E3 2017: Keys to Victory

In pay per view boxing matches, there is something called "keys to victory" which is a small pre-fight analysis of what each boxer needs to do in order to maximize his chances of winning. Today we are going to once again use that format to do a little analysis and see what each company needs to do in order to get that "winner of E3" title.

Why is winning E3 a big deal? Well, when a company "wins" an E3 event the grand prize is lots of hype and most often than not hype traduces itself into sales and sales very often turn into good games been considered for the platform in the near future. So without any further delay, lets see what each company needs to do in order to win it.

Microsoft

Up until now, Microsoft has had a really tough first half of the year. Looking on the bright side, the Xbox One has been getting good initiatives like the Netflix-like gaming service, but without many games to keep its user base engaged it has remained quite cold in the house of Xbox. In order to win this year's E3 their strategy has to be to push the Scorpio along with a barrage of exclusive games. Seen a revival of Scalebound as a Scorpio exclusive will sting a little (if you own an Xbox One), but would be a valid strategy. Other big games that could be revived are Fable and even KOTOR (Star Wars: Knights of the old republic). Once again the key for them is variety as the Gears-Forza-Halo combo will not be able to carry their new system to where they want it to be. They need to re-shape their fan base into something that welcomes more types of games and this E3 event is a great chance for them to do so.

Strength: Having a new machine to show gives them an edge if they know how to use it.

Weakness: Consumer confidence is quite low considering the poor first half of the year that the Xbox One had.

Sony

Sony is in a complex situation. They had a wonderful first half of 2017 with a parade of great third party games, but with few announcements and rumors in the last 5 months and with Final Fantasy 7 remake and Kingdom Hearts having difficulties it looks as if they have spent most of their bullets and are now facing a drought. With their situation been like it is... Can they win it this year? The answer to that question is yes, but they need to prove that the drought is not coming and that we have something to look forward to in the next 5 months. We all know that new gameplay will be shown of some games that were already announced, but if we don't get some cool surprises along with some solid release dates, we might have a so-so conference at best. The pressure is on them to keep the ball rolling.

Strength: Great first half of 2017 has the consumer as happy as they can be. The overall attitude is positive and many expect Sony to have an ace under their sleeve as they have done for the last 3 years.

Weakness: Expectations are so high that Sony will have a hard time topping themselves and anything less than what's expected could be seen as dim and uneventful. 

Nintendo

Right now, Nintendo is having a great time. Their gamble with the Switch paid off and they are as we speak a very close second to the PS4, month after month since the Switch was released. Now, the problem for them with this years E3 is that most of their surprises have once again (like last year) been either leaked or announced on ahead of time, leaving them with little mystery and intrigue, things that are needed in this type of event in order to have a big impact on the audience. 

Another fact is that even with the success they are having, they still won't give a big conference and once again rely on their Nintendo Direct videos, which are cool, but don't have that extra "umph!" that big time conferences give. So if things are like this then what does Nintendo need to win? The best bet they have is having secret stuff that they can use to blow us away when they are finally mentioned or showing what they have in a brilliant way, so they can lure us into the hype train. How can they do this? Well, details about the Splatoon 2 and Arms tournament can be a good start along with details about their Netflix-like retro game service and maybe one or two new Switch games that haven't been announced.

Strength: Great momentum since the Switch was released, even bigger that the one they had with the Wii in 2006.

Weakness: Unless they have some good secrets to unveil, everything new about the big N is already known.

Wrapping things up:

E3 Fight Forecast

This years E3 will be a good one with solid game play and maybe a few surprises in a really close fight between the main competitors, but try not to expect a "dreams come true" hype fest like the last one, because it is very unlikely. Let's just enjoy what we will get and get excited about the things that will be announced while hoping that the momentum that 2017 brought can last for a long time. 

The Surge: A good old school game in a modern package

It is an awkward but awesome experience when you load a 2017 game and it ends up feeling like you are back in the old days, yeah...It happened to me and it was wonderful. Of course, before I begin let me get something really clear. This game is in no way dated or anything like that. It is just has a couple of design choices that make it an hybrid in terms of old school and current trends and that game is called The Surge.

In order to pay homage to the times this game takes me back to, I am going to do this review in a Game Pro style, so let's begin.

The Surge
Developed by: Deck13 Interactive
Published by: Focus Home Interactive
Released on: May 16, 2017

Graphics (4.5/5)
The graphics on The Surge are nothing to flip about, but at the same time they are good enough to give us this industrious feeling that will be the first thing that will remind a lot of gamers about some games of the past. Think about places like the facility in Dino Crisis, the Heimdal in Carrier, the island city in Blue Stinger and even some awesome wastelands in Half Life 2. Another nice thing is that the indoor places look spooky enough for this game to be as scary as a survival horror at some places.

Sounds (4/5)
The music and sound effects are decent and do their job (the country music that is heard on safe zones (med day) is so good that it has gotten stuck in my head and I don't even like country music. What the game needed to be perfect in terms of sound is some more dramatic music to enhance the mood and keep us in our toes.

Before going to the next category I will share the med bay song with you all.

Gameplay (3/5)
Game play in The Surge will be familiar to anybody who has played Dark Souls or any similar game. You have to go through various zones, finding safe places and defeating tough enemies to advance while getting stronger yourself. It also borrows the npc side-quest thing where you get npcs to join you in your safe zone with some of them having things for you to do. Now, what differentiates this game from Dark Souls and what makes it so old school oriented is that maps are a lot deeper, so just hacking and slashing won't take you anywhere if you don't know where you are going and since this game has 0% hand holding this means that you really have to think things through before advancing. The only reason why it gets a (3) as its score on gameplay is because it doesn't have an online component or a character creation option, both been things that are always fun in these types of games.

Fun Factor (4/5)
The Surge is a really fun game with all its complex exploration and places to find, but I have to admit that while I am delighted with how old school it is, some people may not agree with me since it lacks some of the elements that many see as a given in any game that is similar to Dark Souls. Not counting the side quests you can screw up in one playthrough, replay value doesn't seem to be much considering that no online component means no pvp, which is something that really extends the life of any Souls/Borne game.

Challenge (5/5)

With no hand holding at all, the challenge in this game is spot on without been too frustrating for anyone. It is not that hard when fighting after you get used to the enemy patterns, but it still keeps you in your toes, because sometimes a simple mistake can be fatal. Another challenging aspect is that the maps in the game are not linear at all and it takes a lot of planning and experimenting with your surroundings before you can confidently explore a place without been paranoid about enemies and traps waiting for you on every corner.

Final Score (4/5)
The Surge is not a perfect game, but it is one of those imperfect experiences that are fun enough for us to look past its rough edges and enjoy it like we do any of the popular games out there. If you consider yourself to be a hardcore and/or old school oriented gamer then this is a must buy, if not then research a little before deciding on it.

(+) Great atmosphere, really good on exploration
(+) Nice challenge and rpg elements
(-) Lacks an online component and create a character option.

What do "old schoolers" really want of modern gaming?

Some people (especially newer generations) see the old school gamer as a group of grouchy old dudes (or dudettes) who live with nostalgia glasses permanently attached to their eyes. Because of this misconception and after studying how some classic games resonate with gamers more than their modern counterparts, I have decided to post my findings on this case. Get prepared to know what an old school gamer really thinks and what we really want in modern gaming.

This simple and small Chrono Cross town has more substance that many big "open world" worlds.

1) Complex simplicity:

Take the term "complex simplicity" as the base for all the future items on this list. We know that most people think that classic games (90's until mid 00's) are all about complexity with their sophisticated systems and the lack of visual ques, but it is quite the opposite. The truth is that classic games were a lot simpler where it mattered. While games in previous eras had things that made them look complex, in reality they were really relaxing and could be played with an easy going attitude without feeling that the developers are taking you by the hand or pulling your arm through the whole game.

For example, many classic games were very linear, but somehow they were designed to feel like anything but linear. I have been playing some classics like Chrono Cross, Dark Cloud, Blood Omen, Legacy of Kain, Terranigma among some others and while I know for a fact that they are linear games, they feel as deep as any multi-million open world modern production. This happens because old games presented more content with less levels of stress. So instead of raining dull chores on us, we moved through the story in a relaxed way and we welcomed any change of pace that was interesting enough without implying that we had to completely go out of our way or make some change that would completely take us out of the mood we had until that moment. Of course, this is not the only aspect of simplicity that applies in this situation as there are others like...

The Yakuza series is an example where less realism = tons of fun.

2) Less realism, more suspension of disbelief:

I am not stating that the next Call of Duty game needs to have magic on it or anything like that. What I mean with less realism applies to games where suspension of disbelief is more important than making the game similar to the real world in terms of the overall fun factor of the game. For example, weapons that break too quickly, unnecessary hunger and thirst mechanics (unless the game's focus is survival), forcing the player to wait or be idle for no reason other than the developers telling us to and time constraints (not to be mistaken for time limits) are some of the things that really dampens any gaming experience if they are forced fed on us.

Most of the time all we want is to play and enjoy the game world without some heavy chore on our backs. Why? Because that gives us extra time to learn and master other things like the complex systems of old that some people complain about. We prefer to challenge our own minds than have a simple inconvenience for the whole duration of the game. This is more rewarding and fun in many ways and marks the difference between feeling challenged and feeling annoyed.

A salute for the times where Konami was good.

3) Games that can be serious, but are not serious about it.

Everybody likes a nice storyline that we can take seriously for a while, be it because we are emotionally invested in the game or because the plot itself is just too good. What seems to be a turn off for old schoolers are stories that can be serious and good, but take a game flow approach that is even more serious than the storyline itself, thus becoming too rigid for its own good.

Take for example Metal Gear vs Splinter Cell. There was a time where these two franchises were bitter rivals, but in the end Metal Gear came on top, mostly because of one reason. While Metal Gear kept a game flow that relaxed its serious story and made it even more enjoyable than it already was, Splinter Cell (after Pandora's Tomorrow) went for a serious/serious approach and that basically ruined it. The reason why the first 3 Splinter Cell games were so good, was because the player could do all sorts of fun things with the stealth mechanics and that made the game to be a lot more enjoyable. Sadly, later on they decided to remove all that in favor of some straight forward linearity and that broke the game.

Repeat with me: Backtracking is good! 

4)  Freedom without sacrificing substance

Any of you who that are 25 years old or older can remember the times where in the first Resident Evil we walked from what was supposed to be the end of the game back through the garden house and into the mansion in order to get the two Mo-Disks we needed and found out that the place was not safe anymore because new monsters were now prowling in it. That little example is enough to explain what freedom without sacrificing substance means. We could move basically through the whole game world without feeling pushed or forced to proceed and the story and focus of the game was kept intact (no generic stuff or excessive recycling of resources). This is why those games felt like 40 hour experiences even if they had 14 hours of gameplay at best.

Berseria is awesome, but Vesperia was the last handcrafted "Tales of" game.

5) Handcrafted game worlds

Have you ever got the feeling that the world in which you move when playing a game feels a little too structured? Roads go here, walls go there and everything seems sanitized and as organized as a set of Tetris pieces. That is good enough for dungeon crawlers or rogue rpg games where the structure is the game itself, but for games that are trying to make you believe that you are playing in a lush and detailed environment, seen this kind of thing is quite disappointing.

Why is this so disappointing? Because it give us a message that says that the game was made with a cheap approach and that most of what they did was cut corners. This feels bad, especially when the game in question is supposed to be a comeback of a beloved series (Star Ocean I am looking at you) and it kind of insults our intelligence because it implies that we will buy anything as long as it has the name of a franchise we love.

On the other hand when a "detailed" game world feels too structured and generic it really eats away any enthusiasm that we had when we started playing and anybody with a basic knowledge of how videogame logic works will immediately notice when the great big world we were sold on is not that good.

In summary:

All that we old schoolers want can be summarized in these 5 things and they are really not that hard to do. They are feats of game design that have been lost in time and we need to get back. Luckily for us, games like the ones we have been getting on this semester (Jan-May 2017) are getting back to these good practices, so not all hope is lost. Let us thrive for quality and have gaming become what it used to be while in harmony with the latest advances in technology.

The real reason why old school gamers are not so hyped about modern games

Hey folks, I wasn't going to write today (just after Christmas), but while playing Dark Cloud (the PS4 version) I realized that all this time I have been analyzing and ranting about the old school vs new school topic in a very superficial way. First, I am going to shoot down all my own misconceptions and then I'm going to explain my new point of view on this subject, so let's get busy and start this up. Keep in mind that the phrases that are bold and underlined will serve their purpose on the final explanation.

Warning: This article came a little longer that I expected so I hope you like reading

Yes, it is incomplete, but it takes a while to get to the end.

Misconception #1: Modern games are smaller in scope.

This one has been going around my head for a while now. Some gamers say that modern videogames have become smaller in scope, but the advent of open world and sandbox games beg to differ. The truth is that if we take some exceptions out of the equation, games seem to be getting bigger, for example Metal Gear Solid V even in its incomplete state is still bigger than the previous installments. Now let's be clear about something. Modern games have become bigger and have more stuff to do, but bigger isn't always better, keep that in mind.

Once again glued to a game that has the same simplicity as some of the modern ones.

Misconception #2: Modern games are too simple.

In order to debunk this failed hypothesis, I had to look back at some of the games that are considered classics. Take Dark Cloud for example. The premise of that game is really really simple and although the game is really good, it is basically a dungeon crawler that tried to have a Legend of Zelda vibe (Sony even dared to call it "The Legend of Zelda Killer" at the time). It is quite safe to say that if it weren't for the re-building towns element and the interesting weapon system it had, the game would had passed under the radar at the time and to be frank, the first time I saw it I wasn't so moved by it, mostly because I was accustomed to other types of JRPG and was not into their simpler brethren called dungeon crawlers. What I mean by all this is that modern games are not necessarily simpler in nature when compared to old school classics, so that means that simplicity is not the problem, but the overdoing of simplistic ideas.

Sometimes it is just obvious, but oh well...Keep reading.

Misconception #3: Modern games always hold you by the hand.

This one is half true, but only on certain games and some limited aspects. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty much against games becoming casual oriented, but I have to admit that many technical fixes that have come to pass are really good. From been able to skip cutscenes, smarter save game schemes, been able to continue from more reasonable points when losing (avoiding having to repeat all the story cutscenes and build up) are nice fixes that eliminate some of the annoyances that we used to suffer in the past. The problem begins when developers try to fix what it's not broken.

Repetitive is one thing, but zombified in front of the screen is another.

Misconception #4: Modern games are mindless.

This one is one of those complaints that gets repeated over and over again over an old school vs new school argument, but if we take a look at the classic games we still enjoy and defend so much, we can see that this statement crumbles beneath its own weight. Many of the games we see as "heralds of a better era" can be pretty complex, but also many of them are quite mindless. In fact, some of them actually rely in the repetition of actions (like grinding) and design patterns that follow a loop, which are things that we mostly blame on the modern era, but were there from the very beginning. Now with that out of the way we can state that the level of "mindless gameplay" is not a defining factor and that the real issue is how they handle that mindlessness, because a game can be monotonous and fun, but only if doesn't make it a vain and pointless process.

What we old school gamers really think then?

That is a question that has a really simple answer and while it may look as if I am criticizing my own way of thinking as a gamer, believe me I am not, as this is perfectly o.k. and I even encourage it so bear with me. The real thing about us old schoolers vs modern gaming is just one thing...

We don't want to compromise our gaming experience

You may be asking yourself what I meant by "compromise" so I will explain. By "compromise our gaming experience" I meant having unwanted mandatory changes that feel like baggage in the mind of any old schooler who values a simple, but solid gaming session. For example:

• We sometimes resent and classify a certain game element as unnecessary because it becomes a hassle and it feels like it's been force fed to us. 

• On other occasions we see how the developers took a familiar sense of simplicity and exaggerated it exponentially to a point where we feel like we wasted money on the game. 

• At some points we may even feel that all of our efforts in a game have no real value because we are only catering to a network structure that aims to keep us playing for years (mmorpgs don't count for this statement) making it all feel like a chore or like a mobile game on steroids. 

• Last but not least, we sometimes feel like a game tried to be so big and open that each objective feels like a mile away with a path filled with pointless filler content. It's like having to go to the grocery store to get some supplies, but having to talk and do some favors to each of your neighbors before you finally get to the place you wanted to go on the first place. Some games do really good at this, but then companies start to imitate the trend and quality is lost. This serves to prove that not every game is meant to have an open world. 

For us, some modern elements that have become standards are just extra weight that we don't need. We feel that resources could be put to a better use and that we should go back to having games that are dualistic in nature (main game + extra stuff) rather than a merge of "one size fits all" features. Some modern games still do the right thing, but many don't, and we don't understand why they become hits in the gaming scene. It is quite complex to say this, but although we were raised with old school games, we feel like we are actually regressing to the days of Atari instead of the modern gaming perfection we expected. Maybe this is because most of us were raised in the 90's so we didn't lived those rudimentary gaming days in the 70's/early 80's so our school of thought is in the middle of gaming history (for the time being).

This is the gaming industry as it stands today (minus a few exceptions)

In summary, we just don't want to compromise our gaming experience for the sake of others (mostly the game publishers out there). We don't think that the gaming scene has changed so much from the days of old, but we feel like it is out of balance and 100% profit oriented instead of been something that really caters to everyone (they use that phrase a lot these days, but we all know that most of the time it is not true).

Now that all the explanation has ended, tell me what you think. Is this is the real reason why old schoolers are skeptic about the future? Is it selfishness or only a set of high quality standards? Is our gaming taste just too expensive to make? Reading about your thoughts on this subject would be awesome.

5 ways in which game exclusivity is still better than multiplatform

Game exclusivity is something that has really faded with time, as companies try to squeeze as much as they can from their franchises. Still, there are a couple reasons why game exclusivity is still more powerful than the all popular multiplatform even in this day and age. I know almost everybody want all the games to come to their favorite platform, but that isn't as helpful as you may believe. Now without further delay let's see the reasons why:

Real Sega fans remained loyal up until the end mostly because of their first party software, so that's exclusivity for you.

1) Fan loyalty and hype remains stronger.

This one has to do with how gamers picture a game in their minds and how that affects the loyalty and hype they feel for it. Let's see it this way, if a game has been on a platform for several years (sometimes even surpassing a decade) it is kind of a bucket of cold water on your head to see it drift to another audience that may or may not appreciate the game as the original fan base does. This is the same as seen your favorite baseball team suddenly change their name, uniform and state they represent. Even if the team is the same, it wont feel like it to people who had been following the team all of their lives. This emotional attachment/dis-attachment will affect how the game is perceived and how much hype it gets. For example, people have been waiting for Kingdom Hearts 3 for a long time, but one topic of discussion in various forums is that ever since they announced it as a multiplatform production it has lost a great deal of that previous hype.

Multitasking is hard, but not so difficult when you are focusing on a certain platform instead of  2 or more.

2) Quality has a better chance.

This one is very simple. If the development team is focusing on one specific platform, that means that all the resources, ideas and quality centered focus will be at 100% capacity since they don't have to divide themselves between different development kits, technical issues, etc. We saw how the multiplatform aspect severely affected the quality in games like Watchdogs and Assasins Creed Unity and that game has always been a multiplatform deal. Now imagine what happens when companies start spreading exclusive material over different plaforms and audiences...Something has to give, and that is quality.

Contrary to popular beliefs, this isn't always the case.

3) Multiplatform doesn't necessarily mean more profit.

This one goes a little far from conventional thinking if you take into account that publishing a game for multiple platforms can become more expensive than having it as an exclusive. This is because even if the game is identical on all the platforms involved, the audiences are not and this means that the company will have to approach each type of audience in a different way or risk the game flopping on one of them because it wasn't properly advertised. This could had pretty much been the main reason why some companies decided not to release their games on platforms like the Wii U and PS VITA. This is a matter of risk and reward and in some cases expanding the audience of a game doesn't mean that it will sell more, it just means that it will have a bit more availability and that not always traduces itself to sales.

More flexibility means better games, unless they want to scam us on purpose.

4) Exclusive game production is more flexible.

This one is a given. When a game is been developed for a specific platform it doesn't carry the same type of pressure as if the game were a multiplatform production. Game delays are easier to have (and sometimes needed), access to funding is more centralized and demands come from only one group instead of 2 or more (imagine each of the big guys from different platforms asking to have their own little advantages). Game exclusivity does have its own kind of pressure as gamers expect a lot more from the final product, but at least developers have the chance to focus and work in a tighter and friendlier environment.

I mean the real hardcore gamer and not the "apparently" hardcore one.

5) Game exclusivity is still pure and gamer centered.

Purism in gaming means a game that is not contaminated by any marketing or business related material. This includes games having specific "advantages" if you pre-order the game on a certain store, getting game material earlier or later based on what company made the best deals with the game's publisher/developer and last but not least, it saves the game from been divided in too many different "appeal factors" in an attempt to cater to different audiences at the same time. This "pureness" serves in our favor, because the game is custom tailored for us gamers and not as a generic business-based effort.

There you have it folks. 5 reasons why game exclusivity is still powerful and necessary. Of course this doesn't mean that it is perfect, but at least it still carries those characteristics that work for us and not against us.