fight Microsoft’s JRPG corner, but it is only hardcore traditionalists that can ignore the game’s reluctance to adapt. Ultimately, then, a functional and fundamentally good JRPG, but one that is firmly rooted in the past and affixed to design flaws that should no longer exist, even in 2008.                                                                                       

                                                                                                                6/10