Although I played a good amount of Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic 2, and Sonic 3 with a friend on their Mega Drive back in the 1990s, the only Sega console I ever owned was a Dreamcast. And I’m pretty sure the only Sonic game I owned at that time was Sonic Adventure. But I think it’s fair to say that Sega’s mascot – while not as ubiquitous as his one-time rival Super Mario – is a pop culture icon! With movies, new games, collaborations, and spin-offs under his belt, the speedy blue hedgehog is still keeping the flag flying for Sega almost a quarter of a century after the company got out of the video game hardware business.
In recent years, I’ve enjoyed Sonic’s trip to the cinema, as well as the delightfully old-school Sonic Mania – a 2D platformer which feels like it came right out of the Mega Drive era. But I haven’t really kept up with Sega’s racing game series. Though I do occasionally dabble in other kart-racing games – like Meow Motors, for example – the simple fact is that there’s really only one name in town for this sub-genre: Mario Kart. I’m a huge Mario Kart fan, having played every title except for Mario Kart World, and even the best kart racers feel like they’re overshadowed by Nintendo’s juggernaut.
Let’s dive into CrossWorlds!
Releasing Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds just a few months after the first Mario Kart game in over a decade wasn’t just a risk… it was a risk that took balls made of pure titanium. Comparisons would’ve been inevitable, I suspect, no matter when CrossWorlds launched, but releasing the game so close to Mario Kart World shows, in my view, just how much confidence Sega must’ve had in the game. And you know what? They were absolutely right to feel that way, because Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds is an absolute joy to play.
This is the “Mario Kart 9” I’ve wanted for years… and I didn’t even need to buy a Switch 2! That’s the headline, and it seems as if CrossWorlds is actually out-performing Mario Kart World, at least in terms of reviews. On Metacritic, at time of writing in December 2025, Mario Kart World is sitting at a 6.9/10 in terms of user reviews, whereas Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds is utterly dominating it with the “universal acclaim” of a 9.0. With Mario Kart World doing its own thing, focusing more on building up a large open world to drive around, Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds keeps its focus tighter, with well-designed racetracks. But each race brings with it a twist – the titular CrossWorlds mechanic – to keep things interesting and engaging.
CrossWorld’s Metacritic score (top) compared to Mario Kart World’s (bottom).
How many games, these days, still offer free demo versions? Demos used to be everywhere in the late ’90s and into the new millennium, but despite the ease of digital distribution, they aren’t something you see a lot of any more. I think free demos are coming back, at least on PC, but it was great to be able to try Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds before buying. And if there’s *one* thing to take away from this review, it’s that you can try CrossWorlds completely for free on Steam thanks to the demo! I really think it’s worth testing out, at least, to see whether you might have half as much fun with the game as I have.
And the demo is pretty beefy. You get to choose from several of the main Sonic characters, choose and customise your vehicle (more on that in a moment), and even choose which racetracks and CrossWorlds to race through. There’s a lot of locked content, of course, but there’s also a surprising amount to experiment with for free. This isn’t just one of those “one racetrack and one racer for two minutes” type of things!
A demo version is available for free.
Some racing games – especially arcade racers – have vehicles that can feel weightless or “floaty,” but Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds has karts that feel substantial and weighty. I love how they transform from karts to boats or planes depending on the track and the terrain; I think I’m right in saying that’s something the Sonic Racing series has done before, but don’t quote me on that! Regardless, it’s a fun mechanic, and it’s implemented well in the game. Each of the three racing/vehicle types feel different, too; planes can move vertically as well as horizontally, and boats glide on the track in a way karts don’t.
Each kart is customisable, and there are stats to consider. Some vehicles are slower to accelerate but have a higher top speed, some handle better, and so on. None of that’s earth-shattering stuff for a kart racer; Mario Kart has been doing it for decades at this point. But for people who like to tinker, and players who like to work out “the meta” for each track and character, those things are present in CrossWorlds – but they aren’t so overwhelming that you’re going to feel compelled to *only* ever choose the same combination. The stats matter, but they don’t ruin the game or make most combinations non-viable, which I think is important in a title like this. Fun, not detailed stats, should be the name of the game!
Customising a kart.
I’m not wild about the whole “season pass” thing in a full-priced title, so I think it’s worth being aware of the DLC situation if you’re interested in Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds. There are two DLC packs, which can be purchased separately – each of which adds a few racers, karts, and racetracks – and a season pass. The price for the game’s “digital deluxe edition,” when not on sale, is £80/$80, which puts it alongside Mario Kart World in terms of how much you’re gonna pay. Given how Mario Kart World was roundly criticised earlier in the year for its price point, that’s something to keep in mind.
And I don’t think it’s unfair to say that fully-priced games shouldn’t be selling DLC, extra characters, skins, and so on *from day one*. When Mario Kart 8 Deluxe added its Booster Course Pass, not only did that double the amount of content in the game, it also came along years after the title’s original release. Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds starts out as an incomplete experience, but Sega is happy to sell you the rest of the game piece by piece. Even when a game is good, as Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds undeniably is for me, I still think this kind of over-monetisation should be called out, or at least flagged up in a review like this one.
Some of the characters from the season pass content.
And look, I’m not pretending that some of the additional content isn’t a ton of fun. You’ve got characters, vehicles, and tracks based on four massively popular entertainment properties: Mega-Man, Minecraft, Pac-Man, and SpongeBob SquarePants. Tearing up a Bikini Bottom-themed track in the Patty Wagon with SpongeBob is… well, it’s just good old-fashioned kart-racing *fun*. But… did it need to be a paid extra? Couldn’t this content have been included in this game – this *fully-priced game* – for no extra charge?
So your mileage may vary on the price front. What I will say, not exactly in defence of CrossWorlds, but rather as a potential mitigating factor, is that the game is – at time of writing – on sale on PC, and the digital deluxe version is 30% off. For a game that’s only been out for less than three months, that’s a pretty generous discount, in my opinion. Similar sales are also taking place on Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 5, and Xbox, so if you act fast, you might be able to pick it up at a discount. If not, stick it on your wishlist and wait for the next sale, as I’m sure this won’t be the last time CrossWorlds gets a discount like this.
SpongeBob is a playable character… if you pay extra.
CrossWorlds has everything I’d expect from a kart-racing game. Racetracks are fun, well-designed, and full of bright, vibrant colours, karts and characters are cute, with enough differences between them to keep things interesting, and there are items galore which can give you a boost, knock back an opponent, or lay a trap in wait for anyone who’s fallen behind. But, thanks to the titular CrossWorlds idea, there’s a bit more replayability to the game than you might’ve thought.
The CrossWorlds mechanic works like this: the second lap of each racetrack sees everyone drive through a portal, and that middle lap then takes place on a totally different track. The player in first place gets to choose from either a set CrossWorld or a random one – and there must be dozens, if not hundreds, of possible variations as a result. This addition is way more transformative than I think I’m making it sound, because it means that every single race is different, and you can’t rely on pure muscle memory, even if you’ve memorised all of the track layouts. There’s also an additional incentive to push through the pack and nab that first-place spot by the end of lap one, because then you’re in control of the second lap.
Approaching a portal.
Comparisons with Mario Kart are inescapable, and for me, I think CrossWorlds does something that Nintendo have tried to do with Mario Kart World’s intermission tracks and open world: adding variety and replayability to the game. I haven’t played World yet, so I can’t comment on how well those intermissions and the open world feel to play. But in Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds? This variety is an additional factor in keeping races fun, interesting, and engaging. That’s not to say the game would be bad without it – most of the racetracks are great, and I’d be happy to play through all of them over and over again! But adding this additional element works so well.
I also think the CrossWorlds mechanic is a technical marvel. What Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds does, if you think about it, is seamlessly transition from one racetrack to another, then back again – and which racetrack it has to transition to can’t be known until, at most, a few seconds before the first player enters the portal. That’s quite impressive – there are no loading screens, and no disruption at all to what can be a very fast-paced and hectic race.
A seamless transition between racetracks on the fly is creative and well-implemented.
Price issues aside, I’ve been having a whale of a time with Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds, as you can probably tell. I was in the mood for a fun, old-school kart racer, and with no Switch 2 or Mario Kart World to dive into… this has been a surprisingly fun purchase for me. CrossWorlds wasn’t on my list of games for 2025, and it was almost an impulse purchase when I saw it on sale around Black Friday, but I ended up having a great time. I mostly play in single-player mode, because that’s where I have the most fun, but there seems to be a thriving online scene if that kinda thing is more your speed. Who knows… maybe we’ll see each other out on the racetrack! I promise to wave as I overtake you.
Stay tuned, because I have at least one other game from 2025 in my review pile that I’d love to get through before the end of the year. And on or before New Year’s Eve, be sure to tune in for my annual End-of-Year Awards! Who knows, CrossWorlds might just make an appearance.
Until then… see you on the racetrack!
Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds is out now for Nintendo Switch 1 & 2, PC, PlayStation 4 & 5, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X. Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds is the copyright of Sonic Team and Sega. Some screenshots and promo art courtesy of Sega and/or IGDB. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I was surprised to see Valve – the owners and operators of Steam and makers of the popular Steam Deck handheld PC – recently announcing new hardware. I’ve actually put the new Steam controller on my wishlist; I’m in the market for a new controller, and Valve’s might be the way to go. As you may know if you’re a regular reader, I’m also a *big* supporter of innovation and change in the games industry, so a company of Valve’s standing launching a console-esque device, like the new Steam Machine purports to be, could be a big deal.
The games industry can feel pretty stagnant, sometimes. Since Sega’s unceremonious exit from the hardware market almost a quarter of a century ago, there have basically been three names in the console space if you’re looking for something to plug into your TV: Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. But it’s even narrower than that, because Nintendo, for the better part of two decades, has been off to one side, doing its own thing, prioritising different ways to play over graphical fidelity and performance. If you want a home console capable of playing the newest games with the best graphics, your choice has been an Xbox or a PlayStation.
The new Steam Machine (with a goldfish bowl for scale).
When Google announced Stadia a few years ago, I was supportive of the idea. Not only was Stadia a new entrant into a stagnant marketplace, backed up by a massive corporation, but its game streaming idea left it well-positioned to be a cheap and potentially easier route into gaming for new players, younger players, and folks on a budget. Stadia didn’t stick the landing for all manner of reasons, so Google did what Google often does – and killed it. But the idea that someone – *anyone* – could step into this marketplace and shake things up was tantalising!
It’s through that lens that I view Valve’s new Steam Machine. The device is not a PC, but it’s fair to say that it isn’t *entirely* a console, either, existing in a kind of nebulous in-between space. That could mean it’s the best of both worlds… or that it’ll struggle to attract an audience. I know that I don’t personally have a place in my life for a Steam Machine (I play on PC these days, and I’m not in the market for a console or console-like device). But given the issues in the games industry, and the home console market in particular… I wish the Steam Machine well and will be following its progress when it launches next year.
The Valve logo on a Steam Machine.
But something is giving me pause.
Valve spent a lot of money on a flashy announcement, talking about the Steam Machine and its capabilities. But something pretty big was missing: the price. If the price was good and low… surely Valve would’ve announced it at the same time, no? The way this particular teaser was structured, drumming up hype and excitement for the device *without* revealing its price, leads me to believe that it’s not going to be anywhere near as inexpensive as people are hoping. It could even feel overpriced, coming in at a higher price point than even the PlayStation 5 Pro and Xbox Series X.
And if that happens… I think it’s going to go the way of the first Steam Machine from a few years ago.
This was the original Steam Machine, back in 2015.
Among the biggest stories in gaming in 2025 have been the price of the Nintendo Switch 2, the $10 hike in the “basic” price of some video games from $70 to $80, the price hikes of both the Xbox Series and PlayStation 5 consoles, and the significant rise in the cost of Xbox Game Pass. There is clearly a limit to how far companies can push their prices, even for hyped and highly-anticipated hardware, and I’m just concerned that Valve might not have read the room on this one.
The Steam Machine isn’t an exceptionally powerful device, based on the specs Valve have released. It’s more powerful than an Xbox Series S, but it’s basically on a par with the PS5 and Series X – consoles which are almost five years old already. The PC I built three years ago will easily outperform the Steam Machine. So… it’s gotta be priced fairly.
A cartoon of the Steam Machine and Steam Controller. Cute.
Here in the UK, Nintendo’s Switch 2 retails for £400 – though you can pick it up for a slight discount at time of writing. Xbox Series X consoles, after Microsoft’s recent price hikes, retail for £500, which is within £20 of the PlayStation 5, which retails for £480. In the United States, the Switch 2 retails for $450, the Xbox Series X retails for $600, and the PS5 goes for $550. Those are the Steam Machine’s main competitors.
In my view, as someone who used to work in the games industry, if Valve tries to sell the Steam Machine for more than about $500 in the USA or £425 in the UK, it’ll turn people away. The not-quite-a-console already exists in a bit of a weird space, trying to appeal to existing Steam users who want to play some games on their TVs. A good price – even if that means selling the device at a small loss – could bring in huge sales numbers, because if it undercuts the competition *and* can play more games than any of them… well, that’s a pretty good deal no matter who you are! But if it’s priced too high, not only does it lose any potential new players, but it also becomes a tough sell for existing Steam players who use either a PC or a Steam Deck. If it’s going to retail for more than an Xbox Series X, PS5, or Switch 2… who’s it really for?
Valve’s Steam Deck is competitively-priced.
Valve has been here before. The original Steam Machines, a decade ago, didn’t make much of an impact in the gaming world, nor did the Steam Controller. Again, price was *part* of that. And that’s another concern I’d have if I were considering picking up a Steam Machine: how long can I expect this device to be supported and updated? Valve bailed on the original Steam Machines pretty quickly, so if these new ones are expensive, and therefore less likely to sell a lot of units in their first year or two… how long is Valve gonna stick with them?
I could be completely wrong, and Valve could have an ace in the hole, ready to announce a low price of $350 in the United States and £300 in the UK! But I suspect that, if they had anything even *close* to that, they’d have put it front-and-centre in their big announcement. Why wouldn’t they, if the price is going to be part of the selling-point? This, to me, feels like a company trying to drum up hype and excitement while keeping the price hidden, so that by the time they reveal it… players have already committed. They’re already going to *want* a Steam Machine, so they’ll be willing to pay.
How much will the Steam Machine retail for?
I hope I’m wrong, because the games industry *needs* a shake-up on the hardware side, and a company like Valve is basically one of the only players who could even conceivably achieve something like that. A decent, fair price could see the Steam Machine outpace the beleaguered Xbox Series X, for example, positioning Valve as a real player in the home console market. But a high price, making it an enthusiast-only device, appealing only to players who already have gaming PCs and extensive Steam libraries? How many people like that, realistically, would even want a console-like device?
Between HDMI cables, casting, and streaming, it isn’t exactly rocket surgery to play your PC games on a television screen. I used to do it all the time simply by running a long HDMI cable from my PC to the TV in my living room. If the choice is a $800 “GabeCube” or a $15 HDMI cable… how can you compete with that? Valve long ago realised that the way to beat piracy is to offer players a better service at a reasonable price. That philosophy would serve the company well on this new endeavour, too.
So… watch this space, I guess. Valve will have to announce the price sooner or later. I’m crossing my fingers, but the announcement definitely left me more concerned than excited.
The Steam Machine, Steam Controller, and Steam Frame will be released in 2026. Prices TBC. Steam, the Steam Machine, and other properties discussed above are the trademarks/copyright of Valve. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Beware of minor spoilers for Morrowind, Skyrim, Fallout 4, and Starfield.
There seem to have been some pretty explosive outbursts from Bethesda fans online following a recent interview with studio head Todd Howard. Howard, who is also the director of the upcoming sequel to Skyrim, was quoted as saying that The Elder Scrolls VI is “still a long way off.” But we knew that already. Didn’t we?
I’m sorry, but if *anyone* genuinely believed that the next Elder Scrolls game was going to be launched next year… that’s on them. They set themselves up for disappointment by buying into a clearly and demonstrably false narrative about the game. This quote from Todd Howard shouldn’t come as a surprise, and to be honest, the only surprising thing about it for me is how genuinely hurt and upset some folks seem to be as a result. I guess that just proves that Todd Howard was right, for once, to try to tamp down some of the rumours and “cope” from die-hard fans about a release being imminent.
Todd Howard, director of The Elder Scrolls VI.
Starfield, Bethesda’s most recent game, took five years to make, with development lasting from 2018 to 2023. It launched in September 2023, and, to be realistic, much of Bethesda’s team was still dedicated to patching, updating, and preparing DLC for Starfield for at least a few months afterwards. We also know that Bethesda only works on one game at a time. We’ll get into that in a moment (because it’s an idiotic mistake for a studio this size at this point in time), but it’s also a known fact that fans should have accounted for. Knowing those two things – Starfield’s long development and Bethesda’s commitment to only working on one game at a time – how could *anyone* believe that The Elder Scrolls VI would be ready in just a couple of years? It’s going to take at least as long as Starfield; there’s no chance it’ll be ready in half the time. And if someone convinced themselves it would be… this is a rare case where I’ll defend Bethesda, to an extent, and say that that disappointment is on them.
There are plenty of things to criticise Bethesda and Todd Howard for. Fallout 4 is broken, and its “Anniversary Edition” is really just an excuse to shove paid mods and microtransactions into a decade-old game. Starfield and Shattered Space just… weren’t very good, and are also riddled with microtransactions that Bethesda deliberately hid during the game’s first few weeks on sale. The studio has failed to modernise or keep up with the competition, relying on the creaking, zombified remains of a three-decade-old game engine that is no longer fit for purpose. And, of course, The Elder Scrolls VI was announced years too early, contributing to the disappointment fans feel today.
Fallout 4′s “Anniversary Edition” has not been well-received.
I look at studios like Obsidian – once a Bethesda collaborator – as an example of how Bethesda could do so much better. Obsidian released not one but *two* massive role-playing games this year: Avowed and The Outer Worlds 2. How did they manage such a task? Well, isn’t it obvious? As they’ve gotten bigger and become more successful, they’ve been able to build up their studio a lot more, allowing them to have separate teams of developers for different projects. Bethesda could – and I would argue *should* – be looking to do the same thing.
Because it isn’t only Elder Scrolls fans who are upset. It’s now been a decade since the last single-player Fallout title, and at the current rate Bethesda is going, it’s gonna be close to *another* decade before we’ll see their version of Fallout 5. Fallout fans, already burned by the disappointments of 76 and now the “Anniversary Edition,” have every right to be upset about that – just as Elder Scrolls fans do about the long wait for their next game.
It’s been almost fifteen years since Skyrim…
So while I stand by what I said a moment ago, that any disappointment Elder Scrolls fans may feel about learning the game won’t be coming out any time soon is on them… that’s not the whole story. Bethesda has spent close to fifteen years repeatedly porting, remastering, re-releasing, and adding microtransactions to Skyrim, and the games they’ve released since then, beginning really with Fallout 4, haven’t been as well-received as they were in the 2000s. Bethesda should, after the Microsoft acquisition, have created a second development wing, and given either Starfield or The Elder Scrolls VI to them, allowing them to have both games ready in a more reasonable time frame.
Skyrim launched in November 2011. And by the time The Elder Scrolls VI launches in 2028 or 2029 (or beyond, perhaps), it’ll be closer to Skyrim’s twentieth anniversary than its fifteenth. In the intervening years, fans of role-playing games have been treated to the likes of The Witcher 3, Baldur’s Gate 3, and Elden Ring, and open-world adventures like Grand Theft Auto V (and VI), Red Dead Redemption II, and Cyberpunk 2077. And yeah, you read that right – in spite of all the memes and jokes, there’ll have been *two* Grand Theft Auto games released in between Skyrim’s 2011 launch and the eventual release of The Elder Scrolls VI.
There’ll have been two GTA games – V and VI – since Skyrim launched…
Given what happened with Starfield, with its lacklustre world-building, characters, and stories, I can’t be the only one thinking that The Elder Scrolls VI is going to struggle… can I? Bethesda seems content to double-down on the same basic approach, employing the same writing team, and using the same game engine. But isn’t that going to lead to the same kind of outcome? After all this time, is The Elder Scrolls VI going to end up as little more than a microtransaction-riddled disappointment? I hope not, but I confess that I’m sceptical. As I wrote last year, The Elder Scrolls VI is no longer a “must-buy on day one” title for me, but rather a “wait six months and see” kinda game.
There is clearly still a Bethesda fanbase, and at least some of those folks won’t care if the game feels a generation or two out-of-date, or the writing and voice acting aren’t up to par, because that “jankiness” is just part of what makes the Bethesda experience. So I’m not arguing that there’ll be no audience for The Elder Scrolls VI, but I think it’s interesting to note that, even among hard-core Bethesda fans, there’s discontent and disappointment – albeit that some of that disappointment, when it comes to the game’s release window, is rather self-inflicted!
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.
In 2002, I absolutely adored Morrowind, and it remains one of my favourite games to this day. But I’m struggling to get excited for another Bethesda game right now, even in a series I have a genuine fondness for, after a decade-plus of the studio focusing more on wringing money out of players than keeping up with the competition. Now that I no longer use PC Game Pass, I really don’t expect to pick up The Elder Scrolls VI until it’s been out for a while and I can assess to what extent it’s being monetised. If it looks anything like Starfield, which has a microtransaction marketplace that resembles something out of a free-to-play mobile game… I might not even pick it up at all.
So this has been an odd one. I will reluctantly defend Bethesda and Todd Howard on the timing of The Elder Scrolls VI, simply because anyone with a brain cell should have been able to understand that the game wasn’t going to be released in just a few months’ time. But at the same time, it’s still a problem of Bethesda’s own making: a massively premature announcement in 2018 led fans to believe that the game was being actively worked on, and the studio’s unwillingness to change and adapt the way it creates games means they’re *still* only working on one game at a time, despite having the resources to do more. After all, what else are they gonna spend all the money from Microsoft and those paid mods on?
All titles discussed above are the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some screenshots and promo art courtesy of Steam and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Despite trying hard to project a “family-friendly” image, Nintendo is no less of a greedy, aggressive, predatory, and money-grubbing corporation than the worst of the worst in the games industry. The company would, were it not for a legion of well-trained apologists, rightly be held up along with the likes of Electronic Arts, Tencent, Blizzard, and Ubisoft as a shining example of a gaming mega-corporation that is, for want of a better word… evil.
Nintendo, if you weren’t aware, has recently tried to patent in-game systems, which would prevent anyone else from using those mechanics in their games – or would mean those companies would have to pay a license or fee to Nintendo. This is tied to the Palworld situation that I talked about last year, as Nintendo is embroiled in a frivolous lawsuit against Palworld’s creators, Pocketpair. But I think it says a lot about how Nintendo behaves, how far the company has fallen, and why it’s past time for the current crop of increasingly elderly executives and game directors to be retired.
Palworld is causing a lot of bed-wetting among Nintendo executives…
Here’s the bottom line when it comes to patents: if other companies had treated Nintendo the way that Nintendo treats other companies, Nintendo would’ve gone bankrupt making playing cards in 1980. That’s not an exaggeration: literally none of the games Nintendo became known for would’ve been possible if other companies had taken out patents like the ones Nintendo is trying to use in the Palworld lawsuit. And where would Nintendo be today without video games? Just another failed Japanese toy company that didn’t make the cut.
If Universal and CBS, developers of the 1980 arcade game Space Panic, had patented the idea of the 2D platformer, Nintendo’s Donkey Kong wouldn’t have been able to exist. Nintendo would never have been able to develop Super Mario Kart – or any of its other racing games – if someone like Sega had gotten a patent for the concept of a racing video game after their successful Road Race arcade game in 1976. If Sony had patented the 3D platformer after 1995’s Jumping Flash, then Nintendo couldn’t have made Super Mario 64. Should I continue, or have I made my point?
Doesn’t this look familiar…
The entire history of video games is one of piecemeal innovation. A new creation comes along, gains traction – or doesn’t in some cases, but the concept still seems appealing – and then other companies take the idea in new directions. Nintendo has never actually made anything original. What they’ve done for decades – very successfully, to their credit – is build on other people’s creativity and other people’s ideas, taking concepts that other games have tried and honing them, often to near-perfection. If other companies had locked their efforts away, as Nintendo is attempting to do to Palworld and others, not only would the entire games industry be smaller, less creative, and just worse overall, but Nintendo itself as we know it today could never have come to exist.
There are some massively-popular games which went on to quickly spawn entire genres. I’m old enough to remember when first-person shooters were literally called “Doom clones,” but id Software, in 1993, didn’t try to patent the concept. If they had, there’d never have been GoldenEye, Metroid Prime, or literally any other FPS title. Games companies don’t exactly like sharing their ideas, but it’s been accepted as part of the games industry for decades. You can’t claim ownership of a broad concept, idea, or genre.
GoldenEye wouldn’t have been made if id Software had gotten a patent for first-person shooter mechanics.
There are some things that can and should be trademarked, copyrighted, or patented. I’d never try to argue, for instance, that anyone other than Nintendo should be allowed to create a 2D platformer featuring a red-hatted, overall-wearing, turtle-stomping plumber named Mario. That concept is a specific one, and it uses original characters, designs, creations, and storylines. But the basic mechanics of how video games work should be – and historically, have always been – open to everyone. Trying to claim ownership over a sub-genre or in-game mechanic simply should not be allowed – and we need to clamp down on this kind of misbehaviour now, lest it get out of hand.
There are many other games companies who’d surely love nothing more than to get a patent for something broad and vague, stifling competition or forcing their competitors to pay them. Imagine if Bethesda managed to get a patent for something like mana points in a video game. Or if Ubisoft got a patent for concealing the player character in tall grass. What about if Atari patented flying in a spaceship? After all, they pioneered that idea in video game form with 1979’s Asteroids. Would the video games industry be better off if every company could patent everything it could claim to have invented? Or would video games as a whole be smaller, less interesting and less innovative? I think we all know the answer.
Nintendo is using the legal system to try to shut down competition.
Pokémon is, itself, a great example of the evolution of video games. It didn’t spring into existence overnight, fully-formed and utterly unique. It built on existing battle games, turn-based games, card games, and role-playing games, which had been developed through the 1980s and early 1990s, and also drew inspiration from films, manga, and even collectables like baseball cards and capsule toys. Many role-playing games – especially JRPGs – use very similar in-game mechanics for things like combat and overworld exploration, and plenty of titles outside of the monster-battling sub-genre also use things like summonable allies, temporary companions, and friendly monsters. Why should any of that be patentable? How does Nintendo have the sheer nerve to say they invented any of it?
Because that’s what Nintendo’s patent claims: that they own, invented, and have the exclusive rights to the in-game mechanic of summoning an object or ally to engage in battle.
To be clear: this patent should never have been granted in the first place. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of video games could have easily found the flaws in this patent and thrown it out. But Nintendo having the cheek, the sheer brass neck, to ask for this patent… it’s absolutely disgusting.
Three senior Nintendo executives/producers during a recent Nintendo Direct broadcast.
Nintendo’s leadership needs a good clear-out. The people who’ve been there since the ’80s and ’90s are growing old, and in lieu of actually innovating and inventing, they’re desperately trying to use lawfare to drive away the competition. Terrified of losing their position – and perhaps recognising that the overpriced Switch 2 isn’t going to sell as well as its predecessor – they’re trying to use illegitimate and, frankly, dishonourable means of shutting down competition. When you can no longer compete on merit… trying to use legal loopholes and dodgy rulings to shut out the competition must seem tempting.
That’s what Nintendo is doing, at the end of the day. They’ve realised that Palworld is the canary in the coal mine: a shining example of a new company coming in, creating something better and more appealing, and hoovering up eager customers who’ve burned out on the stale, repetitive, and boring Pokémon series. And because the elderly senior developers and executives don’t know how to make a game like Palworld, the only thing they can think to do is try to get it shut down.
And that’s pretty fucking shameful.
Mario Kart World.
Nintendo’s recent output, in my opinion, hammers home why the senior people at the corporation feel a need to do this. Even the top-selling Nintendo games of the last generation – Super Mario Odyssey, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Tears of the Kingdom, Smash Bros. Ultimate, and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – were sequels at best, derivative and repetitive at worst. The Switch 2, with its samey design, is the first Nintendo console in decades not to offer something new or innovative. And the company seems to be doubling-down on wringing as much money as possible out of its fans and players with increasingly unfriendly decisions around pricing. With limited room for growth, a lack of new ideas, and an elderly and outdated crop of senior developers and leaders, Nintendo is trying to shut down genuine competitors instead of learning, growing, and improving – the way video games companies have done for decades.
It’s embarrassing, quite frankly, that Nintendo felt the need to stoop so low, and that they have such a lack of confidence in their ability to compete fairly if the playing field were level.
But that’s Nintendo for you… and Nintendo is just awful.
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. Some screenshots and promo art courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I’ve been a pretty big supporter of Xbox Game Pass (and PC Game Pass) since the service launched a few years ago, and I’ve been a subscriber to the PC version from almost the first moment it became available. I love the idea: a huge library of games, all available for one monthly price. As someone on a low income (and as someone who remembers what it was like to be a kid with only a few pennies to spend on gaming), Game Pass has been genuinely great value; an easy route into current-gen gaming for players on a budget.
What’s more, I’ve discovered games that I’d never have thought to buy or try for myself, thanks entirely to Game Pass. Some of those games – like Little Kitty, Big City last year and South of Midnight just a couple of months ago – are genuinely among the best titles I’ve played in the 2020s, and it’s only because of Game Pass that I was able to try them and enjoy them.
But unless Microsoft changes course, it’s time to cancel Game Pass.
It’s time to cancel Game Pass, unfortunately.
I play on PC, not console. The PC version of Game Pass, just over a year ago, went up in price from £7.99 here in the UK to £9.99 – a hike of 25%. That already felt a bit steep, but since I don’t have many other subscriptions, I begrudgingly accepted it. £10 a month still felt like reasonably good value for what I was getting from Game Pass; play two full-priced games a year, or four £30, double-A games, and it’s paid for itself. Right?
If you weren’t already aware, Microsoft has come back, not twelve months after the last price hike, and they’re doing it again. The PC version of Game Pass is rising from £9.99 to £13.49: a 35% increase on top of last year’s 25% increase. And that isn’t even the worst or most egregious price rise: the “Ultimate” Game Pass plan is rising by more than 50%, from £14.99 to a whopping £22.99 a month. At these prices… Game Pass no longer feels like a good value offer, unfortunately.
Game Pass prices are rising… by a lot.
And I really do say this with regret. Not only has Game Pass felt like a good value prospect until now, but it’s introduced me to some genuinely wonderful gaming experiences that I wouldn’t have had otherwise. Being able to log into the app, scroll through a huge list of titles, and see what leaps out at me has felt fantastic, and as I’ve said more than once: Game Pass has opened up a huge library of titles; more games than I’d ever be able to afford. When it was £7.99 – and even after last year’s significant rise to £9.99 – it felt like a good deal.
But I can’t accept the price of a single subscription rising by almost 70% in just thirteen months. And at £13.49 a month – or £162 a year – it’s become impossible to justify. There just aren’t that many games on the service that I’d want to play – and some, like RoadCraft, aren’t available on the PC version of Game Pass, for some reason. So… I think I’m done with Game Pass for now, unless Microsoft apologises and reverses this price hike.
How Microsoft imagines its customers…
I’ve believed for a long time that the subscription model would be the future of gaming. Just like Netflix did for films and TV programmes, and Spotify and others have done for music, something like Game Pass should be able to do for video games. Gaming is basically all-digital these days anyway, and the audience skews younger and more tech-savvy. A reasonably-priced subscription service – like Game Pass used to be – represents a genuinely good value proposition, an easy route into gaming, and should be the wave of the future. Compared to buying individual titles outright, either physically or digitally, a subscription which opens up a library of hundreds of titles should seem like good value.
But Microsoft is fucking it up.
Not only are the prices going up, but on the lower “tiers,” Microsoft is making Game Pass worse. No longer will all Xbox-published games join the service on day one. If you’re on an Xbox console, the only way you’ll get that particular perk is if you pay for Game Pass Ultimate, and if you’re on PC, the only way to get it is through the PC-only tier, for £13.49 a month. If you pay less, you don’t get those brand-new titles on day one, but “within a year.” That’s already a massive downgrade. Oh, and the venerable Call of Duty series? Those games aren’t included on day one any more.
That little asterisk could be important if you’re a lover of first-person shooters…
So… the price is going up. Unless you pay for the top-tier plan, you won’t get new games on day one. And the most popular series that Microsoft currently owns may not be part of Game Pass on day one even if you do pay the premium price. So… what’s the point of Game Pass, then?
Microsoft, like all big corporations, has to disclose its financial records. And in the twelve months leading up to June 2025 (the most recent data at time of writing), Microsoft made US$193 billion in profit. That represented a 14% increase over the previous twelve months. Compared with quite a few other big companies in the gaming space, whose profits have been relatively static since the end of lockdown, Microsoft has been doing phenomenally well. And the Xbox brand is a big part of that.
Microsoft has literally never been more profitable. Slides: Microsoft’s July 2025 Earnings Call.
Microsoft made more money last year than it has ever made before in its entire corporate existence. For the corporation to then turn around and announce price hikes of 50% – or, really, what is effectively 70% on PC – is just sickening. It’s beyond greedy, and even if a thousand new games were being added to the Game Pass library… it still wouldn’t be right. But Game Pass, as far as I can tell, is not actually getting a major expansion or much additional content that could even come close to justifying a price hike of this nature.
So… I’m gonna cancel. And I would encourage other folks in the same boat as me to do the same.
If Microsoft is willing to walk this back – and apologise – then maybe I’ll reconsider, because I have genuinely enjoyed having Game Pass over the last few years. But at this new price, it’s not worth it for me, and I could use my £162 a year in other ways – like buying games when they go on sale on Steam or Epic Games, for instance. I really did think that subscriptions are the direction of travel for gaming… but not like this.
A selection of Game Pass titles.
This is a catastrophic own goal from Microsoft that the corporation simply did not need to make. Game Pass has been profitable for a while, and even as the Xbox brand has struggled over the last couple of console generations, the growth in PC gaming, coupled with Game Pass, has seen Microsoft’s gaming division land on its feet. But increasing the price of a subscription by 70% in thirteen months is not something any consumer can or should accept – not when the corporation behind the price hike is making hundreds of billions of dollars a year – and still laying off boatloads of workers and closing game studios.
Maybe Microsoft wants to get out of the gaming market, and these moves are designed to push people away. Or maybe they really think they can just get away with it and that folks will brush off these inexplicably large price hikes. Maybe some people will – but if it’s true, as has been reported, that so many people are rushing to cancel their subscriptions that the Game Pass website crashed… I suspect a re-think of this price structure may be in order.
In any case, I’m cancelling this month, and unless Microsoft apologises and changes course, I won’t be rejoining Game Pass any time soon. I’m genuinely disappointed about that, because the subscription has been great until now (even though the Xbox app on PC isn’t spectacular). But this price hike is too much, so I’m going to do the only thing I can do as a consumer in this marketplace: vote with my wallet.
The Game Pass subscription service is available now for players on PC and Xbox game consoles. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Beware of minor narrative spoilers for some of the entries on this list.
Are you familiar with Desert Island Discs, the long-running radio programme here in the UK? Desert Island Discs brings famous people on as guests, and asks them to choose eight records (as well as one book and one “luxury” item) to take with them if they were a castaway on a desert island. It makes for a fun little thought experiment, so I thought I’d co-opt the idea and talk about some of the video games I might want to play if I were similarly shipwrecked!
Obviously this isn’t a unique idea; other people have made similar lists of “desert island games,” so please don’t think I’m stealing your idea if you got to it first! And since there are plenty of other people sharing their own lists, it could be a lot of fun to see what games other folks might’ve chosen, so be sure to take a look.
Ready for some desert island gaming?
Before we get into it, let’s explain the format and lay down some rules.
I’m going to use the Desert Island Discs format – but I’ll be replacing music records with video games. For the purposes of the hypothetical scenario, we’re going to assume that the desert island comes equipped with electricity, a screen, and the necessary hardware to play all of the games. I’m also going to keep the book and luxury item, because they could be fun to talk about, too!
The games can be from any console, any year, and will be listed in no particular order. Combo packs (where two or more games are sold in one box) can count as one entry, but multiple titles in the same series would have to be included separately if they were never sold together. As an example: Mass Effect: Legendary Edition would count as one entry, but if I also wanted to bring Mass Effect: Andromeda for some reason (spoiler alert: I don’t) then I’d have to include it as a separate entry, because it was never sold in a package with the original trilogy. I’m treating each game as the complete version – with all of its DLC and expansion packs included.
The Mass Effect trilogy could count as one entry thanks to Legendary Edition, but Andromeda would have to be added separately.
As I’ll explain in a moment, I’m not considering this to be my “all-time favourite” list of games – though, naturally, they’re all games that I like. And, as always, please keep in mind that all of this is the subjective, not objective, opinion of just one person. If I highlight a game you despise or ignore a title that you think should be obvious… that’s okay! There’s enough room in the gaming community for differences of opinion.
Now that all of that’s out of the way, let’s talk for a moment about how I want to approach this! When I’ve seen people make similar “desert island” lists, whether we’re talking about films, games, TV shows, books, or whatever… I often see the same mistake. Well, maybe “mistake” is too strong a word, but I’ll try to explain what I mean. The purpose of this exercise is not to say “here are eight of my favourite games ever,” but rather to answer this more nuanced question: if you could only play eight games for the rest of your life, which games would you pick? That’s the question at the heart of this “desert island” idea – at least in my opinion.
There are plenty of games I’ve played and thoroughly enjoyed that I only need to play once, or that are particularly short. See, in this thought experiment, things like a game’s length and replayability are big considerations! So a title like Indika, which I played through recently, was interesting, emotional, and a wonderful experience – but it’s a linear game that doesn’t even crack the five-hour mark. There’s little room for replay value and longevity is an issue if I’m going to have a limited number of games to play on my desert island.
I also don’t want to only pick games within the same genre, series, or even from the same developer. Getting a decent amount of variety in the mix is also going to be key – I don’t want to be stuck with eight very similar-feeling games if those are the only ones I’m ever gonna play! I’m not setting limits for how many games from a specific developer or genre I’m going to allow myself to choose, but if I feel I’m picking too many of a certain type of title, I’ll definitely walk it back.
I don’t want to only choose Bethesda games, for example.
So that’s my approach. I want to consider good games – games I enjoy. Then I want to whittle down that list to games with plenty of replay value, games in a variety of genres, and games I’d be happy to play over and over again.
Am I overthinking it? Maybe. But putting some ground rules in place, and making sure I have an idea of the kinds of games I want to choose, is all part of the fun. I’m never actually going to be stranded on a desert island – at least, I hope not – but I wanted to approach this thought experiment in this way. So if that sounds like fun to you… buckle up. We’re about to dive into the games!
Desert Island Game #1: Civilization VI PC, 2016
Civ VI.
I don’t have the stats for every single game I’ve played in my forty-some years on this planet, but Civilization VI has to be one of the titles I’ve spent the most time with. I’m currently sitting at over 1,500 hours – that’s more than 62 full 24-hour days! And I could easily spend another 1,500 hours (or more) playing one of my favourite strategy games ever. Civ VI has a ton of factions, leaders, and map types – making each game a unique experience. Years’ worth of DLC and expansions have added a lot more to the game, too, including new gameplay modes, mechanics, and features, as well as new leaders and other content.
When I first started thinking about “desert island” gaming from the point of view of replay value and longevity, Civ VI was quite literally the first title that came to mind. It’s the kind of game I can go back to over and over again, and the AI is good enough to still pose a challenge even after so many different matches.
A different city in the late game.
Often in games like this, I’ll have a favourite leader or faction that I like to play as. But Civ VI is different, and one of the fun things is choosing someone new each time. Each faction and leader has their own strengths and weaknesses, and different map types can be more challenging for some civs depending on these unique attributes. It makes even the process of setting up a game feel interesting – and, of course, there’s the option to completely randomise everything, too.
I love being able to customise and rename my cities! I was astonished earlier in the year when that incredibly basic mainstay of the series was absent from the launch version of Civilization VII! The game also includes unique scenarios if the main game ever starts to feel stale – and completing some of those challenges was a ton of fun, too. Civ VI has given me so much enjoyment over the past eight-plus years that I really couldn’t think of a better title to kick off this list.
Desert Island Game #2: Shenmue I & II HD PC/PlayStation 4, 2018
The harbour.
Shenmue I & II HD brings together two of the best games I’ve ever played. The Shenmue saga was criminally under-appreciated when it launched, and it felt light-years ahead of its time. You probably know the next part of the story, though: the games were massively expensive to create, and the hardware they were exclusive to – Sega’s Dreamcast console – failed hard. But when Shenmue III was in production, someone had the brilliant idea to re-release the first two games in one package – so I’m picking it for my list!
Shenmue is a narrative experience unlike any other I’d played in the year 2000, and it’s the game that kept me interested in the hobby at a time in my life when I might’ve begun to drift away. Ryo’s adventure was a masterclass in storytelling that would’ve felt at home on the big screen, and it’s no exaggeration to say that Shenmue showed me what video games in the new millennium could be. And for the purposes of our list… well, it doesn’t hurt that there are three full ’80s arcade games (Space Harrier, Hang-On, and Outrun) playable within it, too!
The arcade.
I’ve heard some folks say that Shenmue’s slower pace is “boring,” but I never really got that criticism, myself. Sure, these games aren’t non-stop action in the way a lot of titles are… but that’s the point. This is a narrative experience and a mystery as much as anything else; the fighting sections actually take up relatively little time compared to everything else. And there’s so much on offer. I mentioned the arcade games, but there are also QTEs, a darts minigame, a massive number of collectables, exploration, a fortune-teller, forklift driving, arm-wrestling, part-time jobs… there’s enough here to feel like you’re stepping into Ryo’s shoes and living his life.
Shenmue probably isn’t the kind of game I’d want to play every day – not all the way through, at any rate. But it absolutely could be a game to fire up any time I want to escape to a different place and time, to wander through some gorgeous environments, talk to NPCs, and play a few rounds of darts!
Desert Island Game #3: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe + Booster Course Pass Switch, 2017
It’s Dry Bones!
I’d have loved to include Mario Kart 64 – my favourite entry in the series – but when I considered replayability for this thought experiment, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe was the hands-down winner. With 96 racetracks and a whopping 50 drivers, there’s so much fun to be had that it almost never gets boring! I’ve been playing Mario Kart 8 for more than a decade at this point – having first bought it when I was one of about seven people who owned a Wii U – and I still find myself going back to it time and again. It’s my most-played Switch game by quite a long way, eclipsing even Animal Crossing: New Horizons.
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is the kind of game I can fire up for twenty minutes to play a few races – or lose half a day trying to beat records in time trial mode. Though I’m not really a battle mode kind of player, I daresay it’s something I could try to get into if I was stuck on a desert island! My point is that the game has a lot going on besides just grand prix races, and it’s pretty versatile with what’s on offer.
Gliding across Kalimari Desert.
I usually play as Dry Bones – they’ve been my character of choice since Mario Kart Wii, and I’ll always pick Dry Bones in any Nintendo game where they’re an option! But because Mario Kart 8 Deluxe has so many other characters to choose from, if Dry Bones ever got boring… well, it’s nice to have options. Sure, there are some I’d never choose (lookin’ at you, Pink Gold Peach) but just knowing that variety is there is nice.
A couple of years ago, I put all 96 racetracks into a tier list. You can find part one by clicking or tapping here, and part two by clicking or tapping here, if you’re interested to see where I’d rank them! Considering this is probably going to be my only racing game… I think I’ve made a good choice. Sure, it’s not as realistic or immersive as something like a Project Gotham Racing or Forza Horizon 5, but Mario Kart 8 Deluxe knows what kind of game it wants to be and offers a ton of good, arcadey fun.
The Book: The Great Siege: Malta 1565 Ernle Bradford 1961
Malta.
Desert Island Discs usually gives its castaways the Bible (or a religious text of their choice) and the complete works of Shakespeare – then asks them to choose just one other book. I’ll level with you: I read fewer books these days than I really should, especially for someone who loves writing as much as I do! For this list, I want to talk about what is probably my favourite book of all-time: Ernle Bradford’s The Great Siege: Malta 1565.
History is another of my passions – it was the subject I read at university. I’d studied the Ottoman period at school, but only in a pretty basic, surface-level way, so this book was a deep dive into a conflict I knew very little about. Bradford has a wonderful writing style that made the siege of Malta come alive – The Great Siege feels, in places, more like an adventure novel than a work of non-fiction. I was hooked in from almost the first moment, and I really came to appreciate this way of engaging with history.
Ernle Bradford and the cover of a more modern printing of The Great Siege.
My copy of The Great Siege was gifted to me by a distant relative after a chance encounter. We got chatting after a family funeral and somehow the topic of history came up. He promised to send me a copy of the book, and after we parted ways I thought nothing of it. But low and behold, a few weeks later, The Great Siege arrived in the post! That’s always a fun little story to tell; something I’m reminded of every time I re-read The Great Siege. It’s also gotta be a fairly uncommon way of discovering one’s favourite book!
The Great Siege tells the story of the Ottoman siege of Malta in 1565 – arguably the Ottoman Empire’s first significant defeat. This period of Ottoman history – the final years of the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent – have come to be seen as the peak of the Empire’s expansionism and power. So it’s an interesting moment in history to revisit – and it’s told beautifully in this book. Track down a copy, if you can – it’s well worth a read.
Desert Island Game #4: The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind PC/Xbox, 2002
One of the first locations in the game.
Bethesda’s role-playing games offer a lot of replay value – but in my view, Morrowind is still the developer’s high-water mark. Because of the way Morrowind is structured, it’s impossible to join every faction and play every quest in a single playthrough; the game is practically begging to be replayed in a completely different way each time! There are Great Houses, guilds, vampire clans, and religious sects which are all mutually-exclusive, meaning every playthrough can feel unique.
In addition, Morrowind offers a huge amount of choice when it comes to classes and gameplay styles. There are weapons – like throwing knives and spears – that didn’t appear in Oblivion or Skyrim, and which offer completely different ways to play than the stereotypical “stealth archer” that so many Skyrim players love. And there’s a wide variety of magic, too, including spells like levitation which can be really useful for navigating the game world.
Ghostgate.
Morrowind packs a huge amount of content into its map, which is geographically diverse, too. There’s a frozen island to the north, volcanic wastes in the middle, swampy areas, grassland, cities that feel dense and lived-in, and so much more. It’s been more than two decades since I first booted up Morrowind, and there are still quests I haven’t completed and dungeons I haven’t fully explored – not because I didn’t want to, but because there’s just so much to do in this game.
When I think about fantasy role-playing games, Morrowind is still the title that leaps to mind first. I have so many fun memories of the game, from the time I became head of House Telvanni despite not knowing any magic spells to modding the PC version to give myself a cool sword and a house that could teleport me to every town on the map! Morrowind really is a fantastic game – and not one to sleep on if you missed it when it was new.
Desert Island Game #5: Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy PC/PlayStation 2/ Xbox, 2005
The player character firing a weapon in GTA III.
Not to be confused with the atrocious remaster from a couple of years ago, this box set includes Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City, and San Andreas – so that’s three games in one to bring to the desert island! Though they seem a bit janky compared to modern titles, the GTA III trilogy still gives you three of the best and most immersive open world games of their era. The Grand Theft Auto series’ switch from top-down to 3D was a masterstroke in 2001, and the game’s world felt incredible. Being able to go off the beaten path in between missions, causing chaos in the city, was a ton of fun.
Vice City’s setting – both in time and place – felt pitch-perfect; a true pastiche of the likes of Miami Vice and Scarface. Tommy Vercetti was a fun protagonist, and I had a whale of a time exploring Rockstar’s sun-drenched tropical paradise and building up my criminal empire! Vice City was a true ’80s crime fantasy come to life, and its city felt fantastic to navigate on foot or in a vehicle.
Vice City.
Then we come to San Andreas – and what a leap forward that game was! Three cities instead of just one, and all of the countryside and small towns in between? It’s astounding how much Rockstar managed to cram onto a game of the Xbox/PS2 era, quite frankly. San Andreas also has a much more engaging and relatable story – at least in the beginning – with protagonist CJ heading home for the first time in years only to see how badly wrong things have gone for his family and friends.
I had so much fun with all three of these games on the Xbox. I have especially fun memories of using the Xbox’s music player to rip CDs and listen to them in-game. A friend of mine would often come over after work and we’d play Vice City while listening to some of our favourite ’80s hits, and nearer to Christmas we’d tear up San Andreas in two-player mode while blasting a festive playlist! It was a ton of fun. And for the purposes of our hypothetical desert island, there’s more than enough content here to keep me going for a good long while!
The Luxury Item: My Star Trek Collection
I still have my TOS DVD box set somewhere!
On Desert Island Discs, there have been some wild “luxuries” over the years – including the likes of a church window or an entire art museum. Then there are the folks who were more practical, opting for survival necessities like a bed or a fishing rod. But I’m choosing my Star Trek collection – I have every film and episode on a combination of VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray. Well, okay, I might be missing a couple of the most recent releases! But I’ve got most of Star Trek – including the older shows, which are the ones that still matter the most to me.
If you’re a regular reader (or you just read the name of my website), you’ll know I’m a bit of a Trekkie! If I was stuck on a desert island and I could only bring one thing to watch… it’s gonna be Star Trek. And with there being over 950 episodes and films at time of writing… I think that’s enough to keep me going for a while. I could go back to the start and watch The Cage, or leap forward to the most recent episodes of Discovery and Strange New Worlds. Or I could pick some of my favourites and watch them in a random order.
Captain Pike.
Star Trek is a wonderfully diverse franchise, too. There’s comedy in shows like Lower Decks, war stories in Deep Space Nine and Enterprise, mysteries, exploration, noir, horror, drama, romance… the list could go on and on. I genuinely believe I could find at least one Star Trek story that would appeal regardless of what I might be in the mood for, because the franchise has pretty much done it all! Speaking as we were of the need to have variety in a situation like this, I think that’s a huge mark in Star Trek’s favour.
If we’re being strictly literal, and I can only bring the episodes and films that I already own on disc, then we’re going to be missing Section 31, Strange New Worlds’ third season, and Prodigy. But then again, if we’re being strictly literal, and I bring my “Star Trek collection,” could I also bring my Star Trek books and games, too? Maybe that’s a bridge too far – so let’s compromise and say I get to bring all of the Star Trek TV series and films!
Desert Island Game #6: Disney Dreamlight Valley PC/PS4/Xbox One/Switch, 2022
Taking a selfie with Merida and Flynn!
I haven’t been back to Dreamlight Valley in a while – but it was my pick for “game of the year” in 2022. I don’t like the way the game is currently being over-monetised, and that’s a black mark against it in my opinion. But despite that… it’s probably the best cozy life-sim that I’ve ever played. Though I don’t consider myself a “Disney adult,” I enjoy Disney’s animated films. And having this kind of game populated by a whole host of familiar characters adds a lot to the experience.
At least in part, I think I’m comparing Dreamlight Valley to Animal Crossing: New Horizons and appreciating the improvements it offers over Nintendo’s similarly-pitched title. There are so many quality-of-life things that Dreamlight Valley does better, like the simplicity of moving buildings around, the quests and activities villagers can offer, and the ease of crafting. The valley has a diverse array of biomes to explore, each with different plants and other features, and there’s plenty of crops to grow, recipes to create, and a main quest to boot.
Furniture items in the game.
I’m dead certain that I’d want at least one cozy life-sim type game for my desert island, and honestly… I can’t think of a better one than Dreamlight Valley. I really don’t know at this stage if I’m ever going to pick it up again, or whether I’m gonna wait for the next Animal Crossing. But there’s a lot of relaxing fun to be had with a cozy game like this, and one populated by fun Disney characters just feels… right.
In 2022 and 2023, I sunk a lot of time into Dreamlight Valley. But it could be a lot of fun to start over, especially with new characters, quests, and other content having been added to the game since its launch. I could easily see Dreamlight Valley keeping me entertained for months or even years on end during my exile on a desert island – even if some days I just play for a few minutes to attend to some daily chores.
Desert Island Game #7: Hoyle Puzzle & Board Games (a.k.a. Encore Classic Puzzle & Board Games) PC, 2008
1,000 games in one, you say?
Over 1,000 digital board games in one package? That seems like something to bring to our desert island, eh? I don’t know if this is *the* definitive largest collection of these kinds of games, but it has to be one of the biggest. There’s everything here from chess to mastermind, with word games, puzzles, and more. If we’re looking for a ton of content and plenty of variety, Puzzle & Board Games delivers on both counts!
I thought about puzzle games like Tetris and even Wordle – the kind of almost infinitely replayable titles that you might pick up and play for a few minutes or an hour at a time. I even considered things like Angry Birds and Words of Wonder, which are kind of in the same category. But then there are these big compilations, incorporating a ton of board games, tile games, word games, and so on – and the sheer amount of different games included made it seem like a worthwhile title to bring!
Chess.
Some of the games included here – like chess – are basically infinitely replayable. And if you’re spending the rest of your life on a desert island, well… you’ve got time to learn to play! I haven’t actually played chess in years; I used to play with my grandfather when I was very young, and he always beat me! But these are the kinds of games that I think could fill a lot of downtime in this hypothetical situation, so bringing as many as possible in one package seems like a good idea to me.
Will I regret bringing a puzzle game compilation instead of a strategy game like Banished or a big-budget adventure like the Mass Effect trilogy? I mean, maybe. I guess it’s possible! But equally, if all I had to play were a selection of different third-person action/adventure games, I could see that getting boring, too. The point of bringing something like this is to get some variety – and with a whole bunch of different board games and puzzles to get stuck into, there’s plenty of that!
Desert Island Game #8: American Truck Simulator PC, 2016
Let’s go truckin’!
I’ve played a bit of American Truck Simulator, and its cousin, European Truck Simulator, but I never really got massively into either title. I adore the open road, though, and there are some absolutely stunning environments, particularly in American Truck Simulator’s recreations of the western United States. These kinds of simulator games can be a huge time-sink for a lot of people, and I’ve always wondered if I just need to spend a bit more time with a game like this and… well, see if I might be one of them!
American Truck Simulator also feels like a chill-out kind of game. Yes, you have to be aware of the road and pay attention, but just the act of driving from one place to another can be an incredibly enjoyable experience – that’s why, in days of yore when petrol didn’t cost its weight in gold, people would go cruising just for fun!
The game has some beautiful environments.
I also think our desert island scenario is perfect for an in-depth simulator like this. The game is basically open-ended and infinitely playable; you’re hauling all different kinds of cargo from one part of the country to another. There are tons of different trucks to drive, DLC has added a wide range of different cargoes, and over time, developer SCS Software has been adding more and more detail to the game’s map.
I spent a while trying to decide what I wanted for the final slot on this list! And as above, maybe this’ll end up being a regret; I can think of plenty of narrative adventure games that I’d probably enjoy more for the hours they’d last. But again, the point of the exercise isn’t to pick an all-time list of favourites, but rather games that I could see myself playing, or returning to, over the long term. American Truck Simulator fills several niches: it’s a potential time-sink if I was to really get invested in it, it’s got that relaxing chill-out vibe to parts of its driving, and it’s also the kind of thing I could pick up and play for an hour or so to decompress or unwind… after a long day of existing on my desert island!
Some Exclusions:
I couldn’t pick every game…
Putting together this list was more time-consuming and thought-provoking than I originally intended or expected, to be honest with you! I ran through dozens of games, ruling out a ton of classic titles and personal favourites for a variety of reasons. I thought we could finish off the article by talking about eight of the titles I excluded – and why. These games could form their very own desert island list, or you could call this the “honourable mentions” section!
Cyberpunk 2077 (+ Phantom Liberty): After a very rocky launch, Cyberpunk eventually made it to a playable state. I wasn’t wild about the way some missions were designed, but the game’s open world is spectacular and incredibly immersive. Phantom Liberty adds a cool new questline, too. It was a toss-up in the end between Cyberpunk and the GTA III trilogy, and I came down on the side of the latter.
Cyberpunk 2077 is much better now.
Red Dead Redemption II: This is one of the best narrative experiences I’ve ever had in gaming, and it’s a title I point to whenever I want to make the point about gaming as an artistic medium comparable to film and television. But it’s also an intense and emotional experience. I will definitely play Red Dead Redemption II again… but I don’t think it’s the kind of game I’ll want to play very often. When I’m ready to get hurt again, sure! But if it’s one of only eight games I can play for the rest of my life… I just don’t see it getting dusted off all that often.
Super Mario 64: A 3D platformer would be great for a list like this, and Super Mario 64 is still one of the best of the bunch almost three decades later. It’s a blast, it’s easy to pick up and play for a few minutes at a time, and each of its fifteen stages feels unique. If I wanted a real challenge, I could try to finally get all 120 stars – something I never managed back in the N64 era! But I’ve already got a Mario game on the list, and I wasn’t willing to swap out Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.
It’s-a me, Mario!
Baldur’s Gate 3: This was my pick for “game of the year” back in 2023, and for good reason: it’s one of the best narrative adventures and role-playing games I’ve ever played. Being able to go back to the game and choose one of the pre-made heroes, or just making a new custom character from a different race and background adds to the replayability, too. I considered swapping Morrowind for Baldur’s Gate 3 as they’re both high fantasy RPGs – but for me, Morrowind edges it because of the game’s open-ended nature, optional faction quests, and more. Baldur’s Gate 3 has a focused main quest, and while it’s a blast, it’s not really something you get to deviate from. Morrowind lets you set up shop in its world and basically do whatever you want.
Animal Crossing: New Horizons: This was briefly my most-played Switch game in 2020 and into 2021, but I bounced off it more quickly than I expected. Repetitive villager dialogue and a lack of mini-games were the main culprits there. And with Disney Dreamlight Valley being a better game all-around, there was no way New Horizons was gonna make the cut. Plus, let’s be honest… playing a game about living on a deserted island while living on a deserted island is kinda on the nose!
New Horizons.
X4: Foundations: I don’t have a lot of experience with this game, but it feels like the kind of space-sim fantasy that I could really get stuck into. In the end, I opted for the more familiar American Truck Simulator, just because I’m not sure how I’d really feel about X4. If I ended up hating it, it would be a total waste of time! It’s definitely a game I wanna try out, though – it feels like it could scratch some of the itch that Starfield didn’t manage to.
Banished: I adore Banished. It’s one of the best town-builders around, and to think the entire thing was created by just one person is incredibly impressive. I’ve spend hundreds of hours in Banished and I’m sure I’m gonna pick it up again one of these days for dozens more. But Civ VI took the strategy game spot on this list, simply because it’s much bigger and more diverse. I can play dozens of Civ VI games and have a different experience every time – once I’ve got my Banished town started, I find things tend to slow down and become fairly similar.
A town in Banished.
Mass Effect: Legendary Edition: Though I really didn’t appreciate the lack of polish and upgrades that Legendary Edition brought to the table, the Mass Effect games it contains are still three of the best sci-fi action/RPGs out there. The only drawback here, really, is that I’ve replayed the Mass Effect trilogy quite a few times at this point, and I’ve basically been every character class and seen all the games have to offer. Is it a fun narrative? You bet. Will I play it again? Yes – and probably soon! But having played it so many times already… did I want it as one of my eight? Apparently not.
So that’s it!
We’ve filled out our list with eight games to take to a desert island! As well as a book and a generous luxury item, too.
Ah, the perfect gaming location.
This has been a fun thought experiment, and I really tried to think hard about a list of games that would provide plenty of variety and different options. I’m not always in the mood for just one type of game – even if it’s a classic or a ten-out-of-ten masterpiece! My priorities were finding games in different genres and styles, games which were either open-ended or offered a lot of replayability, and I tried to be sneaky with multi-packs and games-within-games, too!
I hope this has been a bit of fun, at any rate. Since I have no plans to become the next Robinson Crusoe, it should all be a moot point, thankfully! But it was interesting to get stuck into this hypothetical question and wrangle with the idea of being stranded, and only having eight games to play for the rest of my life. At the very least, I tried to give myself options!
Stay tuned, because there’s more gaming content to come here on the website. In the last few weeks I’ve reviewed Indika and South of Midnight, both of which were fantastic. And hopefully I’ll get my hands on Mafia: The Old Country relatively soon. Until then, I guess I’ll see you on the nearest desert island.
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. Some promo art and screenshots courtesy of IGDB. Some stock photos courtesy of Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
The first part of this review is free from major spoilers. The end of the spoiler-free section is clearly marked.
I’m late to the party with yet another review! South of Midnight was released back in April, but it somehow eluded me for a while. I noticed it on Game Pass – I’m a subscriber to the PC version – and I thought I’d give it a try based on little more than its art style. And you know what? I’m so glad I did!
South of Midnight is a great advertisement for Game Pass as a concept. This is a game I wouldn’t have bought for myself – and I might never have come to hear about – were it not included as part of the subscription. It’s entirely because of Game Pass that I’ve gotten to enjoy one of the best gaming experiences of 2025 so far; a genuine contender for my highly-coveted “game of the year” award. I continue to believe that Game Pass is a fantastic idea, especially for folks like myself on lower incomes where budgets are tight. And South of Midnight is the latest – and one of the best – examples of a game I discovered thanks to the platform that I wouldn’t have come across otherwise.
But enough about that – this isn’t meant to be a review of Game Pass.
I really enjoyed South of Midnight.
South of Midnight is an absolute delight. Its unique art style – which draws inspiration from cartoons of yesteryear and stop-motion films from the likes of Tim Burton – belies a dark Southern Gothic narrative, full of twists, complex characters, and nightmarish monsters. An engaging, relatable protagonist keeps the entire experience grounded, with a simple, understandable quest – even as things get progressively weirder! There are some incredible voice acting performances bringing a wonderfully diverse cast of characters to life, and a beautiful soundtrack that really leans into the music of the Southern United States and New Orleans in particular.
I found the game’s combat to be tough but fair – even though I had to turn down the difficulty at one point – and there’s enough enemy variety to keep things interesting. Boss battles are outstanding, too, with each boss having something unique to pose a new challenge. And the game rewarded exploring its beautiful and haunting levels with collectibles, points for levelling-up, and things to read which expanded the story and the lore. I had an incredibly fun time with South of Midnight, and it’s a game I’m happy to recommend to any fan of single-player adventure titles, narrative adventures, and really just gaming in general! If you have Game Pass already it’s an absolute no-brainer.
I think I’ve said all I can without touching on the story, so if you haven’t played South of Midnight yet, be aware that there will be some narrative spoilers from here on out.
This is the end of the spoiler-free section. Expect narrative spoilers for South of Midnight from this point.
In 2021, I named Kena: Bridge of Spirits my “game of the year.” And South of Midnight is giving me major Kena vibes in terms of how it plays, how its story is structured, and even the whole “healing the world” or “helping lost spirits” ideas that both games use. I absolutely mean that as a compliment; Kena: Bridge of Spirits is one of the best games of the last few years for me, so any title that can tap into that style or feel in any way reminiscent of it is doing a lot of things right!
3D platforming is something we don’t see enough of nowadays – and I really appreciated this aspect of South of Midnight. It’s a ton of fun to run, jump, climb, and swing through some truly beautiful levels, and there was a distinctively “old-school” feel to some of the game’s 3D platforming. At the same time, protagonist Hazel’s magical powers gave her a variety of ways to navigate these environments. Things like gliding, “rope” swinging, and double-jumping aren’t new by any means, but the way Hazel acquired these abilities felt unique and in keeping with the game’s story.
Hazel jumping onto a temporary platform.
As I indicated above, combat was challenging enough that I had to turn down the difficulty from normal to easy – but I’m usually an easy mode player, so that wasn’t a huge surprise. I liked how South of Midnight keeps combat encounters and exploration separate; combat arenas are pretty clearly marked, so you can’t just stumble into combat totally unprepared. One thing I thought was a bit silly, though, is that health never regenerated out of combat – if you were injured (or you had to respawn, losing a chunk of health in the process) there aren’t any healing potions or items. That meant the only way to heal was to locate a healing coil – which are only found in combat arenas.
The haints – South of Midnight’s enemies – were pretty varied and fun in terms of how they behaved. You got your usual ranged enemy, a couple of different brute variants, a healer, and a couple of others. With combat being quite fast-paced, and every enemy being a similar colour, maybe a little more visual variety wouldn’t have gone amiss! But that’s my only real criticism of the enemies; I liked the way they played.
A combat encounter.
Boss battles were fun – though a couple of them felt just a tad repetitive. This wasn’t because one boss felt the same as another, but rather within a couple of the boss battles – Two-Toed Tom the alligator and Kooshma, the final boss – the boss’ pattern would repeat. You’d be knocked down, you’d have to chase them or return to the arena, then after beating the next part of their health meter, you’d have to do it all over again. It wasn’t annoying per se, but it was a little repetitive to the point where I felt a couple of those boss battles were just a little padded. Either some changes could’ve been made to the way the bosses behaved, or maybe they could’ve been cut down from three rounds to two!
Each boss was, though, completely distinctive both visually and in terms of their battle arena, which was great. And mechanically, there were different ways to fight different bosses – like throwing bottles at Molly, or ringing the bell for Two-Toed Tom – rather than just repeating the same hit-hit-dodge pattern that some action games can fall into.
One of the boss battles.
I felt echoes of Hurricane Katrina in South of Midnight’s opening act. A hurricane coming in, sweeping away homes, floodwaters rising… I know there have been other hurricanes to hit the region both before and since Katrina, but the game’s story, with its Deep South setting, some jazz in the soundtrack, and references to New Orleans, definitely made me think of Katrina before any other hurricanes.
Many of the monsters and creatures in the game are inspired by real-world legends from the Mississippi Delta, Louisiana and the surrounding Southern region. The game weaved these into its narrative, building a world and lore based on the Southern United States – but with a dark twist. Often called “Southern Gothic,” this style of storytelling blends Gothic horror with Southern ideas, characters, and themes – and it’s been a popular subgenre for a while. South of Midnight is the first video game I’ve played to lean into the genre in such an overt and profound way, though.
Hazel in a New Orleans-inspired town near the end of the game.
Hazel made for a great protagonist. With so many hares and rabbits running around, though, I can’t be the only one who thought of Watership Down… can I? Gosh, that film is burned into my mind! To get back on topic, Hazel was a wonderfully relatable protagonist, and her core storyline of wanting to find her mother – her sole surviving parent – after the hurricane was intense and emotional. Hazel could occasionally chatter too much, with a handful of lines of dialogue feeling out of place or just weirdly-timed, but for the most part, I really enjoyed her story.
Hazel’s journey saw her grow in power – as her quest to find her mother was repeatedly derailed by her grandmother, various monsters, and deep dives into her family history and the history of the area around her hometown! The way Hazel unlocked her powers and equipment felt natural, and South of Midnight did a great job of building this up and pairing newfound powers with levels and enemies that allowed me as the player to go to town with them. The powers were well-integrated with gameplay, providing a narrative reason for everything from combat to wall-running… and when Hazel was temporarily stripped of most of her powers late in the game, I felt a profound sense of vulnerability after having gotten used to having them!
Concept art/renders of Hazel. Image: Xbox/Compulsion Games
I thought one of the themes of the story was going to be grief: that Hazel was, ultimately, going to have to come to terms with the loss of both of her parents. Having been in that position myself, I was curious to see how that theme might play out across the story. However, I was pleasantly surprised by a happy ending – with Hazel’s journey to reunite with her mother ending on a positive note. A post-credits scene even implied at Lacey and Laurent had rekindled their relationship, which was doubly sweet.
The narrative leaned on the history of the American South in a big way. Although I’m not from the United States, the American Civil War and its associated issues are an interest of mine, having read history at university. Seeing these very personal tales of how slavery in the antebellum South impacted individual people was gritty, emotional, and incredibly impactful. Hazel, her mother, and many of the people she met on her adventure were African Americans, and the game didn’t try to shy away from the history of slavery or the legacy it still carries on the descendants of enslaved people. Some players might find that uncomfortable – but that’s the point.
The game wrangles with slavery and its lasting legacy.
There were a couple of points, though, where I felt the narrative wasn’t perfect. This is a story about trauma, right? More specifically, how trauma lingers if we bottle it up, and how that only makes it worse. Compulsion Games specifically describes South of Midnight as a game about healing. So why, then, do we barely see any of the aftermath of Hazel’s healing? I felt this most significantly at two points: after the battle against Huggin’ Molly, when a brief storybook line said that Itchy would care for the lost children, and right at the end when Bunny realised that Hazel had interfered and helped Cherie.
Both of these moments were the culmination of a lifetime for their respective characters, but Itchy and the children weren’t even shown on screen, and Bunny was mildly angry for a moment, then disappeared. We could also say the same about Rhubarb and Jolene – after going through hell to help unweave or unravel their traumatic past, we didn’t see the results of that for either of them. Rhubarb – who murdered his own brother – didn’t get closure, comeuppance, or… anything. Hazel and South of Midnight just left him behind.
Itchy’s story didn’t get a proper ending, I felt.
Often when I’m playing a narrative adventure, I want to move the story along and see what’s going to come next. But South of Midnight’s beautiful levels rewarded exploration – and they were tight enough that going off the beaten path didn’t feel like a time-sink or too much of a detour. There were good reasons to explore: both to pad out the story, the world, and the lore by learning more about the history of the region, the characters, and the events, and to upgrade Hazel’s health and skills. I don’t think I found every health upgrade, but I acquired more than enough upgrade points to max out Hazel’s skill tree and upgrade all of her powers.
The readables and other bits of lore-building were great, too, and Hazel always had something to say when discovering a new note or inscription. These little things added a lot to the story in all of the levels. There were heartbreaking messages from kids who’d gone hungry, appealing to a spider-demon for sweets and food. There were gut-wrenching messages about escaping slavery. And there were mementos from Hazel and Lacey’s life, too. All of them were interesting, well-written, and helped build up the narrative experience.
One of the readable messages.
I wanted to say more about South of Midnight’s soundtrack in the spoiler-free section, but most of the songs – which are all original compositions for the game – reference events and characters! The soundtrack is an eclectic mix from across the Deep South: there’s New Orleans jazz on tracks like Rougarou and Roux, Americana or folk on Two-Toed Tom and Benjy, blues for Shakin’ Bones, Life is a Fight to be Won is an acoustic ballad… and throughout the game there are pieces inspired by a variety of genres, as well as a capella music common to enslaved peoples. Some of the tracks are truly haunting, others are upbeat and fun – and they all fit the game just right.
My golden rule for any video game soundtrack is “do no wrong;” i.e. the music shouldn’t clash with or get in the way of the adventure. But it’s rare for me to find a soundtrack quite so emotional and enjoyable as South of Midnight. I’d be happy to add several of these tracks to my playlist to listen to again – which, again, is something very rare for me.
The game has a wonderful soundtrack.
I loved South of Midnight’s art style. But I gotta be honest about something, given its prominence in the game’s marketing material: I didn’t really feel a lot of the “stop-motion” effect. The visuals were clearly drawing on designs and aesthetics from stop-motion films – like those by Tim Burton, for instance – as well as other animated works. But in terms of the way South of Midnight actually looked during gameplay sequences, I didn’t get a ton of “stop-motion” most of the time. Cut-scenes were a different story, with all of them going much more on the stop-motion effects. And there were some moments in the game where I felt the stop-motion effect a bit more strongly; some of Hazel’s idle animations, some of the animals in the environment, and the spiky bramble plants, for instance.
Occasionally, the stop-motion animation could feel a little jittery or jumpy, as if some frames were missing during some sequences. Because it wasn’t a particularly strong visual effect throughout the game, I didn’t mind it. But given how South of Midnight was basically billed as “the stop-motion game,” I must confess that I expected that style to shine through a bit more strongly. Maybe if it had I’d have hated it – and it was a wise decision to include an option to turn it off! But it’s equally plausible that I’d have actually enjoyed seeing South of Midnight really lean into that kind of animation style, and I’m a tad disappointed that there wasn’t a slider or some other option to really dial it up.
The stop-motion effect was most noticeable in cut-scenes.
Hazel’s cuddly companion – Crouton – made for a fun additional gameplay element. Being able to seize control of an enemy made battles feel a bit more fun and tactical; having to choose when to use that power (which has a slow recharge rate) added a bit of strategic thinking. And it’s always fun to have a companion who can fight by your side!
Crouton also dived into burrows, often finding cute animals going about their business. This is another legend: many cultures have tales of “borrowers” living in the walls or underground, taking unwanted things. The burrows were usually fun little places to visit, and reminded me of a bunch of cartoons and kids books – like the aforementioned Watership Down – that featured animals or saw characters visiting these kinds of places. Some of Crouton’s burrows could feel a bit too straightforward – with one clearly-marked route from end to end. That would be my only real criticism.
Crouton.
I’m not usually a fan of waypoints or quest markers in games; I like to explore at my own pace, and a giant arrow telling me where to go can get annoying! But I like the way South of Midnight uses directional indicators – they’re temporary and optional, meaning if you never want to see them you never have to, but they’re there if you need to be pointed in the right direction. And narratively, the way this fit with the game’s Weave and Grand Tapestry ideas made a lot of sense.
Some games just give you a waypoint, a quest marker, and so on without explaining how or why you’ve got this magical ability to see exactly where you need to go! But in South of Midnight it blended in perfectly with Hazel’s other magical abilities, which is something I really appreciated.
I liked the way the game handled waypoints.
So I think that’s it.
If it wasn’t clear already, I adored South of Midnight. It’s one of the best games I’ve played so far this year, and it’s absolutely a contender for one of my end-of-year gaming awards – possibly even the “game of the year” title. But you’ll have to swing by in late December to see if it makes the cut; there are still a few months to go!
Sometimes when you put the control pad down after an intense or emotional game, you can feel a little hollow. South of Midnight was one of those games that I didn’t want to end… but at the same time I was keen to follow the story to its conclusion and see what was going to happen to Hazel and the rest of the characters. It was well-written, generally well-paced, beautifully designed, and just a fantastic all-around experience.
A happy ending.
If you liked Kena: Bridge of Spirits, or similar titles, I really think you’ll enjoy South of Midnight. And if you have Game Pass either on PC or Xbox, it’s almost a no-brainer to fire it up and at least give it a try. I really had a wonderful time going on this adventure with Hazel.
So what game might I try next? There are still a few interesting titles to come later this year – I’ve got my eye on Mafia: The Old Country and Terminator 2D: No Fate. And I should really try Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, which I’ve installed but haven’t started yet. And now that Firaxis has had a chance to patch and update Civilization VII, maybe I should jump back in and see what’s new! There’s a lot of gaming content still to come here on the website, though, so I hope you’ll stick around.
South of Midnight is out now for PC and Xbox Series S/X. The game is also available via Xbox Game Pass and PC Game Pass. South of Midnight is the copyright of Compulsion Games, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Beware minor spoilers for Indika’s story – and major spoilers for the game’s world and mechanics.
I love seeking out games that feel unique – and if there’s one word I’d use to describe Indika, that would be it. This game is a mix of third-person puzzling, some platforming elements, a “walking simulator,” and some fun 2D platforming levels inspired by titles from years gone by. It’s a short but eclectic experience; a memorable game that I thoroughly enjoyed.
I beat Indika in a single play session – something I don’t think I’ve done with a game for quite a long time! So this is not an epic experience that’s going to last dozens upon dozens of hours… and that’s something to be aware of heading into it. However, unlike some recent titles, Indika is priced fairly. At £20 here in the UK (though I got it at a slight discount via the Epic Games Store) its price feels more than fair for the runtime it provides, and I will always credit publishers for recognising this!
The title character.
During my playthrough I did encounter a bug – just one, though. At one point, Indika got stuck in the environment partway through climbing onto a platform, and the only way around it was to restart the level. This highlighted something I don’t really appreciate: the lack of a free save system. Indika is generous with its checkpoints, sure, and the only other time I died I didn’t have to go all the way back to the beginning or anything. But… being able to freely save is a pretty basic feature, and even in a game as short as Indika there’s really no reason not to incorporate it.
But that’s basically all of the negatives out of the way!
Indika is a narrative experience as much as a “game” – there are entire sections where the only thing you’re required to do is walk from point to point. There are side-rooms to explore and a few collectables to pick up – which are worth finding, if for no other reason than to appreciate the design work that went into making them – but much of the game unfolds like this. I can see some people finding that “boring,” and while such things are subjective, for me I enjoyed this slower pace.
There’s quite a bit of walking in this game.
Despite the way the game seems to present itself at first, this isn’t a “horror” title – not by my definition, at any rate. There are some creepy and unsettling elements for sure; a game where the player character speaks to a demonic entity is gonna have that! But in terms of frightening moments or jump-scares… there really weren’t any. And that’s coming from a total scaredy-cat who’s easily frightened!
What you get with Indika’s narrative is a lot of philosophy – the age-old debate about God’s existence. And maybe you’ll say I’m projecting my own biases here, but I felt Indika came down firmly on the side of atheism. Despite being a nun, the protagonist is clearly struggling with questions of faith, and her mental illness – which is how I’d interpret her hallucinations – is preventing her from fitting in with her fellow nuns at the convent. Having encountered a runaway convict, Indika bounces her ideas about God and the problems of omnipotence and evil off of him. These conversations were genuinely interesting.
Ilya and Indika had some interesting philosophical conversations.
Both of the main characters – and Indika’s companion, too – felt fleshed-out, and they seemed to fit the world they inhabited. We got to see really interesting glimpses of pre-First World War Russia, a country struggling with industrialisation and the challenges that it brought. Indika’s convent felt like a place unchanged by the passage of time, but the world she stepped into was one of steam trains, factories, and industrial danger. The world could feel bleak – its wintery setting definitely adding to that tone – but never empty. I loved crunching through the snow during the outdoor sections!
There’s something about snow in video games that I just really enjoy. Seeing Indika and Ilya leave footprints was a nice touch, too. While the snow isn’t at the same level as a title like Red Dead Redemption II, it isn’t a million miles away. And considering this game was made by a much smaller team with a lower budget… I think it’s pretty fantastic the way it’s turned out. In the west, we tend to associate Russia with freezing winter conditions – even though, of course, the country has three other seasons – so in that sense, the snow also felt on theme!
Indika outside of the convent.
One of the projects I chose when I was studying history at university was the history of colour photography. Among the earliest surviving colour photographs were taken in the late 1900s and 1910s by Sergey Prokudin-Gorskii – a Russian photographer who was commissioned by the Tsar to take colour photographs across Russia. I immersed myself in Prokudin-Gorskii’s photographs while working on my project, and I was fascinated by this glimpse into pre-Communist Russia. I know folks say black-and-white photographs feel atmospheric, but there’s something about colour that’s just so much more real!
I bring this up because I felt echoes of Prokudin-Gorskii’s photographs in Indika. The convent, some of the wooden houses and buildings, the dirt roads… I remember seeing all of those things in those photographs. The juxtaposition between massive imposing religious buildings made of stone and adorned with gold and bright colours with small, wooden houses in which everyone else lived… it’s striking. And you can see why, in years gone by, people would be drawn to churches and cathedrals. For my money, developers Odd-Meter did a great job recreating this bygone era in video game form, and it brought back memories for me of working on that university project and exploring the forgotten world depicted in those photographs.
A selection of Prokudin-Gorskii’s photographs of Russia, circa 1909-1915.
For a game that was – mostly – an intense, philosophical narrative experience set in a realistic historical setting… Indika blended in some very “video-gamey” elements! Its pixel art font – used in menus and the levelling screen – was a real throwback, as were the way points were collected in-game. Points appear in front of Indika when collecting items in the game world or lighting candles – but they appear as big, glowing, pixellated blocks. They reminded me of something out of the 8-bit era, and that was clearly a deliberate choice. It added to the surreal nature of the game, and I think it worked exceptionally well.
Then there’s the game’s soundtrack and… well, sound-scape might be a better term. There were some beautiful and haunting melodies created for Indika, but there were also some retro throwbacks that felt like something you’d have heard on an arcade machine in the ’80s! Again, it’s the surreal blending of the game’s detailed world with these modern/retro game elements that just… worked. It shouldn’t, and I think in a worse game it wouldn’t have worked. But here, the total clash between the world around Indika and these retro gaming visuals and sounds actually felt great. If the story is partially about Indika’s mental health, I kind of read the gaming elements as part of that. Part of her hallucinations – both visual and auditory.
Receiving points.
These tied in with some wonderful 2D platforming sections. Indika presented its flashback sequences in this retro pixel art style, which is something I found incredibly creative. It felt kind of like if a film or TV show depicted its flashbacks in black-and-white or sepia. It’s the game saying “these events happened in the past.” And what better way for a video game to depict the past than with older visual and gameplay styles?
These sections also provided a clear boundary between the present and the flashbacks, making them feel completely distinct. Although I described them as “2D platformers,” there was more to it than that. We got a Pac-Man-inspired section, running around a maze-like level, a multi-lap bike race, and two very different platforming sections. These all felt unique, with no single play style being repeated throughout the flashbacks. They were also some of the most technically challenging parts of the game – or perhaps my 2D gaming skills are just rusty! My arthritic hands don’t help, either, with sections requiring near-perfect timing of jumps! But I struggled through and got there in the end.
One of Indika’s 2D levels.
Depicting such intense sequences in this way was kind of an odd choice. Indika’s flashbacks tell a tale of the protagonist’s first romantic encounter – with a boy from a different culture, and it doesn’t end well. There were some light-hearted moments in these 2D levels, particularly near the beginning, but the story took a dark turn later on. And the pixel art, upbeat 8-bit music, and fun retro level design… it clashed with that. But as above, I think the clash is the point.
The 2D levels weren’t the only creative ones, though. Indika did some clever things with some of its 3D environments, too – including a series of rooms which rotated, having you walking on walls and having to move objects ways that don’t conform to the laws of physics! Some games have tried to show mental illness and fractured minds before, but there’s something so unsettling about walking into a room with absolutely no explanation, and no expectation that it’s going to be something different… only to realise it’s upside down, walking on walls… and with some kind of strange multi-limbed demon just out of sight.
This level felt especially creative.
Other 3D puzzles were more basic, akin to something you’d see in games like Uncharted. “Basic” is not a synonym for “bad,” and these puzzles – involving things like moving objects on a crane or using a ladder to bypass a locked door – were entertaining enough. None of them were especially difficult to solve, though I would point out that the game doesn’t hold your hand and just kind of drops you in the puzzles, leaving you to figure it out. As another hallmark of what we might call “old-school” game design – in a modern gaming landscape dominated by in-depth tutorials and the dreaded quest marker – I think I like this even more!
Then there were sections of levels that used different or interesting mechanics. Repeatedly rotating the control stick to wind a winch was interesting – and reminded me of some Nintendo 64 titles from back when the analogue stick was a brand-new invention! Then there was a moment where Indika had to balance on a narrow beam that gave me flashbacks to Shenmue II! If you remember that level… does it haunt you, too? Indika also gives you control over a couple of different vehicles, as well as some pieces of machinery, and there’s a couple of tense chase sequences, too. There’s a surprising diversity of gameplay styles on show given the game’s runtime.
Reminds me of Shenmue II…
I’d also be remiss not to mention Indika’s incredibly creative use of the protagonist’s hallucinations. Without giving too much away, at a couple of points in the game, Indika experiences a vivid hallucination, but can keep it at bay through prayer. Alternating between the hallucination and the “real” state of the world changes the level, and opens up different pathways to get from one end to the other. It’s a really creative mechanic that wasn’t over-used, and it worked exceptionally well.
So Indika was not the kind of game I would’ve ordinarily chosen. It’s a short experience (my playthrough clocked in at just under four-and-a-half hours, including the credits, a couple of deaths, and one 2D level that took a few attempts). But it was really interesting – a philosophical video game with a message about faith, God, and the way the world works. It was wrapped up in an interesting narrative about a renegade nun with a mental illness, and touched on how mentally ill folks can be treated and shunned by society. As someone with a mental health condition myself, I appreciated the message, the depiction, and how the game handled that side of things.
One of Indika’s hallucinations.
Russian developers Odd-Meter actually left the country during work on Indika due to the political situation there. But almost the whole team is Russian – there are Russian-language voice options available if you want to get more of an immersive experience.
I would absolutely recommend Indika. I had a blast with it, and I really can’t think of another game quite like it. As I said at the beginning, this was a completely unique experience, both narratively and mechanically. Maybe you think four-plus hours is “too short,” but again I would point to the game being – in my view, at least – fairly-priced for its runtime. We aren’t talking about a £75 title, here.
Indika is a game I’ll happily recommend.
So I hope this has been interesting! I thought Indika had only just been released, but it actually came out over a year ago. I guess I’m a bit late to the party, but never mind! The game was on sale recently, at least on PC if you use the Epic Games Store. It could also be one to wishlist ahead of the big Christmas sales, because it might drop in price again.
This could’ve absolutely not been my cup of tea! The idea of a mentally ill protagonist with a horrifying demon whispering in their ear, a clash of visual and musical styles, the philosophical conversations, lack of combat, and short runtime… they could all be offputting, I guess. But I really liked this game. It’s the kind of title I think we can point to when highlighting the work of smaller, independent development teams, and it’s also a fine example of video games as a narrative art form.
Indika is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series S/X. Indika is the copyright of Odd-Meter and/or 11 Bit Studios. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Beware spoilers for the following games: Batman: Arkham Knight, Mass Effect 3, Halo Infinite, and The Last of Us Part II.
Microsoft’s latest round of layoffs has really hammered home how shaky some parts of the games industry feel as the 2020s roll along. Big games – like the remake of Perfect Dark, Rare’s long-awaited Everwild, and an unnamed title from ZeniMax Online – have all been canned as Microsoft “restructures” its gaming division… despite making literally more money than it ever has in its corporate existence. And all of this comes after some ridiculous studio closures barely twelve months ago. But the Xbox situation got me thinking… which other games and studios could be in danger?
So that rather depressing topic is what we’re going to tackle today. To be clear: I don’t think the entire games industry is heading for some kind of repeat of the 1983 “crash.” Gaming is too big nowadays, and there are so many people playing games, that the idea of gaming as a whole ever disappearing or experiencing that kind of huge slowdown just doesn’t seem feasible anymore. So to reiterate that last point: I am not predicting an industry-wide “crash.” But there are multiple publishers and developers that I believe are in danger – and one badly-received game could, in some cases, lead to their exit from the industry altogether.
This piece was prompted by the Microsoft and Xbox news, but it’s not only Microsoft-owned studios that could be on the chopping block. There are issues at outfits owned by Sony, too, as well as third-party publishers and developers.
Xbox just announced another round of layoffs.
A few caveats before we go any further. Firstly, if you or someone you know works at one of these companies, please know that I don’t mean this as any kind of attack or slight against you or the quality of your work. This industry can be brutal, and as a commentator/critic, what I’m doing is sharing my view on the situation. What I’m categorically *not* doing is saying any of these companies “should” be shut down. I really don’t want to see more people in the industry put out of work. I spent a decade working in the games industry, and I worked for companies that went through tough times. I know what it’s like to feel like your job is on the line… and the last thing I want to do is rub salt in the wound or make things worse.
Secondly, I have no “insider information” from any of these developers or publishers. I’m looking in from the outside as someone who hasn’t worked in the industry for more than a decade at this point. Finally, all of this is the entirely subjective, not objective, opinion of just one person. If you disagree with my take, think I’ve got it wrong, or you’re just convinced that a company’s next game is sure to be an absolute banger… that’s totally okay. Gamers can be an argumentative lot sometimes, but I like to believe there’s enough room in the wider community for polite discussion and differences of opinion.
With all of that out of the way, let’s get started.
Endangered Studio #1: Halo Studios
Is the long-running Halo series in trouble?
Halo Studios, formerly known as 343 Industries, is Microsoft’s in-house development team working on the Halo franchise. But… well, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that 343/Halo Studios has never released a *big* hit. The closest they’ve come, in more than a decade, was remastering the original Halo games… and even then, we have to give the huge caveat of the bugs and performance issues that plagued early versions of the remasters.
Whether we look at Halo 4, Halo 5, Halo Infinite, the Halo Wars spin-off, or the mobile games… Halo Studios hasn’t exactly taken the gaming world by storm. Infinite was supposed to be the Xbox Series X’s “killer app;” a launch title to really sell people on the new console and make it a must-buy, just as the original Halo: Combat Evolved had done some twenty years earlier. That didn’t happen, and the reception to that game – including from yours truly – was pretty mixed.
The cancellation of the TV adaptation won’t help.
Although Halo Studios has been hit by Microsoft’s layoffs in recent weeks, and a recent leak suggested that “no one at the studio is happy” with the state of their next title right now, I still think Xbox will give them another chance. The Halo series and Xbox are inseparable, at least in the minds of some players, and the name recognition and series reputation still count for something. But I don’t think those things will count indefinitely, so if the next Halo game isn’t a smash hit, Halo Studios will be in trouble.
This also comes after the failure of the Halo TV series. I happened to think the show was decent for what it was, but I understand where a lot of the criticism was coming from. That hasn’t helped Halo Studios’ case, though, and one of the best opportunities to grow the brand was squandered.
As a final note: every story has a natural end. I would suggest, perhaps, that Halo – or at least the Master Chief’s story – has pushed past that point. Recent narratives felt overly complicated, and I felt that Halo Studios was having to invent increasingly silly reasons for why the Master Chief was still fighting the Covenant and the Flood. Maybe the franchise just needs a break?
Endangered Studio #2: Ubisoft
Ubisoft publishes the Assassin’s Creed series, among others.
Ubisoft hasn’t been in great shape for quite some time. I think it’s fair to say that Ubisoft’s open world level design has stagnated, and a lot of players have kind of hit the wall when it comes to that style of game. But because the studio has doubled-down on that formula and that way of making games… it might be hard to find a way back.
Ubisoft has slapped its open world style on franchises like Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, Avatar, and even Star Wars… but many recent games have felt pretty repetitive; the same thing every time, just with a different coat of paint. I’m on the record saying that the open world formula doesn’t work for a lot of games, and although I don’t play a ton of Ubisoft titles… I think the repetitiveness of their games is a contributing factor, at least. Open worlds can be fun, but they can also be bloated and uninspired.
Star Wars: Outlaws wasn’t particularly well-received.
Earlier in 2025, a lot of folks seemed to be saying that Ubisoft’s financial situation basically meant that Assassin’s Creed: Shadows was the company’s “last chance.” I’m not sure I’d have gone that far myself; there are clearly other projects in the pipeline that at least have some potential. But Shadows seems to have been a modest success, at least, which has probably bought the company some time. A remake of the popular Assassin’s Creed: Black Flag could be a much-needed boost, too, if it succeeds at grabbing a new audience.
But in the longer-term, Ubisoft needs to try new things. Its open world formula worked for a while, but repetitiveness and stagnation seem to have crept in. There are only so many open world “collect-a-thons” that anyone can be bothered to play, and if it feels like the same game is just being given a new skin every time… that’s not a lot of fun, in the end. Just Dance can’t keep the company afloat forever, so something’s gotta change, and soon.
I’m still crossing my fingers for that Splinter Cell remake, though!
Endangered Studio #3: Nintendo
Nintendo recently launched the Switch 2 console.
Bear with me on this. Nintendo is a titan of the games industry… but it’s also a more vulnerable company than folks realise. I don’t think people fully appreciate how big of a risk the Switch 2 has been with its high price, sole exclusive launch title, and repetitive design and branding. The console may have sold well in its first couple of weeks on sale – though, as I noted, it didn’t seem to have sold out everywhere – but that’s to be expected from a company with a well-trained legion of super-fans! The real question is still whether casual players, families, and people less connected to the gaming world will be willing to shell out for a console that’s now competing with the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X in terms of price.
I don’t know anyone – not one single person – who only owned a Nintendo Switch as their sole gaming device. I’m sure some people do, but most folks I spoke to bought a Switch for one of three reasons: to play a handful of Nintendo exclusives, like Mario Kart 8 and Animal Crossing: New Horizons, to play some of their favourite games in a handheld format, or for their children to play some kid-friendly titles. The Switch was well-positioned for any of those use cases… the Switch 2, at its higher price point, is less so.
The Switch 2 and its games are expensive.
In 2013/14, when the Wii U was clearly faltering, Nintendo still had the 3DS to turn a profit and keep its corporate head above water. But now, the company is all-in on the Switch 2… meaning there’s less room for manoeuvre if things don’t go to plan. Because of Nintendo’s unique position in the industry, if its hardware falters it’s gonna be in big trouble, and the Switch 2 represents a departure from a successful business model. The Wii, the Switch, and Nintendo’s handhelds have all been well-positioned and well-priced to attract casual players… I’m not so sure the Switch 2 is. The company has some cash in reserve to keep going for a short while… but not indefinitely.
For those of you screaming that “it’ll never happen!!1!” I would remind you of Sega’s unceremonious exit from the console market just after the turn of the millennium. If you’d asked any gamer in the late ’90s what the future held for Sega, no one would’ve predicted that the Dreamcast’s failure would lead to the company shutting down its hardware division altogether. Nintendo is at the tippy-top of the games industry, and the Switch has been a phenomenally successful console. But its position is more precarious than people realise, and it would only take one console failure to throw the company into chaos. To be clear: I don’t necessarily think that Nintendo would just shut down and that would be that… but a Sega-style exit from the hardware market, and far fewer Nintendo games being produced, could happen. Never say never.
Endangered Studio #4: Naughty Dog
A gaming “Easter egg” in Uncharted 4.
Naughty Dog developed Crash Bandicoot for the first PlayStation, the Jak and Daxter games, the Uncharted series, and The Last of Us. Although The Last of Us Part II proved controversial (I once said a 3/10 seemed like a fair score for that game), it seems to have sold pretty well, and the first title has been remastered… twice. But when Naughty Dog premiered a trailer for Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet, the reception was less than glowing.
That game seems like it’s still a way off, too, and it might realistically launch as one of the final titles of the PlayStation 5 generation. But with the Uncharted series seemingly on the back burner, and after the controversy surrounding The Last of Us Part II… can the studio survive if Intergalactic underwhelms? I think there’s a very real possibility that Sony would be swift and brutal in that event.
Will Intergalactic be well-receieved by players when it’s ready?
It’s silly to pre-judge any title based on a single trailer that didn’t show so much as a frame of actual gameplay. Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet might have a silly, clunky name… but we really don’t know much about its story or what it’ll feel like to play. Naughty Dog has pedigree (get it?) so I think there are reasons to be optimistic about their next game. But I can also see a world in which Intergalactic doesn’t succeed in the way Sony is surely demanding.
There are some upcoming games that are generating a ton of buzz and excitement. So far, Intergalactic isn’t amongst them. Maybe that will change as we get closer to the game’s launch and the marketing campaign kicks off. But maybe it’ll always be one of those games that just… didn’t do much for a lot of people. If that’s the case, Naughty Dog could be in trouble.
Endangered Studio #5: Turn 10
It’s already the end of the road for Forza Motorsport.
Turn 10 are the folks behind Forza Motorsport. Or they were. As of July 2025, the Motorsport series seems to be going on hiatus, with Turn 10 suffering significant layoffs. The spin-off Forza Horizon series had been developed by another Microsoft subsidiary: Playground Games. But with Playground working on the new Fable title, it seems as if Turn 10 might be working on Forza Horizon 6 in the months ahead.
The Forza Horizon games are a ton of fun… but they’re also more arcadey, and the open world design isn’t Turn 10’s style. I can’t help but feel the studio only still exists after Forza Motorsport’s disappointment because Microsoft needs someone to take over the Horizon brief now that Playground Games is busy with Fable. After Forza Horizon 6 launches, if the main Motorsport brand is still on the back burner… what could Turn 10 realistically do?
Forza Horizon 5 was great, though…
If Xbox is going to persevere with its home consoles in the future – and I suspect that it will – then those consoles will need at least one proper racing game. Turn 10 had been providing that for the brand since 2005, back when the first Forza Motorsport launched on the original Xbox. There are third-party racing games, of course, and Microsoft has several on Game Pass, including rally titles, Formula 1 games, and more. But Forza should be a genuine competitor to Sony’s Gran Turismo series, and again, it should be giving players an incentive to consider picking up an Xbox console.
With Turn 10’s main series seemingly shut down, at least for the foreseeable future, and after having already suffered with layoffs, I’m not sure where the studio finds a successful future. Maybe if Forza Horizon 6 knocks it out of the park… but even then, I could see Microsoft returning that series to Playground Games.
Endangered Studio #6: Bethesda Game Studios
Hi, Todd…
To be clear: we’re talking about Bethesda the developer, not all of the studios under Bethesda’s publishing umbrella. There are several factors here, so let’s go over all of them. Starfield was a disappointment and its DLC didn’t salvage the project. Fallout 4 and Fallout 76, despite achieving success in recent years, launched to controversy. The Elder Scrolls VI is still a ways off, which has pushed a potential Fallout 5 to the mid-2030s or beyond. Fallout 4 and Fallout 76 are thus the only Fallout titles that Microsoft can push to players enamoured with the Fallout TV series.
For me, this boils down to the success or failure of The Elder Scrolls VI. If that game truly lives up to the hype and reaches the high bar set by Skyrim, then Bethesda will be okay and will continue developing games for years to come. If it doesn’t, and it ends up closer in reputation and sales to Starfield… that could be it. Curtains. Microsoft will retain the studio’s various IP, but could conceivably distribute the ones that still have potential to other development teams. Speaking of which…
Can The Elder Scrolls VI save Bethesda?
With the Fallout TV show proving to be a hit, it’s pretty clear that Microsoft is hankering for a new game. There have been all kinds of rumours, with a Fallout 3 remaster seemingly the only one that’s guaranteed at this stage. But could Microsoft tap one of its other developers to make another Fallout spin-off, or perhaps something like a New Vegas remaster? If that were to happen, and if that hypothetical game were to eclipse Bethesda’s entries in the long-running series, that could be another nail in Bethesda’s coffin. Bethesda only has two well-known franchises under its belt, so if one of those were taken away – even on an alleged “temporary” basis – that could be hugely symbolic.
Here’s my take: Bethesda made some great games in the 2000s, but has shown absolutely no ability to move with the times in the almost fifteen years since Skyrim. The studio’s leaders seem to have bought into their own hype, believing that every game they develop will automatically be as well-received as Skyrim… and can be heavily-monetised without repercussions. There is still merit in the original Bethesda formula; an open-world game that turns players loose and opens up factions, questlines, and exploration. But other studios are doing similar things… and doing them way better. Bethesda feels like a bit of an outdated dinosaur, still clinging to Skyrim’s success more than a decade later. One more poorly-received game could be the end of the line.
Endangered Studio #7: Bungie
Promo art for Bungie’s Destiny 2.
We talked about the Halo series a moment ago, but that franchise’s new developer isn’t the only one in trouble. The originators of the Halo franchise, Bungie, are in dire straits right now, and could be only a year or so away from closure. The Destiny games may have sold reasonably well, but I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the whole “live service” thing didn’t exactly go to plan for Bungie. Then came the development of Marathon… something I talked about a few weeks ago.
Marathon was in a world of trouble after a seriously underwhelming closed playtest left critics and fans feeling like the game needed a lot of work. Then came the news that Bungie had – not for the first time – plagiarised a whole bunch of art assets for the game without payment or credit to the artist. These pieces quite literally define Marathon’s “quirky” visual style… which was pretty much the only thing the game had going for it.
Marathon is in a huge amount of trouble.
Sony recently acquired Bungie for what many have argued was an overly inflated price. A delay to Marathon has recently been announced, but any goodwill or positive buzz that the game could’ve had has entirely evaporated at this point. It’s at a point where even a total overhaul won’t be enough; Marathon is pretty much dead on arrival, even after the delay. So… what happens to Bungie if that’s the case?
Sony can be just as brutal as everyone else when it comes to killing off underperforming studios. Just ask Firewalk, Pixelopus, Bigbig Studios, or London Studio. Bungie should not consider itself safe simply by virtue of its name or its high price tag… if Marathon fails, which it inevitably will, there are gonna be some tough questions asked by Sony. If Bungie can’t prove that they have something big lined up… that could be it.
Endangered Studio #8: BioWare
Taash from Dragon Age: The Veilguard.
Mass Effect: Andromeda. Anthem. Dragon Age: The Veilguard. BioWare has endured basically a decade of failures since the launch of Dragon Age: Inquisition, and it’s difficult to see Electronic Arts being willing to put up with another title that doesn’t live up to expectations. And I’m afraid there are serious questions about the studio’s next project: a sequel to the beloved Mass Effect trilogy.
I have a longer piece in the pipeline that I’ve been working on for a while about the importance of endings – and how, in the modern entertainment industry, very few stories are allowed to come to a dignified, natural end. The Mass Effect trilogy, with its buildup to the defeat of the Reapers, is an example of that… and it’s hard to see how telling another story in that universe won’t feel tacked-on, repetitive, or underwhelming in comparison to what’s come before. That was a big part of the Andromeda problem, in my opinion: after literally saving the galaxy, there’s basically nowhere for Mass Effect to go.
Where does Mass Effect go after literally saving the galaxy?
I don’t buy the criticisms of Dragon Age: The Veilguard failing because it was “too woke.” I think a lot of armchair critics seized on a single line from one character and tried to make the game all about that. But there were clearly issues with The Veilguard, not least its stop-start development, multiple changes in focus, and deviation from the art style of the earlier games. I hope BioWare has learned something from that experience… but, to be blunt, they should’ve learned those lessons already from Andromeda and Anthem.
I will almost certainly play Mass Effect 4. So BioWare can take comfort in the fact that they have at least one guaranteed sale right here! But… am I optimistic? I’m curious, sure, and I want the game to be good. But I also can’t shake the feeling that it’s going to be a story that’s just going to struggle to make the case for itself. Why, after Shepard beat the Reapers, do I need to see this new story? What’s going to be the hook? And without that… will it be worth playing? This is surely BioWare’s absolutely final chance, and with EA notorious for shutting down underperforming studios, everything is now riding on Mass Effect.
Endangered Studio #9: Firaxis Games
Are the barbarians at the gates?
Like BioWare above, Firaxis is on a bit of a weak run right now. XCOM: Chimera Squad underperformed on PC, leading to its console port being cancelled. And Marvel’s Midnight Suns was also considered a disappointment by parent company Take-Two Interactive. Then we come to this year’s Civilization VII, which is struggling right now. Civ VII is currently underperforming, with players seemingly preferring to stick with Civ VI or even Civ V, and there’s criticism of various aspects of the game – not least its three-era structure.
I believe Civilization VII has potential, but there’s clearly a limited window of time to really showcase that potential before panic sets in. At time of writing, there have only been a couple of significant updates to the base game, which launched almost six months ago. Players are still calling on Firaxis to patch bugs, rebalance key features, and add more to the game… and many of those players seem to have drifted back to Civ VI while they wait.
A lot of players tried Civ VII but have already drifted back to Civ VI.
Other “digital board games” inspired by the venerable Civilization series have been eating Firaxis’ lunch, too. They don’t have the genre all to themselves any more, and I think we’re seeing the limitations of releasing a partial game, then hoping to sell expensive DLC to patch the holes. Civ VI did that, too, but there was arguably a stronger foundation to build upon and a fun base game to get players interested in the DLC in the first place.
I suspect Firaxis will get another chance. Even if work on Civilization VII were to end sooner than expected, 2K still recognises the strength of the series and its name recognition. But if a hypothetical Civ VIII or some other sequel or spin-off were to flop, too? That’s when Firaxis could be in real trouble.
Endangered Studio #10: Rocksteady Studios
Batman and a villain in Arkham Asylum.
No, not Grand Theft Auto developers Rockstar, we’re talking about Rocksteady – the team behind the Batman: Arkham series and last year’s critically panned Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League. In 2015, Arkham Knight suffered horribly with a ridicululously poor PC port, but the Arkham series has been otherwise popular and well-received, especially by Batman fans. But in 2024, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League was not, and left many players wondering how such a bad game could’ve taken Rocksteady such a long time to craft.
The bottom line is this: Kill the Justice League has lost parent company Warner Bros. Games more than $200 million. That’s… well, that’s not exactly great news when you’re trying to keep the lights on! These live service types of games are notorious for being expensive flops in a lot of cases, and what often follows an expensive, poorly-reviewed title is a studio closure.
Suicide Squad: Killed Its Studio…
There are rumours that Rocksteady has already been laying off staff, first in the QA department, and later in other technical fields, too. The studio also has no new game on its schedule at time of writing; it seems some staff are still working on Kill the Justice League in supporting roles, while others may be working to assist Portkey Games with a new version of Hogwarts Legacy. Again, that doesn’t bode well for the studio.
Practically all of the studios we’ve talked about today were once well-regarded and had at least some popular and successful titles in their back catalogues. But with the Arkham series having wrapped up a decade ago, I don’t think its lingering goodwill will be enough to save Rocksteady. Kill the Justice League was a game outside of the studio’s area of expertise, seemingly forced on them by Warner Bros. Games, and it sucks that they couldn’t stick to making the kinds of single-player titles at which they excelled.
So that’s it.
Xbox prompted me to think about this topic…
We’ve talked about a few developers and publishers that *could* be in danger in the months and years ahead.
As I said at the beginning: I’m never rooting for anyone to fail. Well, except really low-quality shovelware or games with abusive gambling baked in! But those obvious exceptions aside, I don’t want to see games fail or studios closed down, and I especially don’t want to see hard-working developers and other industry insiders losing their jobs. There’s more than enough of that going around without adding to it.
But as a critic and commentator who talks about gaming, I wanted to share my opinion on these studios in light of what’s been going on in the games industry. There are plenty of examples of high-profile failures, collapses, and shutdowns. Whether we’re talking about Atari, Interplay, most of Maxis, Sega, THQ, Lionhead, Acclaim, or Neversoft, one thing is clear: being a well-known brand with a good reputation isn’t enough. The games industry is cutthroat, and not all companies – not even those that seem to have scaled the heights and reached the very top of the gaming realm – can be considered safe.
Maybe I’m wrong about some or all of these companies – and in a way, I hope that I am. But at the same time, gaming is like any other industry and it needs innovation. If the same companies dominate the gaming landscape forever, things will quickly stagnate. What gives me hope is that there are plenty of smaller studios producing new and innovative titles, and some of them will go on to be the “big beasts” of tomorrow.
So I hope this has been… well, not “fun,” but interesting, at any rate. And please check back here on Trekking with Dennis, because there’s more gaming content and coverage to come!
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional artwork courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I’m back with another edition of my infamous Gaming “Hot Takes!” I’ve officially given up on numbering these; I think this might be piece number four or five, but I’ve made several other posts over the last few years in which I share a few of my “hot takes” on gaming and the games industry in general. As I’ve said before, it’s never long before something in the world of gaming comes along to prompt another “hot take,” so that’s what we’re gonna look at today!
Video games are… well, they’re pretty darn good, to be honest with you. And I always like to make sure you know that I’m not some kind of “hater;” I like playing video games, and there are some titles that I genuinely believe eclipse films and TV shows in terms of their world-building, storytelling, or just pure entertainment value. We’re going to tackle some controversial topics today, though!
Let’s get into some gaming “hot takes!”
Before we take a look at the “hot takes,” I have a couple of important caveats. Firstly, I’m well aware that some or all of these points are the minority position, or at least contentious. That’s why they’re called “hot takes” and not “very obvious takes that everyone will surely agree with!” Secondly, this isn’t intended to be taken too seriously, so if I criticise a game or company you like, just bear that in mind. Finally, all of this is the entirely subjective, not objective, opinion of just one person.
Although gamers can be a cantankerous bunch, I still like to believe that there’s enough room – and enough maturity – in the wider community for respectful discussion and polite disagreement that doesn’t descend into name-calling and toxicity! So let’s all try to keep that in mind as we jump into the “hot takes,” eh?
“Hot Take” #1: If your game is still in “early access,” you shouldn’t be allowed to sell DLC.
Pre-purchase to play early!
“Early access” means a game hasn’t been released yet, right? That’s what it’s supposed to mean, anyway – though some titles take the absolute piss by remaining in early access for a decade or more. But if you haven’t officially released your game, your focus ought to be on, y’know, finishing the game instead of working on DLC. Paid-for downloadable content for games that are still officially in “early access” is just awful.
Star Citizen is arguably the most egregious example of this. The game – from what I’ve seen – would barely qualify as an “alpha” version, yet reams of overpriced downloadable content is offered for sale. Some it exists in-game, but a lot of it is really just a promise; an I.O.U. from the developers, promising to build a ridiculously expensive spaceship if and when time permits.
Expensive DLC ships in Star Citizen.
Early access has a place in gaming, and I don’t want to see it disappear. But that place is with smaller independent projects seeking feedback, not massive studios abusing the model. Selling DLC that doesn’t exist for game that also doesn’t fully exist feels like a total piss-take, and given how often these things go horribly wrong, I’m surprised to see people still being lured in and falling for what can, at times, feel like a scam.
There have been some fantastic expansion packs going back decades, and I don’t object to DLC – even if it’s what I would usually call a pack of overpriced cosmetic items. But when the main game isn’t even out, and is supposedly still being worked on, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that charging money for DLC is wrong – these things should either be free updates or, if they’re definitely going to be sold separately, held in reserve until the game is launched.
“Hot Take” #2: Bethesda Game Studios has basically made four good games… ever.
Yup, you heard me.
Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. That’s it. That’s the list. From 2002 to 2011 – less than a decade – Bethesda Game Studios managed to develop and release four genuinely good games… but hasn’t reached that bar since. Bethesda has spent longer as a declining, outdated, and thoroughly mediocre developer than it ever did as a good developer. The studio is like the games industry equivalent of The Simpsons: fantastic in its prime, but what followed has been a long period of stagnation, decay, and mediocrity as they’ve been completely overtaken and eclipsed by competitors. To be blunt… I don’t see Starfield’s next (and probably last) expansion pack, or The Elder Scrolls VI, changing that.
There is a retro charm to the likes of Arena and Daggerfall, and I won’t pretend that Fallout 4 didn’t have its moments. Even Starfield, with all of its limitations and issues, still had interesting elements, and the ship-builder was genuinely fun to use… at least at first. But since Skyrim in 2011, I would argue that Bethesda has been in decline. In fact, I believe Skyrim’s unprecedented success broke something fundamental in the way Bethesda’s executives and directors think about games. Gone was the idea of games as one-and-done things to be created and released. Replacing it was the concept I’ve called the “single-player live service,” where titles were transformed into “ten-year experiences” that could be monetised every step of the way.
Starfield has an in-game marketplace comparable to even the worst free-to-play mobile games.
As I said recently, I don’t have a lot of faith in The Elder Scrolls VI any more. It seems all but certain to contain another disgusting in-game marketplace for skins, items, and even entire questlines and factions. When there are so many other games to play that aren’t hideously over-monetised… why should I bother getting excited for The Elder Scrolls VI? Even worse, it’s being made in Bethesda’s “Creation Engine;” the zombified remains of software from thirty years ago that clearly isn’t up to the task and hasn’t been for a while.
Bethesda’s decline has been slow, and folks who skipped titles like Starfield and Fallout 76 might not be aware of just how bad things have gotten. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe The Elder Scrolls VI will be a miraculous return to form. I hope so – I never want to root for a game to fail. But with so many other role-playing games out now or on the horizon… I just don’t see it measuring up as things stand. And in a way, I can’t help but feel it would be better in the long run if another studio were to take on the project.
“Hot Take” #3: There won’t ever be another 1983-style “crash.”
It ain’t gonna happen.
Given the absolute state of modern gaming – at least insofar as many of the industry’s biggest corporations are concerned – I genuinely get where this feeling is coming from. But I think the people making this argument either don’t fully understand the 1983 crash, or don’t appreciate how massive gaming as a whole has become in the decades since then.
In short: in 1983, video games weren’t much more than pretty expensive digital toys. The home console market was relatively small, and like so many products over the years, it was genuinely possible that video games themselves could’ve been a flash in the pan; something comparable to LaserDisc, the hovercraft, or, to pick on a more modern example, Google Glass. All of these technologies threatened to change the world… but didn’t. They ended up being temporary fads that were quickly forgotten.
Fast-forward to 2025. The games industry is massive. So many people play games in some form or another that the idea of a total market collapse or “crash” is beyond far-fetched. That isn’t to say there won’t be changes and shake-ups – whole companies could disappear, including brands that seem massive and unassailable right now. Overpriced games and hardware are going to be challenges, too. Changing technology – like generative A.I. – could also prove to be hugely disruptive, and there could be new hardware, virtual reality, and all sorts.
But a 1983-style crash? Gaming as a whole on the brink of disappearing altogether? It ain’t gonna happen! There is still innovation in the industry, though these days a lot of it is being driven by independent studios. Some of these companies, which are small outfits right now, could be the big corporations of tomorrow, and some of the biggest names in the industry today will almost certainly fall by the wayside. Just ask the likes of Interplay, Spectrum HoloByte, and Atari. But whatever may happen, there will still be games, there will still be big-budget games, and there will still be hardware to play those games on. Changes are coming, of that I have no doubt. But there won’t be another industry crash that comes close to what happened in ’83.
“Hot Take” #4: Nintendo’s die-hard fans give the company way too much leniency and support – even for horribly anti-consumer shenanigans.
If you dare to criticise Nintendo, fans are going to riot!
I consider myself a fan of Nintendo’s games… some of them, at least. I’ve owned every Nintendo console from the SNES to the first Switch, and unless something major comes along to dissuade me, I daresay I’ll eventually shell out for a Switch 2, too. But I’m not a Nintendo super-fan, buying every game without question… and some of those folks, in my opinion at least, are far too quick to defend the practices of a greedy corporation that doesn’t care about them in the slightest.
Nintendo isn’t much different from the likes of Ubisoft, Activision, Electronic Arts, Sony, Sega, and other massive publishers in terms of its business practices and its approach to the industry. But none of those companies have such a well-trained legion of die-hard apologists, ready to cover for them no matter how badly they screw up. Nintendo fans will happily leap to the defence of their favourite multi-billion dollar corporation for things they’d rightly criticise any other gaming company for. Price hikes, bad-value DLC, lawsuits against competitors or fans, underbaked and incomplete games… Nintendo is guilty of all of these things, yet if you bring up these points, at least in some corners of the internet, there are thousands of Nintendo fans piling on, shouting you down.
Welcome Tour.
Obviously the recent launch of the Switch 2 has driven this point home for me. The console comes with a very high price tag, expensive add-ons, a paid-for title that should’ve been bundled with the system, an eShop full of low-quality shovelware, literally only one exclusive launch title, and over-inflated prices for its first-party games. But all of these points have been defended to the death by Nintendo’s super-fans; criticising even the shitty, overpriced non-entity Welcome Tour draws as much vitriol and hate as if you’d personally shat in their mother’s handbag.
Very few other corporations in the games industry enjoy this level of protection from a legion of well-trained – and pretty toxic – super-fans. And it’s just… odd. Nintendo has made its share of genuinely bad games. Nintendo has made plenty of poor decisions over the years. Nintendo prioritises profit over everything else, including its own fans and employees. Nintendo is overly litigious, suing everyone from competitors to its own fans. And Nintendo has taken actions that are damaging to players, families, and the industry as a whole. Gamers criticise other companies when they behave this way; Electronic Arts is routinely named as one of America’s “most-hated companies,” for instance. But Nintendo fans are content to give the corporation cover, even for its worst and most egregious sins. They seem to behave like fans of a sports team, insistent that “team red” can do no wrong. I just don’t understand it.
“Hot Take” #5: “Woke” is not synonymous with “bad.” (And many of the people crying about games being “woke” can’t even define the word.)
He seems like a reasonable man…
In some weird corners of social media, a game (or film or TV show) is decreed “woke” if a character happens to be LGBT+ or from a minority ethnic group. And if such a character is featured prominently in pre-release marketing material… that can be enough to start the hate and review-bombing before anyone has even picked up a control pad. The expression “go woke, go broke” does the rounds a lot… but there are many, many counter-examples that completely disprove this point.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a game where: the player character can be any gender, and their gender is not defined by their genitals. Players can choose to engage in same-sex relationships, practically all of the companion NPCs are pansexual, and there are different races and ethnicities represented throughout the game world. But Baldur’s Gate 3 sold incredibly well, and will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the best games of the decade. So… is it “woke?” If so, why didn’t it “go broke?”
The famously not-woke-at-all Baldur’s Gate 3.
Many “anti-wokers” claim that they aren’t really mad about women in leading roles, minority ethnic characters, or LGBT+ representation, but “bad writing.” And I will absolutely agree that there are some games out there that are genuinely poorly-written, or which have stories I just did not care for in the least. The Last Of Us Part II is a great example of this – the game’s entire narrative was based on an attempt to be creative and subversive, but it hacked away at too many of the fundamentals of storytelling to be satisfying and enjoyable. But you know what wasn’t the problem with The Last Of Us Part II? The fact that one of its secondary characters was trans and another female character was muscular.
Good games can be “woke” and “woke” games can be good. “Woke” games can also be bad, either for totally unrelated reasons or, in some cases, because they got too preachy. But to dismiss a game out of hand – often without playing it or before it’s even launched – because some armchair critic on YouTube declared it to be “woke” is just silly. Not only that, but there are many games that contain themes, storylines, or characters that could be reasonably described as “woke” that seem to be completely overlooked by the very folks who claim it’s their mission to “end wokeness.” The so-called culture war is just a very odd thing, and it’s sad to see how it’s impacted gaming. I would never tell anyone they “must” play or not play certain games, but I think it’s a shame if people miss out on genuinely fun experiences because of a perception of some ill-defined political concept that, in most cases, doesn’t have much to do with the game at all.
So that’s it!
It’s a-me, Mario!
We’ve looked at a few more of my infamous “hot takes!” I hope it’s been a bit of fun… and not something to get too upset about! It’s totally okay to disagree, and one of the great things about gaming nowadays is that there’s plenty of choice. If you like a game that I don’t, or I enjoy a genre you find boring… that’s okay. If you’re a super-fan of something that I’m not interested in… we can still be friends. Even if we don’t agree politically, we ought to be able to have a civil and reasonable conversation without screaming, yelling, or name-calling!
Be sure to check out some of my other “hot takes.” I’ve linked a few other pieces below. And I daresay there’ll be more of these one day soon… I keep finding things in gaming to disagree with, for some reason. It must be because I’m getting grumpy in my old age; I’m just a big ol’ sourpuss!
Have fun out there, and happy gaming!
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective publisher, developer, and/or studio. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Over the past couple of months, leading up to and in the immediate aftermath of the big Xbox Games Showcase presentation, I’ve been hearing rumours about Bethesda Game Studios. Today, I wanted to get into some of what I’ve heard – and debunk a couple of commonly-repeated rumours, too!
Bethesda was notably absent from Xbox’s big summer presentation, with no mention of either Starfield or the upcoming Elder Scrolls VI. To be blunt with you: I’m not surprised that either of those games were absent. In fact, I’d probably have been more surprised if Todd Howard had toddled out onto the stage to make a big pitch! The Elder Scrolls VI is – as we’ll get into in more detail in a moment – still multiple years away from release, and Bethesda has already been burned by its way-too-early announcement. And Starfield? Well, let’s talk about that.
What – if anything – is next for Starfield?
When Starfield wasn’t so much as mentioned at the Xbox Games Showcase, I saw a lot of folks overreacting. “Starfield is being abandoned!” said one. “Bethesda is ignoring it and moving on!” cried another. While I agree with the overall sentiment that Starfield underwhelmed in terms of both critical reception and sales, and is certainly in trouble, I don’t believe that we need to write its obituary quite yet. Let me explain why.
Starfield is, according to solid insider information, getting a PlayStation 5 port in the not-too-distant future. I wouldn’t be shocked to hear talk of a potential Switch 2 port, too, but that’s much more speculative on my part. But Microsoft and Xbox wouldn’t want to announce this news at their event; it’s like saying “you might as well just buy a PS5!” Instead, it seems much more likely to me that Starfield will be announced for PlayStation 5 later in the year – almost certainly in time for Christmas. Alongside that announcement may well be another piece of DLC.
Starfield may be landing on PS5 soon…
Starfield hasn’t yet had a standalone expansion pack that Microsoft can really use to measure its future prospects. By that I mean that Shattered Space was sold as part of Starfield’s premium edition bundle, which players needed to buy if they wanted to play the game on its real release date in 2023 instead of a week later. Many folks who may have switched off from Starfield already paid for Shattered Space, even if they didn’t play it, and the expansion’s standalone sales in 2024 will be impacted by that. I feel absolutely convinced that Bethesda has enough in the tank for one last Starfield push – and a second expansion pack is certainly gonna be a part of that.
If Bethesda and Xbox have good sense, they’ll announce a PlayStation 5 “deluxe edition” port of Starfield, including not only Shattered Space but also the new DLC, as well as a similar release of the bundle for Xbox and PC. I’d imagine this DLC will be later this year; Shattered Space was in the autumn, so expect anywhere from September to November for this DLC. Some have pointed to Bethesda tradmarking the name “Starborn;” that could be the next DLC’s title.
“You cannot go that way.”
So Starfield should be getting a second piece of DLC and a PS5 launch – with a potential Switch 2 port if things go well. But things are not going well right now, and Starfield is really in the last chance saloon. Failure to light up the board on PS5, and/or another poorly-received expansion pack will almost certainly lead to the game being quietly abandoned. There might still be occasional patches to fix major bugs and issues, but if Starfield doesn’t get its redemption arc soon, there really won’t be any point in Microsoft greenlighting even more money on the game’s continued support.
So Starfield isn’t dead… yet. We’ll have to see whether the next DLC addresses the game’s many issues, and whether it’s as big and transformative as it needs to be. Starfield needs something on the scale of Cyberpunk 2077′s Phantom Liberty, as I’ve said before. Whether Bethesda can even do something like that, though… well, we’ll find out later in the year, perhaps.
Reviews for Starfield on Steam have been mixed, and the game’s former players didn’t show up in big numbers for Shattered Space.
Up next is The Elder Scrolls VI. I’ll level with you: I’m astonished that anyone thought they’d see this game at the Xbox Games Showcase this year. Some super-fans are still clinging to the desperate “cope” that The Elder Scrolls VI is coming out next year. It isn’t. It simply is not. It’s way too early in its development cycle – a cycle that has only lengthened over time. No, The Elder Scrolls VI might – if Bethesda pushes and Microsoft is okay with a buggy mess – make a late 2027 release date. But realistically, I still think 2028 or even 2029 are more likely.
Starfield took five full years of work. There were changes to Bethesda’s creaking, zombified, thirty-year-old game engine which took up some of that time, sure, but the game still took five years to make and polish. Microsoft insisted on a year-long delay which was largely spent on bug fixing; I shudder to think what Starfield might’ve looked like if it had been pushed out on its original release date! But why, then, have some folks convinced themselves that The Elder Scrolls VI will be ready in half the time? Bethesda hasn’t been working on the game since 2018; development only started in earnest after Starfield’s release in late 2023, and realistically, a significant portion of Bethesda’s team was still assigned to Starfield for several months after, working on hotfixes, patches, and DLC.
Todd Howard announced The Elder Scrolls VI seven years ago.
So let’s be bold and make a prediction: you will not see The Elder Scrolls VI this year. Not a teaser, not a trailer, not concept art… nothing. You probably won’t see any of that stuff next year, either, unless Microsoft has supreme confidence in the game and its ability to make a 2027 release date. The Elder Scrolls VI is still a ways off and it needs time in the oven. And there’s another potential wrinkle in this equation, too: the Oblivion remaster that was released earlier this year.
This is a little technical, but bear with me. Oblivion was remastered using a process that combined two different game engines. Oblivion’s original code is still there, running on Gamebryo/the Creation Engine. But layered on top of that is Unreal Engine 5, which renders the game’s graphics. This process has led to Oblivion looking absolutely fantastic, by the way… so might Bethesda want to implement the same technology into The Elder Scrolls VI? I mean, it would be pretty awkward if the game launches and people begin comparing it unfavourably to the Oblivion remaster! If Bethesda does choose to go down that route, that could add to the game’s development time – and it’s something Bethesda may not have even considered until recently.
The Oblivion remaster adds Unreal Engine 5 graphics to the game’s original code.
There is one additional consideration here, one that could bump up The Elder Scrolls VI’s release date a little. It seems that Microsoft may be intending to launch new hardware in 2027 – and you could hardly get a better-sounding launch title than the sequel to Skyrim! Microsoft might want The Elder Scrolls VI to be the new Xbox console’s “killer app;” a system-seller that could potentially outmanoeuvre PlayStation. If that’s the case, maybe the 2027 holiday season could be a targetted release window.
Finally, there’s talk of a remaster of Fallout 3 using the same process as Oblivion. With a new season of the Fallout TV series officially on the schedule for December this year – a mere six months from now – could we see that remaster sooner than we think? Timing it to coincide with the new season would be perfect, if Bethesda and partner Virtuos could manage it. It might be a tall order to release the Fallout 3 remaster so soon after the Oblivion remaster, though! Still, there could be news of that game sometime around the holidays, as hype for the show’s second season builds.
Could a potential Fallout 3 remaster be released in time for the show’s second season?
So that’s it for now. Those are the Bethesda rumours I keep hearing – and my response to them!
I’ve been a Bethesda fan since I played Morrowind on the original Xbox back in 2002. I still consider that game to be one of the best I’ve ever played, and I’ve enjoyed other Bethesda titles in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout franchises, too. But I’ll be honest with you… I’m not excited about anything the studio has on the slate right now. Starfield’s absolutely appalling microtransaction marketplace – which feels like something from a shitty free-to-play mobile game – speaks volumes about the company’s current direction and how they view their audience. Even if The Elder Scrolls VI looks great, and even if Starfield were to get a miraculous new update and expansion that completely transformed the game… I just don’t want to support that kind of behaviour in the single-player space.
Look around at other single-player role-playing games. Baldur’s Gate 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Kingdom Come: Deliverance… none of them have the kind of egregious in-game marketplace and paid mods that come baked-in with Starfield. If you think The Elder Scrolls VI will be spared the same fate, well… I wouldn’t bet on it. Bethesda has been trying to implement these kinds of paid mods and microtransactions for years, and I don’t see the company being persuaded to stop now.
Words cannot express how much I hate this.
Whether you’re okay with that… that’s up to you. For me, at the very least it’s reined in my potential hype or excitement for The Elder Scrolls VI. And even if Starfield were to get that Phantom Liberty-sized DLC that it desperately needs, if the microtransactions and paid mods remain in place, I’m still not inclined to play it or support it. It’s sad, because Bethesda used to be one of my favourite developers and, as I said, they created one of my favourite games of all-time. But this greed… it’s just sickening, to be honest with you.
Anyway, we got a little off-topic there at the end, but I think I said everything I wanted to about The Elder Scrolls VI and Starfield based on the rumours I keep hearing! I hope this has been interesting, at any rate. A lot of this is speculative, but I’m fairly confident about most of my predictions and my analysis!
Until next time!
Starfield and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered are out now for PC and Xbox Series consoles. All titles discussed above are the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
When the Nintendo Wii launched here in the UK in late 2006, pre-orders sold out well in advance. I was on a waiting list that was months long, and it wasn’t until almost half a year later that I managed to finally get my hands on a console. In 2017, though I wasn’t on a waiting list and didn’t buy a Switch right away, I was well aware that there were waiting lists and some folks found it difficult to get their hands on a console on launch day. That’s to say nothing of the problems Sony and Microsoft had when the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series consoles launched a few years ago. Those machines were out of stock everywhere for basically an entire year – at least here in the UK.
Nintendo emailed me shortly after the Switch 2 was announced; a marketing circular hyping up the new console and inviting pre-orders. I didn’t actually meet Nintendo’s stringent pre-order requirements, having cancelled my Switch Online membership for lack of use a while ago! But Nintendo has been pushing hard for pre-orders, and there was even a minor controversy a few weeks ago when it seemed that Game, the UK’s only remaining chain of video game shops, had messed up some folks’ pre-orders. The Switch 2 was all set to be the hottest piece of tech of 2025 and looked like it’d be hard to find!
Which makes it feel profoundly odd that today, on launch day, consoles are available everywhere I look.
The Nintendo Switch 2 hasn’t sold out… at least here in the UK at time of writing.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a damning indictment of the Switch 2 that it hasn’t sold out. In fact, if you remember my criticisms of Microsoft and Sony back in 2020, you’ll know that I argued then that companies needed to do more to ensure they had enough stock to go around before launch. Playing into the hands of touts and scalpers was really poor from both Xbox and PlayStation, and on the one hand I’m glad that Nintendo seems to have been better-prepared.
But on the other… I can’t shake a funny feeling. Nintendo has never been well-prepared for… well, anything. Go back twenty years and you’ll find jokes and memes doing the rounds about Nintendo machines and games being unavailable or out of stock, and I think I’m right in saying that even the beleaguered Wii U had stock issues when it was released back in 2012. So… has Nintendo finally got it right? Did the company, for what could be the first time ever, manage to gauge public interest perfectly, and successfully manufacture and ship enough units all across the world?
The Wii was out of stock everywhere for months after its launch.
Or could there be another explanation?
Is the Switch 2 still in stock today because… well, there just isn’t as much interest in the console as Nintendo had hoped? Even if you’re the hardest of hard-core Nintendo fanatics, you can’t deny that the Switch 2’s marketing campaign has been dominated by the high price of games, as well as the increased price of the system itself. I warned that pitching the Switch 2 at a comparable price to Xbox and PlayStation consoles would invite potentially unfavourable comparisons, and for gamers interested in a handheld, there are cheaper and more versatile handheld PCs on the market.
Then there’s the launch lineup. As I said last time, the only game I’d really call a “system seller” or “killer app” is Mario Kart World – the game which has attracted a ton of criticism for its price tag. Donkey Kong Bananza isn’t a launch title, and as a game in a second-tier franchise I doubt it would be a huge mover of Switch 2s on its own anyway. What other games are there at launch that are going to attract players? Enhanced ports of a handful of Switch 1 titles and underwhelming versions of games that look and run better on other consoles? I don’t mean to be unkind, but I doubt many folks are buying a £400 console to play Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess or the paid-for demo Welcome Tour.
Nintendo is clearly banking on Mario Kart World to shift a lot of consoles.
Maybe this is a weird quirk of the UK market, and perhaps gamers in the United States, Europe, and Japan are going to be waiting a while to get a chance to play on Nintendo’s latest machine. But I’m not so sure, and I’ll be very curious to see the Switch 2 sales figures – if Nintendo announces them – sometime in the autumn when the company talks about the current financial quarter.
There are issues in the UK with the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, inflation, and a government that seems hell-bent on punishing the poorest and least-well off in society. So that could absolutely be a contributing factor to why people aren’t confident in investing in a brand-new, relatively expensive, luxury item like a games console. But if that were true, I’d have expected to see sales of Xbox, PlayStation, PC, smartphones, and other gadgets in decline – which is something that hasn’t happened.
Another UK retailer (Game) has Switch 2 consoles in stock.
So what’s going on? Maybe I’ll check back in a couple of days’ time and find that Switch 2 consoles are out of stock. Or maybe Nintendo finally got one right and managed to produce enough consoles to meet launch demand. There’s a first time for everything, after all. But I can’t shake the feeling at this very early stage that something isn’t quite going to plan, and that the Switch 2 might not be reaching the sales targets Nintendo and their corporate investors had in mind. But I’m not going to write the console’s obituary just yet! There’s still plenty of time for things to change; it’s literally the machine’s first day on sale. However, the simple fact that consoles haven’t already sold out has definitely caught me off guard.
If you put a gun to my head and told me to predict, right now, how well the Switch 2 would perform across its lifespan… I’d say that I still expect it to do well with Nintendo’s core fanbase, but that it might struggle to reach the same number of units sold as the original Switch. The price tag is a big part of that… but so is the console’s uninspired design. For decades, Nintendo consoles were new, innovative, and fresh. Sometimes that worked, and sometimes it didn’t work quite so well, but what you could never say about Nintendo was that they were stagnant. The company built a reputation around innovative, fun, family-friendly games. The Switch 2 is the company’s first console to feel repetitive and samey… and maybe, just maybe, that could be another contributing factor.
Or I could be totally wrong and by Saturday, it’ll be a six-month wait to get a Switch 2! Still… strange times.
The Nintendo Switch 2 is available to purchase now. The Switch, Switch 2, Super Mario, and other properties discussed above are the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I almost titled this piece Anthem: Just Cancel It, accidentally using the name of BioWare’s failed live service title… which I think is a reflection on how bland, generic, and forgettable Marathon is as the name of a video game. I’ll be honest: Marathon was never going to be my thing. I’m not interested in extraction shooters, competitive FPS titles, or really even online multiplayer in general. I didn’t play Bungie’s Destiny or Destiny 2 over the past ten-plus years, and in my humble opinion the company hasn’t really done anything halfway interesting since Halo Reach back in 2010. But the controversy swirling around Marathon has been inescapable over the past few days, so I felt compelled to share my thoughts on the upcoming game anyway.
Marathon should be cancelled. That’s the bottom line, and the reason is simple: right now, Marathon is on course for a Concord-esque failure, something which would surely condemn Bungie itself to the ignominious fate of being shut down. Although a lot of money has been invested in this game from Bungie, Sony, and elsewhere, it stands absolutely no chance of making its money back due to the controversies it’s embroiled in. Wasting more time on development is pointless; even a significant delay and total re-working of the game and its art assets won’t save Marathon now. If Sony and Bungie push ahead they’re just pissing away even more money. It’s time to cut your losses and try something else.
Just cancel Marathon.
This didn’t start with stolen art, but the revelation that Bungie – or, according to the studio, an unnamed “ex-employee” – stole a significant number of pieces of artwork that “somehow” ended up in the game has completely ruined whatever reputation Marathon might’ve been able to garner after an unimpressive closed play-test. Given how integral many of these art assets are to the game – literally defining its visual style – even removing the blatant thievery won’t be enough.
Marathon employs a deliberate visual style. When I saw it, quite honestly I didn’t like it. The game looked unfinished to my eye, as if character models and environments were all using placeholder images, waiting for higher-quality finished assets to be implemented. If you’ve ever seen an early build of a video game, you might know what I’m talking about. Marathon just looked like an early alpha version… unfinished. But that’s kind of beside the point, because that was a deliberate choice on the part of the developers. Unfortunately, however, it turns out that that entire aesthetic was stolen without accreditation or reimbursement from an artist who was never employed by Bungie.
AntiReal’s tweet.
Like Concord last year, Marathon is arriving too late in a saturated market. Like Concord last year, Marathon is going to charge would-be players money up-front in a genre where the most popular titles are free-to-play. Like Concord last year, Marathon doesn’t have enough maps, characters, or basic features (like proximity chat) that other games in the genre have. And like Concord last year, Marathon has a generic and uninspired name, bog-standard gameplay, and really nothing special at all… other than its visual style.
I might not have been impressed with the way Marathon looks, but I can’t deny that the game’s aesthetic gives it something to help it stand out. In fact, it’s pretty much the only unique selling-point that Marathon could’ve reasonably been said to have. Art styles are a very subjective thing, but I can see a game that looks like Marathon finding an audience, or at least having its visuals as a key talking point at launch. That alone could bring in players… but now it’s ruined; soiled by Bungie’s incessant plagiarism.
The only thing Marathon arguably had going for it was its visual style.
This has happened before. Bungie has plagiarised art assets in Destiny 2 not once but twice, and has admitted as much. The studio is also embroiled in a lawsuit at present over stealing written work; in this case the storyline to one of Destiny 2′s expansion packs. And when Bungie launched a Nerf gun as a merchandising tie-in for Destiny 2, it turned out that the studio had also stolen the artwork that they used for that product. Plagiarism has become a way of life for Bungie, it seems.
Earlier in 2025, some players got to get their hands on an early version of Marathon – and the reaction was pretty poor. Some praised the game’s art style – ironically, given the theft of assets that has since been revealed – but noted that the game itself needs more time in the oven. There aren’t enough levels, the game is missing basic features, and while gameplay isn’t bad per se, it still needs a lot of work to reach the bar that fans of the extraction shooter genre would expect from a premium title. Marathon was already in big trouble… so this plagiarism controversy should be its death knell.
A close-up look at one of Marathon’s weapons.
It can be difficult to admit defeat and recognise that something you’ve worked hard on isn’t going to achieve its objectives. I get that, believe me. But to be realistic, that’s where Marathon is. I don’t think a delay is going to be enough. I don’t think stripping out all of the stolen art is going to be enough. I don’t even think that reworking the game from the ground up is going to be enough. At this point, it’s time to strip the game down to its basic parts, see if any of it is salvageable, and if possible, bring those pieces over to another project. There are bound to be some things – like animation work, weapon designs, or tweaks to the game engine – that could be recycled into another game.
Last year, the writing was on the wall for Concord before it even launched. And in 2025 (or 2026 if Sony and Bungie insist on a delay) the same feels true of Marathon. And I would argue that Marathon was already doomed before it emerged that Bungie had, once again, used stolen art assets all over the game. But given how controversial this blatant plagiarism has become, any residual support Marathon might’ve been able to count on seems to have evaporated. I really don’t see any successful path forward for the game at this point.
If Marathon launches, it’ll be this year’s Concord.
I’m glad that AntiReal (or 4nt1r34l), the artist whose work was shamelessly stolen, was able to draw attention to what happened. Big companies can often feel like they’re above the law; that “little guys” have no power over them so they can do whatever they like. Social media and internet activism have shown, at least in this case, that people can come together when a company misbehaves. And make no mistake: Bungie would not have acted nor made any public statement on the issue if it hadn’t gone viral and picked up attention online. They’d surely have tried to brush it under the carpet and ignore it.
So it’s time to cancel Marathon. The game had a bunch of other problems even before it emerged that its entire visual identity – basically the only thing it had going for it – was based on thievery and plagiarism. This really should be the final nail in its coffin. Pressing ahead and trying to rework the game ahead of a purported launch this autumn won’t lead to any kind of success, so it’s better for Bungie and Sony to cut their (significant) losses and cancel the game. Unless they’re hoping to break Concord’s record as PlayStation’s biggest-ever failure.
At time of writing, Marathon is targeting a September 2025 release date. Marathon is the copyright of Sony and Bungie (or at least, the non-plagiarised parts are). Concord is the copyright of Firewalk Studios and Sony. Some images, screenshots, and promo artwork courtesy of Bungie and/or IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I was partway through writing this article about the recently-announced delay to Grand Theft Auto VI when Rockstar unexpectedly released the game’s second teaser trailer – so bear with me while I re-write a few sentences and shuffle things around!
The delay to Grand Theft Auto VI is going to be disappointing to a lot of people – but it’s also unquestionably the right call. Developer Rockstar Games is well-known in the industry for its abusive “crunch” practices in the run-up to big launches, so anything that potentially mitigates that and makes the working environment better for people is a hugely positive thing. Given Rockstar and Take-Two’s insane financial resources, and the continued revenue stream from Grand Theft Auto V’s online mode, there’s absolutely no justification for pushing to meet a self-imposed, arbitrary release window. If the game needs more time and more work, then delaying it is the right move.
Grand Theft Auto VI has been delayed to May 2026.
From a gameplay perspective, a delay is the right call, too. Since internet connectivity became commonplace on home consoles in the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 days, more and more corporations have taken what I call the “release now, fix later” approach to game design – releasing a broken, unfinished game with the promise of patches and updates later to smooth things out. This rarely works as intended, and there are so many examples of games which should’ve been good that ended up being soiled by a poor launch. Even success stories, like Cyberpunk 2077, are still tainted for a lot of players, and will always have a little asterisk next to them explaining that, while the final version of the game may have been great, the launch version was piss-poor.
I don’t have any “insider information” from Take-Two or Rockstar, so I don’t know what might’ve been going on behind the scenes to prompt this delay. There wasn’t even an official release date for Grand Theft Auto VI, just a vague “2025” from the original announcement. As I said at the time, a delay felt like a reasonable prospect, so I’m not particularly surprised by the news. A second delay from spring to autumn 2026 also feels plausible – so watch this space, I guess!
Part of the game’s open world as seen in the recent trailer.
I’ve said it before and I’ll undoubtedly say it again: game delays are a good thing and should be celebrated, not criticised. I get it: it’s never fun when you hear that a game you’re excited about is going to be delayed, but if it means the finished product will be better (and, y’know, actually finished) then it’s going to be worth it. A game as large as Grand Theft Auto VI purports to be will take time for QA testers to work through, and I’m content to give Rockstar and Take-Two additional time to polish the experience and launch a better, more stable, less glitchy game. Even if that means waiting a year or two!
Thankfully, the reaction to delays from most players and fans these days is mature and acknowledges that simple reality. I think all of us have been burned at least once by a buggy, glitch-riddled, clearly unfinished game – and nobody wants to go through that again! There will be some upset players, of course, but I think most folks are mature enough to understand that this news, while it may be disappointing, will ultimately mean the launch version of Grand Theft Auto VI will be more polished and just an all-around better experience.
Hopefully Grand Theft Auto VI’s delay will result in a better finished product.
I do have a couple of things to add about the game, though, particularly now that we’ve seen the second teaser trailer.
Firstly, I’m a little disappointed that we still haven’t actually seen any bona fide gameplay in any of the marketing material that Rockstar and Take-Two have released so far. Both teaser trailers may be comprised of “in-engine footage,” but they show cut-scenes, carefully-curated clips, and content that may have been rendered especially for the game’s marketing. What we haven’t seen is any actual gameplay, and while you might say that’s fair enough if the game is more than a year away from launch, Grand Theft Auto VI was, until a few days ago, on the schedule for this year. I would’ve expected to see some glimpse of its gameplay by now, especially with Rockstar preparing that second trailer.
Any idiot can put together cut-scenes, clips, and pre-rendered artwork and make a compelling trailer. Trust me, I used to work in games marketing, so I know what it takes to showcase even the worst and most uninspired titles! Some absolutely atrocious games look decent in their own marketing material, and it’s a bit of a red flag for a game to have potentially been a few months or even just a few weeks away from launch with no gameplay on show.
Any game can look exciting with a carefully edited trailer comprised of pre-rendered cut-scenes and CGI.
This leads into my next point. I… I don’t feel blown away by anything we’ve seen from Grand Theft Auto VI so far. With the caveat that we still haven’t seen any official gameplay, the pre-rendered footage and cut-scenes that have been shown off just haven’t really stood out to me as being particularly special. There are some fantastic-looking games at the moment, particularly in the third-person action/adventure space, and for a game that Take-Two may genuinely try to sell for $100… I haven’t really seen anything in the Grand Theft Auto VI footage that could come close to justifying that.
That doesn’t mean I think the game “looks bad” or will be unenjoyable. But rather that I’d say it doesn’t look like anything special compared to the current crop of AAA titles on the market. Elden Ring, the remastered version of The Last of Us Part II, Alan Wake II, and even Rockstar’s own Red Dead Redemption II – which is now six-and-a-half years old – don’t feel particularly far behind what I’ve seen of Grand Theft Auto VI. Considering the upcoming game’s price point and all the hype around it, I would’ve expected to see a bit more by now to really sell me on why this’ll be a “once-in-a-generation experience;” the kind of thing I can’t afford to miss out on.
Nothing on show has really blown me away so far.
Grand Theft Auto VI looks like it’s going to be an outlaw story; a “modern-day Bonnie and Clyde,” with protagonists Jason and Lucia starting from a low point but taking Vice City by storm. I like that idea in theory, though a narrative can be hard to judge at this distance! But what I really want to see from Grand Theft Auto VI is its world. The characters and the story are incredibly important, of course, but that’s something I’ll discover for myself as I play the game. At this point in the marketing, we need to get a feel for the scale and depth of the world, and start to see what new gameplay features might be included.
Red Dead Redemption II is Rockstar’s magnum opus, and one of the finest games I’ve ever played. But after more than six years – seven going on eight by the time Grand Theft Auto VI actually launches – and an entire console generation, we should be seeing improvements. Grand Theft Auto V was originally released in 2013 on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and players who skipped Red Dead Redemption II will be expecting much more significant improvements and changes. So far, from a couple of pre-rendered trailers, I’m just not feeling much of that.
Jason and Lucia – the game’s protagonists.
I don’t doubt that Grand Theft Auto VI will be a good game – but with the level of hype that’s been swirling around the project for over a decade at this point, will it be a great one? Can it possibly live up to these sky high expectations – and its rumoured $2 billion budget? If the game is on par with other open world titles from the last few years, will that be good enough for players who’ve been waiting for it for such a long time? These are the questions that Rockstar and Take-Two will have to answer – and the marketing campaign so far, while it’s admittedly at an early stage, hasn’t exactly dazzled me.
For those inclined to seek out such things, there are leaked videos and images of Grand Theft Auto VI – some dating back several years. I don’t want to judge the game based on leaks; having worked in the games industry in the past, I know the final build of a game can differ substantially from early versions! But the leaks are undeniably part of the conversation – and again… nothing’s really blowing me away. I see what looks to be a solid third-person action/adventure game, similar in tone and style to Grand Theft Auto V thanks to the familiar tropical setting, and… that’s it. Pre-judging a game based on leaks is silly, but what I’ve seen so far reminds me why I thought it would’ve been better for Grand Theft Auto VI to have been set in a different environment and possibly even in an earlier time period, too.
Should Grand Theft Auto VI have been set in a different city without a beach and palm trees?
You might remember me talking about this years ago. Before we had any official news about Grand Theft Auto VI, I said that I feared a modern-day story set in another tropical city by the beach might just be too samey and too familiar, and wouldn’t do much to give players invested in Grand Theft Auto V a reason to switch. Time will tell, of course, but I wonder if part of the reason why I don’t feel so enthused by the recent trailer (and the leaked footage) is because of how samey and familiar parts of it feel.
So that’s it for now. Grand Theft Auto VI has been delayed – and while that isn’t exactly fun, it’s good news in my book. I’d rather play a better, more polished version of the game a year later than a broken, buggy, unfinished version a year early. As to the story, setting, and gameplay, though… I’m not sure. I’m confident the game will be fun, and that could be good enough, I suppose. But for a game which could end up being the most expensive ever, raising the price of AAA games across the board, and after such a long wait in between titles? Rockstar and Take-Two still have work to do to convince me Grand Theft Auto VI will be worth the price of admission.
Oh, and there’s still not gonna be a simultaneous PC release, which is pretty shitty behaviour from Rockstar and Take-Two.
Grand Theft Auto VI is currently in development and is currently targeting a May 2026 release date. Grand Theft Auto VI is the copyright of Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I’ve been critical of PlayStation and Nintendo in recent months for unnecessarily jacking up the prices of their consoles and games – and now it’s Xbox’s turn. If you haven’t heard, the prices of Xbox consoles, Xbox games, and most Xbox accessories are rising, coming hot on the heels of a significant price hike in Xbox’s Game Pass subscription service.
Don’t believe the lies: this isn’t because of “tariffs” or “inflation” – if anything, these price hikes are a cause of, not a reaction to, inflation. Xbox, like Nintendo and PlayStation before them, planned to jack up their prices months or even years ago. The latest economic turmoil may be a convenient excuse and shield – just like covid, “supply chain issues,” and inflation were a few years ago – but they aren’t the real reasons. The real reason is simple: greed.
Xbox consoles, games, and accessories just got a lot more expensive.
Not even two days ago, at the end of April, Microsoft bragged to investors on an earnings call about how well their Xbox brand and gaming division were performing. Where PlayStation, Nintendo, and other big players in the industry have been mostly stagnant for a couple of years, Xbox enjoyed significant growth – leading to higher than expected profits. Microsoft attributes this to the successes of Game Pass, the Call of Duty series, and Minecraft – the latter of which is probably connected to the release of A Minecraft Movie in cinemas.
The news caused Microsoft’s share price to rise, dragging up other related tech companies at a time when the stock market has been on a downward trend. Partly thanks to the continued success and growth of Xbox, Microsoft is now worth well over $3 trillion – that’s trillion, with a T. In spite of making record profits and enjoying growth that other gaming companies are struggling to maintain, less than two days later Microsoft has turned around and told customers and families that we’re going to have to pay significantly more for their products. They’re too expensive to make in these “challenging economic times.”
Microsoft boasted about ever-growing profits – including in its gaming business – mere hours before this announcement. Image: Microsoft Investor Relations
Although these price hikes will have been planned months or years in advance, the timing of this announcement is – at least in my opinion – connected to the Nintendo Switch 2 situation that we talked about last month. Nintendo may have been roundly criticised for its announcement that games like Mario Kart World will cost $80/£75… but that doesn’t seem to have impacted pre-orders all that much at this stage. In fact, Nintendo announced record pre-order numbers at least in Japan, and as I suggested would happen, the vocal backlash to Nintendo’s announcement hasn’t been met with a comparable “boycott” or even a noticeable decrease in sales.
The same must be true of Sony and PlayStation. PlayStation consoles rose in price not that long ago, and the PlayStation 5 Pro became one of the most expensive pieces of hardware ever when it launched last year. But despite generating online protests, Sony’s devices and games have continued to sell – leading to the company making record profits in 2024. In that environment, Microsoft might as well join in, right? From a business and financial perspective, they’d be silly not to – it’s like leaving money on the table.
Nintendo was the first company to announce an $80/£75 game last month.
But for those of us who live in the real world, where incomes haven’t risen in line with inflation and where government help is harder to come by than ever, it’s a pretty tough pill to swallow. Nintendo and Xbox may claim at this stage that only “some” games will be priced at $80/£75 going forward, but that’s unlikely to hold for very long. Less than five years after the base price of games already went up by $10, another permanent price hike is happening. And if speculation about Grand Theft Auto VI turns out to be true, this might not be 2025’s only price rise. As I said when discussing the Nintendo Switch 2 situation just a couple of weeks ago: by this time next year, $90 or even $100 could be the asking price for AAA games across the board.
“But game development is expensive!” Or so goes the whiny retort from corporate sell-outs. Here’s my problem with that: if your corporation has literally never made more profit before in its existence, as is the case for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft… that argument is dog shit. The same corporate suits can’t brag to investors and shareholders about how much money they’re making, then in the very next breath plead poverty to consumers and players. It doesn’t work like that – you gotta choose one or the other. If these companies were genuinely struggling to keep the lights on, I guess I’d be more receptive to that kind of argument. But when you see the financial reports and hear how eagerly the vacuous suits boast of their financial success, it’s pretty grating to be told that selling games for an already-inflated price is somehow “unaffordable.”
Microsoft brags about profits one minute then tries to plead poverty the next.
I said this several years ago, but here we go again: there really shouldn’t be a “cost of living crisis.” What we have is a “cost of greed crisis,” where almost every major corporation is making more money than ever, but they continue to jack up their prices to squeeze even more profit out of overstretched and overburdened people. It’s not because of “tariffs,” it’s not because of some nebulous concept of “inflation,” it’s pure and simple greed. And it’s disgusting.
That’s the lens through which I see Xbox’s price hike – and Nintendo’s and PlayStation’s, too.
The problem is that those three companies have an effective monopoly on the console gaming space. And while I’d never want to libel anyone by suggesting the executives at all three corporations are colluding to rig the market and raise prices… I wouldn’t put it past them. And if Xbox follows Nintendo’s lead and raises its prices to match – with Sony presumably set to do the same thing soon, too – what’s the difference? The end result is the same for those of us who just want to play a game or two.
Corporate greed is to blame.
The reality is that, even with disruption to the stock market and a potential recession looming, Microsoft and Xbox could’ve easily absorbed any financial impacts and still turned a very healthy profit. Nintendo could’ve done the same – even if it meant making a net loss on individual Switch 2 consoles in North America, the company would remain profitable. These price rises are a choice, one driven by corporate greed.
The main reason why I criticised PlayStation for hiking up the price of its consoles was because of how unusual a mid-generation price hike is. And Xbox is now firmly in the same camp. The trend for decades has been that consoles and games get less expensive as time goes on, not more. This console generation may have had some great games, but in many ways it’s been underwhelming. There’s been far less innovation, with corporations largely choosing to play it safe. There hasn’t been much by way of graphical improvement, thanks to companies choosing to launch many of their biggest titles on last-gen hardware. And there are fewer and fewer console exclusives – especially on Xbox’s side.
Most of Xbox’s biggest brands and games are available on other platforms.
With all of that in mind, is an Xbox Series S worth the new price of $400/£300? And is a Series X worth $600/£500? When the majority of the consoles’ price hikes are going directly into the pockets of investors, shareholders, and executives – and not to the people who are actually developing games – I’d say no. Absolutely not.
At the end of the day, as consumers we’re pretty stuck. If you want a home console, there are only three names in town – and they’re all jacking up their prices. If you want a brand-new game, from here on out they’re gonna cost $80/£75 at a minimum. Gaming just got a whole lot more expensive for no good reason.
All brands mentioned above are the copyright of their respective corporation/owner. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
In March of 2006, I distinctly remember rushing out of the office as soon as the workday ended to meet a friend. I didn’t yet own an Xbox 360, but my friend did – and he’d pre-ordered the sequel to one of my favourite games of all-time! I darted from the city centre down a side road to my friend’s place, which was a tiny attic apartment with one minuscule window and a sloping ceiling. As soon as I got there, we fired up The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and I spent the rest of the night hanging out with him as he created his character, played through the game’s iconic opening sequence, and stepped out into the world of Tamriel.
It wouldn’t be until 2008 or 2009 that I got to play Oblivion for myself, but when I did I had a whale of a time. I remember thinking that, while the game was more limited in some respects than Morrowind had been, other elements and mechanics more than made up for that deficit – and gave Oblivion a truly immersive world. All of the characters were fully voice-acted, facial animations and lip syncing looked great, and your character could mount and ride a horse! And the main storyline of Oblivion – the quest to find the Emperor’s heir and stop an invasion from another realm – was riveting stuff. I genuinely enjoyed my playthrough of Oblivion and its Shivering Isles DLC, and although I haven’t returned to the game since then, I still consider it to be a fantastic experience.
Stepping out into Oblivion’s open world for the first time is an iconic scene in gaming for everyone who played through it.
I’d been hearing rumours of a remaster or remake of Oblivion for at least a year. But as you may know, I don’t like to cover hearsay here on the website, so I was content to wait until we heard from developers Bethesda and Virtuos in an official capacity before talking about the game. Earlier today, the Oblivion remaster was shown off – and I gotta say, it looks great. It won’t be a totally modern game, as it’s still built on the same bones of the original, but it’s been updated with all new graphics, additional voice acting, and some gameplay tweaks to bring things like combat and exploration closer to modern standards. As I write this, I’m actually downloading the Oblivion remaster and I plan to play it as soon as it’s ready!
But – and you knew there had to be a “but” coming after all of that – I feel pretty sickened by Oblivion’s £10 “Deluxe Edition.”
I’ll give Xbox and Bethesda a lot of credit for bundling Oblivion’s main pieces of DLC in with this remaster. Oblivion is almost twenty years old, and it’s retailing for £50 here in the UK, so trying to charge extra for Shivering Isles or Knights of the Nine would’ve been just plain wrong. But Bethesda is a greedy company, so there’s still something extra that players can purchase separately – and it’s connected to one of the most notorious episodes in the company’s history.
The Oblivion remaster is launching with a £10 “deluxe edition.”
In April 2006, Bethesda released Oblivion’s horse armour DLC – one of the first pieces of small-scale cosmetic DLC for a single-player game. And the company was roundly criticised for trying to sell such a tiny and meaningless piece of content. Unfortunately for us all, and despite the relentless attacks from critics, the horse armour DLC sold reasonably well – well enough for Bethesda to keep going down this DLC road. Look at Starfield’s utterly disgusting in-game marketplace – which resembles something out of a free-to-play mobile game – to see where this approach ultimately led the company.
Other corporations in the games industry took note of both the backlash to, and the financial success of, Bethesda’s horse armour DLC… and it’s not unfair to say it was a harbinger of things to come. Many games now launch with little pieces of content hacked off to be sold separately, and it’s gotten so bad that I daresay most people won’t even bat an eye at the Oblivion remaster coming with a “deluxe edition.” But I’m afraid I do – I didn’t like it in 2006 and I like it even less now. Bethesda is, I would argue, one of the guiltiest parties in the games industry when it comes to pushing for and normalising the idea of single-player microtransactions – and that’s something which can quite literally ruin a game for me.
The original Oblivion’s horse armour DLC was incredibly controversial in 2006.
So the Oblivion remaster is launching with an expensive £10 “deluxe edition.” Contained within that is the typical bullshit you might expect: a collection of JPEGs that self-importantly claims to be an “art book,” the game’s soundtrack, and… wait, what’s that? Surely it can’t be… horse armour? Bethesda wouldn’t do that again, surely? But it is. It’s horse armour.
Oh piss off, Bethesda.
Seriously? After all of the controversy in 2006, with horse armour becoming the quintessential example of bad-value DLC, you’re really going to do this again? It must be a joke, right? A self-aware nod and wink to fans and players. But Bethesda is still earnestly asking you to cough up an additional £10 to access this “deluxe edition” content, complete with horse armour.
We’re really doing this again, huh?
I could be wrong, because I haven’t played Oblivion in more than fifteen years at this point, but the “deluxe edition” horse armour in this remastered version doesn’t look the same as the original 2006 version. But is that because it’s brand-new content or is that just the way it looks in the remastered version? Visuals have changed across the board, so I genuinely can’t tell at a glance. If it’s brand-new, I guess that’s at least marginally better. But if this is the original horse armour updated for the remaster, still being sold separately… I mean. I’m at a loss for words.
Super Extra-Special Platinum Premium Deluxe Editions of most games are usually poor value. Worse, they carve out content that was developed alongside the main game and fully-integrated into it to be sold separately for extra cash. I really do miss the days when games came feature-complete out of the box, and when expansion packs added a meaningful amount of content. But to sell a “deluxe edition” for a twenty-year-old game which is already retailing for £50 is piss-poor from Bethesda. And that’s not even mentioning that this “deluxe edition” contains the poster child for bad-value DLC; horse armour was received so universally poorly that it became a meme and remains the textbook example of this kind of single-player microtransaction to this day. Heck, I’ve used horse armour as an example of a shitty microtransaction on several occasions here on the website.
Staff at Virtuos working on the Oblivion remaster.
I thought it was a joke when I first saw the leaked image of Oblivion’s “deluxe edition.” I could believe that Bethesda and Xbox would be greedy enough to create a poor-value “deluxe edition” of a twenty-year-old game, but when I saw the horse armour bit… I genuinely thought it must’ve been a joke. It looked like something a troll had mocked up to poke fun at Bethesda and the old controversy. But no, this is real. It’s 2025 and Bethesda is asking you to pay extra for horse armour in Oblivion all over again.
I think the Oblivion remaster looks good. The presentation that Bethesda and Virtuos put together was genuinely entertaining, and the people involved all seem to be passionate Elder Scrolls players and fans. That leads me to believe the game is in good hands. I’m a Game Pass subscriber, and the Oblivion remaster is available there, so it felt like a no-brainer to fire it up and step back into that world for the first time in more than fifteen years. But this “deluxe edition” has really taken the shine off the game for me. I don’t know if anyone else cares as much as I do; this doesn’t feel like a Nintendo Switch 2 type of situation, where the price is overshadowing everything else. But would it really have been such a financial hardship for Bethesda to offer the “art book,” soundtrack, and fucking horse armour as freebies? Is that content worth £10 to anyone?
A promotional screenshot of the Oblivion remaster.
Bethesda could really use a win right now. The company has endured basically a decade of controversy, with Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Starfield, and even some of its mobile games all having issues and being criticised. With The Elder Scrolls VI still years away, this launch of the Oblivion remaster was a chance to get people talking about the company and its games more positively for a change. It was an opportunity to remind players why they liked Bethesda’s games to begin with, as well as to keep the series in our minds as production on The Elder Scrolls VI continues. I can’t help but feel this “deluxe edition” greed is getting in the way of that, at least somewhat.
And I have to ask: was it worth it? This article could’ve been titled something like “Bethesda stuns everyone by shadow-dropping a remastered version of Oblivion!” and I could’ve spent this time talking about my memories of the game, what I like best about the remaster, and how cool it is in 2025 to see a big game being released immediately after its announcement. Instead, we’re talking about horse armour again, and how Bethesda is a greedy, money-grubbing company. We could’ve been reminded of what Bethesda games were when they were close to their best, but instead we’re reminded more of Starfield’s microtransactions than Oblivion’s storytelling.
I’m gonna play the Oblivion remaster, I’m gonna try to push the stupid “deluxe edition” out of my thoughts, and if I’m lucky (and if Virtuos hasn’t screwed things up) I daresay I’ll have a fun time getting lost in the world of Tamriel all over again. But I’m disappointed that the game launched like this, and I really don’t think it would’ve been too much to ask to include those tiny pieces of content in the already-expensive price of the remaster.
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series S & X. The game is also available on PC Game Pass and Xbox Game Pass. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Virtuos Games, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I’ve been looking forward to the game I’d been tentatively calling “Mario Kart 9” for years. Seriously, check out the dedicated Mario Kart page here on the website; five years ago, I was already putting together fantasy retro cups and talking about which characters could be included. I first played Super Mario Kart when I had a Super Nintendo in the early ’90s, and one of my favourite memories from my time spent working in the games industry is getting to play Mario Kart 8 in 2013 – a full year before it launched – at an official Nintendo press event. I’ve played every mainline game in the series on their original consoles (and maybe on a cheeky emulator, too) and I’ve had so much fun playing by myself and with friends. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is my most-played Switch game by quite a long way, and I still go back to it to play my favourite tracks every now and then.
So let’s re-emphasise that for the record: I am a Mario Kart fan!
Why do I feel the need to start this piece with such a big disclaimer? Well, having sat down to watch the Mario Kart World Nintendo Direct broadcast with pretty high expectations… I’m left feeling a little disappointed. Usually I don’t like to criticise a game before it’s even been released, but the way Nintendo is pitching Mario Kart World – and particularly how the corporation is pricing the game – hasn’t left a good first impression.
How do you feel about Mario Kart World?
I knew and understood that Mario Kart World would have fewer racetracks than Mario Kart 8 Deluxe has. That seemed blindingly obvious to me years ago, even before the Booster Course Pass doubled the number of tracks, so I don’t necessarily think it’s a problem or a bad thing that the new game will launch with what looks to be 32 race courses instead of 96. But… there’s no getting away from the fact that with fewer tracks comes less replayability and less diversity of environments. I can fire up Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and play a racetrack I haven’t seen in months; Mario Kart World’s roster – at one-third the size – will wear out its welcome relatively quickly in comparison.
And that comparison matters because, according to Nintendo, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (and presumably the Booster Course Pass, too) will be playable on the Switch 2. Not only that, but it’ll be slightly less expensive for way more racetracks: copies of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe retail for less than £40 here in the UK, with the Booster Course Pass as a downloadable add-on for an additional £22.50. The price of Mario Kart World is going to be £67 digitally or £75 for a physical copy.
Mario Kart World’s official Nintendo Store listing.
Some of the new and re-imagined racetracks look good, don’t get me wrong. Boo Cinema looks especially creative, DK Spaceport looks new and retro at the same time, and I really liked the new look at Wario Stadium from the N64 – which, in its original form, was one of my least-favourite tracks from that game.
There are a couple of oddities, however, among the roster of tracks. Firstly, even if you put a gun to my head I wouldn’t have included Sky High Sundae; that bland track is one of the worst from the Booster Course Pass and when there were so many better options, I don’t know why a boring food-themed oval would be included here! DS Desert Hills was also fairly uninspired in its original form, though at least there’s a bit more room for improvement there, perhaps. I’m also a little concerned about the Crown City racetrack being part of two different cups; not sure what’s going on there or how those tracks will be different, but I guess we’ll find out.
Boo Cinema looks like a very creative racetrack.
On the character roster, my main of Dry Bones is included, which was important for me personally! And obviously the cute cow is going to be a fan favourite, as will new additions like the Hammer Bro and Monty Mole. But again… Mario Kart 8 Deluxe still comes out on top here, and there are going to be some pretty disappointed players whose favourite drivers aren’t coming back this time. The likes of Isabelle and the Villager from the Animal Crossing series, Link from Zelda, Diddy and Funky Kong, and most of the Koopalings from the Super Mario series don’t seem to be included. There are also noteworthy omissions from Mario Kart Tour – the phone game that has proven to be quite popular. King Bob-Omb, Donkey Kong Jr., and Peachette are all missing. And where oh where is Pink Gold Peach?!
There also appear to be no Mii characters or other user-created characters. Again, this could be a bit of a blow to players who liked to put themselves into the Mario Kart experience.
I can’t be the only one who thought this character would have a different name, right?
I’m not especially disappointed that underwater driving seems to have been removed. In most cases in Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8, underwater sections felt pretty samey, especially in tracks that weren’t really designed with that in mind. Amsterdam Drift is a case in point; its bland concrete channels filled with crystal-clear water felt nothing like the city they were supposed to represent. Having said that, removing a feature is something rare for the Mario Kart series… and Mario Kart World seems to have sacrificed several popular features and ways of racing.
In addition to underwater racing, we’re losing the glider and anti-gravity, too. This is going to be more of a limitation than you realise, as it’s going to impact which tracks can be brought into the new game in future. Courses like Mario Kart 8′s Mario Circuit, which used anti-gravity in a big way, or Piranha Plant Cove, which was almost entirely underwater, seem to be ruled out as future inclusions due to these changes.
Dry Bones racing on Piranha Plant Cove.
And we’re still just getting started with removed features. Battle Mode seems to have gotten a significant downgrade, not only in terms of there being fewer battle types available, but also with a lack of dedicated battle arenas. The Direct didn’t focus on Battle Mode for long, as it’s seemingly an afterthought in Mario Kart World, but from what we did see, all of the battle mode footage seems to be taking place on regular racetracks. Some of the tracks may have areas cordoned off to turn them into makeshift arenas, but that’s hardly the same thing has creating dedicated, hand-crafted ones. Fans of Battle Mode (a category into which I do not fall) may not be thrilled with these changes.
Then we come to the vehicles themselves. Kart customisation has been entirely removed. Instead of choosing wheels, bodies, and gliders separately – as we did in Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8 – karts now come as complete units. There are different models to choose from, sure, but again the lack of customisation means there’s less choice than in previous titles. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe had literally hundreds of possible combinations, but Mario Kart World is narrowing this down with pre-made karts and bikes.
There are no customisation options for vehicles this time.
200cc mode has been present in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Mario Kart Tour, but again it was noticeably absent from the Nintendo Direct. Is it possible that this mode is locked by default and needs to be unlocked through gameplay? Sure… but then why hasn’t Nintendo said so? Is it possible that this mode is locked and needs to be paid for to unlock it? That was the case in Tour, so I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the reason for Nintendo’s radio silence. I’m gonna level with you – I’m a 150cc racer! 200cc has always been a bit too fast for my taste, but again it’s not just about what I want or what I’d miss. The fact that this mode – which is popular with some of Mario Kart’s biggest fans – is missing is significant.
So let’s recap. There are fewer battle modes with seemingly no dedicated battle areas. One-third as many racetracks as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Missing drivers, including some fan-favourites from the most recent game in the series. No vehicle customisation. No underwater or anti-gravity racing. And possibly no 200cc mode. If that’s the sum total of what’s been removed, it begs the question… what’s going to take the place of all of these missing features?
Battle Mode appears to have received a downgrade.
Mario Kart World’s marketing thus far has really hyped up its open world. That’s the main new feature; an inclusion so big it’s literally in the game’s title.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: an open world is not the right choice for a lot of games. Too many franchises and series that try to emulate this popular style not only don’t do a good job, but they lose what made their earlier iterations so successful and/or unique in the process. There are plenty of examples of bland open worlds that are just too empty and too devoid of meaningful gameplay to be fun… and parts of the Mario Kart World Direct and marketing material are making me feel nervous in that respect.
Mario Kart World’s map.
If the free roam mode were an entirely optional thing, I guess I’d say it wasn’t a huge deal. It would still be frustrating in some ways that Nintendo chose to add this open world area at the expense of some of the features, characters, and gameplay components we talked about above, but if it’s an optional thing that I can turn off and not engage with… that’s tolerable, right? But Mario Kart World is being built from the ground up around this open world mechanic… and I’m concerned that it’s going to have a negative impact on the main thing I want out of a Mario Kart game: fun, arcadey racing.
Driving from one racetrack to the next, either in Grand Prix mode or in one of the Knockout Rallies, could be a lot of fun, but that’ll depend on how interesting the in-between areas actually are. Some of the free roam highways and roads looked pretty straightforward, with not many twists or turns and no noticeable obstacles aside from a few cars. But what really concerns me the most is that in this mode – which is apparently the default – races are knocked down from the usual three laps to just one.
How interesting will this free roam mode actually be?
To reiterate that: instead of racing three laps of each racetrack, the default option in Mario Kart World will be to race one lap, with these in-between sections taking up the rest of your time. Even if the open world is bigger, more interesting, and laid out better than I’m expecting based on what I’ve seen so far… that can’t be right, can it? The whole point of a Mario Kart game is to race around fun, well-constructed, cleverly-designed racetracks. To cut back on the main aspect of gameplay for this open world aspect just strikes me as being wrong; it’s as if Nintendo’s own developers and producers don’t realise what people want, expect, and enjoy the most in a Mario Kart game.
There have been open world racing games before. Forza Horizon 5 is one – and that’s a game I happen to really enjoy. But games like that are designed in such a way that every road and off-road track can be raced on, and I just don’t get that impression from Nintendo’s marketing material so far. If you’ve played Forza Horizon 5, for example, you’ll know that basically every road in the game is included in at least one race, and there are all kinds of different vehicles, different races to get involved in, and different challenges out in the open world. There’s no distinction between the racetrack and the open world; every road can be driven on in free roam mode and raced on in a variety of different races. That doesn’t appear to be true of Mario Kart World, which seems to have 32 racetracks separated by open world areas.
Four examples of the game’s open world away from the racetrack.
The Nintendo Direct was the best opportunity to sell Mario Kart World and to show off how dense and full of stuff to do its open world is. Based on what was on display, I’m just not feeling very confident in this aspect of the game. And when the open world is so important to Mario Kart World that Nintendo is even willing to cut out laps of the main racetracks in Grand Prix mode, that isn’t great.
As far as I could see, there are four things to do in the open world. Firstly, you can drive from one racetrack to another in either the Rally or GP modes. Secondly, there are switches to hit which allow you to collect blue coins. What these coins do or whether there’s any point to them beyond a collect-a-thon wasn’t clear. Third, there’s a second kind of coin referred to as a “Peach Medallion” to collect. Again, what these do isn’t clear. Finally, there are question-mark panels to hit – but what these do, and what the point of hitting them is, wasn’t explained.
Do these challenges and collect-a-thons serve a greater purpose… or are they just filler?
Mario Kart isn’t a big, deep narrative experience. I don’t care about “spoilers” in a game like this, because there really isn’t anything substantial to spoil. So to me, this feels like a pretty big marketing fail on Nintendo’s part. By not explaining these open-world features in a bit more detail, Nintendo has left me with the impression that the blue coins, medallions, and question-blocks are basically going to be akin to the pigeons in Grand Theft Auto IV insofar as they don’t do anything, add nothing of substance to the game, and just serve to pad things out with unnecessary busywork for players. They could be an attempt to compensate for the lesser number of racetracks while offering a half-hearted justification for the open world format.
I could be wrong about that – and if so, I’ll definitely make a note of that if and when I play the game for myself. But speaking as someone who used to work in video games marketing, the fact that I’m coming out of this presentation with such a poor impression of the game’s biggest new feature and key selling-point? That’s not good, and Nintendo needs to do more in the weeks before Mario Kart World launches to clarify what some of these semi-hidden collectables will actually do, and if there’s going to be more to the open world than has been revealed so far.
Yoshi closes in on a hidden coin.
In theory, an open world Mario Kart game is not a bad idea. But the open world side of the game – if it’s going to be implemented in this way as a core feature around which basically the entire rest of the game is being built – needs to have more to offer than we’ve seen so far. A few random collectables doesn’t, in my view, justify sacrificing a dozen or more dedicated racetracks that could’ve been added to the game, and driving in between races doesn’t seem like it’s gonna feel all that special if all there is to drive on are straight highways or empty off-road fields and patches of dirt. This free roam mode could be a fun idea if it were just a little additional area for players to muck about in while waiting in a multiplayer lobby, or to kill time with a friend on the couch. But when the entire game is built around an open world like this… let’s just say I hope it’s better than it looks and has much more going on than we’ve seen so far.
Art styles are a subjective thing, and there’s no denying that Mario Kart World looks better than Mario Kart 8 Deluxe did. But I’ll be blunt: I don’t think it looks a lot better. The art style is basically the same as it was in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, and while there’s more texture to some parts of the game – like tyres, for example, or the metal on a Bullet Bill – I’m just having a hard time seeing the graphics as being a significant upgrade given the price hike.
This is definitely the best Bullet Bill has ever looked.
Mario Kart World will be, at launch, the most expensive racing game on the market. Heck, it’s technically the most expensive video game of all-time as no other Switch 2 titles are launching at £75/$80. But when you take even a cursory look around at other racing games, even in the arcade racing space, Mario Kart World looks positively last-gen. Again, this isn’t a criticism of the graphics or art style on their own, but rather how the game is priced relative to its competitors and how the price is seen in relation to the most recent entry in the series.
After more than eleven years and two entire console generations, Mario Kart World ought to be a massive step up in visual terms. But it isn’t. It’s a step up, sure, I won’t try to deny that. But it doesn’t feel like a game that can really push the Switch 2 to its limits. Even if we compare the Switch 2 to the previous-generation Xbox One and PlayStation 4, there are games on those consoles which looked better and did more with graphical fidelity than Mario Kart World is seemingly aiming for.
Is Mario Kart World a significant enough visual and graphical upgrade given its high price?
In this respect, I feel like Nintendo is cheaping out. The corporation knows it has a winner in the Mario Kart series (Mario Kart 8 Deluxe sold something like 60 million copies on the Switch) so there’s less of a need to push the boat out. Resources that could’ve been spent on improving the game’s overall visual style and graphical fidelity have been reallocated, because Nintendo feels confident that the new game will sell incredibly well no matter what.
There was a moment in the Mario Kart World direct where my favourite racer, Dry Bones, does a little spin and momentarily faces the camera. That animation seems practically unchanged from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (and trust me, I’ve spent hundreds of hours with Dry Bones in that game, so I know what his trick animations look like!) Neither the animation nor the character model itself look or feel noticeably different to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, and I’m left underwhelmed by that. Nintendo has had years to work on improving the way Mario Kart looks… this new entry in the series feels like the least-impressive upgrade so far, at least in graphical terms.
This animation is lifted directly from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.
Nintendo isn’t the only company to be graphically stuck, of course. I noted before the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 launched that this console generation was likely to be the least-impressive so far in terms of graphical upgrades, and I think four-and-a-bit years of cross-generational games have more than born that out! But Nintendo has been years behind Xbox and PlayStation in terms of graphical fidelity, so there was an opportunity with the Switch 2 and Mario Kart World to get closer to what current-gen (or even just last-gen) consoles were capable of. That opportunity doesn’t appear to have been taken, at least not fully.
So Mario Kart World looks better, but only iteratively so. Its deliberately cartoony style and bright colours covers some of that up, and I wouldn’t say anything about the game looks bad. But from my perspective, nothing about it blew me away, either – and again, this comes back to the price point. For $80, and as the most expensive racing game of all-time, does Mario Kart World look good enough? Is the graphical upgrade significant enough to justify a $20 price hike from a mere one generation ago?
This is the best Mario Kart has ever looked… but not the best it could have looked with a bit more effort.
Mario Kart World is going to add some new features that look like a lot of fun. I noted above that anti-gravity racing is gone, but replacing it will be grinding on rails and hopping on vertical surfaces. These look like they have some potential to open up different ways to race, and I’m in favour of that. Gliders may be gone, but racing in the air isn’t, with karts seemingly transforming into planes at different points. Again, this looks like it could be a lot of fun, and while it’s not exactly ground-breaking in the way the introduction of gliders was in Mario Kart 7, I’m at least pleased to see it remains a part of the Mario Kart experience.
Then we have a feature that I can already tell is gonna be controversial: re-winding gameplay! Speaking for myself, I can see this having a very specific use: practicing particularly difficult jumps or shortcuts. Think about it: how many times have you played a track with a very precise shortcut, only to fail it and have to re-start? This re-wind feature seems like it’ll help players who want to practice certain parts of racetracks, and I don’t really have an issue with that. I don’t see it being especially useful in actual races, though, but it almost feels like an accessibility feature in some respects, which if you know me you’ll know I’m keen on in games in general.
There’s a use for this feature. A limited use, sure, but still a use.
After proving to be a big hit in Mario Kart Tour (and Super Mario Odyssey, too) character costumes are coming to Mario Kart World. I like this – and I like the idea of unlockables! I just hope that Nintendo isn’t planning on selling skins like they did in Tour, trying to pretend like the most expensive racing game of all-time is a free-to-play mobile title. As I won’t be buying a Switch 2 at launch, I’ll be able to keep an eye on this from afar, and if it seems like a crappy skin marketplace is going to be added, that’ll be a huge red flag against Mario Kart World for me.
I gotta say, though, the way some of these costumes are unlocked feels a bit… weird. I mean, the way it was explained is that you visit some kind of roadside food truck, acquire a dish, and then your character is transformed. When I watched the Switch 2 Direct, I thought it was funny that Mario ate a cheeseburger then was wearing a stereotypically “American” outfit. That couldn’t be on purpose, I thought! But no, that’s literally how this mechanic works. Eat sushi and you get a Japanese costume. Eat a burger and your character turns into an American. I guess if you want to get a Spanish outfit you eat paella? Or if you eat fish and chips you turn British? It’s funny in some ways… I guess. But it also feels like it’s kind of stereotyping whole countries and cultures, boiling them down to one dish and one type of outfit. It also wasn’t made clear how many alternate outfits are present in the game – and whether characters like Dry Bones will have any. It seems like every character should have alternate appearances if this consuming food mechanic is a universal thing, but again this wasn’t explained in any of the marketing material.
Mamma mia! That’s-a one spicy pizza pie!
There are things I like in Mario Kart World. Some of the new items look interesting, like the coin shell and the ice flower. Kamek’s magic could be interesting, too, though I suspect it’ll be somewhat limited. I like the idea of character costumes even if I’m not entirely sold on how they’re unlocked and implemented. And there are some fun looking racetracks – both brand-new ones and reimagined retro courses. If Santa Claus gave me Mario Kart World for free, I would play it, I’d enjoy at least parts of it, and it would probably end the generation among my most-played Switch 2 games.
But a game can be good and still underwhelming, delivering a fun experience while failing to live up to the expectations that have been set for it. By pricing the game so high, Nintendo has set expectations that its marketing material strongly suggests Mario Kart World will not reach. Given the corporation’s penchant for monetisation and microtransactions, I’m also concerned that things like new tracks, new drivers, new costumes, and even items might be sold separately, driving up that sky high price even further.
It’s Nintendo headquarters… I mean Bowser’s Castle!
So that’s how I feel coming out of the Mario Kart World Direct.
Nintendo has, in my view, not handled this situation particularly well. Mario Kart World’s marketing campaign is overwhelmingly dominated by its record-setting price point, meaning everything is being viewed through that lens. The sky high price comes with sky high expectations, and Mario Kart World may struggle to meet them for some players – such as myself. Of particular concern is the open world – will there be enough to do and enough variety of driving experiences in between the racetracks to make it a worthwhile addition to Mario Kart? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
I hope this has been interesting – and not too depressing. If you’re beyond hyped for Mario Kart World, please keep in mind that all of this is just one player’s entirely subjective opinion, and I’m not trying to tell anyone how to feel or that they shouldn’t be excited for this game. In many ways, I’m still excited to play a new Mario Kart game. I’m just a little concerned that it won’t be as spectacular as it arguably should be given its price point, and as someone who used to work in games marketing, I’m left decidedly underwhelmed by the campaign Nintendo has created for its new console’s flagship launch title.
Mario Kart World will release alongside the Nintendo Switch 2 on the 5th of June 2025. Mario Kart World (and other titled mentioned above) is the copyright of Nintendo. Some promotional art courtesy of IGDB and/or the Mario Wiki. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
When I took a look at Nintendo’s Switch 2 broadcast earlier this month, I noted that the price for games has gone up – and that could be offputting for some players and families. It turns out that Nintendo’s self-inflicted price problem has blown up and quickly became one of the biggest talking points coming out of the presentation… so today I thought we could look at the issue in a bit more detail. We’re also going to answer a deceptively simple question: will it matter? Or by the time the console launches, will most people simply brush off the price hike and buy one anyway?
First of all, let’s separate the price of the Switch 2 console itself from the price of at least some of its flagship games. £400/$450 – which is the current price at time of writing, prior to any tariff-related adjustments – didn’t strike me as being terrible. It’s more or less in line with the current-gen Xbox and PlayStation consoles, sitting somewhere in between those consoles’ cheaper and more expensive variants. But is that the right price point for a Nintendo console – particularly one which is a hybrid, and far less powerful than its competitors?
The Switch 2 will sell for £430 here in the UK. Image Credit: Smyth’s UK
In 2018, I paid £280 for my Nintendo Switch. That’s just seven years ago, yet the price of a Nintendo console has gone up by 42% in that short span of time. That doesn’t feel right the more I think about it – and going back to earlier console generations, this is Nintendo’s biggest price jump… ever. In the ’90s, the price of Nintendo’s consoles stayed at $199 in the United States, even as inflation set in. The GameCube in 2002 cost the same $199 at launch as the Super NES had in 1991. From there, Nintendo consoles jumped up an average of 22% each generation from the GameCube to the original Switch. You can check out the numbers and do the sums for yourself if you like – all this information is publically available online.
All of this leads to a reasonable question. What is the Switch 2 offering to justify a 42% price hike over its predecessor?
It isn’t innovation. As we discussed last time, Nintendo seems content to double-down on the Switch format, not doing anything radically different. The Wii U, Wii, Nintendo 64, DS, 3DS, and other Nintendo machines all offered some kind of new or innovative way to play when they launched, but the company seems to have thrown in the towel on that front – at least for this current generation.
Elden Ring – as it will appear on Switch 2.
It isn’t better graphics, either. The Switch 2, as I noted in my response to the Nintendo Direct, looks okay, but nothing blew me away in graphical terms. Some titles – like Elden Ring, Cyberpunk 2077, and Hogwarts Legacy – look noticeably worse on the Switch 2 than they do on other consoles or PC. Look at the trees in the screenshot above – see how flat and two-dimensional they look? Compare that screenshot from the Switch 2 to a comparable one from Elden Ring running on a PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series console and see how there’s a significant downgrade.
So the Switch 2 is, in essence, an iterative improvement on the original Switch format. It retains the branding, the same colour scheme, the same cartridge format, the same hybrid nature, and the same controls, too. Graphically, it may be an incremental improvement – but it’s going to be running cutting-edge titles in a noticeably worse way than its two similarly-priced competitors. Some of the biggest games around – Grand Theft Auto VI most noticeably – won’t run or even attempt to run on the system, too.
Mario Kart World running on a Switch 2 in handheld mode.
But people don’t buy a Nintendo console to play Elden Ring, right? Not as their primary console, anyway. Most folks I’ve spoken to have enjoyed the Switch’s portability, and have commented on the novelty of playing full AAA games like The Witcher 3, Monster Hunter, or Minecraft on a portable device. But those same people have, almost universally, owned a PC or another console which they’ve used as their “primary” gaming machine.
Look at the best-selling Switch games: they’re almost all Nintendo originals. Super Mario Odyssey, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Breath of the Wild, the Pokémon series… these are the games people buy a Switch for. And in comparison to the current Switch, there’s no doubt that the likes of Mario, Luigi, Donkey Kong, and Pokémon are going to look better on the new machine. Nintendo has even shown off “enhanced editions” of some popular Switch games that will get visual upgrades on Switch 2.
Is the $450 price point too high for a console like that, though?
Is the Switch 2 overpriced?
Speaking for myself, I won’t be buying a Switch 2 this year. My original Switch felt like a good deal at under £300, but I’ve only seriously played four games on it in the seven years I’ve owned it: Luigi’s Mansion 3, Super Mario Odyssey, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. I’ve tried my hand at a few other games, but that’s it. Four games in seven years. And I won’t be the only person in that position… the reality is that Nintendo consoles have a pretty specific use, and the days of people choosing a Nintendo console instead of an Xbox or PlayStation are pretty much gone. So… who’s gonna pay $450 for a secondary console? Or a console that their kid is asking for?
By pitching the Switch 2 at the same price point as an Xbox, a PlayStation, and more importantly, handheld PCs like the Steam Deck, Nintendo is inviting comparisons to those devices. A Steam Deck, which starts at $349 in the United States, would be a much more versatile machine in many ways, and arguably a better purchase than a Switch 2 for someone looking to play games on the go. Can Nintendo really win over players and parents at this price point?
The Switch 2 will be more expensive than a base model Steam Deck – and almost the same price as an Xbox Series X.
Really, the only thing the Switch 2 has going for it are its exclusives. And I gotta be honest here: the Nintendo Direct really only showed one which I could see being a system seller. Donkey Kong Bananza is the kind of game you buy when you’ve already got the console and you’re shopping for things to play. There’s no new Mario game or Mario spin-off. And there’s no Animal Crossing title, either, which could’ve taken advantage of the casual audience that showed up in droves for New Horizons. The Switch 2’s “killer app,” at least at launch, is Mario Kart World. That’s it. Everything else has either much more of a niche audience or just… won’t shift consoles on their own.
I don’t want to undervalue Mario Kart World. The game does look good, no question. Nintendo has always had the premiere kart-racer, and that shows no signs of changing! But as I said in my look at the Switch 2 Direct… I can’t justify £430 (which is the bundle price for the Switch 2 + Mario Kart World here in the UK) to play one game. And this is where the next problem comes in, because for a lot of people… one game might be all they can afford.
Mario Kart World.
£75 ($80 in the US) for Mario Kart World is just obscene. Not only is it a ridiculous price for a simple kart racing game, but it’s a massive jump from the price of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – and other games on the current-gen Switch.
I paid £41 for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe on the Switch, a similar price for Mario Kart 8 when I was one of about seven people who owned a Wii U, and I paid £32 for Mario Kart Wii in early 2009. Even allowing for inflation – which has punched all of us in the face in the last few years – we’re talking about game prices almost doubling from the Switch to the Switch 2 in some cases. I don’t have receipts for every Switch game I’ve bought, but the ones I could find average out at around £45. At the high end I’d pay £50, at the lower end closer to £30 or £35 for a brand-new Switch game. Even going from £50 – the RRP for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – to £75 is a jump of 50% from one generation to the next; if a new Animal Crossing game is similarly-priced it’ll have basically doubled. These are massive increases, there’s no two ways about it.
The next Animal Crossing game could easily be £75/$80 too.
There does seem to be some flexibility with pricing, as Donkey Kong Bananza will be less costly than Mario Kart World. So perhaps Nintendo is aiming to use the highest price only for its flagship titles, with “lesser” games in second-tier franchises coming in at the slightly lower price point. That’s not a bad idea in theory – and it’s something that the games industry has always done. But if the “lower” price for titles like Donkey Kong Bananza is still north of £60/$70… that’s not gonna feel like much of a saving.
There was talk earlier in the year of Take-Two Interactive and Rockstar potentially pricing Grand Theft Auto VI at $80, $90, or even $100 when it launches, and Nintendo’s price hike may well have cemented that – if it wasn’t guaranteed already. And this is another area where players are rightly concerned: if Nintendo gets away with jacking up its prices, what’s to stop everyone else in the industry from following suit? Gaming could be about to get a lot more expensive – less than five years after the basic price of many titles already leapt up by $10.
Take-Two and Rockstar must feel like celebrating right now!
This is not entirely Nintendo’s fault, of course. And there’s truth to the argument that these price rises were going to happen sooner or later anyway, if not with the Switch 2 then with Grand Theft Auto VI, and if not then then at the very latest by 2028 or 2029 when new Xbox and PlayStation consoles launch. But I don’t think that absolves Nintendo of blame; despite what the corporation’s mega-fans might want to tell you, it’s a greedy, money-grubbing company that will do anything to make an extra buck or two. Look at the Pokémon series as a prime example: two nearly-identical versions of most games are released. Why? To wring extra money out of Pokémon’s biggest fans. Nintendo, unlike most other gaming powerhouses, rarely puts its titles on sale – and if it does, the discounts are far less generous than those you’d see elsewhere. Despite its attempt to cultivate a family-friendly image, Nintendo is as ruthless and greedy as every other big corporation out there – something hammered home by this price hike.
So the question players will have to wrangle with is this: no matter how good a game like Mario Kart World might look, could it possibly be worth $80? Is any game worth that much? And given that at least one DLC or “season pass” seems like a guarantee, is Mario Kart World going to be worth the $110-140 that the complete version will cost? I’m a Mario Kart fan and have been for decades, but when you start talking about the next entry in the series hitting triple figures like that… I mean, it’s pretty offputting.
If Mario Kart World is getting the expected DLC or a season pass, the price could be well above the currently-stated £75/$80.
There are die-hards who turn up for every Nintendo game and every console – and the company knows it has those people in the bag. But where Nintendo has found success over the past twenty years has been with a more casual audience. People who don’t play a lot of games might pick up a Switch to play one or two party games or cozy titles like Animal Crossing. Folks who already have a PlayStation or Xbox might pick up a Switch as a secondary console to play some first-party Nintendo games or to play their favourite titles on the move. The price point of Switch 2 games really gets in the way of that casual approach. It transforms the way folks will think about the console and its games from a secondary machine or a casual multiplayer experience into a bigger investment. And that could be seriously detrimental to its prospects. If Nintendo has mis-read where the bulk of its audience is, and misunderstood the reasons for the Switch’s success, this unashamed greed could prove the Switch 2’s downfall.
With all that being said, my gut feeling at this point is that the Switch 2 will find an audience. It may not launch to the unparalleled success of its predecessor right away, and it might never catch the Switch’s incredibly impressive 150 million sales. But I don’t think we’re looking at the next Virtual Boy or even another Wii U situation; there are enough players invested in Nintendo’s core titles to make the Switch 2 at least somewhat profitable. And, despite what we’ve talked about, there’s evidence from players already that price rises are acceptable. There will be complaints, no question – but at the end of the day, there are plenty of examples of players being vocal and upset about the price of a new game, only for that game to sell really well. It happened at the start of this current generation when prices went up, it’s happened incrementally with premium special editions and the like, and I see no reason why it won’t happen for Nintendo this time.
Donkey Kong Banaza will cost more than most other big releases this year, like Assassin’s Creed Shadows and Kingdom Come Deliverance II.
What all this means, then, is that gaming is about to get even more expensive. If you think PlayStation and Xbox will sit idly by and let Nintendo raise its prices while they don’t… I’m afraid you’re going to be proven wrong. It might not happen on the day the Switch 2 launches, but as we’ve already seen from Xbox and PlayStation this generation, if they can get away with it they will. And if there was any lingering fear at Take-Two headquarters about jacking up the price of Grand Theft Auto VI, I think we can safely say that’s gone, too. If GTA 6 launches later this year as scheduled, we might be looking at $90 or even $100 for AAA games across the board by this time next year.
Inflation has impacted games companies. But when they’re also making record profits… I really don’t have a lot of sympathy. Nintendo’s share price recently dropped a little due to tariff-related shenanigans that have impacted basically every publically-traded corporation, but the company made record profits across the Switch’s lifespan. “Game development is too expensive” doesn’t really fly as an excuse when Nintendo made $3.25 billion in profit last year.
Three of Nintendo’s senior developers.
Most of us in the real world haven’t seen our incomes rise with inflation, and even in the games industry that’s true for developers and other employees. As Nintendo jacks up prices by 40% for its consoles and 33% for games, do you really think that money is going into the pockets of the folks who work there? Is anyone at Nintendo – aside from the executives, naturally – getting a 40% pay rise? I doubt it.
Food for thought, anyway, if you’re considering buying a Switch 2.
Gaming is getting more and more expensive, that’s for sure. With Nintendo pitching the Switch 2 at a comparable price point to Xbox and PlayStation consoles, as well as portable PCs, while jacking up the prices of its games beyond the current industry standard… all I can really forsee at this stage is comparable price hikes from other corporations. But maybe Nintendo’s gamble won’t pay off. Maybe we’ll look back on this decision in a couple of years’ time and say that the hefty price tag doomed the Switch 2 before it could even get out of the gate. I’m not rooting for it to fail, but I will be keeping an eye on the situation!
The Nintendo Switch 2 launches on the 5th of June. Pre-orders for the Nintendo Switch 2 are available now. The Switch 2, Super Mario, Mario Kart World, and other properties discussed above are the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Yesterday was a big day for the entire world. No, not because of Trump’s tariffs… there was a Nintendo Direct all about the upcoming Switch 2! I thought it could be interesting to break down what was revealed (and talk about a few things that weren’t, too) so that’s what we’re going to get into today.
First of all, I have to admit that I’m surprised about the name and branding, as well as the overall look of the console. Last year, I said that I felt pretty sure that Nintendo wouldn’t use the name “Switch 2,” and that the console would likely come with a new colour scheme to distinguish itself. I was wrong on both counts… and I hope that won’t lead to any confusion. Switch 2 game cards are going to be the same size and come in similar packaging, with the same red colour. There could be some disappointed kids on Christmas morning unwrapping a Switch 2 game when they only have an original Switch – and I’m a little surprised that Nintendo didn’t do more to help the console differentiate itself from its predecessor.
Nintendo executives Kouchi Kawamoto, Tetsuya Sasaki, and Takuhiro Dota presented the Switch 2 broadcast.
The same is true of the name. Every Nintendo console so far has had a unique name, even if those names were similar. The Super Nintendo Entertainment System followed the Nintendo Entertainment System, for example, but where a lot of folks seemed to get confused was with the Wii U. “Switch 2” is much more straightforward, so I don’t think there’ll be anywhere near the same level of confusion from the general public! But I am a bit surprised that the new console retains the Switch name, colour scheme, branding, and even really the same design. There are changes, particularly with the new Joy-Cons, but on a superficial level it’s hard to tell the consoles apart.
And I guess Nintendo is playing it safe. The Switch has been a massive success, so why risk doing something new and innovative when there’s clearly still a huge demand for this kind of hybrid system? The drawback, as a player, is that Nintendo has been the last of the massive game companies to really invest in innovation, and if they’re stepping back from that… it kind of leaves the gaming landscape feeling pretty static going into the second half of the 2020s. I mean, no one really expects a new Xbox or PlayStation to do something wild and unexpected; Nintendo has been the only game in town when it comes to inventing new control schemes and new ways to play. Not all of those have worked, of course, and playing it relatively safe is probably the smart move from a business point of view. But there was nothing earth-shattering in the Switch 2 Direct in the same way as there was when the original Switch, Wii U, Wii, or even GameCube were announced.
The Nintendo Switch 2.
Even though my platform of choice these days is PC, I confess that I really only use the mouse for strategy games; I generally prefer to use a control pad most of the time. But if there’s one thing I could say about the Switch 2 that feels different and interesting, it’s using a Joy-Con like a computer mouse. Nintendo isn’t new to this, by the way – there was a SNES mouse in the 1990s that was used in titles like Mario Paint. But it’s a first for a home console in the current generation, and Nintendo seems to be leaning into the mouse idea in a big way. I can see it being phenomenally useful in games like Civilization VII, which will be coming to the Switch 2, and I’m sure fans of first-person shooters will appreciate the idea of using it in titles like Metroid Prime 4, too.
What most intrigues me, though, is the idea of using both Joy-Cons at the same time – basically like having two mice. I’ve never seen a game which played that way, yet if you think about it, the possibilities for dual-mouse gameplay seem almost limitless! It’s something quite simple, yet it’s never been tried before (or if it has, it never caught on). Nintendo showed off a basketball-inspired game called Drag X Drive which seems to use the two Joy-Cons in this way – but I hope it won’t be the only game to offer that kind of control scheme. Drag x Drive looks great, and it’s wonderful to see some disability representation in a presentation like this, too. I’d really like to see what other developers might be able to do with this way of controlling a game.
Using two Joy-Cons like this could be a really creative way to play games.
We’ll talk more about games in a moment, but if we stick with hardware for now… I was a bit surprised that Nintendo didn’t go into more detail about the Switch 2’s specs. We got a bit of information about the built-in screen, which will now be 1080p (full HD) instead of 720p, and that the Switch 2 can also scale up to 4K when docked. But there wasn’t a lot of meat on the bones; what kind of processor does the system have, how much VRAM, and pretty basic things like that weren’t mentioned.
I have to assume that this was a deliberate choice – that Nintendo knows the internals aren’t spectacular, so opted to talk about cameras and voice chat instead. From a totally unscientific look at the Switch 2 Direct – with the obvious caveat that a video presentation compressed for YouTube isn’t going to look its absolute best – I was underwhelmed with the graphics. It didn’t help that most games shown off aren’t brand-new, but nothing about the graphics on display really impressed me. If I had to guess, I’d say the Switch 2 is probably about on par with something like an Xbox Series S, which in turn was comparable to the previous generation of home consoles. So we’re talking about graphical fidelity that might’ve looked great in 2012… but is nothing special in 2025. That’s nothing new for Nintendo, of course, and it isn’t to say that (most of) the games on display didn’t look good! But it is notable that there doesn’t seem to be a significant graphical leap considering the price of the console and its games.
We didn’t get much of a look at the Switch 2’s internals this time.
One part of the Switch 2 that has me nervous is the magnetic Joy-Con connection. Despite Nintendo’s promises, the dual magnets to hold the controller in place when in handheld mode just don’t seem as sturdy as they would need to be to keep the console safe. The way it was explained in the Direct also made it seem like something that could be accidentally knocked, so even if the magnets are as strong as advertised, the mechanism to keep them working might be vulnerable to bumps, drops, and knocks. If you want to screw with your friend when they have a Switch 2, flicking the little magnet button might be a naughty way to mess up their gameplay!
Alright, let’s talk about price. The console itself doesn’t feel over-priced. It’s an increase from the Switch, but after eight years (and an inflation problem in the interim) that’s to be expected. But the price of games has jumped up quite a lot, too, with Mario Kart World seeming to retail at £66 for a digital-only version and a whopping £75 for a physical game cart in a box. That’s more than the so-called “standard price” of most other video games on PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series consoles, at least here in the UK. Assuming other titles will be similarly-priced, the Switch 2 seems like an expensive proposition right now.
The Switch 2 – with Mario Kart World included – retails for £430 here in the UK. Image: Smyth’s UK
There are other gripes with the way things are priced, and a lot of this is the typical and expected anti-consumer shite from Nintendo that the company’s fans always try to pretend doesn’t exist! Selling the Switch 2 camera separately is fine; not everyone is going to want one. But charging £50 for what looked like a cheap, crappy webcam that, even in Nintendo’s own marketing broadcast, didn’t seem to output a particularly high-quality image? That feels like highway robbery.
Why on earth is Switch 2 – Welcome Tour something to pay for? Nintendo bundled Wii Sports with the Wii when that console launched, introducing players to the Wii remotes and motion controls. If there are things I need to know about my new Switch 2, and Nintendo has created an interactive presentation for the express purpose of explaining those things… it’s not unreasonable to expect that to be included in the price, is it? The console is going to be £400 ($450 in the United States) at a minimum, so why be so stingy with this Welcome Tour thing? It also feels like an exceptionally bone-headed move… who’s really going to buy Welcome Tour, even if it’s only like £5? I can’t see it being a popular item.
Why is Welcome Tour something I have to pay for?
I can’t help but feel Nintendo missed a trick with its Game Chat feature, at least based on the way it was marketed in the Direct. Being “alone together” would’ve been great… five years ago when it was lockdown! But now? I know online gaming is huge and it’s gonna find an audience, but the choice of marketing language just strikes me as odd. It’s as if Nintendo thinks people are still stuck at home, desperate to find ways to connect. There were other ways to show off this feature without harkening back to the covid era which, quite frankly, a lot of people want to forget.
Game Chat, on its own, is nothing new or revolutionary. People have been using voice chat while gaming for literally decades at this point, so Nintendo is unusually late to the party. I do, however, like the promise of a microphone that can isolate a voice and cut out background noise, and a camera that can crop out the background. Neither of these things are new; streamers have been using green screens to appear in their live streams for years. But to have it work smoothly, in real-time, with several people at once… that’s impressive. If it works as advertised!
The Switch 2 will have a camera accessory.
Let’s get into the games! After all, what good is a console without any games?
I’ll do the third-party titles first, because I don’t really have that much to say about them. As I said above when we were talking graphics, none of the third-party games blew me away. In fact, Elden Ring in particular seemed to have gotten a noticeable downgrade, at least based on gameplay and screenshots that I’ve seen. The trees in particular looked exceptionally flat and two-dimensional, and I just didn’t think the game looked its best. The same was true of Cyberpunk 2077, which looks and runs great on my PC but seemed downgraded and less visually impressive on the Switch 2.
On the one hand, these are large, demanding games, so the fact that they’ll run at all on Switch 2 is impressive in itself. But… Cyberpunk 2077 is a game approaching its fifth anniversary and that launched on last-gen hardware (albeit in a poor state). So, the fact that it doesn’t look great on the Switch 2 seems to suggest that the internal hardware is lacking, which could have a knock-on effect for games later in the console’s lifespan. Maybe Switch 2 games in 2025 will look pretty good, but by the time we get to 2029 and a new PlayStation and Xbox are in the offing… what will players make of the Switch 2’s capabilities by then?
Elden Ring’s open world has never looked… flatter.
I’ve been intrigued by IO’s Project 007 since it was announced, and I’m a tad disappointed that we didn’t get so much as a whiff of gameplay. The game was teased… but that’s all! It’s not a bad thing necessarily, and it’s great for Nintendo fans to know a new Bond game is coming to Switch 2. But given that the game was prominently included in the Switch 2 Direct, I would’ve liked to have seen something more!
Onward to Nintendo’s own games!
So… the Switch 2 is launching with two cartoony racing games? Did I get that right? In addition to Mario Kart World, there’s also going to be Kirby Air Riders, which is the sequel to a GameCube title that I think I might’ve played once. As with so many things Nintendo does… this has confused me. By all means, have both games on the Switch 2. But should they both be releasing in the same year, perhaps just weeks apart? And should they have both been shown off as part of the new console’s marketing campaign? Really, Nintendo… you couldn’t have prioritised another game for 2025 and pushed Kirby Air Riders to next year? It just seems… repetitive.
Did the Switch 2’s launch announcement really need two cartoony racing games?
When the Mario Kart World broadcast arrives later this month I might have more to say! But for now, I like the look of the new game. I’m not sold on the “free roam” idea necessarily, but it could be a fun addition and a way to shake things up. Games like Forza Horizon have done fun things with more of an open world design, and as long as there’s content and not just empty roads and fields, it should be okay. The Mario Kart series has always given players options, so adding new modes like “free roam” and the knockout race should be fun. I’m not sure how much I’d personally play either, but I can see them both becoming beloved by some Mario Kart players.
There seem to be character costumes in Mario Kart World, which is fantastic. And new mechanics seem to include transforming vehicles (I saw a boat, a plane, and a snowmobile), bouncing off walls, and even grinding on rails and cables. I’m not sure how big all of these new features will be, or whether they’ll only be available at certain places in certain racetracks – that’s almost certainly gonna be the case for the big articulated lorry that we saw! But these features all look like a lot of fun. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe has been great on the Switch, and I’m hopeful for Mario Kart World’s prospects on the Switch 2. I just hope Nintendo won’t ruin the game by overly monetising features like alternate costumes.
Mario Kart World is getting its own dedicated Direct in a couple of weeks, so there might be more to add then. Be sure to check back!
Mario Kart World is the Switch 2’s big launch title.
The final game to talk about is Donkey Kong Bananza. I was hoping for a new 3D Donkey Kong title – the first since Donkey Kong 64 a quarter of a century ago – and Bananza looks… well, it looks okay. I was kind of getting more of a Yooka-Laylee vibe than an Astro Bot vibe from the reveal, if that makes sense. I’m not sure it’ll be the first game I buy for the Switch 2, but if it reviews well I’ll definitely give it a try. I enjoyed Donkey Kong 64 on the Nintendo 64, and it’s definitely a treat to welcome back DK for another 3D adventure.
There were a couple of absences from the game lineup, though. There was a tiny glimpse of what looked like Animal Crossing: New Horizons, but other than that there was no mention of the series. Given that New Horizons is the best-selling Switch-exclusive title, that’s a bit of an oddity in my opinion! I guess that means a new Animal Crossing game isn’t imminent. There was also no new 3D Mario game – nor a 2D Mario game or a Mario sports title, come to that. A new 3D Mario title is unlikely to be too far away, and Donkey Kong Bananza is clearly intended to be in the same space for players. But I was a little surprised to see absolutely nothing from either of these big titles which I assume are in development.
Donkey Kong is back for his first 3D adventure in a quarter of a century!
The final thing to talk about is pre-ordering. If you’re a massive Nintendo fan, you pay for Switch Online, and you play a ton of games… you still might not be able to pre-order a console. Why? Because even if you’re a paid Switch Online member and have been for years, if you haven’t opted in to marketing emails from Nintendo, you can’t pre-order from the Nintendo shop. What utter dog shite is that?
I had hoped Nintendo would’ve learned from the Wii and Switch about ensuring there’ll be enough consoles to meet demand, but apparently not. Nintendo seems to be deliberately setting up pre-orders in such a way as to assume there won’t be enough to go around… or, if I put my cynical hat on for a moment, to create an artificial and forced sense of scarcity. An attempt to drive up sales by playing on fans’ fears of missing out is just scummy, and I really hope that there will be enough Switch 2 consoles for everyone who wants one on launch day – and especially later in the year as Christmas approaches.
Given the weird pre-order requirements, will there be enough Switch 2 consoles for everyone who wants one on launch day?
So I think that’s everything from my notes!
Will I buy a Switch 2? Probably… but it’s unlikely to be in 2025. I really do like the look of Mario Kart World, and as someone who’s been playing Mario Kart since the first game back in the SNES days, I’m definitely excited to try it out for myself. On its own, though, Mario Kart World is a big ask when you’re talking about spending £430! Maybe when there’s news of a new 3D Mario game and/or the next Animal Crossing title, the Switch 2 will feel more like a “must-buy!”
So if you’re planning on pre-ordering a Switch 2, I guess you’re glad to hear that there’s at least one fewer competitor out there for what could be a limited number of consoles at launch!
I don’t think I can justify the expense of picking up a Switch 2 in June!
The Switch 2 Direct was interesting, but I think it’s too early to really judge how successful the console will be. On the one hand, the original Switch has been a resounding win for Nintendo. But on the other, the high price of games on Switch 2 could be a hindrance, and while I could be alone in this, I feel that the new console’s design and marketing haven’t given it a strong identity of its own. Piggybacking on the Switch’s success could prove to be a masterstroke for Nintendo… but someone at the company said the same thing about the Wii U drawing on the popularity of the original Wii, and look how that turned out!
After the Mario Kart World Direct later this month, I may have more to say about that title. And as the year rolls on and the Switch 2 launches, I’ll definitely be checking out the reviews. I daresay I’ll have more to add before too long – so be sure to check back from time to time for more coverage of Mario Kart, the Switch 2, and Nintendo in general. I hope this look at the Switch 2 Direct has been interesting!
The Nintendo Switch 2 launches on the 5th of June. Pre-orders for the Nintendo Switch 2 go live on the 8th of April. The Switch 2, Super Mario, Mario Kart World, and other properties discussed above are the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Since writing up my first impressions of Civilization VII a few weeks ago, I’ve continued to play the game. Today, I wanted to cover a few points that I didn’t make in that original piece – which I wrote after about six hours of gameplay – as well as make one amendment to something I feel was unclear last time.
For the record, I still think Civilization VII has a lot of potential. But right now, there are things holding it back – as well as a few bugs and issues that I didn’t notice at first that really need to be patched out as quickly as possible. I’ve kind of hit the wall with Civ VII after about 40 hours of gameplay, and I probably won’t jump back in until the next update. There’s a reason for that, and we’ll begin there.
A scout near the edge of the map.
At time of writing, there’s a bug – or at least a major imbalance – that has totally ruined several games for me. In short, either AI civs are underpowered or barbarian city-states are overpowered. In several recent games I’ve played – or rather, attempted to play – this has led to barbarians conquering and defeating AI players before the game can really get going. There’s no way to increase the number of AI players in the game to try to counteract this, and it isn’t something that’s only happening on lower difficulty settings or certain maps, either.
Having barbarians and hostile city-states is great, it adds a whole extra dynamic to gameplay and it makes the very early game feel more tense and dangerous. But these mini-factions have to be balanced better, because they shouldn’t be able to knock out AI civilisations except under rare and unusual circumstances. Making them an obstacle for human players is great – but making them so overpowered that they can kill one, two, or even three civs in the ancient era before the game has a chance to get going… that ruins the game for me. And I’m sure it has for other players, too.
An AI city facing a barbarian raid…
…and the same city a few turns later after being captured.
I’m mostly familiar with Civilization VI. That was the first game in the series I played extensively, so it’s my point of comparison. Barbarian tribes in that game could be aggressive, particularly in the early game. And while I can’t call to mind any specific examples, it must’ve happened at least once that an AI civ was knocked out of the game by a particularly strong barbarian attack. If that did happen, though, it was a rare occurrence no matter what the settings were, and it simply isn’t something that should be happening so often in Civilization VII.
Because of the way Civ VII’s eras work, knocking out an AI player cuts down the amount of time an age lasts. In one recent game, the ancient age seemed to be over in a flash after not one but two AI players were defeated off-screen – presumably by barbarians. The game only has three eras to begin with… so speed-running one of them in this fashion isn’t great.
A hostile city-state/barbarian village.
That leads into my next point. This is much bigger for Civilization VII and much less easy to fix… but there really aren’t enough ages in the game, and the way they operate as effectively three mini-games in one feels limiting.
I’m an adaptable person, and Civilization VII’s new rules and new gameplay mechanics should be surmountable for me. I’m not lashing out at the game because I “don’t like change,” or I want to keep playing Civ VI. Having played quite a few games now, with different leaders and factions, I’m beginning to get used to most of the changes and differences – but the way eras function is something I’m still struggling with.
I mentioned in my first impressions that war doesn’t carry over from one era to another – nor do most units. Even units that survive an era transition don’t remain where they had been placed on the map; they’re either grouped together in an army or dropped one by one into cities and towns – which also don’t survive the era transition in their previous form. All cities except for the capital revert to being towns, losing all of the bonuses cities get and forcing you to re-convert them later.
The beginning of a new era removes some units entirely, relocates others, and changes most cities back into towns.
This really limits the way Civilization VII plays. To give one example: if I want to wage war in the ancient era, I basically have to build up my military from turn one and choose the first civ I meet as my target for conquest. There just isn’t enough time – even in a game with the maximum number of turns and eras that are as long as the game allows with its current, very limited options – to do things any other way. However you look at it, this is a limitation on play styles, because I’m forced to do one of two things. Either I have to write off the idea of an early war and conquest of a neighbour – which can be limiting and annoying, as AI civs have a tendency to forward-settle, placing cities right next to mine or even in the middle of my burgeoning empire. Or I have to prepare for war from turn one.
War can be time-consuming in a game like Civilization VII, and if you’re coming up on the end of an era, there’s basically no point in even starting one. The end of an era forces you to make peace with anyone you’re fighting, and it also removes units from the board and repositions others, meaning it isn’t possible to instantly re-start a conflict after the transition. This makes war in the early game much more limited – either you launch an attack as early as possible against whichever unlucky civ you’re right next to, or you’re stuck on the defensive, lacking enough time to build up a sufficiently-sized army to launch a full-scale conquest.
War in the ancient era.
The one thing a 4X strategy game like Civilization VII mustn’t do is limit your options. War, diplomacy, exploration, peace… everything should be on the table, and as the player I should feel in control. Sure, there are gonna be times where I’m under attack and on the defensive. And there should be unpredictable elements in there. But if I know for a fact that there’s basically no point starting a war once the era clock reaches a certain point, or that all I have to do is hold on for a few more turns because a mandatory peace treaty is coming as soon as the era ends… that puts real limits on even defensive wars.
Beyond just war, though, I find the way eras are handled to be pretty limiting. Each faction has unique civics to unlock, for example, but these come at the expense of the regular civics tree, and with one civics tree per era your choice is either fall behind the AI or sacrifice those unique policies and bonuses. In a longer game with one civics tree, it might be easier to catch up – or to race ahead in order to dedicate time later on to unlocking those dedicated civilisation civics. But the eras limit this mechanic in a pretty disappointing way.
Each faction gets its own unique civics tree.
Eras also limit exploration, and by extension what kinds of maps are available. Because the middle exploration era is entirely focused on colonisation, it’s impossible to speed-run a tech like celestial navigation in order to settle islands or continents that are separated from your starting area by ocean tiles. There are also resources – like cocoa, for instance – that are locked until the exploration era. It isn’t even possible to explore islands and continents elsewhere on the map before the game deems it acceptable.
Again… this is really limiting. I can’t build a ship or a scout and send them off to the far corners of the map; I’m stuck on my starting continent or island until one-third of the game has passed. This, in turn, limits what kind of maps are available – there are no Mediterranean maps, for example, with land surrounding a body of water, or single-continent maps with outlying islands. There are fewer map types and less map variety in order to accommodate this eras system… and for me, the trade-off isn’t close to being worth it.
All six of the available map types.
Then we come to era transitions, and choosing new factions. In my first impressions, I noted that most factions are locked until certain gameplay requirements are met to unlock them – and I should clarify that I was referring to this transition between eras. In one case, I had been playing as Isabella and chose Spain for the exploration age. But when the era ended, I literally only had one option for the modern age: Mexico. All of the other modern era civs were locked because I hadn’t, for instance, settled a city on tundra or dug three oil wells. Because these requirements were not communicated well – and were not communicated at all in the preceding era – I had no choice but to finish that game as Mexico.
Obviously I’ve got nothing against playing as Mexico, and I would’ve picked that civ eventually. But why should Civ VII be so restrictive with its faction choices? Even in more recent games where I’m more aware of these limitations and I’ve tried to overcome them, there are always some civs locked when the ancient age transitions to the exploration age, or when the exploration age gives way to the modern age.
Mexico’s unique unit: the Soldaderas.
I can understand the developers wanting to make sure players don’t accidentally shoot themselves in the foot by choosing a civ with bonuses that aren’t applicable or with unique abilities that they’d struggle to take advantage of because of the way earlier era(s) have unfolded. But these restrictions feel way too limiting as they’re currently implemented, and with the whole “choose one civ per era” mechanic being Civilization VII’s biggest new feature, it shouldn’t be so difficult and finicky to work with. This is basically the entire selling-point of the game – so why make it so limited and restrictive?
Part of the appeal of Civilization VII is the idea that I can chart my own unique route through history. I can start as Egypt, then become the Inca, before ending the game as Prussia. If I play as Spain and find I can only transition to become Mexico… that completely robs this aspect of the game of its one unique selling-point, and is yet another limitation on gameplay styles in a game that already has no shortage of those.
In this example, two modern age civs are locked.
I want to be able to choose in what order I move units or set policies. Sometimes, Civilization VII will arbitrarily limit this, forcing me to choose the benefits of a celebration before I can move units. If I’m in the middle of a war or trying to lay siege to a city, I want to focus on that first and foremost! If I select a unit, I shouldn’t be forced to do something else before I can order it to move or attack.
There also seems to be a bug where, after building the Dogo Onsen wonder, every city in my empire gains population (meaning I have to manually grow each city by adding a tile or specialist). This is pretty annoying, especially when you have twenty-plus cities; having to manually click through all of them, adding a tile or specialist, before the game will let you do anything else takes up a lot of time. Hopefully this bug can be fixed in the next update.
Growing a town is fun… growing twenty in a single turn? Less so.
Speaking of bugs, I’m concerned that natural wonders are glitched. In short, every single game I’ve played has had the same three natural wonders: the Grand Canyon, the Redwood Forest, and Zhangjiajie. I’ve seen the Great Barrier Reef once in one other game – and that’s it. There are, according to the Civ Wiki, fourteen others… but I’ve never seen any of them even once, not in any of the games I’ve played. And this isn’t because I always pick the same civ or the same map type: I’ve played most leaders and most civs at least once, and I’ve tried out all of the map types (but not every size of map, to be fair).
So… is this a bug? Or in forty-some hours of gameplay, have I just been randomly unlucky to continually encounter the same three natural wonders every time? There’s something to be said for that level of random chance… so maybe I should buy a lottery ticket this week! Seriously, though, there are already a pretty sparse amount of these natural wonders – way more need to be added. To keep encountering the exact same ones is just boring and repetitive. If this is a bug I hope it’s patched out. If not… what the heck’s going on?
There are more natural wonders… right?
I like the idea of crises. But unfortunately, this is another area where I fear a bug is causing games to feel repetitive and less-interesting – to the point where I’ve started turning off the crisis option when starting a new game. Crisis events throw up a challenge for your civilisation and force you to implement certain policies which have to be accommodated and worked around. But as above, in every single game I’ve played so far, I’ve encountered the exact same crisis in every age every time.
In the ancient age, I’ve only ever gotten the “revolt” crisis, which sees my empire tested by towns and cities losing happiness due to a variety of factors. There’s some potentially-interesting storytelling here, which is neat… but it gets boring game after game. In the exploration era, every game saw my cities laid waste by plagues. Again, this was potentially interesting, but it wore off after the fourth or fifth time I saw it in successive games. Then, when it came to the modern era, I don’t know if there even are any crises to be had – I haven’t encountered any.
A city afflicted by plague in the exploration age.
Adding in these kinds of events should be interesting. But if the same ones trigger every single time… is that a bug? I don’t play the game the same way every time, and with different leaders, different civs, and the game set up in totally different ways on different maps, why should I constantly encounter the same crisis events? It’s just another thing that feels, well, limiting. And it got to the point where I decided to just turn off crisis events altogether rather than have yet another instance of the same thing making my game feel repetitive and dull.
Finally, I’d like to talk about Civ VII’s art style – and particularly the way cities look.
I love Civilization VII’s graphics, and going for a more “realistic” look after the stylised and cartoonish Civ VI is a choice that I personally appreciated. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but I felt it was a step up, and I really like the way the game represents water and ships at sea in particular.
A battleship on the ocean.
However, there’s a problem – and I didn’t really notice it at first. In Civilization VI, it was really easy to tell at a glance which buildings you’d constructed in a city. Campuses and science buildings were blue, for example, and military buildings had red detailing. But in Civ VII, most buildings look very similar to one another, and with no districts or zones that are specific to certain types of building, they can be literally anywhere in a city. This makes it really hard to tell, without zooming in closely or digging through a menu, whether you’ve built all of the libraries and science buildings you wanted to, or whether a city has an important building like a railway station or a market.
This isn’t insurmountable, as it just takes a bit of checking. But when you have a sprawling empire of twenty-plus cities in the late game, it can be hard to keep track of every building. In order to ensure you’re getting the most out of your settlements and maximising your available yields, you need to be on top of what buildings you have and which ones you need. Being able to see, at a glance, which ones are present in which settlement is useful – and stripping this away to leave very generic-looking buildings and urban districts just gets in the way of that. It might make cities look “more realistic,” but it’s less useful and feels like a bit of a hurdle to smooth gameplay.
Can you tell at a glance which buildings this city has and where they are?
So after playing a bit more Civ VII (okay, quite a lot more) those are some additional points that I wanted to make. Later in the year, after the game has received more updates, patches, and its first pieces of DLC, I’ll definitely jump back in and see if I want to write an updated review or some additional notes.
I still believe Civ VII is fun – I wouldn’t have played multiple games over forty-plus hours if I wasn’t having a good time most of the time. But there are more limitations than there were in Civilization VI, and the core eras mechanic is one that I feel is doing more to hold the game back than it is to improve it, at least as things sit in March 2025. I’d love to see some bug fixes, changes to the way menus and tech trees are displayed, and perhaps some visual or graphical changes to make certain key buildings more obvious. Those things feel achievable in the short-term, and perhaps updates or expansions could address some of the bigger issues I’ve found.
I hope this has been interesting. I paid a lot of money for Civilization VII, so I definitely want to see the game succeed. I raise these points not out of spite but because I want to see Civ VII improved. There’s a lot of potential in this game… but some of it is being denied or restricted by creative decisions that have limited key aspects of gameplay. There’s plenty of time to make changes and improvements, though, and it’s still early days. I’m hopeful that, in the next few months, things will get noticeably better for Civ VII.
Civilization VII is out now for PC, Mac, Linux, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Civilization VII is the copyright of Firaxis and/or Take-Two Interactive. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I did something I never usually do: I pre-ordered a game. Violating yet another of my own game-buying rules, I paid extra for the “founder’s edition,” which – among other things – granted me access to Civilization VII on its actual release date instead of five days later. Do I detest myself for succumbing to that? Just a little. Was it worth the £120 (that I put on the credit card and plan to spread over a few months)? Well… read on to find out, I guess.
This piece is my “first impressions” of Civilization VII, and I suppose I should first define that term so we’re all on the same page! A game as massive and varied as Civilization VII will take days – weeks, even – to fully get a handle on. Having only played the game for around six hours (split into two sessions) and completed a single game, I can’t in good conscience call this a “review.” I’ve had an opportunity to jump in, played around with some of the settings, and completed what was basically a tutorial game. That’s enough to give me a taste of a game this massive, but not enough for an article that I could reasonably title a “review.” So in this piece I’m going to share my immediate thoughts and feelings about the game – and later in the year, perhaps when there have been one or two updates, patches, and pieces of additional content, I’ll return and share some further thoughts.
A solider in the opening cinematic.
If that’s not what you’re looking for, that’s totally okay. I won’t be offended if you jump out and read someone else’s review instead! But if you like the sound of what I’m doing today, I hope you’ll read on.
For some context, I came late to the Civilization series. I think I played either the first game in the series or Civilization II in the mid-1990s, but only briefly on a friend’s computer. When I started getting into strategy games around that time, it was real-time strategy titles like Command and Conquer, Red Alert, and Age of Empires that I enjoyed the most. Turn-based strategy didn’t hold much appeal to me… not until Civilization VI came along twenty years later!
It’s time for the dawn of Civilization VII!
I’ve sunk well over 1,000 hours into Civilization VI since it launched in 2016, and it quickly became one of my favourite strategy titles of all-time. I’ve bought every single piece of DLC for it, played a bunch of scenarios and special campaigns, and I’ve had an absolute blast. When Civilization VII was announced last year, it shot right to the top of my “must-play” list, leading to me pre-ordering it so I could pre-install it and play it as soon as it was available! There are very, very few games for which I’d break my “never pre-order or pay for expensive premium editions” rules – so I hope Sid Meier, Firaxis, and Take-Two are especially grateful today!
If you just want the headline, I’ll say this: Civilization VII is already a lot of fun, and I only encountered one bug in my first six hours of playing. However, there are missing features that have been part of the series going all the way back, paywalling content at launch – including entire civilizations and leaders – is pretty scummy, and while the base game feels solid… it’s incomplete. There will undoubtedly be DLC packs over the next few months and years that add in a lot of the missing content and features, but all that will do is push up the price of a game that I’ve already paid a lot of money for. If you’re a Civilization VI fan ready to move on to a new challenge, Civilization VII feels like a no-brainer, and just getting started with the game and understanding all of the changes will take time. But if you’re brand-new to the series and looking to get started with a game that’s already complete… pick up the complete edition of Civilization VI when it’s on sale!
Mississippian archers (their unique unit) next to a city.
Visually, Civilization VII is stunning. I was surprised to see just how graphically impressive the game is considering its relatively small install size (Civilization VII takes up about 15GB of disc space) and that it’s a game that also has to function on the Nintendo Switch. I played the PC version, just so you’re aware of that. Units all have smooth animations for movement and combat, and there’s a ton of variety in the way units and buildings look depending on what era you’re in and which faction you’re playing as. There also seem to be more unique military units – each of the three civs I played as had at least one, which is noticeable coming from Civilization VI.
Environments look stunning, too. Mountains, deserts, and grassland all looked great – but where I was most impressed was in looking at coastal waters, rivers, and forests. These places feel genuinely alive in a way that they just didn’t in Civilization VI, and sending a unit marching into dense jungle or forest had a different feel to it as a result. Water looks great in the game, too, which is something some titles can struggle with. And the addition of navigable rivers adds a whole new challenge to exploration and combat.
There are some beautiful environments in Civilization VII.
Let’s talk about Civilization VII’s biggest and most-discussed new feature: choosing leaders and factions separately from one another. This was a big part of the game’s marketing and one of the main ways Civilization VII stands apart not only from Civ VI but from other entries in the series, too. This isn’t a totally unique thing to Civilization VII, as choosing a new faction in each era was also a big part of the turn-based strategy game Humankind a couple of years ago – and I think that’s worth keeping in mind. But as to how it works in Civilization VII… I have to admit that I’m still on the fence.
On the surface, picking one leader and then being able to choose up to three different factions (one per age) as the game progresses is interesting. Not only that, but it means the number of potential combinations of leaders + civs is huge! Someone smarter than me will have to crunch the numbers on that, but if we assume new leaders and factions will be added periodically, the sheer variety on offer should mean that games never get old or feel repetitive. But is that really how it’s going to work?
Choosing a faction one-third of the way through the game!
Two things. Firstly, it seems to me that, in order to make sure every combination of leader + faction is competitive or at least functionally playable, some of the most different – and outstanding – unique features have to be toned down. A faction like Civilization VI’s Polynesians – whose unique traits were that they started with a ship at sea and could navigate ocean tiles from the start of the game – could never work with Civ VII’s random leaders and heavy focus on the middle age being one of maritime exploration.
It’s also clear that the developers want to prevent players from accidentally screwing themselves over by picking a leader whose traits make them somehow incompatible with a particular civilisation, or whose bonuses would be completely useless. As another example from Civilization VI, Canadian leader Wilfrid Laurier is granted bonuses for building on snow and tundra, while the Brazilian civ gets bonuses from rainforest tiles – which don’t spawn anywhere near snow and tundra. In order to avoid these problems and counteract them, Civilization VII’s leader bonuses and civilisation-specific bonuses feel a little bit more restricted. That isn’t to say they’re bad, it’s just they’re arguably toned-down from what they might’ve been if leaders and civs were joined at the hip as in past titles.
Choosing a leader and civ separately is a first for the Civilization series.
This isn’t always a comfortable topic, but the Civilization series – and many other historical and strategy games, too – come in for criticism sometimes for being historically inaccurate or insensitive. Because of the way it breaks leaders and factions apart, it’s possible in Civilization VII for Napoleon to take charge of Egypt or Harriet Tubman to lead Prussia. While Civilization VII veers away from any truly controversial picks (there’s no Hitler or Chairman Mao, for example) some of the combinations are odd at best. The AI, for its part, doesn’t seem to really care which leaders and civs it chooses, so expect some truly random ones if, like me, you mostly play against the computer.
For all the criticism of past Civilization games for being western-centric, not reflecting real history, and so on… at least they could claim to attempt to fictionalise real-world empires and historical factions. This disconnect between leader and civ is going to take some getting used to on my end – which is to be expected, I admit – but something about it also feels a bit… I don’t know. Uncomfortable in a sense, perhaps. Maybe it’s because I was a student of history (it’s the subject I studied at university) but something about breaking leaders and their civs apart is something I don’t feel thrilled about.
I’m not sold on the separate leaders and civs… not yet, anyway.
Mechanically, this separation also leads to one of Civilization VII’s biggest weaknesses: there are only three eras. In Civ VI, there were eight at launch, with a ninth added later. Not only that, but eras in that game were expanded to add “golden” and “dark” ages, giving new policies and other effects. There are a few “golden” and “dark” age elements in Civilization VII, but they don’t seem anywhere near as impactful. And to be fair, how could they be? If there are only three eras, who wants to spend at least one-third of the game in a dark age with all of the drawbacks that could bring? But to me, that highlights the difference between the two titles… and I’m not sure it’s an improvement.
What arguably is an improvement, though, is that every player in every age should be playing a civ with era-specific advantages. In Civilization VI, if you were playing a faction like Egypt, the majority of your bonuses and your only unique units were only any use in the early game. And if you played Germany or the United States, you’d have to wait until the late game to take advantage of your bonuses and unique advantages… if you could last that long. Civilization VII feels more balanced in that respect, with each civ having bonuses and advantages – based on real history – that make sense and work in their eras.
There are fewer eras, but more civs that have relevant bonuses and unique abilities in those eras.
I was a little disappointed to see so few options when starting a new game. There are only a handful of map types – and they’re all pretty basic. As someone who prefers longer, slower games over short, fast-paced ones, there don’t seem to be a lot of options to play on a “massive” map over a longer time frame, which is also a bit of a letdown. Most leaders and factions are also locked until certain gameplay requirements are met to unlock them… which might be fun for you if you like the challenge that comes with unlocking things. For me, I’d usually rather everyone was available to play straight away, with those challenges and unlocks saved for things like achievements.
I’m also disappointed that, for some reason, it isn’t possible to re-name cities and towns. This is something I always like doing in any strategy game, and it was possible in Civ VI so I have no idea why it hasn’t been implemented here. There’s a petition on the Civilization forums to add city re-naming to Civilization VII, so I have to imagine it will be implemented sooner or later, but why couldn’t it be part of the game at launch? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Why can’t I rename my cities?!
While we’re nitpicking and talking about relatively small things: why can’t I quit to the desktop from the in-game pause menu? That was possible in Civilization VI, and it’s silly to force me to go back to the menu only to have to quit to the desktop from there. A minor annoyance, sure, but a pretty basic thing to resolve that someone should’ve picked up on before Civilization VII launched!
In terms of gameplay, I found some AI units seemed to occasionally take a very circuitous route before attacking, which didn’t really make a lot of sense to me. While standing one tile away, you’d think they’d move to the next tile and attack. Instead, some AI units seemed to walk the longest route around before starting their attacks – and there wasn’t an obvious reason why. As far as I could tell they weren’t doing this to avoid terrain disadvantages or to link up with allied units; it was just a quirk of the game’s pathfinding or AI.
AI pathfinding feels imperfect right now.
Diplomacy leaves something to be desired, unfortunately. Making friends and alliances with another faction works well enough, and while the system is different from Civilization VI it’s something I daresay I’ll get used to in time! But when a war comes to an end, it’s very odd – and very limiting – that there are so few options for making peace. In Civ VI, to end a war you could offer or demand money, great works, rare resources, and so on. In Civ VII, the only options on the table when trying to end a war are cities – and in some cases, it seems like an enemy won’t accept a peace offer if you refuse to give up a city – even if they haven’t conquered any of your cities or even killed a single unit in combat.
This really limits the way war works, and unless it’s addressed it’s going to be a weight around the game’s neck. There are occasions where, after capturing a city, I’ll want to keep it or sell it back as part of a peace treaty. But that’s far and away not the only way I want to make peace – in fact, in Civ VI cities were usually the bottom of my list when negotiating. The fact that some war-hungry powers won’t make peace very easily makes the game feel unbalanced, and it means war and combat – two of the most important features in a 4X strategy game – are less useful. Starting a war is always going to be a risk, but if I know that making peace is painfully difficult in some cases, it makes me far less interested in even attempting to play the game that way. Again, this is limiting.
The peace treaty system needs some work.
Weirdly, declarations of war don’t seem to survive the transition from one era to another. In short, if you’re at war with someone when the age ends, you won’t be when the new age begins. Since we were speaking of things that limit the warfare and combat system… that’s another.
Think about it: if you’re running out of time in the ancient or exploration ages, why would you start a war that you’d be unlikely to finish in time? I’m kind of hoping this is a bug or something that will be changed, because automatically ending a war just because the clock rolled over feels like something that really puts the brakes on that side of the game. Eras can be long, sure, but by the time you’ve got research and unit upgrades done, there might not always be time for a full-blown conquest. Now, the flip side is that this adds another level of strategic planning to the game, which some folks might appreciate. But in Civilization VI, if you were at war in one age you’d remain at war when the next one rolled around.
The exploration age ended while I was at war with three civs…
…but we were at peace when the modern age began in the very next turn.
I struggled with cities and towns rebelling – but not in the way you might think! Relatively early in my game, one nearby city rebelled from its founder and asked to join my empire (who wouldn’t want to be part of the great Empire of Dennis, after all?) This city then spent the rest of the game threatening to rebel against me… but without ever doing so. I don’t know why it never went into full-blown revolt; I had a military unit stationed there, but that was all. It became annoying to keep seeing these pop-ups warning me of an imminent rebellion, when no rebellion ever came.
It’s great, though, that cities can revolt if certain conditions are met. I just wish I knew what the conditions were so I could either trigger them in enemies or avoid them in my own settlements! This feels like an evolution of the way it worked in Civ VI, and it’s definitely something I want to dig into more in my next game.
I kept getting this message warning me that a revolt was imminent… but it never came.
Gwendoline Christie has taken over the role of narrator for Civilization VII. She has a wonderful voice, and particularly in the opening cinematic I think she did a good job. But… there… are… some… sentences… that… she… reads… with… a… lot… of… unnecessary… pauses… in… between… words… and… clauses. It’s almost like she’s doing a William Shatner impression – which, unfortunately, I don’t mean as a compliment. She also seems to have a tendency toward over-enunciating certain words, which I definitely picked up on. It’s not the worst thing in the world, sure, and I’ll get used to it. These lines can be skipped, too, with a simple click of the mouse. But I thought it was worth noting.
As in any new game, there are changes to the rules that can feel a little arbitrary. But given enough time, I’ll get used to all of them. I didn’t do spectacularly well in my first game, but I feel like I learned a lot and I’m starting to understand how some of the changes work. Civilization VII feels like a solid start, with plenty to build on in the months and years ahead.
Charlemagne and Hatshepsut are going to war!
One of the biggest changes for me was the lack of a builder unit. Builders in past Civilization games have played different roles, but I think I’m right in saying they’ve always been present in some form. Civilization VII doesn’t use builders, with buildings and occupied tiles being handled from the city menu. That’s definitely gonna take some getting used to!
Cities being different from towns is also a big change. Towns can’t construct wonders and can only purchase buildings and units with gold, but can also specialise and focus on one thing – food, happiness, gold, etc. – adding more of the chosen resource to your civilisation’s total. Again, this is something I’ll need to spend more time with to really get the hang of, but I think it’s at least an interesting change.
A large city in the modern age.
Civilization VI introduced several gameplay mechanics revolving around climate change – and these have been removed from Civ VII. I will concede that the implementation of sea level rise and climate mitigation in the previous game was imperfect, but it added a lot to the late game in particular – as well as forcing players to consider how they use resources earlier in the game, too. It made for a lot of calculations like whether I could risk waiting for the technology to do nuclear power and renewables or whether I’d have to industrialise and use coal and oil, then try to clean up the mess later! It was a creative inclusion, and one that I’m sure could’ve been adapted this time.
I wonder if things like climate change and sea levels will be added as DLC somewhere down the line. These mechanics weren’t part of the launch version of Civilization VI, so maybe the plan is to see how they could be implemented once Civ VII gets going. If so, I guess I can get on board with that.
Discovering a natural wonder!
One element from Civ VI that its sequel retains, though, is natural disasters. In my first game I encountered a storm at sea, a blizzard, tornado outbreaks… and so many river floods. Seriously, there’s gotta be a way to tone down the frequency of some of these natural disasters, because when the same river has flooded for the twelfth time in a single playthrough… it starts to get annoying!
There also didn’t seem to be an easy way to ask for aid – in Civ VI, after suffering a natural disaster, players could request help in the form of gold. This added another layer to the game’s diplomacy, but it seems to be absent here. If natural disasters (floods especially) were less frequent, maybe I wouldn’t have even noticed!
I genuinely lost count of how many times the rivers flooded in just one game.
So I think that’s everything I had in my notes.
Civilization VII has a lot of potential to be a fantastic strategy game, one I can already see myself playing for hour after hour. There are a lot of changes from Civ VI – some of which feel rather arbitrary – and some weaknesses compared to that game, too. For me, I think the biggest weakness right now is that there are only three ages (or eras) to play through. While these are different, and arguably bigger and better than they have been in the past, it makes Civilization VII feel… smaller.
I’m also not fully sold on the separate leader and civ mechanic – at least, not yet. I like that different factions in different eras all feel tailored to those eras, avoiding the problems that could come from playing a civ with bonuses that only worked in one part of a longer game. But in order to keep things relatively fair, I can’t help but feel some of the most unique and interesting leader and civ bonuses and abilities have had to be toned down.
Archers preparing a ranged attack.
All that being said, my six hours flew by and I had a lot of fun getting into my first Civilization VII game. I tried my hand at exploration, diplomacy, war, combat, trading, and I even founded my own religion. There are a lot of fun-sounding civs to try out, including plenty that aren’t western or European, which is great to see. And as always, Civilization VII has a fantastic soundtrack!
Visually, the game shines. Animations look great, the landscape looks beautiful, and there are plenty of unique features in every civ in terms of the way units and buildings look. This definitely keeps things interesting and gives the game a ton of variety. I would say that, compared to Civ VI, Civilization VII is leaning more toward “realism” and going for a less cartoonish or board game-inspired look. Whether that’s your preference or not is going to be subject to personal taste!
A walled town.
I hope this has been interesting and informative. I tried to hit all of the big points from my first Civilization VII game so I could share my first impressions fairly, but there’s a lot more to this game that I need to explore. Later in the year, perhaps after some of the first patches, updates, and pieces of DLC have been released, I’ll definitely have more to say.
Now that I’m done writing this… I’m gonna jump back into Civilization VII, pick a new leader, and go around again. And if that isn’t a ringing endorsement (or a desperate cope from someone who spent £120 on this game) then I don’t know what is!
Seriously, though, unless you’re some kind of super-fan… just get the base game. I was silly to reward Firaxis and Take-Two for their shitty business practices, and I’m not pleased with myself for wasting extra money on in-game silliness that I didn’t need.
Civilization VII is out now for PC, Mac, Linux, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Civilization VII is the copyright of Firaxis and/or Take-Two Interactive. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Now that we have a bit more information about the Nintendo Switch 2, I thought it could be interesting to look ahead. My first-ever home console was a Super Nintendo, and I’ve also owned an N64, Wii, 3DS, Switch – and I was even one of about seven people who owned a Wii U ten or so years ago. So I like to think I have a tiny bit of a track record when it comes to Nintendo!
I gotta admit that I’m surprised about the Switch 2. Nintendo are the kings of innovation in gaming, with each of the company’s consoles having something different to entice players. The Switch 2 will be the first console in several generations (since either the GameCube or the Super Nintendo, depending on how we think about it) to play it so exceptionally safe. If I were being deliberately unkind, I might even suggest that the Switch 2 looks underwhelming and repetitive.
The Switch 2 in docked mode.
Until we’ve got a better look at the internals of the Switch 2, though, we won’t know for sure how different the machine really is and what its capabilities will be. I’m hoping to put a Switch 2 on my list of things to buy this year (or in 2026, if it won’t be launching in time for Christmas) but that will depend to a great degree on what games the console launches with – and how much better they might look compared to the current iteration of the Switch.
The Switch has some great games, that isn’t even a remotely controversial statement! And I’ve definitely been surprised to see that some very big, demanding games have survived being ported to the platform in a playable state. I’m thinking of titles like Hogwarts Legacy and The Witcher 3 in particular, but I’m sure there are others.
A Switch 2 joy-con controller.
When it comes to Nintendo’s first-party titles, the Switch has excelled, too. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Super Mario Odyssey, and Animal Crossing: New Horizons ought to be in anyone’s top ten, with all three games taking established series and putting a new spin on them.
And it’s games I’d like to talk about today.
For all the innovation and advances that Nintendo has made, there are other companies in the gaming space that have gone beyond what Nintendo and the Switch have been capable of. As technology has improved, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the Switch has, in some respects, held back Nintendo’s developers. Over the past few years, there have been quite a few games released in genres that Nintendo used to dominate… titles that have gone above and beyond the company’s recent output.
The Switch 2 will be Nintendo’s first console since 2017.
Today, we’re going to look at five games from the last few years that Nintendo needs to learn from in order to make their games on the Switch 2 the best they can be. Some fans will always be satisfied with more of the same – and that’s great! If you’re in that camp, that’s okay and I don’t intend any of this as some kind of attack. Speaking for myself, though, I’ve played several games in recent years (and watched gameplay from other titles, too) that genuinely eclipse anything Nintendo has created. Partly that might be down to the limitations of the Switch – but it’s also down to the inescapable fact that other companies and developers are innovating and pushing the boundaries in a way that Nintendo hasn’t been.
If Nintendo is to make the Switch 2 a success, then the company will need to read the room! Player expectations are always changing, and Nintendo can’t afford to remain stagnant and try to coast on past successes. A new console – with new, more powerful hardware at its heart – is an opportunity to catch up on a decade-plus of evolution and enhancements in game development, bringing at least some of Nintendo’s flagship series and franchises into the 2020s for the first time.
The Switch 2 in its docking cradle.
So let’s take a look at five games that I think Nintendo can learn from.
As always, a couple of caveats. Firstly, please keep in mind that all of this is the subjective opinion of just one person. If I make a point you disagree with, highlight a game you hate, or recommend a change that you think doesn’t need to be made… that’s okay! Nintendo fans are a passionate bunch, but there ought to be enough room in the fan community for civil discussion and polite disagreement.
Joy-cons will attach to the Switch 2 with this… delicate-looking connection!
I’ve also tried to be realistic in my selections. I’m not going to try and argue that Nintendo should turn the next Mario game into a gritty Red Dead Redemption II open-world, or that the next Animal Crossing ought to be an L.A. Noire-style murder mystery. I’ve chosen titles in either the same genre or a similar space that I believe Nintendo can learn from as the first few Switch 2 games are being worked on.
With all of that out of the way, let’s take a look at the list!
Game #1: Palworld Pokémon franchise
A gun-toting monster from Palworld.
This is the game that really inspired me to put this list together! Last year, Palworld was a surprise hit. It took the monster-battling sub-genre and put its own spin on it, bringing in huge numbers of players in the process. I know several die-hard Pokémon fans who absolutely adore Palworld, and even looking in from the outside, I can see many ways in which the game goes beyond anything the Pokémon series has ever done.
Recent Pokémon titles have been pretty stale and stagnant – if they even worked at all. Sure, they might add new monsters to the roster or be set in a different region of the franchise’s world, but Pokémon’s basic gameplay hasn’t changed in years. The series needs a good shake-up, and Palworld’s success should be the kick in the backside that Nintendo, Game Freak, and the Pokémon Company need.
The starter Pokémon from Pokémon Scarlet/Violet.
Unfortunately, things aren’t looking great on this front. Nintendo has inexplicably chosen to try to sue Palworld and its developer out of existence with a frivolous lawsuit, something that shames Furukawa, Miyamoto, and all of the other cowardly executives. As I wrote last year: the history of gaming is one of piecemeal innovation, with companies from all across the industry seeing what works and building on it. Pokémon wouldn’t exist without the role-playing games, deck-building games, and top-down fantasy titles that came before it, and Nintendo doesn’t have the right to claim ownership of an entire genre.
So I hope, once the dust settles and the lawsuit is inevitably dismissed, Nintendo can do what it should’ve done from day one: learn what worked in Palworld and what players liked, and apply those findings to the next Pokémon game. That doesn’t mean copy Palworld beat-for-beat, but taking the best bits and the things players loved the most and using that knowledge to make Pokémon better.
Game #2: Sonic Mania 2D Mario
Sonic and Tails.
Super Mario Bros. Wonder has been very well-received by Nintendo fans – and that’s great! Ever since 2D Mario games returned from a decade-long hiatus almost twenty years ago, though, they’ve more or less retained the same art style. Wonder definitely added a lot of new things to the mix, and there have been new power-ups and levels with different settings… but maybe it’s time to take a step back and really go back to Mario’s roots.
Sonic Mania is a fantastic title that has a really interesting development history. It was originally a fan project, but Sega saw the potential in the game and swooped in, licensing it as an official entry in the Sonic series. And I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Sonic Mania is one of the best Sonic games since the Mega Drive days.
Mario in Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
I’d love to see Nintendo really lean into the NES or SNES visual style with their next 2D Mario game. It could be a side-project rather than a full mainline game, and I wouldn’t necessarily expect an “old-school” 2D Mario as the Switch 2’s big launch title. But as a love letter to fans in Super Mario’s 40th anniversary year… what could be better?
Sonic Mania genuinely feels like a 16-bit Mega Drive game, bringing back not only the visual and art style of that era, but gameplay mechanics, too. After all the talk of doing better and pushing the boat out, maybe this seems like a bit of an oddity – and I fully accept that. But as someone who really got into gaming in the early 1990s, I would love nothing more than to return to that style of 2D platformer. Sonic Mania could be the template for how to do that – and do it right.
Game #3: Disney Dreamlight Valley Animal Crossing series
A player showing off their home in Disney Dreamlight Valley.
If you read my review of Disney Dreamlight Valley a couple of years ago, you might remember me saying that the game took basically all of my complaints about Animal Crossing: New Horizons and fixed them, while also adding in compelling characters and story missions to boot. I’m not sure that the next Animal Crossing needs a “main quest” of sorts… but there are so many other things that Dreamlight Valley does well.
Firstly, Dreamlight Valley has much more freedom in terms of decorating – both inside and out. With a simple button press, everything from small items of furniture to houses and trees can be moved, placed, and deleted, and there’s a near-unlimited amount of free choice in where things are placed and how many things can be placed. New Horizons, thanks to the Switch’s limited processing power, is notoriously laggy when too many items are placed outdoors – but the next game in the series should, at least, not suffer from that limitation.
Even with its expansion pack, New Horizons wasn’t all it could’ve been.
Dreamlight Valley’s characters also feel more compelling and unique. Partly that’s because everyone gets a quest or series of quests, but it’s also because each character has a distinct personality – reflected not only in their choice of outfit and decoration, but dialogue, too. One of my biggest criticisms of New Horizons was how awfully repetitive the dialogue got after only a short amount of time – and without mini-games or other events to spice things up, as well as such a small number of villager “types” – I found I was getting the exact same line of dialogue over and over and over again from different characters.
In terms of design, customisation, character interactions, and more, Dreamlight Valley not only eclipses Animal Crossing… it blows it out of the water. There are pitfalls to be avoided, sure – Dreamlight Valleyis too heavily-monetised for my taste – but it should be seen as a template for how to improve the Animal Crossing formula.
Game #4: Doom Eternal Metroid Prime series
Doom Eternal is fast-paced and fun.
With Metroid Prime 4 due for release on the Switch this year – presumably before the Switch 2 launches – there’s limited room for serious improvements. But if the Metroid Prime series continues and will get a new entry in the years ahead, the fast-paced combat of Doom Eternal should be the high bar that the series aims for.
I haven’t played a Metroid Prime game since the GameCube days, so maybe I’m not the best person to offer advice on this series! But I know what I look for in a single-player first-person shooter, and of all the games in that genre I’ve played over the years, none felt as energetic and exciting as Doom Eternal. With the Switch 2 offering the chance for a serious upgrade, the next Metroid Prime game could have more enemies on screen at the same time, a wider range of enemy types, more weapons, and so on.
Metroid Prime 4 is due for release this year on the Switch.
Doom Eternal’s grappling hook mechanic also worked exceptionally well, and something like that could be a fine addition to the Metroid Prime series, too. Adding in some platforming and puzzle-solving elements along with fast-paced combat could be a ton of fun.
I’d also be remiss not to mention the fantastic soundtrack that the modern Doom titles have had. A hard rock/heavy metal soundtrack was pitch-perfect for those games, and added so much to the wild action and thrill of gunning down hordes of demons. Metroid Prime doesn’t need to go down the heavy metal route, of course, but a soundtrack that helps bring the game to life and fits with its design philosophy will be essential.
Game #5: Astro Bot 3D Mario
Astro Bot is everything a 3D platformer should aim to be in 2025.
A moment ago, we talked about the next 2D Mario game and how I’d like to see the series go back to its roots – both in terms of gameplay and visual style. But 3D Mario should really aim to go above and beyond, pushing the Switch 2’s hardware to its limits while retaining the charm of titles like Super Mario 64 and Odyssey. PlayStation’s Astro Bot – which was in the running for game of the year on many publications’ lists in 2024 – is exactly the kind of game Nintendo should be paying attention to.
I have to admit that I haven’t played Astro Bot for myself; I don’t own a PS5 and, as much as I might want to, I can’t justify the expense of buying one just to play one game! But I’ve seen a lot of gameplay online, and Astro Bot looks like the kind of game that knows what it’s trying to be… and absolutely nails it.
Super Mario 64 is still one of my favourite games.
Many critics have noted – quite correctly – that Astro Bot is drawing inspiration from Nintendo’s 3D platformers. But graphically and in terms of level design, it seems to go beyond them, too. Super Mario Odyssey, arguably the best and certainly the biggest 3D Mario game, is now almost eight years old, so fans are absolutely right to expect to see significant improvements when the next entry in the series is ready. Astro Bot shows how beautiful a 3D platformer can look with modern hardware, and it’s also a masterclass in level design.
I’m pretty sure that Nintendo will be hard at work on the next 3D Mario already. We’ve caught a glimpse of a new Mario Kart in the recent Switch 2 teaser, so that could well be the console’s big launch title. But a new 3D Mario is unlikely to be far behind. I hope some of the developers and producers have played Astro Bot to get a feel for how that game works and to see what it does well.
So that’s it!
It looks like a new Mario Kart game is coming soon!
We’ve taken a look at five games that I think Nintendo needs to examine closely and learn from as the Switch 2 and its games are in development.
The Switch 2 is definitely on my wishlist – if for no other reason than a brand-new Mario Kart game is always gonna be something I’ll want to play! But I’m curious to see how much more powerful the console can be, and whether Nintendo (and other third-party developers, too) are going to be able to fully take advantage of that. Better graphics and shinier-looking games should be a guarantee – but I’d love to see Nintendo also paying attention to the improvements and evolution in some of these genres. Although there’s been less of that in the last ten years than there was from, say, 1995 to 2005, there are still plenty of areas where Nintendo can improve.
When we learn more about the Switch 2 in April, I’ll definitely be sharing my thoughts on how the console is shaping up. I’ll be keeping my ear to the ground for news on launch titles, too! So when we have more news about Nintendo and the Switch 2, I hope you’ll join me here on the website. Until then, I hope this has been a fun and interesting look ahead.
The Nintendo Switch 2 will be officially shown off in April and will launch in 2025 or early 2026. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective publisher, developer, studio, and/or corporation. Some promotional art and images courtesy of Nintendo and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Shenmue.
This year is all about Shenmue’s 25th anniversary! A little while ago, I wrote up my reflections of the game to mark the anniversary of its launch in Japan, but I find myself with more to say about this landmark, transformative game. So today I thought it could be a bit of fun to explore Shenmue’s game world together and visit a few of my favourite locations.
Shenmue was the first game I played that gave me a profound sense of freedom. The game’s world was open and explorable – and many buildings could be entered and investigated, too, including those that had nothing to do with the main quest. That was revolutionary twenty-five years ago, and went a long way to making Shenmue into the incredibly immersive title that it was. It wouldn’t be overstating it to say that Shenmue showed me what the future of gaming could look like in the 21st Century – and kept me playing at a time when I might’ve otherwise drifted away from the hobby.
Concept art of Ryo Hazuki.
That’s really just a summary, though, so if you want to read more about my recollections of playing Shenmue, you can find the full article by clicking or tapping here.
A couple of caveats before we go any further! Firstly, all of this is just the subjective opinion of one player. If I highlight places and locales you hate, ignore somewhere you think is important, or you just don’t like what I have to say… that’s okay. There’s a lot to love about Shenmue, and there ought to be room in the fan community for differences of opinion and polite discussion.
Shenmue was released in December 1999 for the Dreamcast. (2000 in North America and Europe)
Secondly, I’m only going to be looking at locations from the first Shenmue on this occasion. When Shenmue II celebrates its 25th anniversary in September next year, I’m planning to do a similar write-up of the game… and possibly another piece like this one (assuming I’m still around and assuming I remember!) So don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten about Shenmue II… but it isn’t the focus of this piece today.
Phew! With all of that out of the way, let’s get started.
Location #1: Hazuki Residence: The Kitchen
Let’s start at home: which for Ryo is the Hazuki residence and dojo in Yamanose. There are plenty of iconic places around here – but an underrated one has to be the kitchen. In a normal house, the kitchen is usually a hub of activity; it’s where we cook, where we sit and eat, and a room we generally spend a large amount of time in. But in Shenmue – and many other similar games, to be fair – the kitchen is just… set decoration. It exists because without it, Ryo’s house would feel incomplete. But there’s not really much of a reason to spend time here, and aside from a couple of cut-scenes, the game’s story largely passes this room by.
And I think that’s what makes this room (and several of the other places on this list) so interesting to me. It’s a space where nothing happens, but it’s important for the immersion and world-building that a game like Shenmue needs. There are also a few interesting little things in the kitchen; Ryo can find a can of tuna for the kitten, for example. Cupboards and the fridge can be opened and examined, which is something that felt really immersive in 1999/2000. And it’s possible to chat with Ryo’s house-keeper/surrogate mother, Ine-san, too, as she spends a fair amount of her time in the kitchen.
Location #2: The Harbour: Fishing Spot Behind the Lounge
The harbour is one of my favourite places in Shenmue; it’s just so atmospheric. And for someone who grew up near a working harbour, it’s also the location in the game that probably feels the most familiar – at least in some ways. Directly behind the lounge, past the steps where the homeless man sits, is one of my favourite spots in the harbour. This is an area you’ve definitely walked through and driven through, but probably haven’t spent a lot of time in! There are occasionally fishermen here, as well as an NPC with a sketchbook, but other than that, Ryo has no reason to ever stop here; it’s a connection point between other, more densely-packed or story-rich areas.
I find something peaceful and serene about this area, though – especially after dark. The view across the water shows the far side of the bay, and there’s a large warship or other vessel in the distance. But this part of the harbour doesn’t see much action – aside from the odd pedestrian or forklift during daylight hours, you’re on your own. And that makes it a peaceful, easily-overlooked spot. The world of Shenmue – which feels so rich and deep thanks to its numerous NPCs with their own schedules – simply rolls along, passing you by as you take in the sights and sounds of the harbour.
Location #3: Dobuita: Game You Arcade
I grew up in a rural area, and where I lived there weren’t any video game arcades. I visited one a few times as a kid, when we’d visit a bigger city, but I never really had the arcade experience that many folks my age did – and I think it’s for that reason that I fell in love with Shenmue’s arcade. I’d played Hang On – or a motorcycle game similar to it, at any rate – at least once before, but Space Harrier was brand-new to me. I spent hours in the Game You arcade playing those titles, as well as the darts mini-game which was also surprisingly fun.
The arcade is compact, but beautifully detailed. The room is lit by old fluorescent lights, and the cabinets seem to glow, even from a distance. The whole thing has a very artificial feel – which, ironically, perfectly recreates this kind of environment. The arcade always has at least one other person present, yet it can feel empty and almost like a “liminal space;” the room exists to guide you to the mini-games, yet it’s a beautiful rendition of an ’80s video game arcade in its own right. It’s a very atmospheric space.
Location #4: Yamanose: Down the Stairs
In Ryo’s hometown of Yamanose, there’s a flight of stairs that you’ll have passed by countless times on your adventures. But did you ever once descend those stairs to see the houses below? There’s only one reason to visit this area, and it’s easily overlooked: if you feed and pet Megumi’s kitten at the shrine, eventually it gets better and wanders off – and you can find it by one of the homes down these steps. But that side-quest is very much optional – so many players will have missed it.
For me, these houses just have a vibe to them that’s hard to put into words. They’re traditional Japanese houses, which I guess is part of it. But they help make Shenmue’s world feel lived-in and real; the people inside seem to have lives of their own, like everyone else in the game world. It would’ve been really easy for Shenmue’s developers to make this area inaccessible; set dressing for Yamanose. But you can explore this area, knock on doors, and even see the clotheslines, wheelbarrows, bicycles, and other little pieces of these people’s lives. Little details like that are what made Shenmue stand out to me when I first played it – and I always like taking a little detour to this uninteresting little corner of Yamanose.
Location #5: Dobuita: Nagai Industries (The Yakuza Den)
Have you ever walked into a room and instantly known you weren’t supposed to be there? That’s the feeling I get when Ryo enters Nagai Industries in Dobuita, which is a Yakuza den masquerading as a legitimate business. That feeling is really hard to pull off in any form of media, and Shenmue absolutely nails it here. Ryo can be directed to Nagai Industries as part of his quest to find “men with tattoos,” but it isn’t an essential part of the story and it can be accessed at other times, too.
The conversation Ryo can have with the obviously shady man inside made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up the first time I accidentally triggered it – it’s so well-written. Even if you do find yourself going here as part of Ryo’s quest, you won’t spend long in the building – yet it’s a unique space in the game’s world. Ryo does get mixed up with a gang later on in the story… but it isn’t this gang. These criminals are just doing their own thing, and Ryo can wander into their office almost at random. It’s a strange interaction – and a fun place to visit.
Location #6: The Harbour: Harbour Lounge
There’s a strange kind of beauty in urban decay… at least, sometimes there is. The harbour lounge feels like a well-used space that’s in need of a new coat of paint and a bit of TLC, and that’s exactly the kind of vibe that the developers wanted to convey. The paint on the walls is chipped and peeling, the leather seats have seen better days, and I just get the sense that the lounge is a heavily-trafficked space, probably bustling with sailors, harbour workers, ferry passengers, and the like. The soundscape for this area has inaudible conversation chatter playing, too.
Which makes it all the more eerie that the harbour lounge is usually all but deserted. Aside from the small shop counter in one corner, which is always staffed, the harbour lounge is usually empty. At most, you might encounter one or two people in here. Again, it’s giving me “liminal space” vibes; there’s an almost otherworldly feel to a place that should be packed with people – and has all the evidence of being well-used – yet is often empty.
Location #7: Dobuita: Yamaji Soba Noodles
The owners of Yamaji Soba Noodles clearly know Ryo, and one of the people Ryo needs to speak to on his quest is a regular patron. But there’s no reason to set foot in this noodle parlour… other than for the fun of exploring Dobuita and Shenmue’s game world. In 1999, no one knew what the term “open world” would come to mean, but to me, a shop like Yamaji Soba Noodles in Shenmue perfectly encapsulates the open world idea. It’s the kind of place that needs to exist in a real town; the denizens of Dobuita need places to eat. But from a gameplay perspective, it doesn’t have a purpose. It’s the kind of place that was created for the sole purpose of adding depth to Shenmue’s world… and I really admire that.
The noodle shop itself is compact with a bar area for patrons to sit, and behind the counter the owner can be seen working away. A member of the restaurant’s staff can be encountered out in Dobuita, and you can even find his apartment elsewhere on Dobuita Street. You can’t go inside… but again, this adds so much depth to the game world and makes these NPCs feel real in a way some open world games struggle with even today.
Location #8: Dobuita: Car Park
The car park near the end of Dobuita Street has an in-game function: it’s one of only a few places where Ryo can practice his moves in between fights. But I think it’s also worth acknowledging the area on its own merit – it’s more than just an empty arena to throw kicks and punches around! There are no cars on Dobuita Street – but there are plenty on the main road just beyond. The car park is, therefore, a space for both residents and visitors to leave their vehicles before venturing out on foot.
I’d never paid any attention to a car park in a video game before. I’m sure titles like Grand Theft Auto had car parks in their game worlds, but because of how rich and detailed Shenmue was, I felt compelled to explore this space more than I ever had before. The way it was integrated into the game, too, worked really well – and it quickly became my favourite place to practice Ryo’s martial arts moves.
Location #9: The Harbour: Old Warehouse #8
Nobody likes mandatory stealth sections in games… especially mandatory stealth sections in old games with janky controls and awkward AI. But once you get past the “sneaking in” portion, Old Warehouse #8 – home of Master Chen and Guizhang – is a really interesting place to be. Most of the time you’ll spend here comes in cut-scene form, but if you take a break from the story and just visit the warehouse, there’s a lot to see. It has a quiet, understated feel that contrasts with the bustling harbour outside.
I like antiques, and the warehouse isn’t the only place in Shenmue to find old and interesting artefacts! But there’s something special about walking around the warehouse, looking at some of the items on display. It’s an interesting place to spend a little time, and one that’s easily overlooked.
Location #10: Sakuragaoka: The Taxi Cab
At the end of the road in Sakuragaoka, past the park, you can find a taxi cab. Ryo can’t take a taxi anywhere, and because it’s located beyond both the park and any houses in Sakuragaoka that you might want to visit… there’s really no need to come here. But the taxi is interesting; it feels like more than just set dressing. There’s a man – Nomura-san – who Ryo can speak to who drives the taxi, and he clearly knows Ryo and will tell him a little about his life. Nomura-san can also be encountered in Dobuita, as well as seen tending to his taxi.
Walking beyond the “edge” of a game world can often feel empty; the world stops where the developers say it stops. But Shenmue has content beyond the edge of where its story takes place – there’s no reason to come here or talk to the taxi driver other than “because they’re there,” and I really love that about the game. Standing here, at the end of the street, doesn’t feel like the edge of a video game level with an invisible wall… it feels like a road with a taxi parked on it.
So that’s it.
Ryo is headed for Hong Kong!
We’ve taken a look at some of my favourite places in Shenmue… places that, maybe, you wouldn’t have expected to see on a list like this!
I wanted to convey just how immersive and interesting Shenmue’s world was twenty-five years ago… and still is today. Even in the smaller places, and areas with no storylines or quests, there are still interesting things to see, NPCs to talk to, and ways to soak in the atmosphere of this incredible game. Shenmue pioneered open-world designs and features that titles today are still striving for – and many modern games either miss out or don’t get right. It really is a landmark title, and one that I wish more people had paid attention to back in the day!
I know Christmas is over… but it’s Ryo and Santa!
So I hope this has been something a bit different. I was inspired by a couple of YouTube channels: Wandering Through Shenmue, whose channel I encountered while looking for screenshots of specific locations in the game world when writing a couple of my other articles about Shenmue, and Any Austin, whose video essays on video game levels and designs are genuinely interesting. I hope you’ll check out both of those channels if you have time.
If you missed my piece celebrating Shenmue’s twenty-fifth anniversary, you can find it by clicking or tapping here. And if you want to check out my thoughts on whether the Shenmue saga might have a future in light of some recent news, you can find that by clicking or tapping here.
I honestly can’t believe that it’s been twenty-five years – a quarter of a century – since Shenmue launched. At any rate, I hope revisiting some of these locations with me was a bit of fun!
Shenmue I & II and Shenmue III are available now for PlayStation 4 and PC. Some images, promo artwork, and screenshots courtesy of Wandering Through Shenmue on YouTube and Shenmue Dojo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Shenmue.
We’re marking an important anniversary today! Shenmue – a title which, for many folks, came to define the Dreamcast and Sega – launched in Japan on the 29th of December 1999. This game is one of my favourites, not only of the Dreamcast nor of the early 2000s, but… ever. Even twenty-five years later, and despite all of the problems that the saga has faced, Shenmue is still up there as one of my favourite games of all-time.
Here in the UK, we didn’t actually get Shenmue in December 1999. We’d have to wait eleven months for the game to arrive, but I already owned a Dreamcast at that point and I really couldn’t wait! I’d read all about Shenmue in the first issue of the UK’s Official Dreamcast Magazine, and I was immediately hooked in by how the game looked in those very first teaser screenshots, but more importantly how it was being described. This felt like a genuinely revolutionary title.
Shenmue was teased ahead of its launch in the Official Dreamcast Magazine.
So for months I was left in limbo, waiting to get my hands on the game for myself! After the dust had settled on the excitement of the celebrations for Millennium Eve, a new year got underway – and I knew that, at some point in the year 2000, I’d finally be able to play Shenmue! It really was one of the entertainment experiences that I was most looking forward to – and it remained in that position all year.
Perhaps it’s because I picked up Shenmue in early December, but it’s a game that I associate with this time of year. There are some in-game Christmas events, too, with a Santa Claus figure appearing in Dobuita, snow falling, and Christmas Day being noted – if you’re still playing when the calendar reaches that point! So for me, Shenmue and the holiday season have always been joined at the hip, and it’s a game that feels particularly well-suited to this time of year. Playing Shenmue in December also, I would argue, adds a little something extra to the role-playing side of things!
Ryo can meet Santa Claus in Dobuita!
I’ve enjoyed video games since I first picked up a joystick at a kids’ club in the late ’80s. This’ll have to be the subject of a longer piece one day, but I think what fascinated me the most about gaming was being able to control what was happening on the TV screen. I can’t remember a time without TV, and being able to be “in charge” of what was going on on the most important screen in the house… I remember it being a really powerful and exciting feeling.
But by 1999, I was beginning to feel that I’d gone as far as I could with games. Most games I’d played on the Super Nintendo and N64 were basically digital toys – and I don’t say that with too much disrespect intended! There had been some fun games on the N64, which was the console I’d owned before picking up a Dreamcast, and I was still enjoying several of them in 1999/2000. But none of those games were what you’d call “cinematic” or “grown-up,” and I guess I was beginning to feel like I was ageing out of the gaming hobby – particularly as I was working, commuting, going to school, and trying to balance all of that with my social life and finding time for friends and family.
Shenmue was released for the Dreamcast on this day in 1999.
But Shenmue changed all of that. It was the first game I played that felt gritty, realistic, and genuinely cinematic, telling a modern-day story set in the real world that would’ve been right at home on the big screen. It’s hard to speculate and deal in “what-ifs,” but I’ve wondered more than once if I’d have kept playing games beyond the early 2000s if it hadn’t been for Shenmue showing me what interactive media could be when it’s at its best.
It’s hard to put into words how many ground-breaking gameplay, visual, and narrative elements were present in this one single title. Things players have taken for granted for years – like lip-synced dialogue or hands with individual fingers – leapt out at me when I finally got my hands on the game for myself, and they felt like a gigantic leap forward from the blocky, polygonal graphics of the N64 generation.
Being able to hold in-game items and examine them up close was ground-breaking in 1999!
Perhaps the most impressive feature of Shenmue was its world. No one in 1999 knew what the term “open world” would come to mean, but Shenmue was the first game I played that is reasonably close to that category. The limitations of the Dreamcast still kept Shenmue divided up into several areas – but these were large, densely-packed, and diverse. Moreover, they were incredibly well-detailed, making just strolling down the street in Ryo’s home town of Yamanose feel like being transported thousands of miles across the sea to Japan.
Within Shenmue’s open world, every non-player character had a purpose. They ran a shop or went shopping, they swept the road outside their house and then went inside to take a break; they had jobs, they had objectives… and they felt real in a way that, even today, many NPCs just don’t. These characters, their schedules, and the way shops and businesses would open and close as the day wore on… they were completely revolutionary things at the time, and features that some open-world games today are worse and less realistic for failing to include. Shenmue also opened up almost every shop and building in the game for exploration – even those that had nothing whatsoever to do with the main story.
NPCs going about their lives in Dobuita.
For someone who had grown up playing games that had been, up until that point, pretty linear experiences, the freedom Shenmue allowed me felt incredible. I was free to totally ignore Ryo’s quest, instead taking his pocket money and squandering it on collectible figures – or at the arcade! An arcade which, need I remind you, contained two full-size games from the 1980s, as well as a fun darts mini-game and a QTE mini-game to boot.
I hadn’t played Space Harrier before I played Shenmue, but I have a vague recollection of playing Hang On – or a game like it, at least – on a rare visit to an arcade at some point in the late ’80s or early ’90s. So to get that experience again inside of another video game… it was a huge treat. I spent hours playing these games-within-a-game; it was just so much fun to visit the arcade and put other activities and the quest on the back burner!
I spent hours of my life (and Ryo’s) in the arcade…
Having Space Harrier and Hang On inside Shenmue’s arcade felt like a real power play from Sega – wrapping up two games inside of a much bigger, more elaborate game was a real flex and a way to show off how much bigger and better the Dreamcast was. And for someone who grew up in a rural area where there weren’t any arcades, being able to visit a digital arcade was pretty cathartic, too!
Shenmue began life in the mid-90s as Virtual Fighter RPG, a spin-off from Sega’s established fighting game series. Taking one of the Virtua Fighter characters as a starting point, creator Yu Suzuki began to build his magnum opus. Development was originally planned for the Sega Saturn console, but this later switched to the Dreamcast. The connection to Virtual Fighter was also abandoned, with the game taking on a fully standalone story. Shenmue and its sequel – Shenmue II – were in development at the same time, with work on the second game being well underway by the time the first game was released.
Early concept art of Ryo Hazuki.
Shenmue is famous – or rather, infamous – for its development budget. In 1999, it was reported that the game cost over $70 million to make, though this also includes part of the development costs of Shenmue II. Regardless, Shenmue was an expensive undertaking, and a big gamble for Sega. If the Dreamcast had sold as Sega hoped, and Shenmue had been its “killer app,” recouping that investment would’ve been possible. But with the Dreamcast underperforming, there was no way for Shenmue to make its money back, leading to the game being best-remembered outside of its fan community as one of the most expensive failures in video gaming history – at least for the time.
Of course, I didn’t know any of that at the time I bought a Dreamcast! I was dimly aware of the game’s reputation as an expensive undertaking, but at the time that just seemed like an even bigger boast on the part of Sega! “The most expensive game of all-time” shipped with some incredible features and an insane level of detail, genuinely changing my relationship with games and setting expectations that, time and again, other titles fail to live up to in one way or another.
Ryo at the harbour cafe.
At the heart of Shenmue’s story was a relatable protagonist caught up in a quest for answers – and revenge. Ryo Hazuki is an incredibly well-written character, someone who’s sympathetic and relatable, while also being from a completely different culture and having at least some characteristics of an anti-hero. Several times in Shenmue, Ryo’s friends and confidants would try to dissuade him from pursuing his quest for revenge, but he’d remain steadfast.
The concept of revenge is a difficult one, and the game doesn’t shy away from that. Rather than reporting the crime of his father’s murder to the police – which you can literally attempt to do in-game using the telephone – Ryo is determined to solve things on his own. He wants to kill the man who killed his father – but along the way, he’s forced to confront difficult questions about who his father truly was and how well he really knew him. There’s a lot of complexity and nuance to this story, and while Shenmue firmly places the player in Ryo’s shoes, questions linger about how justified he is in taking this course of action.
Shenmue is a classic revenge story.
There are areas of Shenmue that, by today’s standards, seem a little dated. The control scheme was designed before twin analogue sticks were a standard part of control pads, and on the Dreamcast, movement still used a four-way D-pad. This could feel clunky and often led to awkward moments as Ryo struggled to navigate a doorway or successfully climb a flight of stairs!
The clunky controls also extended to fighting sequences. Complicated multi-button combos worked well in Virtua Fighter and other 2D fighting games of that era, but I never felt they translated all that well to a fully 3D environment. I’m far from the best gamer, but even in the Dreamcast days I’d find Ryo flailing around, swinging punches and kicks at mid-air as an opponent moved out of range or to one side. In bigger fights with multiple enemies, that was less of a problem. In one-on-one situations, though, it could occasionally get annoying!
Ryo swings a kick at a villain.
In keeping with Shenmue’s philosophy of F.R.E.E – full reactive eyes entertainment; an early open-world, free-roaming idea – it was possible to practice fighting in one of several areas around the game world. I confess that I probably didn’t practice as much as I should’ve, and I didn’t make use of very many of the more complicated multi-button moves that Ryo could learn. I found that once I had a couple of solid kicks and strikes in my arsenal, the rest were just superfluous! Was that the right way to play? Well… isn’t that the fun of a game like Shenmue? That there are different ways to approach some of these sequences?
For me, the fighting portions of the game were really just bridges in between exploration and story sections. As long as I could get through a fight without losing repeatedly, I was content to play through them to advance the story. And that was a genuinely new feeling for me at the time – the idea that a video game could have such an engrossing story that the actual gameplay side of things was in a distant second place. Sure, I’d played story-driven games before Shenmue – titles like Shadows of the Empire and Jet Force Gemini come to mind – but this really was the first game with a realistic, gritty, and truly engaging story that I found myself getting lost in.
The katana.
For better or worse, Shenmue was the game that coined the phrase “quick-time event” and introduced this mechanic to a wider audience. We can debate whether QTEs were invented by Shenmue or not, but Shenmue’s marketing came up with the name – and QTEs have, in the years since, become rather controversial!
I’d like to defend quick-time events in Shenmue. Firstly, they felt genuinely new and revolutionary at the time, taking a part of the game that would’ve otherwise been a non-interactive cut-scene and making it part of gameplay – with consequences for messing up. And secondly, QTEs as they appeared in the first Shenmue didn’t feel overdone or particularly obtrusive. Shenmue’s QTEs felt like a big leap forward in terms of interactive storytelling.
Shenmue even found a way to make cut-scenes interactive.
Quick-time events have acquired a reputation through over-use in other titles in the years since Shenmue – rather than because of the way they were used in this game in particular! And sure, as the title that popularised QTEs, Shenmue might come in for some criticism – and I get that. But I maintain that the way they’re used in Shenmue itself is actually fine, and if other games stuck to that formula, maybe players today would have less of an issue with QTEs. But we’re dangerously close to veering off-topic.
Aside from Ryo himself, who was an especially well-written protagonist, Shenmue’s world was populated with some wonderful secondary characters. Ryo’s friend/crush Nozomi is sweet, and the interactions the two have across the game really raise the stakes when she’s put in danger later on. Tom, Ryo’s friend who sells hot dogs, is a great character too – and the friendship the two built up really packs an emotional punch, especially when Tom leaves Japan toward the end of the game. Fuku-san and Ine-san are the familiar faces of home that Ryo leaves behind – and occasionally seems to push away – as part of his quest. And Ryo’s other friends all have an impact, too.
Ryo and Nozomi.
Then there are the villains. Lan Di, though only seen in person at the beginning of the game, just oozes strength and power, and the mystery tied up with Iwao, Ryo’s father, is tantalising. Then there’s Chai – a genuinely disturbing, weird little guy! Chai’s way of speaking, his facial appearance, and his crouching gait all come together to make a really unsettling presentation. The way Chai interfered with Ryo’s quest was infuriating, too – deliberately so! A truly well-crafted villain that, to this day, makes my skin crawl!
At the harbour we also have the occupants of Warehouse #8: Master Chen and Guizhang. This mysterious father-and-son duo have a connection to Ryo’s father – and to Lan Di. Just tracking them down is a whole mystery in and of itself, and sneaking into their base can be difficult! I’m not really in favour of mandatory stealth sections in games, but once you know what you’re doing and get your bearings in the Old Warehouse District, getting there shouldn’t be too difficult.
Hiding from guards in the Old Warehouse District…
The harbour is probably my favourite individual area of Shenmue’s game world. It’s so atmospheric, with large warehouses, a rippling sea, and tired sailors and workmen all milling around. Particularly at night, the harbour really feels like a real place – but also a strangely nostalgic one, if that makes sense. I could spend hours at the harbour just walking around, soaking it all in.
The harbour is also where Ryo would get a job – and despite what you might’ve heard, driving a forklift and stacking crates was a lot of fun! The forklift race at the beginning of each day was great, too – and another totally unexpected gameplay feature in a game laden with mini-games, creative mechanics, and different things to do. The forklift gameplay was also strangely relaxing; the kind of “cozy” gameplay that makes people fall in love with simulator titles. Picking up crates and stacking them just right was a lot of fun.
I genuinely enjoyed being a forklift driver.
The only downside to Ryo’s forklift job is that it’s relatively short and comes at the beginning of the end of Shenmue. By the time you start the job at the harbour, you’re basically on the path to the endgame and the climactic final battles – and I could’ve happily spent an in-game month or two just having fun playing forklift driver at the harbour!
Ryo and Guizhang team up to take on seventy opponents at the end of the game; an epic, climactic battle that throws wave after wave of opponents at them at the harbour. This battle is difficult, but it’s also a ton of fun compared with some of the earlier one-on-one boss fights. Ryo has moves that can knock back several people at once, like his spinning kick, and smashing your way through huge numbers of gangsters… there was nothing like it at the time! The closest comparison I can think of to the game’s climactic seventy-person battle (from the same time period) is Dynasty Warriors 2, which released about six months later.
Ryo and Guizhang.
Shenmue was more than just a game. This landmark title completely changed how I came to see interactive media, set expectations for narrative games that, even today, many titles fail to live up to, created a living, breathing world years before anyone else even tried it, and above all, kept me invested in gaming as a hobby at a point in my life where I might’ve otherwise began to drift away. Twenty-five years on from its launch, it remains one of my favourite games of all-time.
For me, that’s Shenmue’s real legacy. It’s a game that set the bar for narrative action/adventure experiences, and even today I find myself comparing brand-new games to Shenmue, or noting that Shenmue was the first game I played with a particular feature or gameplay mechanic. I revisited Shenmue in 2017, shortly after it was re-released on PC, and I had a blast getting lost in that world all over again. Although some aspects of the game are definitely dated today, it’s amazing how well the world itself holds up.
Ryo with his backpack, headed for Hong Kong.
I wanted to acknowledge Shenmue’s milestone quarter-of-a-century anniversary, and I hope I’ve been able to adequately convey just how much this game meant to me – and how much it continues to matter all these years later. Despite the disappointment I felt at the developers’ inability to bring the story to a conclusion, I still look back on Shenmue with incredible fondness.
I’m so glad I got to play through this game on the Dreamcast, and it’s still a title I find myself recommending to players who missed it the first time around. With a port currently available on PC and PlayStation 4 – usually at a reasonable price, especially when there are sales – it’s incredibly easy to get started with Shenmue, and I honestly can’t recommend it enough. Sure, it’s a piece of gaming history nowadays – but it’s also an incredible narrative experience.
At the harbour.
A few weeks ago, I tackled the difficult question of whether the Shenmue saga has a future. Five years on from Shenmue III, is there a chance of yet another reprieve for this incredible – yet overlooked – series? Check out my answer to that question by clicking or tapping here! And at some point soon, I’d love to watch and review Shenmue – The Animation; the anime adaptation of the first two games. So be sure to check back for that.
Until then, I really hope this has been an interesting look back at one of my favourite games… ever. Shenmue blew my mind twenty-five years ago, and I really wanted to celebrate its anniversary in style. If you’ve never played it, do us both a favour and try and track down a copy! If you like games with a strong story, I really don’t think you’ll regret it. If you loved Shenmue in the Dreamcast days, or came to it after the fact when it was re-released, I hope you’ll join me in raising a glass to one of the most revolutionary, creative, and transformational games of its era.
Happy anniversary, Shenmue!
Shenmue I & II is available now for PC and PlayStation 4. Shenmue – The Animation may be available to stream on CrunchyRoll. Shenmue is the copyright of YSNet and/or Sega. Some images, screenshots, and artwork courtesy of Sega, YSNet, Shenmue Dojo, and Wandering Through Shenmue on YouTube. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Beware of minor spoilers for some of the entries on this list.
Every year, I like to share a few of my recommendations when PC games go on sale. With only a few days left until Christmas, Steam, GOG, and Epic Games have all kick-started their annual holiday sales – and there are some great games available at a discount.
These sales are great for gamers – and they help make up for the fact that PC gaming can be more expensive to get started with when compared with a home console. Or at least, that feels like a good rationalisation when buying expensive PC components! The fact that many titles can be discounted even within just a few months of release makes PC gaming feel like a good deal – and the best platform for enjoying interactive media!
Some powerful hardware!
So as I do every year, I’m going to pull out a few games that I think are worth your attention now that they’re discounted. If you missed any of these titles when they were new, or if you’ve been hanging around hoping they’d go on sale, now could be a great time to pick them up – either as an early Christmas treat for yourself or as a gift for someone else.
Now for the important bit! All prices below were correct at time of writing and are in pounds sterling as I’m based in the UK. Prices may vary by region and/or currency, and will no longer be accurate as of January when the sales end. It’s up to you to check with the store and make sure you’re happy with the price as well as any other terms and conditions that may apply; I’m just a random person on the internet making a list of games!
Ready to play some games on… the ultimate computer?
As always, everything we’re gonna talk about is the wholly subjective opinion of just one person – so if you hate all of my recommendations or I exclude one of your personal favourites… that’s okay. There’s plenty of room in the community for differences of opinion and disagreements. I share this list in the spirit of the holiday season, and to hopefully draw your attention to a game or two that you may not have considered.
Let’s jump into the deals!
Deal #1: Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Steam: 75% discount, £14.99
Truth be told, I didn’t enjoy Jedi: Survivor anywhere near as much as its predecessor. Jedi: Fallen Order was fantastic – and its sequel didn’t do enough, for me anyway, to live up to that. However, with the game being so heavily discounted, it’s an easy recommendation for either Star Wars fans, fans of the first game, or just players who enjoy a single-player action/adventure title.
There are still bugs left over from a rocky launch, but your mileage may vary with the game’s narrative – and if you enjoy Cal’s adventure more than I did, you might look back at this one as being a steal! With a sequel in the works, it’s worth sticking with Jedi: Survivor… if only in the hopes that a better continuation of the story is right around the corner.
Deal #2: The Plucky Squire Steam: 25% discount, £18.74
Spoiler alert for later this month, but The Plucky Squire is one of my favourite games of 2024. I adore the art style, the cute characters, and the incredibly fun and creative approach to gameplay. There’s a lot going on in this relatively short experience, and this is the type of game you can play through in an afternoon or two – it’s not something that requires a huge time commitment.
Considering it only released in September, and it’s been getting rave reviews, a 25% discount at this stage feels generous! If you missed The Plucky Squire this autumn, though, I really do think you’ll enjoy it if you give it a shot. There’s a lot to love here.
Deal #3: Ghost of Tsushima Steam: 20% discount, £39.99
Ghost of Tsushima had been on my radar for a while, and I’m glad to have finally picked it up. The game is, by all accounts, one of the best open-world action games of the last few years, and the samurai/ninja warrior game we all used to fantasise about when we were kids! There’s a beautiful, realistic open world set on the Japanese island of Tsushima to explore, and the Mongolian horde to defeat.
I’d been looking forward to the PC port of Ghost of Tsushima for a while, so I’m glad to finally have the chance to jump in. There are so many glowing reviews out there that it’s impossible not to recommend Ghost of Tsushima while it’s on sale.
Deal #4: Alan Wake 2 Epic Games: 50% discount, £19.99
I played and adored Remedy Entertainment’s Control a few years ago, and although I didn’t know it at the time, there were some subtle story connections to their earlier title Alan Wake. Alan Wake 2 came out just over a year ago, and was well-received by critics – though with many noting that the game’s tone has shifted in more of a survival horror direction.
I’m not usually a horror fan, but I enjoy the mysterious worlds that Remedy have been able to create. There’s something otherworldly about their stories, but at the same time, having everyday people with understandable motivations at the centre helps keep things grounded. At half price, who could say no? And while you’re at it, the remastered version of the original game is less than £7.
Deal #5: Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force GOG: 25% discount, £6.29
Elite Force is one of the rare Star Trek games to have genuinely crossed over and picked up players outside of the Trekkie community! Shortly after its release (which is now almost a quarter of a century ago; I’m ancient) the game’s multiplayer scene was buzzing. In the days of LAN parties and the beginning of online multiplayer titles, Elite Force put in a creditable showing.
There’s also a fun and engaging single-player campaign that Trekkies will appreciate. It’s true that the game’s graphics look outdated by today’s standards, but most of the Voyager cast reprise their roles in voiceover, and there’s a strong story for players and Trekkies able to look past the game’s visual presentation. Elite Force feels like playing through an extended episode of the series.
Deal #6: Mass Effect: Legendary Edition Steam: 92% discount, £3.99
You basically have no excuse not to pick this up. I mean, three of the best single-player sci-fi action-RPGs ever made for the price of a coffee? How could anyone pass that up? Jokes aside, while I have some major gripes with the laziness of BioWare’s “remaster” of the Mass Effect trilogy, getting all three games and all of their DLC in one package is a great way to either get the games for the first time or re-acquire them on PC… and for such a low price it seems like a fantastic opportunity.
The world of Mass Effect is rich and detailed, and the story the trilogy tells is intense, action-packed, and emotional. Anyone who missed the games during the Xbox 360 era should definitely give them a shot, and while Legendary Edition isn’t all it could be, it’s by far the best way to get started with Mass Effect.
I think I’m going to be recommending Baldur’s Gate 3 to everyone I meet for as long as I live! The game is an absolute masterpiece in every sense of the word; a role-playing game with genuine roles to play that are distinct and different from one another. In many games, it doesn’t really make much difference what class or background you choose when making your character – but in Baldur’s Gate 3 it can impact everything from gameplay to character interactions and more.
There are so many ways to play Baldur’s Gate 3 that the game feels like a completely different experience on a second or third playthrough. There are incredibly in-depth systems for magic spells, combat, persuasion, and more – and the ever-present dice rolls help spice things up, too! It’s one of the best games I’ve ever played – and if that’s not a good enough endorsement, then I don’t know what’ll convince you to check this out!
Deal #8: Little Kitty, Big City Steam: 30% discount, £14.69
Another spoiler alert, but Little Kitty, Big City is another of my favourite titles of 2024! I absolutely adored roaming the streets of a Japanese city as an adorable black cat, meeting other animal critters, and generally causing mischief. I’m a cat lover, so a game like this was always going to be fun for me, but I was genuinely impressed at how well-built Little Kitty, Big City was.
I know it sounds silly, but I actually felt like a cat while playing this game. The scale of the world compared to the small cat, the jumping and pouncing abilities that had such cute animation work… the whole thing came together to really hit me with that sensation in a way I wasn’t expecting. It’s an adorable game, a cute, sweet, and fun experience – and one I cannot recommend highly enough!
I haven’t played as much of Manor Lords as I should’ve this year… but the game is fantastic. If you’re familiar with the likes of Banished (which is a game I also recommend, especially when it’s on sale for £7.49) then you’ll know the basics of Manor Lords. But this game goes beyond Banished, with a region map of areas that can be colonised, more types of crops, buildings, and professions, and other additions, too.
Manor Lords feels like a game that might take a little while to get the hang of – but when you know what you’re doing and get started, there’s a huge variety of options for your little medieval settlement! Balancing villagers’ needs isn’t easy, nor is acquiring and storing all of the resources you’ll need to get through the winter. But there’s a ton of fun to be had here, so if building and simulation are your thing, don’t sleep on Manor Lords… even though it’s technically still in early access!
Deal #10: Disney Dreamlight Valley Steam: 25% discount, £25.11
Be careful with Disney Dreamlight Valley – my earlier recommendation of the game from a couple of years ago now comes with the caveat that there’s a lot more monetisation in play. But if you can look past that, there’s a really cute and fun Animal Crossing-esque experience here. In fact, I’d argue that Disney Dreamlight Valley has completely eclipsed the Animal Crossing series – and should give Nintendo a serious kick up the backside!
All of your favourite Disney characters are here, living together in a beautiful little valley. Each character has their own house, and there are character quests and a main quest to get stuck into – uncovering the mysteries of the valley! There are also many different cosmetic items and pieces of furniture to both dress up your character and decorate their home. New content is added all the time – though some of it is either wholly or partially paywalled. I still love Disney Dreamlight Valley, but just remember to turn on parental controls if you have little ones!
If you’re burned out on Bethesda’s latest game – Starfield – but still craving something similar to play, why not step back to Morrowind? Most people have played Skyrim by now, but Morrowind – which was released on PC and Xbox back in 2002 – may have been too early for some of you young’ins! With some modern graphics mods, though, the game doesn’t need to look like a twenty-year-old title.
Here’s why Morrowind remains, for me, Bethesda’s high-water mark and the title to which I compare all of their subsequent games: there’s so much to do. There are literally quests in Morrowind that I haven’t played twenty years later. There are more weapon types, magical spells, and characters to interact with than in either Oblivion or Skyrim, and the game has a world that’s so rich, so detailed, and so different and alien in the way parts of it feel that it really is possible to get lost there, or just spend hours walking around, soaking it all in.
Deal #12: The Last Of Us Part 1 Steam/Epic: 50% discount, £24.99
The Last Of Us Part 2 is coming to PC next year – so it could be a great time to catch up on or re-play the first entry in the series. A mushroom apocalypse might sound weird at first, but the game is beautifully-written and incredibly well-paced, with intense moments of action as Joel and Ellie navigate a road-trip across a post-apocalyptic United States.
I adored The Last Of Us on the PlayStation 3, and while I don’t think it needed a remaster or a remake – and it certainly didn’t need two – there’s no denying that the game looks fantastic on PC when you crank the settings up! There’s some great gameplay here, but what makes The Last Of Us truly special are its story and characters.
So that’s it!
Let’s play some games!
We’ve picked out a few deals from the various sales that are going on in the PC gaming space at this time of year. For 2024, I seem to have almost entirely chosen third-person, single-player action/adventure games and RPGs… that wasn’t intentional, but those are just the kinds of games I’ve enjoyed playing, I guess!
Do keep in mind that not every game is on sale (or given the same discount) in every digital shop; several examples just on this list are discounted in one place but not in another, so it’s always worth double-checking to make sure you’re getting the best discount and the best deal.
If I’ve helped even one person find one new game to play this holiday season, I reckon I’ve done a good job!
All titles listed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional artwork courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
It seems silly to be talking about a game this far out from its potential launch – and I can appreciate that. However, I find myself with things to say about The Elder Scrolls VI, in part to expand upon something I touched on earlier in the year when discussing Starfield’s absolutely disgusting microtransaction marketplace, and with news breaking in 2024 that Bethesda Game Studios is ramping up development on The Elder Scrolls VI… well, it can’t hurt to share my thoughts at this early stage, right?
Let’s briefly re-tread some ground so we’re all on the same page. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is one of my favourite games of all-time, and I also enjoyed Oblivion, Skyrim, and Bethesda’s entries in the Fallout series. In 2023, I got swept up in the hype for Starfield… only to crash and burn on that game pretty quickly when I found it to be last-gen, small, and basically just boring. I am not any kind of “hater” of Bethesda or their games – and I’m definitely not trying to pick on any individual developers, producers, or creative folks. I approach this subject as someone who desperately wants to enjoy The Elder Scrolls VI… but I feel so incredibly turned off the game at this early stage that it would take a miracle to even convince me to play it.
Morrowind is one of my favourite games of all-time.
The Elder Scrolls VI feels vulnerable right now. Bethesda is, to be frank, coming off not just one poorly-received game… but a decade’s worth. Fallout 4, while enjoyable enough, is generally considered to be less impressive than its predecessor, with fans proclaiming Obsidian’s spin-off Fallout New Vegas as the “best” entry in that series since Bethesda acquired the license. Fallout 76 has, to my surprise I will admit, clawed back some players and gone some way to rehabilitating its reputation as a multiplayer title… but it launched in such a shockingly poor state that there was a very low bar. And then we come to Starfield and its Shattered Space expansion.
Starfield was the game that, for me, hammered home how little Bethesda has learned and how unwilling the company is to adapt and evolve. Starfield was built on the creaking reanimated corpse of a twenty-five-year-old game engine… and it showed. Massively outdated gameplay was compounded by weak world-building and an uninspired and incomplete main quest – leading me to uninstall the game after a meagre thirty hours of gameplay. I was then massively disappointed to see Bethesda add paid mods and microtransactions to this single-player title.
Starfield has led to me feeling sceptical about Bethesda’s next game.
The microtransactions really stand out to me. They reveal how Bethesda sees Starfield – and by extension, how the company will presumably treat The Elder Scrolls VI, too. Instead of making a complete game with an expansion or two – like they used to do in the Morrowind days – Bethesda sees its games as platforms for every shitty monetisation trend going. Starfield’s in-game marketplace looks like something out of a free-to-play mobile game, complete with an in-game currency that has an awkward exchange rate, tiny packs of massively overpriced skins and cosmetic items, and even whole missions locked behind a paywall. I was disgusted to see the game descend so quickly into this overly-monetised mess – even more so because Bethesda hid the extent of microtransactions during Starfield’s important first few months on sale.
Paid mods will have to be the subject of a longer piece one day, but for now it’s sufficient to say that I’m not a supporter of the idea and never have been. But to see Bethesda greedily trying to grab even more money for something they didn’t even make… it makes me sick to my stomach to see how ridiculous Starfield’s in-game marketplace is.
One of Starfield’s many microtransactions.
And that, I’m afraid, has completely changed how I feel about The Elder Scrolls VI.
I could have written off Starfield as an unsuccessful experiment; a game with some good ideas but that was let down by an overreliance on outdated tech and poor world-building that never succeeded at generating that sense of scale that a game set in space needs to have. I would have been content to put Starfield back on the digital shelf and see what Bethesda could do with the next entry in a series that I have a genuine fondness for.
There would still have been concerns, of course. The Creation Engine is so outdated that using it for yet another game feels like a seriously bad idea, one that could harm The Elder Scrolls VI immeasurably. But I would have looked past that if the story and world-building were good enough – just as I can look past the jankiness of titles like Morrowind.
Bethesda’s insistence on retaining the outdated Creation Engine was always going to be a cause for concern.
But having seen the microtransaction hell-hole that Bethesda created, paywalling off little packages of content left, right, and centre in a game that – let’s be blunt – wasn’t exactly brimming with content to begin with… I feel increasingly sure that that’s how the company plans to make games from now on. The Elder Scrolls VI may launch with no microtransactions, but if it follows the Starfield pattern they’ll be added in within the game’s first few months – and you can expect to pay extra for anything from a shiny new pair of boots to an entire questline or faction.
I loathe this approach to single-player games, and I really don’t think it’s too much to ask for to be able to buy and play a complete game. Look at other titles in the single-player action/RPG space: Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring, Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Baldur’s Gate 3… what do they all have in common? They might have an expansion pack or two, but they don’t paywall fan-made mods, they don’t make you pay for in-game currency, and they don’t try to sell you skins, cosmetic items, and missions.
If Baldur’s Gate 3 can succeed and turn a profit without microtransactions, why can’t Bethesda’s games?
But that’s just my personal take on Bethesda, Starfield, and how I feel about The Elder Scrolls VI. There’s more to say – and I think there are legitimate reasons for Microsoft and Bethesda to worry about the prospects of this game as it’s currently envisioned.
Starfield was in development for a long time – and Bethesda, over the past few years, has taken anywhere from four to six years on development. Rumours abound that Starfield was forcibly delayed by Microsoft in order to quash as many bugs as possible, with perhaps as much as a year of “polish” and bug-fixing after the game’s primary development was complete. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to think a similar five- or six-year timeframe is likely for The Elder Scrolls VI.
Starfield took Bethesda years to create.
If we generously assume that Bethesda jump-started full development on The Elder Scrolls VI the second Starfield was out the door in September 2023, that puts the game’s potential launch in late 2028 or even 2029. Forget these so-called “rumours” of a 2026 launch… that seems like a total fantasy to me. It will take time to develop a game like this… and if I dare to hope, Bethesda may be taking on board feedback from Starfield and perhaps making some changes – like reducing the need for loading screens in between areas – which may make things take even longer.
So what else might be happening in 2028 or 2029? Well… in 2024 we’re about halfway through the current generation of home consoles, right? It doesn’t seem impossible to me that the PlayStation 6 and perhaps a new Xbox console could be targeting a 2028 or 2029 launch; I’d be surprised if we don’t see the next generation of home consoles before the end of the decade. With a new console generation there will be new games – and new improvements to graphical fidelity and gameplay. That doesn’t bode well for a game that’s being created on underlying technology that will be thirty years out of date by the time it launches.
By the time The Elders Scrolls VI is ready, a new generation of home consoles could already be on the way. Pictured: A PlayStation 2 Emotion Engine chip.
I’m not saying that The Elder Scrolls VI will be exclusive to next-gen hardware; I think it’s almost guaranteed that it’ll launch on the Xbox Series S and X – with the possibility, perhaps, of a deal to bring it to PlayStation 5 further down the line. But what I am saying is that, if the game arrives in 2028 or 2029 as predicted above, it’ll be landing in a very competitive marketplace, one where people are beginning to get hyped for new consoles – or where new consoles may even have launched.
That isn’t to say being late to the party in a console generation is always a bad thing. The Last Of Us was one of the final PlayStation 3 exclusives, for example, and it launched to critical and commercial acclaim. Microsoft could well be hoping that The Elder Scrolls VI will net Xbox a late consolation goal – ending a troubled console generation on a high note. That’s a good aspiration to have, I guess.
Is Microsoft banking on The Elder Scrolls VI to see out this generation with a bang?
But even if the PlayStation 6 and the next Xbox aren’t out by the time The Elder Scrolls VI launches, it’s quite possible that players will already be seeing trailers and teasers for those consoles’ launch titles – and those games could look bigger, better, and much more visually impressive than anything Bethesda is capable of. The Elder Scrolls VI could seem underwhelming or disappointing to an audience already preparing to move on from this console generation.
There’s also a perception – an incorrect one, but one that Bethesda inflicted upon itself – that The Elder Scrolls VI has been in development since 2018. While it’s true that early pre-production was going on during Starfield’s development, it simply won’t be true in 2028 that this game “took ten years to make.” But I already see this idea taking root, and even some commentators and critics who should know better have been talking about The Elder Scrolls VI as a game that’s been in development since 2018.
The Elder Scrolls VI was announced in 2018.
By announcing The Elder Scrolls VI so early, before any major work had been done on the game, Bethesda has set some dangerously wrong expectations. If the game is bad – or even if it’s good but not great – people will ask “what did you waste ten years doing?” or “how did a game this mid take a decade to make?” There’s nothing that can be done about that now; the 2018 announcement is out there and has been part of the gaming landscape for six years at this point. But it was an own goal from Bethesda; the company shouldn’t have rushed to announce a game that they weren’t actively working on and that they knew wouldn’t be ready any time soon.
Skyrim is, for many folks, Bethesda’s high-water mark. It was a landmark title that did a lot for the fantasy genre in gaming as well as action/RPGs. There hasn’t been a new mainline Elder Scrolls game since 2011; by 2028 we’ll be closing in on Skyrim’s 20th anniversary. Such a huge gap in between games brings with it its own expectations, and players will expect to see genuine improvements in everything from combat and exploration to world-building and voice acting. Failing to live up to those expectations will cause the game to suffer – and if there’s a gulf in between player expectations and reality, that could be catastrophic.
“Walk on, brave explorer.”
Bethesda is also a company that I would argue massively over-promises – to the point where some statements in the run-up to Starfield’s launch felt borderline deceptive. Remember “walk on, brave explorer?” Well, it turned out you could “walk on” for about ten minutes before hitting an invisible wall… which wasn’t exactly a great look. You can shout at me till you’re blue in the face that technically nothing they said was an out-and-out lie, but there’s no doubt in my mind that Starfield’s marketing was mishandled and that Bethesda deliberately encouraged excessive hype – hype that ultimately ended up harming many players’ enjoyment of the game.
The Elder Scrolls VI needs to be marketed fairly and honestly – even if it’s not actually that good! The basic job of marketing is to show a product in the best possible light, but it’s also incumbent upon a good marketing department not to set incorrect expectations nor allow hype to get out of control. That happened with Starfield, and the result was that too many players crashed down to earth pretty quickly when they hit the game’s limitations – and loading screens.
It must be some kind of visual metaphor…
For me, The Elder Scrolls VI is – at best – a game I’m going to wait a year to decide on after it launches. Bethesda was duplicitous with Starfield’s microtransactions and paid mods, concealing them as best they could during the game’s first few months on sale – and while reviews were being written – before adding them in later. If Bethesda won’t explicitly commit to having no such marketplace in The Elder Scrolls VI, then I’m going to wait at least a year to see if they add one in and how bad it is. If it’s anything like Starfield, I really don’t think anyone will be able to convince me to play it.
But there are other reasons to be sceptical of this game. Bethesda’s refusal to modernise – in terms of the underlying game engine as well as in both writing and game design – left Starfield feeling decidedly out of date; a game surpassed in so many ways not only by its contemporaries, but by games that were several years old by 2023. Without major changes internally, I worry that The Elder Scrolls VI will be in the same boat. If that’s what fans want – and some fans will clearly be satisfied with “just” another Bethesda game that’s no different from all the others – then that’s okay, I guess. But when I look ahead to the second half of the 2020s and beyond, I hope and expect to see improvements in game design… improvements that Bethesda has shown absolutely no signs of making.
Bethesda doesn’t seem to have learned anything from its competitors in the action/RPG space. Pictured: The Witcher 3 from CD Projekt Red
So that’s where I am when it comes to The Elder Scrolls VI… at least at this early stage. There are red flags galore and plenty of reasons to leave this game on the shelf, even if it launches to positive reviews. And after a difficult few years for Bethesda – a decade, basically, in which their least-bad title is arguably Fallout 76 – there is a lot riding on the success of The Elder Scrolls VI. Despite Starfield’s issues, its mediocre reviews, and a player base that seems to have largely deserted the game, Microsoft seems content at this stage to let Bethesda do its thing and push ahead with The Elder Scrolls VI. I find it impossible to think that Microsoft and Xbox will tolerate another disappointment on that scale, though.
Bethesda may have earned some goodwill through publishing titles like Doom Eternal and Indiana Jones and the Great Circle – the latter having become a surprise hit just this month. But the company’s development arm is struggling, and Microsoft has shown it can be brutal when it comes to shutting down studios that fail to deliver. It’s incredibly important for Bethesda that they get this right.
The Elder Scrolls VI is currently in development and will release on PC and Xbox Series consoles at an unknown future date. The Elder Scroll series, Starfield, and other properties discussed above are the copyright of Bethesda Softworks, ZeniMax Media, Inc., and/or Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
One of the first subjects I wrote about here on Trekking with Dennis almost five years ago was the Shenmue saga – Shenmue III specifically. With 2024 being the fifth anniversary of Shenmue III and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first Shenmue… I thought it could be interesting to look at what – if anything – may lie ahead for the series.
For context, I played and loved both Shenmue and Shenmue II when I owned a Dreamcast just after the turn of the millennium. I was left disappointed by Sega and Yu Suzuki’s inability to conclude the story, as I found it incredibly fun and engaging. As I’ve said more than once here on the website, Shenmue was the first game I played that felt truly cinematic; as if its story would be right at home on the big screen. The combination of its open level design, realistic NPCs who seemed to have lives of their own, the modern-day setting, and engrossing narrative all came together to make it one of the best games I’ve ever played – and its sequel was just as good.
Shenmue’s world was unlike any I’d ever experienced in a video game before.
But here’s the thing: Shenmue was a failure. While critically acclaimed and spawning a vocal fan community that persists to this day, by every other metric the Shenmue saga completely failed. The incredibly expensive undertaking never came close to making its money back for Sega, and the failure of the Dreamcast meant that there was no way to recoup most of the two games’ development costs. Even a release of Shenmue II on Xbox didn’t help things. As bitterly upset as I may have been, I came to accept that this ahead-of-its-time masterpiece was underappreciated and would remain unfinished.
When Yu Suzuki and his independent development studio YSNet were able to buy the rights to Shenmue from Sega, it seemed as if things might be looking up. A Kickstarter campaign came along at just the right moment – when interest in crowd-funding was close to its peak – and the latent Shenmue fan community stumped up an astonishing $7 million with the hopes of concluding the saga. Backed up by additional investment from Sony, Epic Games, and others, it seemed as if the failed series was about to get one last chance.
Shenmue III was developed by YSNet.
A re-release of Shenmue I & II came to PC and PlayStation 4 consoles a couple of years ahead of Shenmue III’s launch. For the first time in well over a decade (since I put my Dreamcast and most of its games in a box in the attic) I re-played the games – and I had a blast all over again. But then came what I considered to be devastating news from YSNet.
The Shenmue saga was always planned as a multi-game story. Shenmue and Shenmue II told the first chapters, but there were several chapters still to tell. For reasons that, years later, I still find pig-headed and incomprehensibly stupid, YSNet was unwilling to adapt the planned story to make Shenmue III the saga’s finale. Instead, it would simply move the story along… presumably with the expectation of high sales or another crowd-funding campaign to keep Shenmue going. That always seemed completely impossible to me – and as much as I hate to say it, I was right about that. I didn’t even bother to buy Shenmue III in 2019, because what was the point? The game had, in my opinion, one job: to finish the Shenmue story. Yu Suzuki and his studio had been given a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do that by a dedicated group of fans… and they blew it.
Yu Suzuki, creator of the Shenmue series. Photo Credit: YSNet; ysnet.games
The re-release of Shenmue I & II (and no, I don’t consider it a “remaster” or anything close; it’s a port) didn’t sell particularly well on PC and PlayStation – which was an ominous warning sign for Shenmue III. When Shenmue III finally launched amidst controversy over its Epic Games exclusivity on PC, it also didn’t sell very well. It seemed to me as if most of the people who might’ve conceivably been interested in buying it had already backed the Kickstarter project – one of the benefits of which was a copy of the game upon release. In its first week, Shenmue III grazed the lower reaches of the PlayStation sales charts in Japan… but didn’t even register anywhere else.
I did eventually buy Shenmue III when it was on sale on Steam. I haven’t played it yet, despite owning it for a while, and I have no real plans to. But when it was on sale for £15 or so, it seemed like a reasonable purchase. And if there’s ever news of a fourth game… maybe I’ll get around to checking it out.
I did belatedly purchase Shenmue III… but I have no plans to play it right now.
The way I see it, lacklustre sales for both the re-release of Shenmue I & II and Shenmue III demonstrate pretty clearly that this series has no mainstream appeal. Shenmue III was the last opportunity to change that – but again, the game failed to do so. So at this point, the remaining fans of the series are pretty much shouting into a void; tweet-a-thons that garner a few thousand posts at the very most feel like the last wriggles of a series in its death throes.
Shenmue’s anime adaptation also failed to bring renewed interest to the saga. I don’t have the numbers to hand, but Shenmue: The Animation ran for a single season back in 2022, and during that time, sales of the re-release and Shenmue III barely moved.
There was an anime adaptation of Shenmue a couple of years ago.
Shenmue: The Animation was itself cancelled after just one season. Having adapted the story of the first two games, there was scope for a second season to dip into Shenmue III or perhaps even go beyond that… but the audience just wasn’t there either in Japan or in the west.
There was finally some Shenmue news just a few days ago, though. A new publisher – ININ Games, a company with a focus on older, retro titles – picked up the publishing rights to Shenmue III, and there’s been talk of potential ports to the Nintendo Switch and other platforms. This is by far the biggest news for Shenmue since Shenmue III’s launch back in 2019… and while I don’t expect it to really go anywhere, it’s at least noteworthy that someone, somewhere, thinks Shenmue is worth spending a little money on.
Ryo in Hong Kong.
At this point, twenty-five years on from the first game and five years after Shenmue III failed to light up the board, I really don’t see Shenmue IV ever getting off the ground. YSNet burned a lot of its bridges with members of the fan community with their first Kickstarter campaign, and with the decline of crowd-funding in general, raising millions of dollars that way seems like it’s off the table. With a clear and demonstrable lack of success with both the re-released titles and Shenmue III, getting significant outside investment also feels pretty unlikely.
However, the new publishing deal for Shenmue III and talk of a potential port of the game to a new platform has raised some hopes in the fan community. So let’s think about what Shenmue IV could and should look like.
Meeting Santa Claus in Dobuita.
For me, the bottom line is this: Shenmue IV needs to be the end. I don’t care how many chapters Yu Suzuki originally planned in the ’90s. I don’t care how much of the story would need to be slimmed down or skipped in order to get to the end. At this point, if the stars align and through some absolutely miraculous good fortune Shenmue IV is able to get off the ground, it simply must bring the story to an end. That was what Shenmue III was supposed to do – and having failed again, there may not be another chance.
Shenmue IV won’t bring in new fans – not in any significant numbers, anyway. The re-release didn’t do that and neither did Shenmue III, so as much as I wish the games were held in higher esteem and celebrated more widely, it’s time to acknowledge that Shenmue is and always has been a niche product with a small audience. But that could be a positive thing! Without needing to worry about making a game with broader appeal, YSNet could tailor Shenmue IV to the built-in audience it already has, keeping things simpler for the team.
A promo image for Shenmue III.
And there are ways to tell other chapters of the story if Yu Suzuki is still insistent on doing so. A book, graphic novel, or even a series of cheaply-animated YouTube shorts could cover whatever gaps may emerge from condensing two or three games’ worth of story into a single title. Shenmue IV wouldn’t need to cut out one massive chunk of narrative, either: it could pick up different pieces of the story with in-game cut-scenes covering the basics of the rest. In short, there are ways around this stumbling block – as there were in the 2010s when Shenmue III was being developed. Unlike last time, however, someone needs to come in and make cuts to the bloated story and gameplay – and if Yu Suzuki and his team can’t or won’t do it, then it needs to be an outsider.
I haven’t played Shenmue III and I’ve managed to avoid major spoilers since it launched. But clips of the game that I’ve seen have included things like mini-games, a stamina system that limited how far Ryo could run, and other such bloat. Cutting some of this stuff out to focus on the core narrative – that of Ryo’s quest to track down the murderous Lan Di – would go a long way to helping a hypothetical next title move along at a much more reasonable pace.
Cutting back on things like mini-games could help a future Shenmue game stick to what matters: the story.
There’s an expression that I think is relevant here: “don’t let ‘perfect’ be the enemy of ‘good.'” In this case, I will happily concede that a cut-down Shenmue IV with some of its QTEs, mini-games, and open-world exploration elements removed wouldn’t be the ideal experience. It wouldn’t be completely true to the Shenmue series, either. But if it finished the story – a story I began almost a quarter of a century ago – it would be worth it. I’ll make that compromise to see the end of Ryo’s story… and that’s what I genuinely expected would happen with Shenmue III. In that sense, I’ve already committed myself to and steeled myself against those kinds of compromises.
Both Yu Suzuki himself and some die-hard Shenmue fans evidently hate this idea. But my question to them is a pretty basic one: if it’s this cut-down game or nothing, what would you rather have? I know that, speaking for myself, I’d rather see the story brought to an end, even if the journey to that end point is shorter and less free-roaming than the first chapters of the story. If you don’t agree… how long are you willing to hang on in the hopes that the “perfect” version of Shenmue IV and Shenmue V that you have in your head will ever make it to release?
Wouldn’t something be better than nothing at all?
Them’s fightin’ words!
I’m not getting any younger. I’m the wrong side of forty and, as regular readers will know, I’m not in great shape health-wise. There’s a non-zero chance that I won’t be here in ten years’ time, and with arthritis already affecting my hands and fingers, my ability to play games is beginning to wane. In short… I don’t have the time to wait for a mythological Shenmue-loving corporation to step in and fund development. If I was Elon Musk I’d happily do it… but who has that kind of money just lying around?
Shenmue is one of my favourite games of all-time. More than that, it’s the game that showed me what interactive media could be in the new millennium, and at a time in my life where I might’ve begun to drift away from the hobby, it’s a title that kept me engaged and kept me playing. I love Shenmue and Shenmue II. And I would have given anything to see its story continue. But we’re at a point now where repeated failures and some poor decision-making have left the series’ future not so much uncertain as dead. Shenmue is, in my opinion at least, almost certainly not coming back.
I’d love to be wrong, but I don’t see a future for Shenmue right now.
Maybe you’re of the opinion that, even if it takes another quarter of a century, we should let YSNet do its thing and tell the story they want to tell in the way they want to tell it. I’m telling you now: I don’t have that kind of time. If this new publisher is interested in another game – and despite my scepticism, I hope that they are – then my only request is this: make it the final game. Finish the story somehow, even if that means cutting back on the scope of the narrative and/or gameplay. If Ryo is going to get a miraculous third chance that, from a business standpoint, he categorically does not deserve, then have the decency to finish his story and bring the Shenmue saga to a belated conclusion.
But that’s the same red line I had back in the 2010s, and YSNet blew it. Yu Suzuki and his studio squandered the best (and probably the only) chance they had to conclude Ryo’s story, and as much as I’d like to think they’ll get a reprieve… I still struggle to see it. Five years on from Shenmue III and I feel more justified than ever in my stance back then. I said in 2019 that I was unwilling to pick up the threads of that story only to end up disappointed for the second time when it’s yet again left incomplete – and with nothing beyond vague suggestions about what YSNet might like the next game to look like, as well as sales so underwhelming that they’d make any company baulk at the notion of signing on, I get to take a very bitter victory lap… one I really don’t want to take.
Shenmue III was the best chance to tell the rest of the story.
If you asked me now, in November 2024, whether we’ll ever see a fourth Shenmue game, my answer would be almost certainly not. I don’t see how the series has a future, despite a new publisher signing on and talk of a potential Shenmue III port to another console. A few thousand remaining fans tweeting into the void isn’t gonna change that, because as loud and vocal as Shenmue fans can be, we’re a tiny and ever-diminishing number.
There are multiple tragedies in the Shenmue saga. The first game was light-years ahead of its time, pioneering a dense, lived-in open world years before anyone else even tried it. The world of those first two games still outpaces many modern titles in terms of depth and complexity. The demise of the Dreamcast and a player base that preferred faster-paced action-packed titles doomed the series… but that isn’t where the tragedy ends.
The harbour in Hong Kong.
YSNet’s failure to recognise that the crowd-funding campaign was lightning in a bottle; a once-in-a-lifetime chance to bring a dead series back to life… that’s the final tragedy of Shenmue. Fans gifted Yu Suzuki a golden opportunity to conclude the story he started more than fifteen years earlier… and he blew it. He allowed “perfect” to become the enemy of “good,” and stubbornly refused to deviate from a planned multi-game series even when it should’ve been clear that there would never be another opportunity to bring Ryo’s story to an end.
I could’ve lived with Shenmue and Shenmue II as a disappointingly incomplete story; a millennial masterpiece that, for reasons beyond anyone’s control, would remain unfinished. But I’ve really struggled to forgive Yu Suzuki and YSNet for taking the incredible opportunity presented to them by the fan community and pissing it away on a frivolous, bloated, still-unfinished third game.
And as to the future? Maybe the jury really is still out. Maybe this ININ Games genuinely sees the potential in Shenmue IV. But until the game’s officially in production and ready to go, I’ll be sceptical. I’m pretty sure that this is where the Shenmue saga ends.
Shenmue I & II and Shenmue III are available now for PC and PlayStation 4. The Shenmue series – including all titles and properties discussed above – may be the copyright of YSNet, ININ Games, Sega, and others. Some images courtesy of Shenmue Dojo and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Beware of spoilers for the Mass Effect trilogy.
I think it was back in 2020 or 2021 when I first covered the news that Amazon’s television studio had picked up the rights to Mass Effect. Since then we’ve heard next to nothing about the project, even as the triolgy’s Legendary Edition came and went, and I kind of assumed that it was either stuck in development hell or that Amazon’s executives had passed on whatever had been pitched. Not so, it seems!
Although details are still pretty sparse, we’ve recently heard from Amazon and game developer BioWare that the Mass Effect TV series is still happening, so today I wanted to talk a little about it and consider what the show might eventually look like. We’re going to talk spoilers for all three mainline Mass Effect games, so if you haven’t played the trilogy and want to go into it un-spoiled, this is your last chance to jump ship!
Jumping ship… get it?
A couple of caveats before we get started. Firstly, I have no “insider information” from BioWare, Amazon, or any of the other studios that may or may not be attached to this project. I’m speculating based on publicly available information and sharing my own thoughts and opinions on the potential series – which may never even see the light of day given how early in its pre-production it seems to be!
Secondly, this is just the subjective opinion of one Mass Effect fan. If you don’t agree with my take on where the TV series could or might go, or if I ignore some aspect of the games that seems important to you… that’s okay! There ought to be enough room in the Mass Effect fan community for differences of opinion and polite discussion. Nothing we’re going to talk about today is in any way official or confirmed in any case.
With all of that out of the way, let’s talk about what a Mass Effect television series could look like.
Concept art of the main characters from Mass Effect 1.
The first thing to say is this: Amazon has a crap ton of money! And as we’ve seen from the corporation’s investment in titles like The Expanse, Fallout, The Boys, and The Rings of Power… Amazon doesn’t mind splashing the cash when it comes to making scripted TV shows. On the surface, this bodes well for a Mass Effect series, as Amazon has the resources to give the show a decently high budget.
This matters because creating a sci-fi galaxy from scratch is going to be expensive. Sets will have to be built for spaceships, location shoots will be necessary to capture the look and feel of visiting wildly different planets, and the combination of practical and digital effects necessary to create some of Mass Effect’s non-humanoid aliens will take a lot of time and money.
Part of the Citadel – the capital of the Mass Effect galaxy.
On that last point, one of the things I like about the Mass Effect games is how they introduce several very “alien-feeling” alien races. The likes of the Krogan, Hanar, and Volus all feel much less human and much more extraterrestrial than many races from comparable sci-fi stories. BioWare was initially able to create these non-humanoid aliens because the world of Mass Effect was created for a video game; there were no constraints in terms of prosthetics or make-up that have forced the likes of Star Trek and Star Wars to rely primarily on humanoid life-forms.
Transitioning some of these races to the small screen will be a challenge, but it’s one that should be surmountable. I’d love to see a combination of practical special effects and prosthetic makeup with CGI, instead of relying entirely on animation to breathe life into the likes of the Krogan and Turians. In recent years we’ve seen this from other sci-fi franchises like Star Trek, so I really think it’s achievable to use a combination of puppets, prosthetics, and practical special effects alongside CGI.
Bringing non-humanoid races like the Hanar to the small screen may prove challenging!
I don’t want to get into the minutia of things like filming locations or casting; there’s plenty of time to think about who should play some of the franchise’s iconic roles! It would be great if the likes of Jennifer Hale and Mark Meer could be involved in some way – the duo voiced the female and male versions of Commander Shepard respectively, and could at the very least be offered cameo roles in the show.
But that leads into my next point: is this (and should this be) a direct adaptation of the story of the Mass Effect games?
Concept art for Mass Effect 1.
My inclination at this stage is that re-telling the Mass Effect story in a new format is a great idea, so I’d be happy to see the trilogy’s story adapted as a TV show. I think it’s a strong story with a great cast of characters, and while it would be an adjustment to get used to some different portrayals in those key roles… I think the story of the Mass Effect trilogy offers the show the best chance of success when compared to trying to tell a brand-new story set in the same world.
We have a couple of examples to point to. The TV adaptation of The Last of Us was a more or less straight adaptation of the video game it was based on. The Halo TV series took the barest bones of the Halo story but made significant changes. One was critically and commercially successful, the other was recently cancelled after just two seasons. There are counter-examples: Amazon’s own Fallout adaptation is a new story set in the same world, for example. But for my money, the story of the Mass Effect trilogy was so strong, so powerful, and such a singular event in its setting that trying to re-make it from the ground up or stepping away from it to do something completely different just doesn’t seem like a good idea. Why go to all the trouble of licensing a successful story if you aren’t going to adapt that story, after all?
The Fall of Reach played out very differently in the Halo TV series compared to the games.
Is it possible that a Mass Effect TV show will start somewhere else, like humanity’s first encounter with a Mass Relay or the war between humans and Turians? Sure. It’s possible. But would that be the strongest foundation to take this rich and wonderful sci-fi universe to a new audience and a new medium? I’m not convinced – and I think the struggles of the likes of not only the Halo series but also Amazon’s The Rings of Power (which has diverged from its source material in a way that has upset some fans of Tolkien’s Middle-earth) show the pitfalls in that approach.
Every writer and producer wants to put their own unique stamp on the projects they work on – and I get that. But when you’re taking a successful, much-loved story and adapting it, fans have certain expectations for what they want to see. I’m sure there are some Mass Effect fans who’d love to see a story about humanity’s first forays into space or how humans came to be accepted by the other Citadel races. But I’m not sure that such a story would be strong enough to carry Mass Effect to a wider audience – and when there’s a fantastic, deep, and emotional story populated by a stellar cast of characters just sitting there, it almost seems like malpractice to ignore it or make radical changes to it.
Commander Shepard with Javik in Mass Effect 3.
If we assume, then, that the Mass Effect TV series will be a straight adaptation of the original Mass Effect trilogy, that raises some questions of its own! Firstly, a big part of the Mass Effect games – the first two, anyway – was that players had a lot of freedom to make narrative-altering choices. In the first game, for example, whole companions could be ignored and never recruited, and in Mass Effect 2 practically everyone on Shepard’s squad could die in the game’s climactic final act. Mass Effect 3 arguably failed to do enough to give many of these choices the impact they should’ve had, but even in that game there were hugely consequential choices that players could make.
So if the Mass Effect TV show is going to adapt the story of the Mass Effect trilogy, here’s my question: which story, exactly? There are dozens of inflection points in the games, places where the story can branch in different directions. Helping one character could lead to conflict with another, main characters can die, new characters can appear to take over their roles, and even Shepard can be a radically different person depending on the choices players make. No TV show could reasonably take into account all of these choices – producers would have to pick one route through the story and follow it to its conclusion.
All three games have moments where players have to make decisions.
It seems pretty obvious to me that for the TV series to be entertaining, Shepard will have to mostly fall on the paragon side of things. Nuanced and complex characters are great, and there’s still scope for a paragon Shepard to make renegade-leaning decisions from time to time. But setting up the character to be quick to anger, rude, and excessively violent… it would make Shepard into a difficult protagonist to root for. So a paragon Shepard who occasionally makes renegade decisions seems like the least-bad option here.
But would Commander Shepard be a man or woman? When writing about Mass Effect I usually use “they/them” when referring to Shepard; the character can be male or female depending on the player’s choice. Given that a Mass Effect TV series would only have room for one Commander Shepard, a decision will have to be taken as to which option to go with. And no, I don’t think a non-binary or genderfluid Shepard is on the cards… as much as some people might want that!
Should the Mass Effect TV show cast a male or female performer as Commander Shepard?
I genuinely don’t know which way the show’s writers and producers would go. There are pros and cons whichever way you look at it, and I can see the casting choice for Commander Shepard being controversial no matter how it’s handled. I don’t think it would really be possible to split the role in two, either – having twin Shepards (like the Ryder twins from Andromeda) or even giving Shepard a second-in-command. A huge part of what made Mass Effect work was Commander Shepard, so if the TV show adapts this story, getting the right performer in the lead role will be incredibly important.
Unfortunately, I see this as a likely point of contention. If Commander Shepard is cast as a woman or person of colour, I can see the “anti-woke” crowd attacking the series and trying to get it cancelled before a single episode has aired. Look at the reaction to “black dwarves” in The Rings of Power or the triggering power the mere presence of a non-binary character had in Dragon Age: The Veilguard. It’s a shame that discussion of media and entertainment online so quickly descends into these dark places… but it’s something that the producers of the Mass Effect TV show will have to contend with one way or another. The original games featured a pretty diverse cast, but cries of race- or gender-bending will be hurled at the series if any of these characters’ fundamentals are altered.
Commander Shepard on the bridge of her ship.
I think most fans would accept a female Commander Shepard. Female-led shows and films from Alien and Star Trek: Voyager to Fallout and Everything Everywhere All At Once have been well-received, and with “femShep” having been a part of Mass Effect since the beginning, critics would really have very little to complain about. Adding a new female-led sci-fi show to the lineup would, in my view, be a positive thing. The casting needs to be right first and foremost, and I’m not saying Mass Effect needs a woman in its lead role. But why not? It could be great to see a female Commander Shepard taking the fight to the Reapers!
Let’s try to set that aside for now! I hope that whoever is cast in the lead role will do a great job, and will end up making any criticisms from the “anti-woke” crowd seem even sillier than usual.
A male Commander Shepard taking cover.
I’d like to talk next about the potential structure of a Mass Effect television series – because there really are interesting ways to adapt the games’ side-missions and secondary storylines.
One thing I love about television compared to film is how much more time there is to spend with characters, and how much richer and deeper their stories can be as a result. The same is true of video games, and the Mass Effect trilogy is a fantastic example of interactive storytelling. Characters grow and change over the course of their adventures, and the bonds between them strengthen as they get to know and trust each other. There are themes of bridging racial and social divides that could be incredibly relevant, and character arcs and pairings that are just beautiful to watch unfold. All of these things could – and should – be part of a Mass Effect TV series, as its the characters that make the story into something special.
Most of the main companions from Mass Effect 2.
As someone who loved shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation, Space Precinct, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the ’90s, believe me when I say that I love episodic storytelling. Any Mass Effect TV series would be a wholly serialised affair, in the mold of recent hits like Game of Thrones. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for some degree of episodic storytelling – and that’s where the aforementioned side-missions and quests come in.
Again, for the purposes of this argument we’re assuming that the TV show will be based on the original Mass Effect trilogy. Those games all had side-quests, lower-priority missions, and storylines focusing on individual companion characters. It would be tempting for a serialised show to skip all of that and focus on Shepard and the Reapers… but I think that would be a mistake. Not only do these missions have some of the best storytelling and most emotional moments in the entire series, but they add so much to the world of Mass Effect and to Shepard as a leader.
The Normandy.
There are ways to mix episodic storytelling with multi-season narrative arcs. Look at Star Trek: Strange New Worlds as a great example of this; the show follows its characters as they take part in a wide range of missions and stories, but they retain their growth and development from one episode to the next, even when those episodes are completely different in story, structure, and tone. There are season-long storylines running in the background, too, even when the focus of one episode is mostly elsewhere.
In short, a Mass Effect TV show wouldn’t need to skip over the likes of the Rogue VI mission from Mass Effect 1, or the character loyalty missions from Mass Effect 2 – these could be integral parts of the show, while also breaking up the main plot to take Shepard and their companions to different places. Some of the side-missions cement Shepard’s relationships with characters who will be among their closest friends for the entire story, and without including missions like “Find Dr Saleon” or “Family Armor” from Mass Effect 1 Shepard’s relationships with Garrus and Wrex might feel… less impactful.
Garrus Vakarian: Shepard’s BFF.
I’m not saying that the Mass Effect TV show should recreate every single side-mission. But there’s something to be said for a series that doesn’t always do the same thing, and changes in style, tone, and which characters are in focus can break things up and make for a more interesting presentation. Not only that, but some of the missions that are nominally optional in the games can have a big impact on other storylines.
Take the “Rogue VI” mission from Mass Effect 1 as an example. I hated playing through this; it’s a boring slog of a mission which involves using the Mako (barf) to visit four identical outposts at which Shepard and co. have to fight through generic enemies and push a button to shut down an advanced computer that’s gotten out of control. But you later learn, in Mass Effect 3, that the out-of-control VI was the source of EDI’s programming and personality – completely reframing the mission and tying it into one of the game’s main characters. It was a great bit of storytelling that made re-playing an otherwise bland side-mission feel a lot better on repeat playthroughs.
The “Rogue VI” mission.
There are also some great moments of characterisation in the Mass Effect 2 loyalty missions. Jack uncovers the truth behind her shocking childhood at the facility she escaped from. Jacob reunites with his estranged father – but in the worst possible way. And Shepard ends up in serious danger while helping Samara track down her daugher… who’s a serial killer. These missions vary in terms of location, but they also vary wildly in tone, with some being light-hearted and even fun while others are intense and violent. There’s a lot to be said for finding ways to include as many as possible.
According to the website HowLongToBeat, playthroughs of the Mass Effect trilogy can take anywhere from 60-140 hours. This varies a lot depending on things like the difficulty setting and how much of the side-content players engage with. My own estimate would be somewhere around 90 hours; that’s how long my most recent playthrough of the trilogy took. So this is a long story – and one that’s going to take multiple seasons of television in order to tell.
The Citadel Council.
There are things from the games that can be cut out. Some levels are deliberately padded out with generic enemies to stomp just to give the player something to do; a mission that might’ve taken an hour to play doesn’t necessarily need to be an entire episode of TV on its own. But we’re still talking about a show that would need to be at least five seasons – assuming eight to ten episodes per season, as is common nowadays. I don’t think three seasons (one per game) would be enough to really get to grips with how deep the world of Mass Effect really is, especially when you consider that a new audience is going to need an introduction to this brand-new universe.
In 2012, Mass Effect 3 came in for a lot of criticism, particularly of its ending. I wasn’t wild about the “pick a colour” ending, but I felt that wasn’t actually the worst part. Where I felt most let down by the game was how different choices – or combinations of multiple choices across the trilogy – just didn’t seem to matter and weren’t even mentioned as the story reached its crescendo. The example I’ve given before is this: through careful choices across all three games, it’s possible at a crucial moment in Mass Effect 3 to save the Quarians and Geth when it looks like it should only be possible to save one. This is not easy to pull off… but after the mission is over, there’s basically no impact at all apart from a few static images in the war assets menu.
The final third of Mass Effect 3 needed work.
Long story short, I think a Mass Effect television series could do more with some of these storylines than the games did – and by choosing a single outcome to include in the series, there’d be more freedom to tailor the story to fit. If the TV show kills off Wrex, for instance, there’d be no need to have Urdnot Wreav behave quite the same as he does in the games where he’s basically a stand-in for the missing Wrex; he could be his own character. And much more could be made of the Quarians and Geth coming together to achieve peace. By cutting out different narrative outcomes, we could get a much more detailed look at some of the choices that I felt weren’t properly acknowledged in the original games.
Finally, there’s the elephant in the room: Mass Effect 4… or whatever we’re calling the next game in the series. At time of writing, BioWare is working on a new Mass Effect game, and based on the very brief tease that was shown off a couple of years ago, it will feature at least one main character from the original trilogy. Would BioWare, EA, and Amazon want to create a TV show that’s based on or directly connected to the new game? Given how early in development both projects are, could there be an attempt to get them to release at more or less the same time?
Will the TV show tie in with Mass Effect 4 in some way?
If so, does that mean that a re-telling of the original trilogy is off the cards? While I can understand the temptation of making a game and TV show that are connected, I wonder if that’s the right approach. If Mass Effect 4 is going to be a direct sequel to the original trilogy, not a spin-off or prequel, having the TV show re-tell that story could actually work really well. It could give fans who might be turned off by playing older games an easy route into the story just in time to pick up the newest entry in the series.
Of course, that might not be the route BioWare and Amazon want to go down. And there are points in favour of setting the TV series in the same timeline as the new game. Doing so could draw a line under the original Mass Effect story, setting the stage for something brand-new. The concern I’ll have, if that’s the way things go, is whether the new story will be as good as the original one, or whether this iteration of Mass Effect can live up to what came before.
Hacking a locked door.
So I think that’s everything I had in my notes. It goes without saying that the Mass Effect television series is several years away at least – and that it could be delayed again or even cancelled outright. The show seems to be in a very early stage of development, and while I welcome Amazon’s re-commitment to it, until we get more concrete information, part of me will remain sceptical about whether I’ll ever get to see it! I’m not getting any younger (or healthier) after all!
The Mass Effect games built up a rich, detailed, lived-in world that feels ripe for exploration in a different way. As much fun as it was to play through those games, I’m genuinely thrilled at the prospect of being able to enjoy the story all over again in a different way. It won’t be the same – and it will be an adjustment getting used to different performers in key roles and perhaps slightly different designs and aesthetic choices. But I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call Mass Effect one of my favourite sci-fi stories… ever. If and when it makes it to the small screen, I’m really hopeful that it will be an exciting and enjoyable ride.
Here’s hoping we’ll get an excellent adaptaion!
I hope this has been interesting. I know we got into wildly speculative territory, but there was a surprising amount to say about a TV series that’s still in early production! I could be wrong about re-telling the story of the original games, and I’ll try not to be too disappointed if the show ultimately tells a story that ties in with Mass Effect 4 or shoots off to the Andromeda galaxy!
I haven’t played Mass Effect in a while, so maybe it’s time to re-install Legendary Edition and go round again!
The Mass Effect video games – including Legendary Edition – are the copyright of BioWare and Electronic Arts. The Mass Effect television series (currently untitled) may be the copyright of Amazon Studios, Amazon Prime Video, and/or Electronic Arts. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
A few months ago, I put together a list of “hot takes” about video games. As much as I enjoy gaming as a hobby, there are things that annoy me and things to criticise! There were a few other things that I considered including, but they didn’t really fit with that list. These “hot takes” have less to do with games themselves and more to do with the games industry, development, and gaming as a whole – so that’s what we’re going to discuss today!
Whenever I use the term “hot take” it’s because I’m acutely aware that we’re talking about something contentious! So before we get started, let’s re-emphasise that: these are all topics of debate among players and critics, and mine may well be the minority position. I don’t pretend to be 100% right, and I welcome disagreements and differences of opinion.
Let’s not throw a tantrum if we disagree, okay?
I worked in the games industry for close to a decade, and I worked with large and small games companies in that time. I’ve got a bit of a feel for how development works from the time I spent “on the inside,” and I know that developers are passionate people who care deeply about their art. But that doesn’t mean games get a free pass; a bad game is a bad game, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been!
As I always like to say: all of this is just the subjective opinion of one player, and I believe that there should be enough room in the community for differences of opinion and respectful disagreement. The topics we’re going to get into today are the subject of discussion and debate, and there isn’t a right answer – just opinions.
If you aren’t in the right headspace to see some potentially controversial games industry opinions, this is your final chance to nope out – because we’re about to jump into the list!
“Hot Take” #1: “Game development is hard” isn’t an excuse for selling a sub-par title.
A lot of people work really hard on some absolutely shite games…
Speaking as both a player and as someone who used to work in the industry, believe me when I say that I get it. Game development is undeniably difficult, it isn’t straightforward, and there are many, many reasons why a game may not be as good, enjoyable, or polished as we’d like it to be. There can be problems getting an engine to work, fixing one bug might cause ten more to pop up elsewhere, and the more complex and in-depth a title is, the greater the chance of these kinds of issues occurring. Publishers and corporations also meddle, moving the goalposts and pushing developers to hit unreasonable deadlines. So I get it. But that doesn’t make “development is hard” a good enough excuse.
Here’s a helpful analogy: suppose I buy a house, move in, and every time I turn on the washing machine, the electric goes off. Then when I ring the electrician, he basically says “wiring a house is really hard. You wouldn’t get it because you aren’t an electrician.” That’s not an excuse. If I go to a bakery and the bread is stale and mouldy, I likewise wouldn’t accept the excuses that “baking is really difficult,” or “running a business and keeping track of sell-by dates is hard.” The same basic principle applies to video games.
You wouldn’t accept sub-par bread from a baker, so why should you accept a sub-par game from a developer?
I will acknowledge and agree that game development is hard, and that bigger games are harder to make; it’s an almost exponential scale of difficulty. But trying your best and failing is still failing, and in a competitive marketplace where most games aren’t free, if you release a sub-par, broken, uninspired, or inferior game, you’re gonna get called out for it. Media criticism exists for this purpose, and just because a critic has never worked in the games industry or has no experience with development doesn’t invalidate their criticism.
When a game is listed for sale, even if it’s discounted or at a low price, players still have expectations – and those expectations aren’t “wrong” just because they didn’t see how hard the game was to create. If you’re a brand-new developer releasing your first-ever game for free and asking for feedback, then maybe some of the harshest words should be held back. But this asinine argument is too often made by publishers and executives who work for massive companies. When a game underperforms, they trot out the trusty old “game development is hard” argument as a rebuttal to critics.
The Lord of the Rings: Gollum was widely criticised upon its release for being riddled with bugs and glitches.
In no other business or industry would customers be told that “my job is hard, you should be grateful for what you got” as a response to genuine criticism. Selling a game that’s outdated, riddled with glitches, or just not fun can’t be excused in this way, and developers – no matter how hard they may have worked and no matter what programming hurdles they may have had to overcome – have to accept that. Criticism is inevitable in entertainment and media, and even if a developer had created an impossibly perfect game, there’d still be players who didn’t like it in whole or in part, or who just weren’t interested in its narrative or its gameplay. That’s unavoidable.
Some developers and studios actively make things worse for themselves by trying to respond to criticism in this way. It never works, it never succeeds at garnering sympathy, and practically zero players come away from this conversation having more positive thoughts about the game. It’s an argument that needs to go away, and developers and publishers should think long and hard before reacting to genuine criticism with this irritating whine.
“Hot Take” #2: Subscriptions are happening and physical discs and cartridges are dying out.
A selection of Sega Mega Drive game cartridges.
This is a subject I’ve tackled before in a longer column here on the website. In that piece I took a look at the media landscape in general, talking about how the move away from physical media started with music, then moved to film and TV, and is now belatedly arriving in gaming, too. You can find that piece by clicking or tapping here, if you’re interested! But for the games industry specifically, a move away from discs and cartridges has been happening for a long time – and the rise of subscriptions could well be the final nail in the coffin.
In the very early days, no one owned a video game outright. If you wanted to play a game, you had to go to where the games were: an arcade. It was only with the growth of home consoles in the ’80s that physically owning a video game became possible for a mainstream audience, and even then, renting games or even whole systems was still a big deal. Many of the SNES, Nintendo 64, and Dreamcast games that I played in through the ’90s and into the new millennium were rented, not purchased outright. The idea of owning a massive media library is, when you think about it, a relatively new phenomenon that was kicked into a higher gear when DVD box sets became a thing in the mid-2000s.
Arcades (like this one from Wreck-It Ralph) used to be the only place to play video games.
In that sense, we could argue that subscriptions aren’t “changing” the way people engage with media, they’re just a return to the 20th Century status quo. For much of the history of film, television, music, and gaming, audiences have had a temporary or impermanent relationship with media… and to me, that’s absolutely fine. It’s a trade-off I and many other players are happy to make.
I could probably count on my fingers the number of games I’d want a permanent hard copy of… because most games aren’t gonna be played on a loop forever nor returned to every few months. Just like when I used to rent SNES and N64 games in the ’90s, I’m totally okay with not having a huge library of titles gathering dust on a shelf (or metaphorical dust in a digital library), because once I’ve beaten a title like Donkey Kong 64 or Bioshock, I’m in no rush to play them again.
Red Dead Redemption II is one of just a handful of games I might conceivably want a hard copy of.
Speaking as someone on a low income, subscription services like Netflix and Xbox Game Pass open up a huge library of titles to me – allowing me to play more games than I’d ever be able to afford if I had to buy or even rent them individually. I’ve played dozens of games over the past couple of years that I’d never have bought for myself, and some of them have become personal favourites. Subscriptions like Game Pass are a great way into gaming for players on a budget – because for a single monthly fee a huge library of titles become available.
If the trade-off for that is that titles are occasionally removed from the platform and become unplayable… well, I’m okay with that. And for one-in-a-generation masterpieces like Red Dead Redemption II or Baldur’s Gate 3, I’m happy to splash out. When you consider that an annual subscription to Game Pass is more or less the same price as buying one or two games… you start to see why people are choosing to sign up. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Xbox, PlayStation, or both choose to go all-digital later in the decade when their next-generation machines are ready.
“Hot Take” #3: Microtransactions have no place in single-player games.
*cough* Starfield *cough*
I’m not wild about microtransactions in general – but in online multiplayer games and especially free-to-play titles, I accept that they’re an established funding model. They should still be regulated and prevented from being exploitative, but in those genres the microtransaction model seems to work well enough. But in a single-player game? Microtransactions need to GTFO.
Going back decades, games have released expansion packs – and large pieces of content that add new maps, quests, characters, and so on are usually okay. Look at something like Morrowind’s expansion Bloodmoon, or a more recent example like Phantom Liberty for Cyberpunk 2077. These are the kinds of expansion packs that have always been okay. Some are better than others, sure, and some expansions offer much more in terms of value. But as a general rule, I’m okay with expansion packs.
Phantom Liberty is a great example of an expansion pack that offers good value.
But in a single-player game, I shouldn’t be asked to purchase a “premium currency,” weapon skins, cosmetic items, and so forth. These microtransactions have no place in a single-player title, and there’s no excuse for adding them in other than pure, unadulterated greed. If a game like No Man’s Sky can remain profitable for Hello Games for close to a decade without charging for a single additional piece of content, there’s no excuse for the disgusting in-game marketplace in a title like Starfield.
I love a game with cosmetic customisation. Making my character feel personal to me goes a long way to enhancing the experience and making my playthrough feel like “mine,” so I enjoy having the option to change a hairstyle, outfit, or do things like re-paint a vehicle. But these things are an integral part of the game experience – not something to charge extra for. Exploiting players by locking basic items behind a paywall is despicable – and that’s before we say anything about “XP boosters,” damage multipliers, and other pay-to-win or pay-to-skip-the-grind items.
Oh look, it’s all of the DLC available for No Man’s Sky…
I’ll also include in this category “super premium deluxe editions” of games that come with exclusive content. You might think that Han Solo’s vest in Star Wars Outlaws is okay to lock behind a paywall, but some games do this with whole quests. Hogwarts Legacy infamously locked an entire mission behind a paywall, and it’s far from the only game to have done so in recent years. Offering an in-game item as a pre-order bonus is one thing, locking a whole chest full of items and even pieces of gameplay behind an expensive “luxury edition” that can easily run to $100 or more is just scummy.
If I’m paying full price for a game, I don’t expect that game to reach into my wallet and try to grab even more cash every time I want to use a consumable item or change my character’s appearance. I tend to avoid online multiplayer games, where this phenomenon primarily exists, but inserting a microtransaction marketplace into a single-player game where it has absolutely no business being is enough to make me uninstall that title and never return to it. I’ll even refund it if I can. Some studios have even taken to concealing in-game marketplaces at launch, hoping to garner better reviews and more sales, before adding them in a few weeks or months later. Truly disgusting stuff.
“Hot Take” #4: You aren’t paying for “early access,” you’re being charged an additional fee to play the game on its real release date.
An example of what I’m talking about.
“Early access” is controversial in general, but let me just say before we start that I’m generally supportive of smaller studios and indie developers using early access as a way to get feedback and even to keep the lights on during what can be a difficult process. I very rarely touch an early access title, but independent devs should always feel free to use whatever tools are available to them, including launching an early access version of their game. But that’s where my patience with early access ends.
Recently we’ve seen two pretty shitty trends in the games industry: firstly, massive studios backed up by big publishers have been abusing early access, sometimes leaving a game officially unreleased for four, five, or six years, charging almost full price for it all the while. And secondly, the issue we’re looking at today: “early” access for an extra charge.
Ubisoft wanted to charge players an extortionate amount of money to play Star Wars Outlaws on its real release date.
This kind of “early” access usually grants players access to a game a few days or maybe a week ahead of its official release date, but by that point the game is finished and should be ready to go. The “early” version that players get is usually no different from the launch version, and there’s no time for a studio to act on player feedback or patch bugs. This is a scam, plain and simple, and an excuse for wringing even more money out of players.
If a game launches on the 1st of September for players who pay £100, and the 6th of September for players who “only” pay £65, then the release date is the 1st of September. They’ve just charged more to players who want to play on release day – or, if you flip things around, deliberately penalised players who didn’t splash the extra cash. These versions of games – which I think we should call “real release date” versions – are often $20, $30, or $40 more expensive than their delayed counterparts.
And who has that kind of money to waste these days?
Buying a game on day one is a risk nowadays. So many games – even those that go on to be hailed as masterpieces – arrive on launch day with bugs, glitches, and other problems. So paying extra to play what is almost always a demonstrably shittier version of a game just feels… stupid. I’ve been burned by this before, and just as with pre-orders, I’ve sworn to never again pay for so-called “early” access.
I’d like to see digital stores like Steam, Epic Games, and ideally Xbox and PlayStation too clamp down on this practice. Early access should be reserved for studios that need it, and charging players extra to play a game on release day is something that should be banned outright.
There have been some fantastic games released over the last few years. Red Dead Redemption II, Baldur’s Gate 3, and Kena: Bridge of Spirits all come to mind in the single-player space, but I’m sure you have your own favourite. These games are, in a word, masterpieces; titles that did everything right and are rightly considered to be at the very pinnacle of not only their genres but video games as an art form in general. So… if your game doesn’t get that kind of glowing reception, whose fault is it?
Some developers think it’s the fault of players, and that we’ve had our expectations set “too high.” They argue that it was unrealistic to expect their game to be as engaging or entertaining as others in the genre, and we should be grateful for what we got. They worked hard on it, after all.
I wonder which game might’ve prompted this “hot take.”
The tl;dr is this: it isn’t the fault of players if they don’t like your game – it’s yours. Complaining about high expectations makes no sense when other titles have demonstrably been able to meet and even exceed those expectations, so if you learned nothing from your competition, once again that isn’t anyone else’s fault but yours! That’s to say nothing of the out-of-control and frequently dishonest marketing that promises players way more than the game can deliver. Studios and publishers are responsible for reining in hype and keeping their marketing honest. That, more than anything else, will help players set appropriate expectations.
I get it: it isn’t fun to be criticised or see your work picked apart. It’s even less fun to see a game you worked hard on for a long time compared negatively to another title in the same space. But to lash out at players – the people who are supposed to be your customers and the people it’s your job to entertain – just doesn’t make any sense to me. Not only is it wrong, but it also risks building up resentment and ill-will, so the next time you work on a game and get it ready for launch, players will be even more sceptical and perhaps even quicker to criticise.
This is a problem exacerbated by social media.
Thankfully, it isn’t all developers who say this – at least not in public! I heard complaints like this from time to time when I worked in the industry, but most developers I worked with were smart enough to keep such thoughts to themselves if they had them. So we’re fortunate that it’s only a minority of developers who take this argument into the public square.
Some developers need to get off social media. Social media is a great tool, don’t get me wrong, and being able to communicate directly with players can be useful in some situations. But if a developer is so thin-skinned that they feel the need to react in real-time and respond to every armchair critic and Twitter troll… that can’t be good for them, and it certainly isn’t good for the company they work for. For their own good, some developers need to shut down their social media profiles!
So that’s it… for now!
I hope this wasn’t too controversial!
I’m always finding more “hot takes” and things to criticise in the games industry, so I daresay this won’t be the last time I put together a piece like this one! Despite what I’ve said today, I still really enjoy gaming as a hobby and I find there are far more positives than negatives. And if you hated all of my points, just remember that all of this is the entirely subjective opinion of a single old gamer.
So I hope this has been a bit of fun… and maybe a little thought-provoking in places, too. If you don’t agree with any of my points that’s totally okay! I tried my best to present my arguments as articulately as possible, but these are “hot takes” so I’m sure plenty of people can and will disagree with all of them. If I gave you a chuckle or you found this discussion interesting in some way, then I reckon I’ve done my job!
Until next time… and happy gaming!
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective publisher, studio, and/or developer. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Twenty-five years ago today – that’s literally a quarter of a century – a brand-new racing game arrived on Windows 98 and Windows 95 PCs. Midtown Madness was an absolute blast and quickly became one of my most-played games of the year. With the millennium fast approaching, nothing was more fun than tearing up the streets of Chicago, getting into scrapes with the police, and taking part in some wild and dangerous races against the AI!
Midtown Madness celebrating its 25th anniversary makes me feel so incredibly old… but I’m glad to have the opportunity to talk about one of my favourite racing games of that era. Midtown Madness did something that I hadn’t really seen before in a video game – it opened up its entire city and let me drive wherever I wanted, however I wanted… even if that meant off-roading across grassy parks, scaring pedestrians on the pavement, or jumping over an open drawbridge! Two-and-a-half years before Grand Theft Auto III would take that series’ titular mayhem to an open-world environment, Midtown Madness was doing something remarkably similar.
The game’s main menu – with a funky custom mouse cursor!
Although it didn’t feel that way at the time, when I look back at Midtown Madness with a quarter of a century of hindsight, it feels like a gaming landmark; an important title that did the “open world chaos” thing in its own way before some of the better-known titles in that space. In 1999 it felt incredibly new and innovative; a game that seemed to take the chaos of the likes of Grand Theft Auto but made it fully 3D. Looking back, it feels like a half-step between 2D games, racing games, and the kind of fully open-world titles that were right around the corner.
I’d also place Shenmue in that same category: the “almost-open-world” games that were the progenitors of the format. Released the same year as Midtown Madness, but in a completely different genre, Shenmue was also an early pioneer of many of the features that open-world games continue to take advantage of to this day. 1999, it seems, was one of the most important years in the development of open-world titles!
Driving a City Bus through the streets of Chicago!
I don’t have the receipt, unfortunately, but I think I must’ve picked up Midtown Madness within a week or two of its launch. I remember playing it that summer and into the autumn; it was one of the only up-to-date PC games that I owned at the time. I’d seen a preview of it in one of the gaming magazines that were prominent on newsagents shelves in those days, and it just looked like such chaotic fun that I could hardly wait to get my hands on it! I didn’t have a PC racing wheel or any fancy equipment – and as you’ll know if you’ve ever tried it, playing a racing game with a mouse and keyboard is painful! But that didn’t stop me, and I must’ve logged dozens upon dozens of hours in Midtown Madness… in between studying and working my part-time job, of course!
Taking on races was the only way to unlock half of the vehicles in the game – the other half were available right from the start. So I definitely took part in as many races as I needed to in order to unlock the likes of the city bus and the GTR-1 racecar! But where I had the most fun with Midtown Madness was driving around the city in free-roam mode – both as chaotically and as calmly as possible! The game’s rendering of downtown Chicago – while undeniably dated by today’s standards – felt like a technological marvel in 1999, and I loved every minute of exploring the city.
Driving around Chicago in Midtown Madness was a blast!
This wasn’t my first encounter with the Windy City. I’d been a huge fan of the medical drama ER in the second half of the ’90s, following every episode and every season as they were broadcast here in the UK. I think by mid-1999 we were on Season 3 or 4 of the show, which at that point still featured George Clooney and Julianna Margulies in starring roles! But because I felt a familiarity with Chicago – from its Lake Michigan waterfront to its “L” trains that ran on elevated tracks above the streets – I felt even more drawn to this digital recreation of the city. In fact, it was one of the first digital recreations of a real-world city that I can remember spending much time with.
Going into the millennium, I’d have had Midtown Madness’ in-game map pretty much committed to memory! I could find my way from one side of the map to the other, stopping to see the sights along the way – and the game recreated some of Chicago’s most famous landmarks. I’ve already mentioned the “L” – Chicago’s elevated metro system. But there was also the Sears Tower skyscraper, Navy Pier on the Lake Michigan shorefront, the planetarium, the Wrigley Field baseball stadium, and even the airport! All of these were a ton of fun to race through and explore.
Wrigley Field as it appears in the game.
Although the game came with options for tuning the physics engine and car performance, I didn’t spend too much time tinkering. The default settings seemed to work well enough, and I was always reluctant to mess about with them too much! Midtown Madness performed very well on the PC that I had at the time, with none of the bugs and glitches that seem to plague games today. Perhaps I’m looking back with rose-tinted glasses when I say that… but I genuinely cannot remember any bugs or performance issues that got in the way of the fun.
Obviously when you compare Midtown Madness with a racing game from the 2020s, like Forza Horizon 5, or open-world car games like Grand Theft Auto V, it feels incredibly dated. Graphics that felt great at the time look blocky in 2024, with far too few polygons, and the game has the overall look of a title from the late ’90s. The turn of the millennium would see advancements in graphics that would make Midtown Madness 3 – released less than four years later – look an awful lot better.
Choosing a car to race with!
And in terms of the game’s world, the relatively low numbers of vehicles on the road and pedestrians on the pavements doesn’t feel right for a massive metropolis like Chicago. There’s also a lack of diversity – there are only a handful of vehicle types and pedestrian models, and you’ll pretty quickly see all of them if you spend much time with Midtown Madness.
But those were the restrictions that game developers had to work with in 1999, and obviously an open-world city like Cyberpunk 2077 or a racing title like Gran Turismo 7 is going to surpass Midtown Madness in every way a quarter of a century later. That’s not what makes it such a special title – and no one is really asking it to go toe-to-toe with modern racing and open-world titles.
Ideas and gameplay mechanics that Midtown Madness pioneered are still in use in modern open-world and racing games today.
Instead, we have to view Midtown Madness – and, by extension, video games in general – as a stepping-stone. The premise or DNA of later titles like Test Drive Unlimited, Project Gotham Racing, or the Forza Horizon series is present in Midtown Madness, and the game was among the first to demonstrate open-world and free-roaming elements in a racing game, as well as the merits of letting players cause chaos and create their own fun. Those gameplay ideas have become commonplace in the years since Midtown Madness was released – and now extend far beyond the racing genre.
For me, Midtown Madness is an incredibly nostalgic title. I’d love to be able to play it again – but getting it to work on a modern PC, even with a virtual desktop running Windows 98, is a pain. The game can be easily found online in its complete form, but it would be fantastic if Microsoft could work with a company that specialises in porting retro games to modern systems and give it a proper re-release. After 25 years, I think Midtown Madness deserves better than to be left behind! Many other retro titles have been brought back over the past few years, so there’s almost no reason not to do it!
Getting side-swiped by a police car during a race. Ah, the memories!
I had such a great time with Midtown Madness as the millennium approached. It was one of the games I encountered in the late ’90s that seemed to be pushing boundaries and trying something different – and something genuinely engaging and fun. It felt like a step up from basically any other racing game I’d played up until that point, and one that definitely captured and held my attention.
As we mark the milestone 25th anniversary of Midtown Madness, I look around at open-world titles and racing games and still see a number of features that I first encountered in this landmark title. It was a truly fantastic game that gave me a ton of fun and with which I made some wonderful memories.
All that remains to say is this: happy anniversary, Midtown Madness!
Midtown Madness is currently out of print, but copies may be available second-hand. Midtown Madness remains the copyright of Microsoft, Angel Studios, and/or Rockstar San Diego. Some screenshots and still frames courtesy of LGR’s retrospective review and The Racing Madness Wiki. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
If we assume that the current generation of home consoles will last roughly as long as the last couple of generations have, then the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 are close to the halfway point. Both devices were launched in late 2020, and as we’re now well into 2024, I think it’s fair to say we’re approximately halfway through their estimated lifespans. So today, I thought it could be interesting to consider the state of both platforms and look at how well – or how poorly – they’ve been performing!
For some background, I spent a decade working in the games industry, and in that time I worked with companies that released games on both Xbox and PlayStation consoles. As someone whose primary gaming platform these days is PC, I don’t really see a need to take sides in the so-called “console war,” so I’ll do my best to judge both machines on their own merits, as well as give my thoughts on the ninth generation of home consoles as a whole.
A PlayStation 5 console.
Let’s start with something I’ve talked about before: both the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 were released far too early. Not only were there brilliant games that were only just beginning to take full advantage of previous-generation hardware – like Red Dead Redemption II, God of War, and Marvel’s Spider-Man, to name but a few – but there were catastrophic problems with production and the supply chain thanks to the shit-show that was 2020. Both machines were launched with wholly inadequate levels of stock, leading to predictable results!
PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series consoles were out of stock everywhere for well over a year; here in the UK folks were on waiting lists that could be months long, and even as the consoles’ second holiday season approached, the only choice many players and parents had was to pay massively inflated prices to scalpers. Neither Microsoft nor Sony did enough to prevent touts and scalpers from using bots to buy up available stock, and throughout the launch window and well into 2021, both companies failed to improve manufacturing and supply chain issues.
“Supply chain issues” quickly became an excuse for why both consoles were out of stock.
Thankfully, those issues have largely abated – at least here in the UK. But now that the availability problem has been solved and the consoles have trudged their way to the halfway point in their life cycles… is it even worth picking one up?
I have to say that, even at their recommended retail price, both consoles feel like a hard sell right now. There are so few exclusive titles to make an expensive purchase like that worthwhile, with a huge majority of games still being released on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One as well as on the current generation of machines.
A visual representation of every Xbox Series X exclusive title.
There have always been cross-generation titles, of course, but usually by this point – more than three years into a console generation – there are fewer and fewer of them. But at time of writing I can only call to mind a handful of games that are genuinely PlayStation 5/Xbox Series X exclusive – the likes of Starfield, Jedi: Survivor, and Baldur’s Gate 3 come to mind, but I really can’t think of many others. Some of the biggest releases and most successful titles of the last few years – like Elden Ring, the Resident Evil 4 remake, and Halo Infinite – have all been released on both current- and last-gen platforms.
Is it worth spending upwards of £450 on a console to be able to play one or two games that aren’t available elsewhere? Don’t get me wrong: great games can and always have been system-sellers. But if I’m considering such an expensive investment, I really don’t think it’s too much to ask that I’m able to play more than just a couple of exclusive games! For a lot of players, there’s really very little advantage to buying one of these new machines in 2024… because most games are still available on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One consoles, which are a lot less expensive and which they may well already own.
An Xbox Series X console.
We are starting to see a shift in that area, but it’s far slower than it has been in previous generations. 2023 saw the release of titles like Starfield and Marvel’s Spider-Man 2, both of which were exclusive to next-gen platforms. But unless those games were on your “must-play list,” there really isn’t a hugely compelling reason to invest in either console at this point.
I noted in 2020, before the launch of PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X, that the jump in graphical quality would be far smaller and less noticeable this time around than it had been in years past – and I think that’s been entirely born out by the abundance of cross-generation titles. There are advantages to current-gen machines compared to last-gen ones, of course, but they tend to be in less obvious areas like loading times and control pad battery life as opposed to things like graphical fidelity and visuals.
Despite being a current-gen-only title, Starfield is hardly groundbreaking in the graphics and visuals department.
One thing that’s definitely happened this generation has been a massive growth in file sizes! With most games now being either wholly digital or coming with massive patches and updates even on day one, downloading 100GB+ files has become commonplace. For those of us with slow internet connections, that can easily mean a couple of days to download a single game or update! That’s an annoyance in some ways, especially considering how some games with massive file sizes don’t actually seem to look much better than their counterparts from a few years ago that were one-third as big.
But large files and downloads are here to stay, I suspect. With both current-gen machines having solid-state drives (and expansion slots to add extra storage, if needed) it’s possible to create larger and more detailed game worlds than ever before. Relatively few games have taken advantage of this yet – and some of those that have, like Starfield, haven’t done so particularly well – but, despite my personal gripes with massive downloads, there’s at least potential here. Larger and faster drives on home consoles can open up new possibilities in game development, and that could lead to bigger and more immersive worlds in the years ahead.
Many titles released this generation have file sizes well over 100GB.
The question of value for money has come up a lot over the past couple of years, and while we’ve partly touched on that with the lack of exclusive games, I want to consider the price point that both consoles are at. For literally decades, console prices have come down incrementally as they get further into their life cycle. Recent console generations have seen cheaper versions produced partway through, with the likes of the Xbox 360S and PlayStation 4 Slim both arriving at around the halfway point in their respective life cycles.
This time around, however, we’ve seen price rises rather than price reductions, with PlayStation 5 consoles now £30 more expensive here in the UK than they were at launch in 2020. Despite initially suggesting no price rises were imminent, Microsoft followed suit a few months later, again rising the price of Xbox Series X consoles by £30 here in the UK. That’s despite both consoles arguably having the least-convincing lineup of exclusive games, and thus having the weakest justification for such an unfair price hike. Sony and Microsoft are billion-dollar corporations whose gaming divisions have been making money hand over fist… so these price hikes – which come on top of the rise in the price of the standard edition of many games – are honestly just disgusting. Price-gouging in the middle of an inflation and cost-of-living crisis is sickening.
Sony boasted to its investors about record-breaking profits… before turning around a few weeks later and hiking up the price of PlayStation 5 consoles.
At the end of the day, I’d have expected more from both the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X at this point in their generation. There have been some great games over the past three-plus years… but many of them aren’t exclusive to this generation of home consoles, leaving me with a resounding sense best summed up thus: “what’s the point?” Neither console has, in my view, given a compelling answer to that question yet. There have been a handful of titles that I could see some folks picking up a console for, but there are undeniably far, far fewer of those at this point in the ninth generation than in any prior home console generation.
There have also been plenty of duds; broken, half-baked, or underwhelming titles. That happens, and while it isn’t the fault of either console specifically, the sheer number of buggy “release now, fix later” titles has done nothing to help current-gen gaming or make it feel like a worthwhile investment.
The Lord of the Rings: Gollum will likely be remembered as one of the worst releases of the generation.
The best experiences of the last few years, I would argue, have come not on the Xbox Series X or PlayStation 5, but on the Nintendo Switch and PC. PC gaming has gone through somewhat of a renaissance, with titles that were once exclusive to Xbox and PlayStation making their way onto the platform, as well as a glut of high-quality titles. And Nintendo has been consistent in its releases on the Switch, even as that less-powerful console reaches the end of its life. Whether we’re talking Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Super Mario Bros. Wonder, the remaster of Metroid Prime, or the Booster Course Pass expansion for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Nintendo has been serving up hit after hit, and offering players genuine reasons to pick up their machine.
As the ninth generation got underway in 2020, I was content to watch and wait. Even though PC has been my primary platform for several years, I’m not averse to playing on console if there’s a compelling title that seems like a “must-play.” I bought a PlayStation 3 toward the end of its life so I could play the likes of The Last of Us, I picked up a Switch to play Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Mario Odyssey, and more, and I bought a PlayStation 4 during the previous generation in order to play games like Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4. But no games of that calibre have leapt out at me this time around. Maybe one or two will before this generation comes to a close… but I’m not convinced.
A fancy gaming PC. No, it’s not mine!
So here’s the real takeaway from the ninth generation of home consoles: buy a PC! Most Xbox and even PlayStation titles are coming to PC these days; I’m particularly excited for the upcoming PC port of Ghost of Tsushima, for instance. Having built my own PC a couple of years ago, and upgraded my graphics card just last year, I know for a fact that it’s more than a match for both current-gen consoles. Unless one of them can rope me in with an exclusive title that I can’t get anywhere else – and can’t live without – this could be the first generation of home consoles since the days of the NES and Atari 7800 that I don’t end up buying into.
As the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 reach the halfway point in their life cycles, I confess I feel a sense of disappointment – and more than a little “I told you so.” Both machines are powerful, there’s no question about that. But so far, it doesn’t seem as if anyone has really taken advantage of that power to really innovate and push gaming forward by anything more than the smallest iterative step. I knew going into the ninth generation that changes and improvements would be minimal… but even with that low bar, I’m unimpressed.
There have been some great games in the last few years. 2023 in particular will be well-remembered for releases like Baldur’s Gate 3. But titles like that feel like they exist in spite of, rather than because of, the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X. As we reach the halfway point… neither console has yet come close to reaching its potential.
PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S/X consoles are on sale now. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Earlier this year, a quotation from Ubisoft director of subscriptions Philippe Tremblay was doing the rounds. Many news outlets seized upon it, as did bloggers and commentators – and the reaction, at least from what I’ve seen, was pretty negative. Tremblay suggested that players will get comfortable with “not owning [their] games,” and that four-word phrase sent usually sensible critics and analysts into a state of meltdown.
As I state in the title of this piece, the way in which practically all of us engage with and consume media has changed dramatically in the last few years – and that change is continuing. I’ve been through multiple stages of this transition myself with different forms of media for at least twenty years, if not more. It began with music, with digital downloads replacing cassette tapes and CDs. It happened again with DVDs and Blu-ray discs losing out to video-on-demand. It’s happened already in gaming with the move from cartridges to discs and then the decline of optical discs in favour of digital downloads.
And all of that is before we get into subscription services and streaming.
Xbox Game Pass is the first major gaming subscription service… but it won’t be the last.
Twenty years ago, I couldn’t have predicted the rise in streaming and subscription platforms – but now they’re everywhere. Many people, especially younger people, have never purchased so much as a single song or film – they’ve grown up streaming their music and videos. Forget about physical discs or tapes, there’s a whole generation of younger people who’ve never even bought a song on iTunes or paid to watch a film or TV series on demand. Subscriptions have become the way many people want to engage with different forms of media – and it’s easy to see why.
Subscriptions offer a “best of both worlds” approach. Like a cable or satellite TV package, they offer a good deal of choice. And like video-on-demand or a DVD box set, they let viewers choose when they want to watch. Music streaming, too, has these same advantages: an abundance of choice and the freedom to choose what to listen to and when. Audiences no longer have to put up with the rigid schedules of broadcasters and TV channels, while also having access to far more viewing or listening options than they would with CDs or DVDs. For a relatively low price per month, massive libraries of content become available – opening up far more titles than any of us would ever be able to reasonably expect to purchase. This was the original appeal of streaming, and while in the film and TV space there are problems resulting from the “streaming wars,” it remains the major appeal of the format.
Paramount+ is one of a growing number of film/TV subscription services.
I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t predict what the media landscape might look like another twenty years down the line. It’s quite possible that further changes and disruptions will have come along, and streaming may no longer be the flavour of the month. But right now, as things stand, it’s the direction of travel for music, television, film… and even gaming. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that is simply wrong, and unfortunately for folks who want to push back against it… I think that’s a losing battle right now. Is it worth being aware of the shortcomings of streaming and subscriptions? Absolutely! Is there a reasonable chance of reversing this trend in the next few years, and can we expect people to go back to buying cassette tapes and DVDs? Absolutely not.
It’s no shock to me that gaming is also moving toward a subscription model. The only real surprise, if I’m being honest, is that it’s taken until now for subscriptions to begin to take off. An all-digital product like a video game is well-suited to being bundled into a subscription package, and gamers – who tend to be a younger demographic on the whole – are exactly the kind of tech-savvy people who are already engaging with other forms of media in this way. It makes perfect sense that subscriptions would be the “next big thing” in the gaming market.
A subscription model for video games actually feels overdue!
Here’s the fundamental question at the heart of this controversy: do I, as a player or viewer, need to own outright the media that I’m engaging with? Because answering this question should go some way to explaining why some people are so angry at Ubisoft for this comment, and why others seem to be just fine with it.
I’m happy to watch a movie or TV show once and never come back to it again. I can think of many, many films and TV shows in that category. I watched them, I enjoyed them, but I have absolutely no need or desire to go back to them. Buying the DVD box set of a show like Battlestar Galactica just to watch it once seems wasteful, and while I could re-sell it afterwards, I wouldn’t get most of my money back. I could rent it – as we used to do in the days when Blockbuster and other video rental stores were in every small town… and that’s basically what streaming subscriptions are. Yes, you don’t own the media you consume when you subscribe to a platform. You pay to access it – i.e. you rent it.
No offence, Battlestar Galactica…
For a lot of TV shows and films, that’s totally fine. Last year, for instance, I watched Ladybug and Cat Noir: The Movie. It was a decent enough film; a perfectly enjoyable superhero adventure for kids. But I don’t need to own a copy of Ladybug and Cat Noir: The Movie… because I’m almost certainly never going to watch it again. Paying £15-20 for a DVD, Blu-ray, or digital copy just seems wasteful.
And that mindset also applies to games. There are many, many games that I’ve played over the last thirty-plus years that were one-and-done affairs. These are titles I enjoyed but just see no need to revisit… such that owning them outright, either digitally or on a disc/cartridge, is unnecessary. So if a streaming service is going to come along and let me essentially rent the games that I want to play – while also giving me access to a library so colossal that I could never afford to purchase even one-tenth of the titles on offer – then heck yes. Sign me up!
A selection of “trending” titles on PC Game Pass in February 2024.
When I first started talking about Microsoft’s Game Pass service in 2020, that was how I felt. And I will admit that subscriptions in the gaming space have some bugs and kinks to be worked out – in particular how DLC and expansion packs should be handled. But those are surmountable hurdles, and the benefits of the subscription model, particularly to low-income folks like myself, outweigh the disadvantages. If you asked me right now, in early 2024, what would be the most cost-effective route into current-gen gaming, I would say without hesitation that an Xbox Series S console and a Game Pass subscription is by far the best option for folks on a budget.
At present, there are no titles (of which I’m aware, at any rate) that are only available to people who sign up for an expensive subscription package. That means that players can still choose to purchase – and own outright – any game or games that they choose to. Some developers and studios, such as Baldur’s Gate 3 creators Larian, have indicated that they won’t put their games on any subscription service in the near future – and that’s okay, too. An independent publisher or studio will always have the freedom to choose whether to engage with subscription platforms – and which to sign on with, if any.
Developers Larian Studios have pledged not to put titles like Baldur’s Gate 3 on subscription platforms for the foreseeable future.
Permanently owning media is, if you think about it, a relatively new concept. When films came along in the first years of the 20th Century, they’d be shown in cinemas – but there was no way for the average person to own a copy of a film until really the late 1970s. The same applied to television shows: audiences would be entirely dependent on broadcasters to watch their favourite shows, with no way to purchase their own copy. This was even true of shows that eventually spawned long-running series and franchises: Star Trek, for instance, and Doctor Who, both started off in the 1960s, when viewers could only ever hope to re-watch their favourite episodes when television networks would do re-runs.
Even within my own lifetime, owning a copy of a film or television series was a relative rarity. When I was very young we didn’t have a video recorder at home, and it was only in the late ’80s that my parents purchased a Betamax system, and then later still a VHS recorder. I could count on my fingers the number of video cassettes I owned as an adolescent, and most of those were blank tapes used for recording programmes directly from the TV; even in the ’80s and into the ’90s, the idea of purchasing and owning a vast media library was far from the norm.
Nobody that I knew in the ’80s or ’90s had a collection like this one!
In gaming, too, this idea of permanent ownership hasn’t always been around. Games started in arcades, where players would have to pay to play a game that they didn’t own. And in the ’80s and ’90s, renting individual games and even entire consoles from rental shops was commonplace. I still remember the mad rush of trying to complete a game the night before it was due to go back to the shop!
With streaming and subscriptions growing in the music, film, and television spaces, their arrival in gaming was inevitable. And perhaps in the future we’ll look back on the period of media ownership from the 1980s through to the early 2020s as a bit of a blip; an outlier in a media landscape that has tended to favour a less permanent relationship with audiences. I don’t have a great track record at predicting the future… but that seems at least plausible to me, at any rate!
I don’t claim to predict the future…
I could probably count on my fingers the number of films, television shows, and video games that I’d want hard copies of, because there really aren’t that many that I consider to be the kinds of masterpieces that I need to return to over and over again. There are a great many games that I’m happy to only play once, and that I don’t need to own outright because I’ll never play again. Paying the inflated asking price of £60/$70 for a game in that category feels wasteful… even more so to think that a physical copy of the game would just end up gathering dust on a shelf.
All that being said, I don’t expect to see “physical” copies of games disappear entirely. As we’ve surprisingly seen with the resurgence of the vinyl and cassette markets in music, there’s a hard core of collectors (and hipsters) who long for those slightly archaic formats – and the same will almost certainly be true of video games, too. Many games that began as digital-only products end up releasing a physical copy on a disc or cartridge – Hades, one of my favourite games of 2021, is one such example. And “collector’s editions” of games aren’t going anywhere, either. So for collectors and fans of games in boxes, I don’t think they’re going to entirely disappear. Whether they’ll remain affordable is another matter, of course!
Many modern artists release their albums on vinyl.
Returning to the quotation that prompted all of this, though, here’s what I have to say: I’m totally fine with renting most of the games I play. I can think of several titles from just the past couple of years that I paid full price or close to full price for that 100% did not deserve it, and if I could’ve tried those games as part of a subscription package, I could’ve saved myself some money and bother! For the way I personally play games, subscriptions and renting are perfectly fine. And for those occasional once-in-a-generation masterpieces like Baldur’s Gate 3? I’m happy to splurge!
The way all of us engage with media has changed a lot over the past decade – and it changed in the decade preceding it, too. There will undoubtedly be more changes to come in the years ahead, and it’s entirely plausible that a return to one-off purchases and full ownership will be on the cards. But right now, subscriptions and renting are the way things are going. The transformation has already happened in music, it’s ongoing if a little unsettled in film and television, and gaming is just beginning to catch up. There are drawbacks, of course, and we mustn’t kid ourselves: corporations are doing this for their benefit, not ours. But as someone on a low income, and who remembers growing up as a gamer with literally a few pennies in my pocket, having access to a massive library of titles for one monthly price still feels like a great deal. And if I don’t own any of those titles and can’t replay them if they get taken off the service… well, that’s a trade-off I’m okay with.
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, publisher, and/or developer. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I have very little interest in the new survival/monster game Palworld. I’ve never engaged with titles like Monster Hunter or Pokémon, so the game just wasn’t on my radar. But an issue has come up for Palworld that I think is an important one not only for the games industry, but for entertainment and media as a whole, and I felt compelled to add my two cents to the conversation.
If you haven’t heard, Palworld has been accused of “ripping off” or plagiarising the long-running Pokémon series. The game uses some familiar designs for its monsters, and although I haven’t bought it or played it for myself, I understand that some elements of its gameplay are similar, too, with players being able to “catch” monsters and use them in battles.
Sheep-like critters with machine guns in a promo screenshot for Palworld.
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company, who jointly own and develop the Pokémon series, have even commented on this, with the latter releasing a statement saying that they “intend to investigate” Palworld and “take appropriate measures to address any acts that infringe on intellectual property rights.” I’ve linked to The Pokémon Company’s full statement at the end of this piece so you can read it in full if you’re interested.
Whether you like Palworld or not, the issue this raises is a genuinely interesting one – and it’s one that the games industry hasn’t really wrangled with for a long time, at least not in public. The basic question is this: can any company claim ownership of, and potentially patent, trademark, or copyright, an entire genre, style of game, or gameplay mechanic?
Do Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have a monopoly on designs and gameplay elements?
The answer should be obvious: no, of course not, don’t be stupid. The Pokémon Company and Nintendo can’t own the concept of a game with battling monsters any more than Rockstar could own the open-world sandbox crime genre, or PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds could own battle royale. The developers of PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds tried in vain to claim ownership of the battle royale genre, even going so far as to try to sue Epic Games, creators of Fortnite, over the perceived “copying.” That lawsuit went nowhere – and rightly so.
I’m old enough to remember when first-person shooters were literally called “Doom clones.” Doom popularised the first-person shooter in the early 1990s, and on the back of its success, dozens of other FPS titles were developed. But Doom’s creators didn’t lawyer up and try to prevent anyone else from making a first-person shooter at the time, nor did Rockstar go after the likes of the Saints Row series in the mid-2000s.
Doom (1993) popularised – but did not invent – the first-person shooter.
Going all the way back to the earliest video games, new titles have come along that used similar styles, designs, and gameplay elements. Some of these games have gone on to innovate, pioneering entire sub-genres and gameplay mechanics, and if they’d been shut down or prevented from existing by excessive copyright lawsuits or patents, gaming today would be in a much worse place. The history of gaming is one of piecemeal innovation, and of companies jumping on popular genres, innovating, and pushing boundaries.
There were first-person titles literally decades before Doom, with 1980’s Battlezone in particular being a noteworthy progenitor. And there were crime games and open-world titles years before Grand Theft Auto III came along. So in neither case can the developer claim to have wholly independently “invented” something, even if their title was the one that popularised it. That was the fundamental flaw in the PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds lawsuit.
PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds didn’t win its lawsuit against Epic Games.
Stepping away from gaming, we can look to cinema and even literature for other examples. No one would try to make the claim that only Tolkien should be allowed to write fantasy, or that fictional races like elves and orcs are somehow copyrightable. Nor would anyone be able to argue that the owners of 1927’s Metropolis should be able to trademark the entire sci-fi genre. That isn’t how art and media work or have ever worked.
Look at a film like Galaxy Quest, or a TV series like The Orville. Both lean heavily on the Star Trek franchise for inspiration (and parody), but Paramount wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if it tried to take their creators to court. And once again, that’s because Paramount doesn’t own the sci-fi genre, or even the “explorers on a faster-than-light spaceship seeking out new life” sub-genre of sci-fi. Anyone is allowed to tell their own stories – as long as they don’t use trademarked names or characters for profit.
The Orville pays homage to the Star Trek series in more ways than one.
If Palworld had its own Pikachu or Charizard, maybe Nintendo and The Pokémon Company would have an argument here. But from what I’ve seen, the game’s monsters all have unique names, and while they may look similar to critters from the Pokémon series… so what? You can’t claim ownership of any and all yellow-haired monsters in every video game. That’s the kind of claim that would be laughed out of court.
Maybe The Pokémon Company and Nintendo have been complacent, because there hasn’t really been a serious challenger to the Pokémon series before. Monster Hunter exists in a similar space, as do games in the Digimon series, but Pokémon has been a force unto itself for a long time. Perhaps the sudden arrival of Palworld struck a nerve, or perhaps Nintendo is worried because recent Pokémon titles haven’t been well-received.
I can see why Palworld appeals to fans of the Pokémon games.
But none of that actually matters. Palworld has as much right to exist as any of the 873 Pokémon games, and if its better than anything that The Pokémon Company has done in recent years… well, they’ll have to adapt and do better. They’ll have to make better games, actually finish working on them before releasing them, and maybe even look at some of the features included in Palworld that players have enjoyed. Pokémon has arguably been pretty stagnant for a while, at least from what I can see looking in from the outside, so a kick up the backside from a genuine competitor could be just what the series needs. Complacency breeds stagnation and ultimately decline, but competition can revitalise a flagging series.
Rather than seeing Palworld as a problem to be crushed, The Pokémon Company and Nintendo should view its entry into the marketplace as a window of opportunity. After years of having the monster-battling space all to themselves, there’s now the potential to look at how other developers might handle that kind of game – and even opportunities to learn and grow. But that would take the kind of critical thinking that Nintendo doesn’t always have a knack for!
The Pokémon series has been running for decades, so a challenge and shake-up couldn’t hurt.
Either way, Palworld is here to stay. I can’t imagine that the game will be pulled from sale or forced to be shut down because of a complaint from Nintendo and The Pokémon Company, because any threat of legal action would surely be doomed to failure – as it has been every other time it’s been tried by other publishers and developers. Even if we accept that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company originated the monster-battling sub-genre (which is very much up for debate, as Pokémon itself is a variation on the role-playing game genre), they don’t get to claim ownership of it exclusively. And even if Palworld uses similar designs, visual styles, and gameplay mechanics… none of those things are copyrightable. This argument will go nowhere.
I will concede that, from what I’ve seen, parts of Palworld do look similar to the Pokémon series. And from the point of view of a fan or player, I can absolutely understand wanting to leave it a negative review pointing that out, or even to boycott it and refuse to play it because of its perceived “ripping off” of the Pokémon series. That’s absolutely fine on an individual level – and I can definitely appreciate why some Pokémon fans might see things that way. But that’s very much a personal, individual decision – and one that has no bearing on any copyright law or trademark case!
For my money, Palworld is a title I’m happy to skip. It’s not my thing – just like Pokémon isn’t. But I found this argument to be interesting – particularly when The Pokémon Company itself weighed in. I doubt we’ll hear much more about this; if The Pokémon Company has decent lawyers, they’ll tell them pretty quickly that nothing in Palworld comes close to violating copyright laws. But hey, I’ve been wrong about these things before… and in a way, I’d quite like to see this issue litigated, especially if it ends up embarrassing Nintendo and The Pokémon Company and costing them a lot of money!
You can read the full press release from The Pokémon Company by clicking or tapping here. (Warning: Leads to an external website)
Palworld is out now for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Palworld is the copyright of Pocket Pair. All other titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective publishers, developers, and/or distributors. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
If you missed it, the so-called Game “Awards” was broadcast a few days ago. I don’t usually pay a lot of attention to the event – I have my own End-of-Year Awards to prepare for, after all! – but one particularly striking image has come out of the highly-commercial event, and I wanted to share my two cents.
Overshadowing the awards ceremony itself, and even many of the award winners, was a simple phrase that was shown on a massive prompt facing the stage: “Please Wrap It Up.” After being given as little as thirty seconds to speak upon receiving an award, the message would be displayed to developers and award-winners – before music would begin to play and they’d be ushered off-stage. Out of the entire three-hour broadcast, barely ten minutes was given to the award-winners themselves – who are, surely, supposed to be the stars of any awards ceremony. The rest of the time was dedicated to advertisements, trailers, speeches by the presenters, and even musical acts. Some awards weren’t even presented at all, being skipped over in a mere couple of seconds.
The now-infamous sign.
I’m far from the only person to have noticed this, and that’s surely because the Game “Awards” has become incredibly unbalanced. By prioritising trailers and presenters plugging upcoming games live on stage over the actual awards, the Game “Awards” is in danger of losing its audience. People turned up hoping to see their favourite titles of the year being honoured, not ushered off-stage after thirty seconds to make way for an incoherent ramble from an overhyped developer about his latest (completely unseen) title. Yes, I’m talking about Hideo Kojima. Or to make way for yet another trailer or commercial – practically all of which, this year, were entirely CGI creations that didn’t show any gameplay.
There’s a line to walk here. I think a lot of folks would agree that the likes of the Academy Awards and Golden Globes, which honour the best films of the year, can be pretentious and can feel like an industry congratulating itself and inflating the egos of its stars a little too much. Fewer and fewer people pay attention to the Oscars and Golden Globes as a result; those broadcasts have been losing viewers by the boatload over the past few years.
Nicolas Cage at the 1997 Oscars.
But would more people tune in to the Oscars if half of the awards weren’t presented on-screen, actors and directors were given less time to speak, and the broadcast was overstuffed with adverts and trailers? I mean, more than half of the Game “Awards” three-hour presentation consisted of trailers and adverts. That seems excessive, and there has got to be a way to strike a better balance.
The creators and producers of the Game “Awards” are trying to frame the event as video gaming’s equivalent to the Oscars or the Golden Globes… but if the games industry wants that kind of prestige, the ceremony has to be handled better. Right now, it’s an overblown advertisement – worse, somehow, than the likes of E3, because at least with E3 I knew from the start what I was getting into. The Game “Awards,” by putting its emphasis on the statuettes it plans to hand out, feels deliberately dishonest in its marketing. But at least it has that in common, rather ironically, with many of the video games it advertises.
Look, it’s a new Jurassic Park game!
It feels incredibly disrespectful to developers to invite them to a fancy ceremony under the guise of potentially receiving an award – only to then give them in some cases literally no time whatsoever on the stage to accept that award. If these awards are, as the organisers would like you to believe, the most prestigious in the industry… shouldn’t they want to see people receiving them? Shouldn’t that part of the broadcast be the biggest deal? After all, if receiving a Game Award is so unimportant that it’s relegated to a footnote in its own live presentation, why should anyone give a shit about who the winners or nominees are? If the titular trophies are so meaningless to the Game “Awards” itself… what’s the point?
I don’t like to throw the word “scam” around lightly; I think too many people do that these days, leading to the word’s impact and severity being diminished. But if you entice audiences to turn up to your event under false pretences… we’re definitely getting close to “scam” territory. The Game “Awards” pretends to be an Oscars-style ceremony with fancy suits and statuettes, then it flips the script on viewers and shows them basically two-plus hours of ads and barely ten minutes of actual award-winners. What else can we call such duplicity?
Geoff Keighly, principal organiser and presenter of the Game “Awards.”
Maybe some folks like tuning in to watch the trailers – and that’s okay. I like a good trailer as much as the next person, and it can be fun to look ahead to games that we might hope to enjoy in the months and years to come. Some of these trailers can be well-made, with creative visual effects, great soundtracks, celebrity endorsements, and much more. But that isn’t the point I’m making. If I choose to watch ads and trailers, that’s up to me and I can do that all I want. But if the Game “Awards” pretends to be an awards ceremony just to trick me into watching two hours of ads… well, I don’t appreciate that.
And let’s be honest: that’s exactly what’s happening here. The organisers of the Game “Awards” would ditch the statuettes in a heartbeat and make the entire event nothing but trailers, celebrities, and advertisements if they could get away with it. They don’t give the tiniest of shits about handing out awards or honouring the best and most creative titles of the year – all they care about is selling more and more advertising space and making a metric fuckton of cash, and they’ve done that by diminishing and minimising the actual awards portion of the broadcast so much that it feels like a footnote.
Baldur’s Gate 3 won “game of the year.”
So what’s the solution? I don’t really have one, if I’m honest. Maybe the complaints received about the “Please Wrap It Up” screen will prompt some minor changes, and perhaps for the next year or two you might see award recipients being given sixty or perhaps even ninety seconds to speak. But sooner or later the desperation to grab as much cash as possible will overwhelm the Game “Awards” organisers once again, and the excessive ad-to-award ratio will be back.
The only thing we can do, as consumers in this marketplace, is register our disapproval. Don’t tune in to the next Game “Awards” and let the organisers know that we care as little about their made-up trophies as they seem to. If fewer and fewer people tune in, and make it clear that the reason we aren’t bothering to watch is because of how unbalanced the broadcast is in favour of trailers and ads, maybe the message will get through. As we’ve seen with the collapse of E3, no event in gaming is sacred or safe – they rely on our viewership and patronage to remain relevant.
I won’t bother watching another Game “Awards,” because what’s the point? If the organisers care so little about the actual awards, why should I?
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. The Game Awards can be streamed now on YouTube. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
A few days ago, I shared the first of my gaming “hot takes,” and today we’re going to finish the job. I’ve got five more “hot takes” to round out this list, and I think we’ve got some spicy ones in the mix!
As I said last time, this isn’t clickbait! These are opinions that I genuinely hold, and I’m not inventing things for the sake of being controversial or to score “internet points.” I’m also keenly aware that I’m in the minority, and that plenty of folks can and will disagree. That’s okay – there should be enough room in the gaming community for differences of opinion and friendly discussion of these topics. This is all subjective, at the end of the day!
So if you missed the first part of the list, you can find it by clicking or tapping here. Otherwise, it’s time to get started!
“Hot Take” #6: Story matters more than gameplay (in most cases).
Starfield (2023).
When discussing Starfield a few weeks ago, I said something rather telling. I didn’t really appreciate it in the moment, but looking back, I think it sums up my relationship with video games as a hobby quite well: “I’m someone who’ll happily play through some absolutely bog-standard gameplay if I’m enjoying a story or getting lost in a fictional world…” If you want to see the full quote in context, by the way, you can find my piece on Starfieldby clicking or tapping here.
That line pretty much sums up how I relate to most games I play – and almost all single-player and action/adventure titles. There are some exceptions: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe springs to mind, as does Fall Guys, and some turn-based strategy games, too. But when I look at the games I’ve enjoyed the most since at least the second half of the ’90s, it’s story more than gameplay that appeals to me.
There are some exceptions!
It was a solid story and great world-building that convinced me to stick with Cyberpunk 2077, even when I felt its gameplay was nothing special. And on the flip side, it was a mediocre story set in a boring, empty world that led to me giving up on Starfield after less than thirty hours. When I fire up a single-player game, I’m looking for a story that grabs me, and a world I can lose myself in.
It doesn’t feel controversial to say “I want a game to have a good story,” but that isn’t really the point I’m trying to make. For me, story almost always trumps gameplay. While there can be exceptions – games with either incredibly innovative gameplay in which the narrative is less relevant or games that are so mechanically poor or bug-riddled that even the best story couldn’t salvage them – for the most part, that’s what I’m looking for in a new release.
I stuck with Cyberpunk 2077 because of its story.
It was Shenmue, around the turn of the millennium, that stands out to me as an example of this. Shenmue was the first game I’d played where the story seemed like it would be right at home on the big screen, and I absolutely adored that. Many games have come along in the years since with compelling characters, wonderful worlds, or magnificent mysteries… and I think that’s part of why I still love playing video games after more than thirty years.
If games had stuck to being glorified toys; story-less arcade boxes where the only objective was either “kill everything on the screen” or “keep walking to the right,” then I think I’d probably have drifted away from the hobby. But I was fortunate enough to play some absolutely phenomenal titles as gaming made that transition and many incredible stories were written.
“Hot Take” #7: More complexity and additional gameplay elements do not make a game “better.”
Darn young’ins.
Some modern games try to cram in too many features and gameplay mechanics that add nothing to the experience – and in some cases actively detract from it. I know this probably comes across as “old man yells at cloud;” an out-of-touch dinosaur whining about how modern games are too convoluted! And if this was something that only happened in a handful of titles, I guess I’d be okay with it. But it seems to happen all the time!
Strategy and “tycoon” games seem to fall victim to this very easily. I adored Rollercoaster Tycoon when it launched in 1999; it felt like a game that was simple to get started with but difficult to master. In contrast, when I tried 2016’s Planet Coaster… I was hit with such a huge wall of options and features that it was offputting. I didn’t know where to start.
Games used to be simpler…
There’s a balance that games have to find between challenge and complexity, and some titles get it wrong. I don’t have the time (or the energy) to spend tens or hundreds of hours becoming a literal rollercoaster engineer; I want something I can pick up and play, where I’m able to throw down a few theme park attractions without too much complexity. If the game had those more complex engineering sim elements in addition – as optional extras for players who wanted them – that could be okay. But when booting up a new game for the first time, I don’t want to encounter a dense wall of features and content.
This doesn’t just apply to strategy games, either. An increasing number of shooters and action/adventure games are incorporating full-bodied role-playing systems, and again it just feels wholly unnecessary. Look at a game from the early 2000s like Halo: Combat Evolved. It was a shooter – your character had a handful of weapons to choose from, and you blasted away at aliens. There was no need for levelling up, for choosing traits or skills, or anything like that. But more and more modern games, even in the first-person shooter or stealth genres, are going for these kinds of role-playing mechanics.
Skill points and levelling up in Assassin’s Creed: Mirage.
Don’t get me wrong: I love a good role-playing game. But when I boot up something like Assassin’s Creed or Destiny, the last thing I want or expect is to spend ages in menus micromanaging a character who, to be blunt, doesn’t need that level of engagement. Partly this is about balance, and in some cases it can be fun to level up and gain access to new equipment, for instance. But in others it really is a question of simplicity over complexity, and what kind of game I’m playing. Not every game can or should be a role-playing experience with a complex set of stats and skills.
Some titles really emphasise these elements, too, seeking to win praise for including a convoluted levelling-up system and skill tree. And a lot of the time, I find myself rolling my eyes at that. Leave the role-playing to RPGs and leave the overly-complicated systems to simulators and let me pick up and play a fun game!
“Hot Take” #8: I hate VR.
Promo image of the HTC Vive Pro 2 headset.
Is “hate” too strong a word to use in this context? I’m going to go with “no,” because I genuinely hate VR. I was worried when the first VR headsets started being released that the video games industry in general was going to go all-in on VR, because I felt if that were to happen that I wouldn’t be able to keep up. But thankfully VR remains a relatively niche part of gaming, and even if that were to change, it doesn’t seem like it’s going to replace regular old video games any time soon!
In the ’80s and ’90s, it seemed as if VR was something tech companies were working towards. It was a futuristic goal that was just out of reach… so when VR headsets first started cropping up, I really thought that they were going to be “the next big thing.”
TV shows like VR Troopers hinted at VR being the direction of travel for video games as far back as the ’90s.
But I’ve never found a VR system that I could actually use. I could barely manage playing tennis on the Wii – and even then I had to remain seated! I’m disabled, in case you didn’t know, and the move toward VR headsets and motion-tracking devices felt a bit threatening to me; these technologies seemed like they had the potential to lock me out of gaming.
There haven’t been many VR titles that have interested me, though. One of the only VR titles that did – Star Trek: Bridge Crew – was pretty quickly ported to PC without the VR requirement. While the influence of VR is still clearly present in that title, I think it demonstrates that at least some VR games can work without the expensive equipment.
Star Trek: Bridge Crew was quickly ported to non-VR systems.
There’s plenty of room for innovation in gaming, and for companies to try out different kinds of screens, controllers, and methods of interactivity. But for me personally, VR felt like a step too far. I’m biased, of course, because between vision problems and mobility restrictions I don’t feel capable of using any of the current VR systems – not to anything like their full capabilities, at any rate. But even with that caveat, I just don’t think VR has turned out to be anything more than a gimmick.
It’s possible, I suppose, that a VR system will come along one day that I’ll feel compelled to invest in. But it would have to be something I could use with ease, and none of the VR devices currently on the market fit the bill. So I won’t be jumping on the VR bandwagon any time soon!
“Hot Take” #9: We need fewer sequels and more original games.
I’ve lost count of the number of entries in the Call of Duty franchise at this point…
Across the world of entertainment in general, we’re firmly in an era of franchises, sequels, spin-offs, and connected “universes.” This trend has been going on for well over a decade at this point… but it’s been to the detriment of a lot of stories. There’s always going to be room for sequels to successful titles… but too many video game publishers have gone all-in on franchises and a handful of ongoing series at the expense of creating anything original.
And unfortunately, some original titles that have come along in recent years haven’t found success. I mentioned Starfield above, which seems to be seeing a precipitous drop in its player count, but we could also point to games like Anthem, Forspoken, or Babylon’s Fall – all of which were new settings featuring new characters that struggled to get off the ground.
Forspoken didn’t exactly light up the board, unfortunately.
The reason why I consider this one to be a “hot take” is simply because of how many players seem content to go back to the same handful of franchises or series over and over again. Some folks have even gotten genuinely angry with developers for sidelining their favourite series in order to work on something new, as if a studio should only ever be allowed to work on a single series in perpetuity. Sequels, prequels, and spin-offs are all more popular and attract more attention than brand-new experiences, and I think that’s short-sighted on the part of publishers and narrow-minded on the part of at least some players.
And I have to hold up my hands here: I can be guilty of this, too. I’ve written articles here on the website looking ahead to the next Mass Effect game, for instance, while it seems clear that at least some of the folks at BioWare wanted to branch out and create something different. And I have to admit that a sequel to a game I enjoyed or a new entry in a franchise I’m invested in is exciting – more so, arguably, than the announcement of a brand-new project.
Lots of people are eagerly anticipating the next Mass Effect game.
Brand-new games are more difficult and more expensive to get people to pay attention to. They’re also comparatively risky propositions from a corporate point of view; a ton of people will turn up for a game with a well-known name attached, even if it’s not all that good. But a brand-new world has to be something truly special to attract players in the first place – let alone retain a huge playerbase and make a profit.
But it’s a shame that that’s the situation we’re in, because when developers are restricted to sequels and the same handful of franchises, creativity is stifled. Where’s the next breakthrough going to come from if the only games a studio is able to make are sequels and spin-offs to earlier titles? And when audiences get tired of the decreasing number of surviving franchises… what will happen?
“Hot Take” #10: Graphics actually do matter.
Kena: Bridge of Spirits (2021).
This is perhaps the most contentious point on this list! I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard some variant of the expression “graphics don’t matter” when discussing video games. But you know what? If you showed me two similar games in the same genre, with the key difference between them being that one was a ray-tracing Unreal Engine 5 beauty and the other looked like a Nintendo 64 game that had been sneezed on… I know which one I’d choose to play.
When I was really getting into gaming as a hobby in the 1990s, it seemed like the push for better and better graphical fidelity was never-ending. Games used their visuals as a selling-point, and that trend continued into the 2000s with consoles like the Xbox and PlayStation 2. It would’ve seemed wild in those days for a game to not only take a backwards step in graphical terms, but to celebrate doing so.
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City looked great in 2002.
We need to separate “graphics” from “art style,” because they’re really two different things. Some games can do wonderful things with cell-shading, for example, or a deliberately cartoony aesthetic. When I say that “graphics actually do matter,” I don’t mean that photorealism is the be-all and end-all; the only art style that games should pursue. What I mean is that games that prioritise looking great – within their chosen style – are going to grab my attention.
I think an interesting example here is South Park: The Stick of Truth. No one would argue that that game is “realistic” in its art style – but that’s the point. Developers Obsidian Entertainment worked overtime to recreate the look and feel of the South Park cartoon – and what resulted was a genuinely fun and interesting visual presentation. Playing that game really felt like taking part in an extended episode of the show. Compare the way The Stick of Truth and its sequel look to the upcoming South Park: Snow Day. I know which one I’d rather play!
South Park: The Stick of Truth stands out because of its visual style.
When a developer wants to go down the photorealism route, though, it’s great to see just how far they can push modern hardware. There were moments in games like Red Dead Redemption II where the environment felt genuinely real – and that feeling is one that games have been chasing since the inception of the medium. I really can’t wait to see how graphics continue to improve, and how realistic some games might be able to look in fifteen or twenty years from now… if I live that long!
At any rate, visually beautiful games are always going to catch my eye, and games that don’t prioritise graphical fidelity will always have a hurdle to overcome in some ways. Gameplay and story are important, of course, but graphics aren’t irrelevant. The way a game looks really does matter.
So that’s it!
A Sega Dreamcast console. I had one circa 2000.
We’ve come to the end of the list – for now! I’m sure I’ll have more “hot takes” and controversial opinions about video games that I’ll be able to share before too long.
I hope that this has been interesting – and not something to get too worked up over! As I said at the beginning, I know that I’m in the minority and that a lot of folks can and will disagree. Although some people take gaming a bit too seriously sometimes, I like to think that there’s room in the community for polite discussions and disagreements.
Have fun out there – and happy gaming!
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some images used above courtesy of IGDB and Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Today I thought we could have a bit of fun and talk about some of my more controversial gaming opinions! This is the first part of a two-part list, so be sure to stay tuned in the days ahead for five more gaming “hot takes.” There were too many to fit into a single piece this time around!
Although this is intended to be lighthearted and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, these are opinions that I genuinely hold; I’m not making things up for the sake of clickbait. I’ll always give the caveat that I’m a fan of video games and an advocate for gaming as a hobby… but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things to criticise from time to time!
Let’s share some controversial gaming opinions!
Gaming has changed a lot since I first picked up a joystick at a kids’ club in the ’80s, and I’ve seen the games industry and games themselves evolve dramatically! Most of those changes have been for the better… but perhaps not every last one.
As I always say when we talk about potentially controversial topics: these are my wholly subjective opinions! I’m not trying to claim that I’m right and that’s the end of the affair – on the contrary: I’m acutely aware that I’m in the minority here! I share these “hot takes” in the spirit of thought-provoking fun, and you are free to disagree wholeheartedly.
With all of that out of the way, let’s take a look at some “hot takes!”
“Hot Take” #1: An open world isn’t the right choice for a lot of games.
Jedi: Survivor is a recent game that employed an open world style.
Open worlds became a gaming trend sometime in the early 2010s, and too many publishers nowadays insist on forcing the formula onto titles that are entirely unsuited to it. Some open worlds are great… but I’d argue that relatively few manage to hit the golden combo of being both a well-constructed open world and one that suits the game in question. There have been some fantastic open worlds in which stories were told that didn’t fit, and some games that could’ve been wonderful that were undone by the fetishisation of the open world formula in some corporate boardrooms.
In many, many cases, having distinct levels or separate sections of a larger map just… works. It allows for the game’s narrative to create an often-necessary sense of physical distance in between locations – something that even the best open world maps are usually unable to manage. And for an awful lot of stories – even in games that we might consider to be masterpieces – that can be important to the immersion.
An early open world pioneer was Shenmue on the Dreamcast.
Take Red Dead Redemption II as an example. That game is one of the very best that I’ve ever played… but there were several points in its single-player story where the open world formula came close to being a problem. After escaping the town of Blackwater by the skin of their teeth in the game’s prologue, Arthur Morgan and the gang roam around in the mountains for a while, before eventually finding a new place to make camp… literally five minutes away from Blackwater. And this would happen again later in the game, when the gang would escape the town of Valentine only to settle at a new campsite just up the road.
The game’s narrative presented these locations as if they were far apart, but the open world of Red Dead Redemption II, for all of the content that it was filled with, didn’t always gel with that. It’s a scaled-down representation of part of the United States, and I get that. But narratively, it might’ve worked even better if the game’s main acts took place in separate, smaller open maps instead of merging them all into one larger open world.
Red Dead Redemption II is a masterpiece.
Red Dead Redemption II is, without a doubt, one of the best games that I’ve ever played. So if the open world could be a problem there… well, you don’t need to think too hard to find examples of the open world formula tripping up worse and far less enjoyable titles! There’s absolutely nothing wrong with creating separate levels for a game – as has been done really since the beginning of narrative video games. Doing so often allows for more diversity in locations, environments, and terrain – and it’s something more titles need to consider taking advantage of.
I could probably count on my fingers the number of games that have genuinely made good use of an open world formula, and that have used that style of map properly. And when I think about modern games that I’ve really enjoyed such as The Last of Us, Jedi: Fallen Order, or the Mass Effect trilogy, they don’t use open worlds – and they’re much better for it.
“Hot Take” #2: Every game should have a robust easy mode – it’s an accessibility feature.
Difficulty options in Skyrim.
I’m a big believer in making games accessible to as many players as possible. That can mean including accessibility features like colourblindness settings, disabling quick-time events, or ensuring that subtitles are available. But it also means that players need to be able to tone down the difficulty – yes, even in your precious Dark Souls!
I suffer from arthritis, including in my hands and fingers. I don’t have the ability to pull off complicated multi-button combos any more – if I ever possessed such an ability! And as with any skill or set of skills, gaming abilities vary from person to person; even someone who isn’t suffering from a health condition may simply not be blessed with the reflexes or hand-eye coordination necessary to progress through some of the industry’s more punishing titles. Not to mention that many folks don’t have the free time to dedicate to learning precise button combos or the intricate details of specific boss battles.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance was a title I found too difficult to play, despite wanting to enjoy it.
And that’s a real shame – because there are some outstanding games that everyone should be able to experience. Stories in some games are truly awe-inspiring, and can be better in some cases than films or television shows. For those stories to be denied to people with disabilities or people who may not have the time to repeat the same boss fight or level over and over again is just… sad.
I absolutely detest the expression “not every game is made for every player” when this debate rolls around. It’s absolutely true that people like different things, so if I’m not into online multiplayer shooters then I’m probably not going to enjoy the next Call of Duty title. But that doesn’t apply to difficulty, or to making a game that millions of potential players are locked out of because of a skill mismatch or health condition. That kind of gatekeeping is honestly just pathetic.
Gaming should be accessible to as many people as possible.
I’d also add that the reverse is true here: certain games can be too easy for some players, and including the option to increase the difficulty in that case is likewise a good thing and something that developers should seek to include.
Difficulty settings have been a part of games going back decades, and they aren’t all that difficult to implement. At the very least, giving players the option to skip a level or boss battle after failing it multiple times should be achievable for every developer – and I can’t think of a good reason why a studio that cares about its audience wouldn’t want to implement something so incredibly basic. It doesn’t “hurt” the game to include an easy mode, nor does it damage the developers’ “artistic vision.” An easy mode only impacts players who choose to turn it on – and in a single-player game, why should anyone be judgemental about that?
“Hot Take” #3: Artificial intelligence isn’t “coming soon,” it’s already here – and the games industry will have to adapt.
Are you ready for the “rise of the machines?”
One of the hottest topics of 2023 has been the arrival of easily-accessible generative AI software. It seems that anyone can now create an article like this one, a photorealistic image of just about anything, an audio recording of a celebrity… or even code for a video game. This technology has well and truly landed, and I don’t see any practical way to prohibit or ban it – so the games industry is going to have to adapt to that reality.
I can see a lot of potential positives to AI. Modding, for instance, can now get a lot more creative, and we’ve seen already mods featuring AI voices that are basically seamless and can add a lot to a character or story. For smaller developers and indie studios, too, AI has the potential to be a massively useful tool – doing things that a single developer or small team wouldn’t be able to achieve.
AI is already here – and could prove incredibly useful to game developers.
But there are unquestionably massive downsides. The games industry has seen significant layoffs this year – despite most of the big corporations making record profits. Corporations in all kinds of industries are looking to replace as many real humans as possible with AI software… and for an all-digital product like a video game, the potential for divisions or even entire studios being shut down is firmly on the table.
The arrival of generative AI is going to shake things up, and because of the way it works, I can absolutely see there being less creativity in the games industry if too many big corporations go down that road. Because of the way these AI programmes work, they aren’t capable of truly creating – only reworking things that already exist and generating something with the same parameters. If major video games start using AI in a big way, you can say goodbye to innovation and creativity.
An example of AI-generated art that was created (in less than ten seconds) from a prompt I entered. Image Credit: Hotpot Art Generator
Whichever company cracks AI first is, in all likelihood, going to be rewarded – so there may even be a kind of “AI arms race” within the games industry, as some of the biggest corporations duke it out to be the first one to strike the right balance between AI and human-created content. What that might mean for games in the short-to-medium term… I can’t really say.
Generative AI is here to stay, though, and I don’t see a way around that. Some folks have suggested boycotting AI-heavy titles, but these consumer boycotts seldom succeed. If a new game that relied on AI during its creation ends up being fun to play, I daresay it’ll get played. Most players don’t follow the ins and outs of the industry, and may never even know the extent to which their favourite game was created using AI. I hope you’re ready for AI… because I’m not sure that I am!
“Hot Take” #4: Sonic the Hedgehog doesn’t work in 3D.
3D Sonic.
We’re going franchise-specific for this one! I adored the first Sonic the Hedgehog games on the Sega Mega Drive. I didn’t have a Mega Drive at the time, but a friend of mine did and we played a lot of Sonic in the early ’90s! Along with Super Mario, Sonic was one of the characters who scaled the mountain and was at the absolute peak of gaming… for a time.
But Sonic’s sole gimmick meant that the character struggled to successfully make the transition from 2D side-scrolling games to fully 3D titles. Extreme speed is something that works well in a 2D title, but it’s hard to code and even harder to play in a 3D environment.
Sonic’s “gotta go fast” gimmick works in 2D games… but not in 3D.
The most successful Sonic game this side of the millennium has been Sonic Mania… a 2017 title that was originally created by fans of the series before Sega got involved. Sonic Mania is an old-school 2D platformer in the style of the original Mega Drive games. It’s great fun, and a real return to form for Sega’s mascot after years of mediocrity.
Sonic’s fundamental problem begins with his sole superpower: speed. Extreme speed was something that felt wonderful in 2D… and not to mention incredibly innovative! But in 3D, it’s just so much more difficult to build worlds suited to moving so quickly – not to mention that it’s tricky for players to control a character moving at such speed.
Sonic Mania has been the most successful Sonic game in decades.
There have been 3D Sonic games that tried to innovate, but even the best of them feel like they’re missing something. I remember playing Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast and barely having to push any buttons; in order to make Sonic work in 3D, much of the interactivity had to be stripped out. That made for a far less enjoyable gaming experience.
When Sonic shows up in other titles – such as alongside Mario for an arcadey sports game, or in Sega’s Mario Kart competitor – then the character can be made to work. But those games almost always rob Sonic of his one defining trait: his speed. I’ve never played a 3D Sonic game that felt anywhere near as good as those original 2D titles.
“Hot Take” #5: Google Stadia was a good idea (in more ways than one).
Promo image of the Stadia control pad (right) next to a laptop.
The history of video gaming is littered with failed consoles and devices; machines that didn’t quite make it for one reason or another. 2019’s Stadia – Google’s attempt to break into the games industry – has become the latest example, being fully shut down after only a couple of years. There were myriad problems with Stadia, and Google has a track record of not backing up its projects and investments nor giving them enough time to deliver. So in that sense its failure is understandable. But I think I’m out on a limb when I say that it’s disappointing – and potentially even bad for the games industry as a whole.
Stadia offered a relatively inexpensive way to get started with gaming by relying on streaming. Gone was the need for an expensive console or PC; players could jump in using only their existing screen and a Stadia controller. Lowering the cost of entry to gaming is a good thing, and we should be looking around for more ways to do that!
Gylt was one of the only Stadia-exclusive games.
Secondly, Stadia represented the first potential shake-up of a pretty stagnant industry in nigh-on twenty years. Since Microsoft entered the video game market and Sega dropped out, there have been three major hardware manufacturers and three main gaming platforms. Disrupting that status quo is, again, not a bad thing in theory. Stadia, with Google’s support and financial resources, seemed well-positioned to be the kind of disruptive force that often leads to positive change.
Stadia won’t be remembered – except as the answer to an obscure pub quiz question in a few years’ time, perhaps. But it had potential when it was announced, both in terms of the way it could have brought console-quality games to people who couldn’t necessarily pay for a current-generation machine up-front, and in the way Google could’ve disrupted the industry, leading to competition and innovation.
Stadia was designed to be compatible with Google’s Chromecast devices – as well as other platforms.
I didn’t buy into Stadia on day one. As someone who has a gaming PC, I didn’t really feel it was necessary. And there were limitations to Stadia: a lack of exclusive games, no subscription option, and Google’s well-known history of prematurely shutting down underperforming products and services. All of these things put me off – and undoubtedly put off a lot of other folks, too.
But in a way, I regret the demise of Stadia. Its short, unsuccessful life will surely be a warning to any other company that might’ve considered launching a new console or a comparable streaming device, and if there’s one thing I think we can all agree on it’s this: the games industry needs a shake-up from time to time! Stadia couldn’t do it, unfortunately… but I hope that another device will.
So that’s it… for now!
Starfield (2023).
Stay tuned, because I have five more “hot takes” that I’m currently in the process of writing up.
As I said at the beginning, none of these things should be taken too seriously – this is just intended to be a bit of thought-provoking fun, at the end of the day.
There’s a lot to love about gaming as a hobby, and the quality of video games in general is way higher today than I could’ve imagined even just a few years ago. There are some incredible games out there; masterpieces in every sense of the word that have given me some of the best entertainment experiences I’ve ever had. And there are some games that I didn’t enjoy, too! I hope this look at a few of my “hot takes” hasn’t gotten anyone too upset!
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some images used above courtesy of IGDB and Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for Baldur’s Gate 3.
As Baldur’s Gate 3 has taken the gaming world by storm, an age-old monster has awoken from its slumber. No, not the mind-flayers – I’m talking about the practice of “save-scumming!” There have been more than enough hot takes on the subject over the past couple of months… but hey, what’s the harm in one more?
Save-scumming, if you’re unfamiliar with the term, is the practice of creating a save just before an important dice roll or event, then re-loading the save to try again if something doesn’t go to plan. Though ubiquitous across gaming, save-scumming was controversial in the ’90s with games like Fallout and of course the original Baldur’s Gate.
The original Baldur’s Gate was where many folks first heard about “save-scumming.”
For as long as games have existed, gamers have looked for ways to cheat and get around the system. Before save files were commonplace, writing down passcodes to unlock levels was one way of doing it, and of course cheat codes have been a part of the gaming landscape for decades. But save-scumming seems to hit a sore spot for some fans of role-playing games like Baldur’s Gate 3, and the success of the game has reinvigorated the debate in 2023.
I’m a big advocate of accessibility in gaming, and I include in that category cheat codes, god modes, save-scumming, and everything else. If someone wants to play a game but finds it too difficult to the point of being frustrating or offputting, why shouldn’t they find a way to make it easier and get some enjoyment out of the game? Maybe you like to play games for the challenge and to “git gud,” but not everyone does. Difficulty and accessibility will have to be the topic of a future article, though, because we’re dangerously close to veering off-topic!
What’s your take on save-scumming, Lae’zel?
I support save-scumming in single-player and co-op games, and in my own playthrough of Baldur’s Gate 3, I did it. So not only do I not care if you do it, I think it’s weird if you care that I do it!
In a single-player game, save-scumming doesn’t impact anyone except the person playing the game. If I choose to re-load an earlier save and try again, that’s nobody’s business but mine. You can shout at me till you’re blue in the face that it “goes against the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons!” and maybe you’re right about that. But I couldn’t give less of a shit if I tried.
A party of save-scummers.
And you know what? Practically everyone criticising save-scumming in Baldur’s Gate 3 is a hypocrite. Are you telling me you’ve never loaded a save game after dying? Not even in titles like Dark Souls or Elden Ring? If you choose to start a new game from the beginning every single time you die in a game or get a bad outcome… well, good for you, I guess. That’s certainly one way to play. But practically everyone loads their most recent save after dying against a hard boss or accidentally choosing the wrong dialogue option. That’s why games let you save your progress!
Baldur’s Gate 3 is an especially odd case for the anti-save-scumming crowd to pick on because I’d argue very strongly that the game goes out of its way to encourage the practice. How many other games can you think of that let you freely save during cut-scenes, dialogue, lockpicking, or even in the middle of a combat encounter? Baldur’s Gate 3 does – it even lets you create a save file right on the dice roll screen. Why would the developers do that if not because they know that many players want to play that way?
You can literally save on this screen for quick and easy re-loading.
A game as long as Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t one you can just pick up and play every day. It takes hours upon hours to progress through a single campaign – my own playthrough took more than 85 hours from beginning to end. And it’s a wonderful experience packed with unique encounters, well-written characters, and so much more. If my favourite companion is killed, or if I miss an important dice roll that means I can’t start a particular quest or get a valuable piece of loot… why should I have to progress through the rest of the game having a worse and less enjoyable experience? Why would I intentionally make the game less fun for myself just to preserve the nonexistent “integrity” of the digital dice? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me!
That being said, if you’re adamantly opposed to ever save-scumming, or if you’re playing with friends who don’t approve… well, you do you, friend. It’s none of my business how you choose to play a single-player or co-op multiplayer game that I have absolutely no role in, so I would never say to anyone that they “have to” engage in save-scumming. Part of me respects someone who intentionally plays the game that way, knowing that they may well end up with a worse outcome and less-enjoyable experience.
Cheers!
At the end of the day, we’re talking about playing games for different reasons and from different points of view. I play games because I like the enjoyment, the story, and the adventure. I like to feel in control of the experience I’m having, and part of that means going back a step if I didn’t get the outcome I was hoping for. But if someone else plays games for the challenge, or enjoys the randomness and unpredictability that dice rolls bring, that’s totally fine! Just because it’s not how I choose to play doesn’t mean it’s bad, weird, stupid, or “objectively” worse.
Gaming is supposed to be fun, and there are different ways to approach it. My idea of fun may not be the same as yours – and I’m okay with that. I’ll defend save-scumming because, for me, it’s something that improves my experience of games like Baldur’s Gate 3. I think it’s silly to judge the way someone else chooses to play a single-player or co-op title, and there’s certainly a degree of snobbishness or even arrogance from some critics of save-scumming as they seem to look down their noses at people who play the game “the wrong way.” That’s a bit sad, to be honest, because how I choose to enjoy Baldur’s Gate 3 has no impact whatsoever on anyone else.
So save-scum all the way to Faerûn and back, friends! Or don’t, if you don’t want to. But if you only have time for one playthrough and you miss out on an interesting character, an exciting questline, or even just a fun piece of loot… I hope it’s worth it!
Baldur’s Gate 3 is out now for PC and PlayStation 5, and will be released on Xbox Series consoles in 2024. Baldur’s Gate 3 is the copyright of Larian Studios, and is based on Dungeons and Dragons which is owned by Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Some screenshots and promo art used above courtesy of Larian Studios and/or IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
A couple of years ago, I put together two lists of things I really dislike about modern video games – but somehow I’ve managed to find even more! Although there’s lots to enjoy when it comes to the hobby of gaming, there are still plenty of annoyances and dislikes that can detract from even the most pleasant of gaming experiences. So today, I thought it could be a bit of fun to take a look at ten of them!
Several of these points could (and perhaps one day will) be full articles or essays all on their own. Big corporations in the video games industry all too often try to get away with egregiously wrong and even malicious business practices – and we should all do our best to call out misbehaviour. While today’s list is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, there are major issues with the way big corporations in the gaming realm behave… as indeed there are with billion-dollar corporations in every other industry, too.
Gaming is great fun… but it has its annoyances!
That being said, this is supposed to be a bit of fun. And as always, I like to caveat any piece like this by saying that everything we’re going to be talking about is nothing more than one person’s subjective take on the topic! If you disagree with everything I have to say, if you like, enjoy, or don’t care about these issues, or if I miss something that seems like an obvious inclusion to you, please just keep in mind that all of this is just the opinion of one single person! There’s always room for differences of opinion; as gamers we all have different preferences and tolerance levels.
If you’d like to check out my earlier lists of gaming annoyances, you can find the first one by clicking or tapping here, and the follow-up by clicking or tapping here. In some ways, this list is “part three,” so if you like what you see, you might also enjoy those older lists as well!
With all of that out of the way, let’s jump into the list – which is in no particular order.
Number 1: Motion blur and film grain.
Film grain and motion blur options in Ghostwire Tokyo.
Whenever I boot up a new game, I jump straight into the options menu and disable both motion blur and film grain – settings that are almost always inexplicably enabled by default. Film grain is nothing more than a crappy Snapchat filter; something twelve-year-olds love to play with to make their photos look “retro.” It adds nothing to a game and actively detracts from the graphical fidelity of modern titles.
Motion blur is in the same category. Why would anyone want this motion sickness-inducing setting enabled? It smears and smudges even the best-looking titles for basically no reason at all. Maybe on particularly underpowered systems these settings might hide some graphical jankiness, but on new consoles and even moderately good PCs, they’re unnecessary. They make games look significantly worse – and I can’t understand why anyone would choose to play a title with them enabled.
Number 2: In-game currencies that have deliberately awkward exchange rates.
Show-Bucks bundles in Fall Guys.
In-game currencies are already pretty shady; a psychological manipulation to trick players into spending more real money. But what’s far worse is when in-game currencies are deliberately awkward with their exchange rates. For example, if most items on the storefront cost 200 in-game dollars, but I can only buy in-game dollars in bundles of 250 or 500. If I buy 250 in-game dollars I’ll have a few left over that I can’t spend, and if I buy 500 then I’ll have spent more than I need to.
This is something publishers do deliberately. They know that if you have 50 in-game dollars left over there’ll be a temptation to buy even more to make up the difference, and they know players will be forced to over-spend on currencies that they have no need for. Some of these verge on being scams – but all of them are annoying.
Number 3: Fully-priced games with microtransactions.
The in-game shop in Diablo IV.
If a game is free – like Fortnite or Fall Guys – then microtransactions feel a lot more reasonable. Offering a game for free to fund it through in-game purchases is a viable business model, and while it needs to be monitored to make sure the in-game prices aren’t unreasonable, it can be an acceptable way for a game to make money. But if a game costs me £65 up-front, there’s no way it should include microtransactions.
We need to differentiate expansion packs from microtransactions, because DLC that massively expands a game and adds new missions and the like is usually acceptable. But if I’ve paid full price for a game, I shouldn’t find an in-game shop offering me new costumes, weapon upgrades, and things like that. Some titles absolutely take the piss with this, too, even including microtransactions in single-player campaigns, or having so many individual items for sale that the true cost of the game – including purchasing all in-game items – can run into four or even five figures.
Number 4: Patches as big as (or bigger than) the actual game.
No patch should ever need to be this large.
This one kills me because of my slow internet! And it’s come to the fore recently as a number of big releases have been buggy and broken at launch. Jedi: Survivor, for example, has had patches that were as big as the game’s original 120GB download size – meaning a single patch would take me more than a day to download. Surely it must be possible to patch or fix individual files without requiring players to download the entire game all over again – in some cases more than once.
I’m not a developer or technical expert, and I concede that I don’t know enough about this topic on a technical level to be able to say with certainty that it’s something that should never happen. But as a player, I know how damnably annoying it is to press “play” only to be told I need to wait hours and hours for a massive, unwieldy patch. Especially if that patch, when fully downloaded, doesn’t appear to have actually done anything!
Number 5: Broken PC ports.
This is supposed to be Joel from The Last Of Us Part 1.
As I said when I took a longer look at this topic, I had hoped that broken PC ports were becoming a thing of the past. Not so, however! A number of recent releases – including massive AAA titles – have landed on PC in broken or even outright unplayable states, plagued by issues that are not present on PlayStation or Xbox.
PC is a massive platform, one that shouldn’t be neglected in this way. At the very least, publishers should have the decency to delay a PC port if it’s clearly lagging behind the console versions – but given the resources that many of the games industry’s biggest corporations have at their disposal, I don’t see why we should accept even that. Develop your game properly and don’t try to launch it before it’s ready! I’m not willing to pay for the “privilege” of doing the job of a QA tester.
Number 6: Recent price hikes.
It must be some kind of visual metaphor…
Inflation and a cost-of-living crisis are really punching all of us in the face right now – so the last thing we need are price hikes from massive corporations. Sony really pissed me off last year when they bragged to their investors about record profits before turning around literally a matter of weeks later and announcing that the price of PlayStation 5 consoles was going to go up. This is unprecedented, as the cost of consoles usually falls as a console generation progresses.
But Sony is far from the only culprit. Nintendo, Xbox, Activision Blizzard, TakeTwo, Electronic Arts and practically every major corporation in the games industry have jacked up their prices over the last few years, raising the basic price of a new game – and that’s before we look at DLC, special editions, and the like. These companies are making record-breaking profits, and yet they use the excuse of “inflation” to rip us off even more. Profiteering wankers.
Number 7: The “release now, fix later” business model is still here.
The player character falling through the map in Star Wars Jedi: Survivor.
I had hoped that some recent catastrophic game launches would have been the death knell for the “release now, fix later” business model – but alas. Cyberpunk 2077 failed so hard that it got pulled from sale and tanked the share price of CD Projekt Red… but even so, this appalling way of making and launching games has persisted. Just in the first half of 2023 we’ve had titles like Hogwarts Legacy, Redfall, Jedi: Survivor, Forspoken, and The Lord of the Rings: Gollum that arrived broken, buggy, and unplayable.
With every disaster that causes trouble for a corporation, I cross my fingers and hope that lessons will be learned. But it seems as if the “release now, fix later” approach is here to stay. Or at least it will be as long as players keep putting up with it – and even defending it in some cases.
Number 8: Day-one DLC/paywalled day-one content.
An example of a “digital deluxe edition” and its paywalled content.
It irks me no end when content that was clearly developed at the same time as the “base version” of a game is paywalled off and sold separately for an additional fee. The most egregious example of this that comes to mind is Mass Effect 3′s From Ashes DLC, which was launched alongside the game. This DLC included a character and missions that were completely integrated into the game – yet had been carved out to be sold separately.
This practice continues, unfortunately, and many modern titles release with content paywalled off, even if that content was developed right along with the rest of the game. Sometimes these things are designed to be sold as part of a “special edition,” but that doesn’t excuse it either. Even if all we’re talking about are character skins and cosmetic content, it still feels like those things should be included in the price – especially in single-player titles. Some of this content can be massively overpriced, too, with packs of two or three character skins often retailing for £10 or more.
Number 9: Platform-exclusive content and missions.
Spider-Man was a PlayStation-only character in Marvel’s Avengers.
Some titles are released with content locked to a single platform. Hogwarts Legacy and Marvel’s Avengers are two examples that come to mind – and in both cases, missions and characters that should have been part of the main game were unavailable to players on PC and Xbox thanks to deals with Sony. While I can understand the incentive to do this… it’s a pretty shit way of making money for a publisher, and a pretty scummy way for a platform to try to attract sales.
Again, this leaves games incomplete, and players who’ve paid full price end up getting a worse experience or an experience with less to do depending on their platform of choice. That’s unfair – and it’s something that shouldn’t be happening.
Number 10: Pre-orders.
Cartman from South Park said it best: “You know what you get for pre-ordering a game? A big dick in your mouth.”
Pre-ordering made sense – when games were sold in brick-and-mortar shops on cartridges or discs. You wanted to guarantee your copy of the latest big release, and one way to make sure you’d get the game before it sold out was to pre-order it. But that doesn’t apply any more; not only are more and more games being sold digitally, but even if you’re a console player who wants to get a game on disc, there isn’t the same danger of scarcity that there once was.
With so many games being released broken – or else failing to live up to expectations – pre-ordering in 2023 is nothing short of stupidity, and any player who still does it is an idiot. It actively harms the industry and other players by letting corporations get away with more misbehaviour and nonsense. If we could all be patient and wait a day or two for reviews, fewer games would be able to be launched in unplayable states. Games companies bank on a significant number of players pre-ordering and not cancelling or refunding if things go wrong. It’s free money for them – and utterly unnecessary in an age of digital downloads.
So that’s it!
A PlayStation 5 console.
We’ve gone through ten of my pet peeves when it comes to gaming. I hope this was a bit of fun – and not something to get too upset over!
The gaming landscape has changed massively since I first started playing. Among the earliest titles I can remember trying my hand at are Antarctic Adventure and the Commodore 64 title International Soccer, and the first home console I was able to get was a Super Nintendo. Gaming has grown massively since those days, and the kinds of games that can be created with modern technology, game engines, and artificial intelligence can be truly breathtaking.
But it isn’t all good, and we’ve talked about a few things today that I find irritating or annoying. The continued push from publishers to release games too early and promise patches and fixes is particularly disappointing, and too many publishers and corporations take their greed to unnecessary extremes. But that’s the way the games industry is… and as cathartic as it was to get it off my chest, I don’t see those things disappearing any time soon!
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order.
In 2020, I played through Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order – and I had an amazing time with the game! It’s one of my favourite single-player experiences of the past few years… and one of the better Star Wars stories, too! Rumours of a sequel were confirmed a while ago, and Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is set to launch in a few weeks’ time following a short delay. This time, I’m going to talk about a few things that I’d like to see from the upcoming title.
Jedi: Fallen Order was great – but it wasn’t entirely without flaws. I have no doubt that EA and Respawn Entertainment – the publisher and developer of Jedi: Fallen Order respectively – will have listened to fans and critics on at least some of the points that were raised. Although I wouldn’t say any of these things were horribly damaging, the sequel is an opportunity to take on board feedback, tone down things that didn’t work so well, and generally hone and refine the experience.
Promo art for Jedi: Survivor.
So this list will fall into two parts: things from Jedi: Fallen Order that I’d like to see changed, and new additions that I’d like the game to include. As I always say: this is just the subjective opinion of one person! I feel hopeful that Jedi: Survivor will be a fun ride whether or not any of these wishes are included when the game is released. If I suggest a change you’d hate, or exclude something that you think should be blindingly obvious, well, just keep in mind that all of this is just one person’s take. There’s plenty of room in the Star Wars fan community for different points of view.
It also goes without saying that I have no connection to Electronic Arts, Respawn, Disney, or Lucasfilm! These ideas are mine and mine alone, and I’m not trying to claim that anything listed below can, will, or must be part of Jedi: Survivor. This is a wishlist from a fan that’s been written up for fun – and should be taken in that spirit!
With all of that out of the way, let’s jump into the list.
Part 1: Changes from Jedi: Fallen Order
Cal Kestis in Jedi: Fallen Order.
As great as Jedi: Fallen Order was, it wasn’t an entirely flawless experience from my point of view. I covered a few of these points in less detail when I reached the end of my playthrough back in 2020, and having recently replayed the game I’ve found a couple of other issues that are worth discussing.
Although I’d still say I had a wonderful time with Jedi: Fallen Order, there’s always room for improvement! The benefit of several years’ worth of advancements in game design, as well as a new console generation releasing since Jedi: Fallen Order was launched, should mean that there’s scope to make improvements to the way Jedi: Survivor plays.
Change #1: A better in-game map.
Jedi: Fallen Order’s holomap.
I found Jedi: Fallen Order’s holo-map clunky, unwieldy, and difficult to use. I appreciate that it’s “lore-accurate,” very closely resembling projections that we’ve seen droids like R2D2 make elsewhere in the Star Wars franchise, but its design really got in the way of its utility – at least for me. The all-blue look, the 3D design, and large, expansive levels all came together to make the map hard to use, with it being difficult to pinpoint one’s location. The ability to set waypoints on the map would be useful, even if they didn’t appear outside of the map during regular gameplay, and a general overhaul to bring the map in line with maps used in other titles would be incredibly helpful.
Because of Jedi: Fallen Order’s large-scale levels, having a good map is incredibly useful, especially on a first playthrough. By the time I came back to Jedi: Fallen Order, a few well-trodden areas of some levels were familiar to me – but even then, it would still have been helpful if the map was easier to use.
Change #2: Fewer sliding sections.
Wheeeee!
During the scripted opening level of Jedi: Fallen Order there was an incredibly tense and exciting sliding section, as Cal and Prauf found themselves caught on a wet and slippery piece of a junked starship as it fell apart. But this mechanic was repeated too many times in Jedi: Fallen Order, with several long, boring sliding sections that added nothing at all to the game.
I’m sure sliding will be back in some form in Jedi: Survivor, and that could be okay as sliding is a fairly common 3D platforming mechanic. As noted, sliding sections can be fun – if they’re done right and if there’s a narrative reason for their inclusion. But I hope the new game tones this down, doesn’t make sliding a mandatory part of every level, and in a more general sense, uses this particular trope of 3D platform-adventure games far more sparingly. I don’t want to feel like I’m playing a 3D platformer from the 1990s when I sit down to enjoy Jedi: Survivor!
Change #3: No more backtracking.
I lost count of the number of times I had to backtrack through levels…
A trope of many adventure games, going all the way back to the very beginnings of the genre in the ’80s, is that when the end of a level is reached, there’s an easy shortcut to the exit or overworld that doesn’t force a player to backtrack. In Jedi: Fallen Order, this unwritten rule of gaming was ignored for the most part – and that’s something I’d like the sequel to address.
Having crawled through a dungeon, solved puzzles, beaten enemies, and defeated the boss, it can be quite frustrating to have to then spend a significant amount of time running the whole route in reverse, going back through now-empty areas, past already-solved puzzles, with nothing to do and no objective except “get back to the ship.” These sections felt like unnecessary fluff; padding that may have been intended to make Jedi: Fallen Order’s relatively short twenty-hour runtime last a little longer.
Change #4: No more revisiting past levels.
BD-1 looking at several holographic planets.
In the same vein, Jedi: Fallen Order saw Cal return to the same levels multiple times over the course of his quest – with only a couple of smaller levels just being played through once. There’s scope to re-visit the same planet, if that’s necessary narratively, without revisiting the exact same part of the planet – and I think that’s where Jedi: Fallen Order tripped up.
I’d rather have eight smaller levels that I only play through one time apiece than four bigger levels cleaved in two that I have to return to later on in the game. This would allow for much more diversity in terms of level design, too, as only Kashyyyk’s two sections really managed to feel distinct from one another in Jedi: Fallen Order. I don’t want to see Jedi: Survivor go open-world, either, but I think it should be possible to do what many games have done since the inception of the medium and play through different levels or areas without returning to the same ones.
Change #5: No false choices.
The Stinger Mantis on Dathomir.
Jedi: Fallen Order was a linear game without many places where the path before Cal seemed to branch. But at one point early on in the game, Jedi: Fallen Order seemed to give the illusion of choice – whether to visit the planet of Dathomir or Zeffo. But there’s no way to progress beyond the opening area of Dathomir until Cal has levelled up and learned a new skill – a skill which can’t be learned until other levels have been beaten. There’s no way to describe this as anything other than a totally false choice.
There was a technical reason for offering players the opportunity to visit Dathomir, as that planet was the only place in the game where players could get a double-bladed lightsaber. But this option could have been moved or relocated to Bogano or Zeffo – it wasn’t, if I’m remembering correctly, something that had to be on Dathomir for some narrative reason. The game’s story also worked better and made more narrative sense if Cal went to Zeffo first, then to Dathomir later. In short, it wasn’t a great idea to offer this false choice – and I hope there won’t be others like it in Jedi: Survivor.
Change #6: Ditch the checkpoints.
Cal at a checkpoint.
Checkpoints in older games came about as a result of limitations in hardware and programming. In the very olden days you’d have to write down a passcode on a piece of paper to be able to get back to the same area or level, but as games moved to 3D in the ’90s, checkpoints became the go-to way to save progress. By the turn of the millennium, though, this too had become outdated! It became possible for players to freely save their progress, and as a result there was no longer any need for fixed checkpoints.
Unfortunately, however, some recent games – particularly those inspired by the Dark Souls series – have brought back checkpoints… and I’m not wild about that. Checkpoints can mean players end up having to replay whole chunks of levels – and checkpoints in Jedi: Fallen Order were not exactly ubiquitous. In short, there’s no real reason why a free save system can’t be implemented in a game like Jedi: Survivor – so I’d like to see it happen!
Bonus: Current-gen only. Wish: Granted!
A PlayStation 5 console and DualSense control pad.
I would have put this on my wishlist, but we already know from Jedi: Survivor’s developer that the game will be current-gen only. That’s fantastic news, as it means the game won’t need to be constrained by being compatible with the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 – consoles that will be ten years old in just a few months’ time. This is a model that many more modern titles ought to adopt! Now that we’re well over two years into the current generation of consoles, it’s getting silly that so many games are still limited by decade-old hardware requirements.
There are still issues for some folks in terms of acquiring a current-gen machine, and I get that. That’s the fault of Sony and Microsoft for not producing enough consoles to meet demand. But if the games industry is to evolve and improve, at some point older machines from the previous generation will have to be left behind. Jedi: Survivor is one of a handful of titles on the horizon that will do just that – and I hope we’ll see some visual and mechanical improvements as a result.
Part 2: Additions and New Features
Is this Jedi: Survivor’s main villain?
So those are a handful of things from Jedi: Fallen Order that I’d like the sequel to change or just remove outright. Up next, we’ll talk about a handful of additional features that I think it could be fun to include.
For this section, I’ll try to stick to things that seem plausible based on the kind of game Jedi: Survivor will be. I’m not going to suggest that Jedi: Survivor should be transformed into a role-playing game or an on-rails shooter! Instead, these are a few additional features and gameplay mechanics that I think could work well in this kind of linear, narrative-heavy, action-adventure title.
Addition #1: A vehicle or two to pilot.
It probably won’t be a Star Tours Starspeeder 3000…
One of my absolute favourite parts of Jedi: Fallen Order – and indeed of any Star Wars game that I’ve ever played – was when Cal took control of an AT-AT walker. Everything about that sequence was perfect: it was just the right length, the movement and shooting felt fluid and fun, and the walker felt unwieldy in exactly the way I’d have expected when I first saw them in The Empire Strikes Back decades earlier. This sequence was also a one-off, which made it all the more special.
I don’t think we need a second AT-AT in Jedi: Survivor – though that’s certainly a possibility! And I’m not suggesting that Cal should take control of the Stinger Mantis, with every journey between worlds turned into a mandatory spaceflight section. But if Jedi: Survivor could introduce a vehicle or two, similar to Jedi: Fallen Order’s AT-AT sequence, I think that could be incredible. Maybe Cal could take the controls of a starfighter for one mission, drive a landspeeder to reach an objective, or even do something as bold as hijack a star destroyer! Any of these vessels and vehicles could be a ton of fun to play with.
Addition #2: Carry over progress from Jedi: Fallen Order.
A maxed-out skill tree.
A big part of the story of Jedi: Fallen Order, and particularly the way in which narrative and gameplay intersected, involved Cal learning or re-learning a handful of Force skills. BD-1 also learned new skills along the way – and these skills became essential for completing puzzles and progressing through levels. With that in mind, I really hope that Jedi: Survivor won’t reset Cal.
Many sequels do something like this – where the player character, who may have been at a high level and mastered all of their skills by the end of the last game, appears to have lost all of those same skills at the start of the new game. In many cases it works fine, or at least passes by inoffensively enough. But because Jedi: Fallen Order did such a great job of weaving these gameplay mechanics into its story, it would be profoundly odd if Cal started Jedi: Survivor unable to use his basic Force powers like push and pull, or if BD-1 was likewise limited and unable to slice droids or climb ziplines.
Addition #3: Carry over at least some cosmetics from Jedi: Fallen Order.
A customised lightsaber.
This would really require some kind of integration between Jedi: Fallen Order save files and Jedi: Survivor – but it’s doable, as many other games have proven. In brief, it would be nice if players could retain their customised lightsabers from Jedi: Fallen Order, or at least if the cosmetic options that had been unlocked in the first game could be unlocked by default in the sequel.
We don’t know at this stage how other cosmetics will work, but many players – myself included – found a particular appearance for “our” version of Cal that came to define our playthroughs, so again it would be nice if this could be carried over somehow.
Addition #4: More cosmetic options.
It would be great to get more costumes and other cosmetics.
A game like Jedi: Survivor isn’t going to come with a character creator – nor does it need one! But Jedi: Fallen Order was pretty basic in terms of its cosmetic options, so it would be great to see more outfits and more variety in the sequel. Cal could be given hair and facial hair options, for example, in addition to different types of outfit.
Jedi: Fallen Order included jumpsuits and ponchos, and there were quite a few different colours of each. Naturally, as soon as I found a pink poncho, Cal wore nothing else for the rest of the game! But this is an area ripe for expansion, and it would be great to see customisation options for pants, tops, jackets, shoes, and more. Some of these could be unlockable via exploration, and others could be found at in-game vendors, perhaps.
Addition #5: A story that doesn’t rely too heavily on the minutiae of Star Wars lore.
Promo screenshot of Cal and Merrin.
Some franchises can feel difficult to keep up with, and Star Wars is definitely one of them. I felt hopeful a few years ago, with the erasure of the old Expanded Universe, that the wider franchise might become more accessible… but a decade of films, television shows, animated kids’ shows, books, comics, games, and more has led to the same feeling of an overcomplicated franchise beginning to arise.
With that in mind, it can be a fine line to walk between creating a story that fits in with all of that lore and is still accessible to newcomers and a more casual audience. The inclusion of references and even characters from elsewhere in the franchise is totally okay – and expected, at least to an extent. But an over-reliance on minuscule details that most people won’t understand or know anything about can trip up a story.
Addition #6: Wrap up the bounty hunter story from the first game.
This side-story focused on Greez.
One of the odd things about Jedi: Fallen Order was its bounty hunter side-story. This storyline arrived in pretty spectacular fashion, with Cal being defeated and captured by bounty hunters. But it felt rushed, with the escape from the bounty hunters’ prison taking only a few minutes, and it was definitely incomplete. I don’t think there was a single mention of the bounty hunters after that episode, even as they’d occasionally show up as random enemies for the rest of the game.
There’s scope to do a lot more with this storyline. Heck, it could even become the sequel’s main story! But at the very least, I think we need to get some closure on this, somehow, by the time the credits roll. It could take the form of a single mission, multiple missions, or even just cut-scenes and dialogue… but one way or another, by the time the game ends this storyline should be wrapped up.
Addition #7: A story that doesn’t feel tacked-on.
Case in point.
Jedi: Fallen Order’s main storyline ended quite conclusively. The holocron was retrieved and then destroyed – and there was nothing left for Cal, Cere, and Merrin to do. There are plenty of opportunities for them to have another adventure, but any sequel story has to be careful – because it’s all too easy to wind up feeling unnecessary.
This is perhaps the most important point that we’ve talked about today. A story that brings back these characters needs to serve a purpose, and if it comes across as feeling like nothing more than a corporate-mandated sequel, that will be very disappointing. Star Wars hasn’t always gotten this right, with prequels and sequels telling unnecessary, tacked-on stories even in big-budget productions. So whatever this story is, and whatever Cal does next, I sincerely hope it’s going to feel worthwhile.
So that’s it!
Hang on, Cal!
That’s my Jedi: Survivor wishlist! I’m not sure when I’ll be able to play the game – money is tight at the moment, and with some hefty increases to some of my bills coming in April, I doubt I could really justify buying a brand-new, full-price game on release day – even if it’s one I’m as excited to play as Jedi: Survivor. But you never know, and I’ll certainly try to make space for it in the budget! I’d love to be able to play the game this year, at any rate.
I hope this was a bit of fun, and an excuse to look ahead to one of the most-anticipated single-player titles of the year.
After some disappointing entries in Star Wars’ cinematic canon, Jedi: Fallen Order felt like a breath of fresh air. As Star Wars continues to struggle, in my view at least, by doubling-down on legacy characters and stories of decreasing importance, I’m hopeful that Jedi: Survivor will see Cal, Cere, Merrin, and Greez continue to chart their own path. There are plenty of reasons to be excited for the game – and I can hardly wait to jump in!
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor will be released on the 28th of April 2023 on PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series S/X. Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is the copyright of Electronic Arts and Respawn Entertainment. The Star Wars franchise is the copyright of The Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm. Some promotional art and screenshots used above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Microsoft recently talked about the success of its Xbox Game Pass and PC Game Pass subscription services – which between them have somewhere in the region of 30 million subscribers. However, this was accompanied by news from Microsoft that sales on its Xbox platform are down, with some big games not selling as many copies as they might’ve been expected to in years past.
Some outlets and commentators have seized upon this news in a pretty bizarre way, trying to present Game Pass as some kind of “problem” for Xbox and Microsoft, even going so far as to say that Game Pass is “harming” the company. But… Game Pass was designed to lead to fewer sales. It’s something that’s baked into the subscription model. To use a bit of game dev lingo: it’s a feature, not a bug.
An example of the kind of reactions we’re talking about. Image: DreamcastGuy via YouTube
Saying that Game Pass is “harming” sales of games on PC and Xbox is like saying Netflix is harmful to sales of films on VHS, or that Spotify has led to fewer cassettes being sold. The entire point of creating a subscription is to sign people up for the long-term. There are legitimate questions about the viability of the subscription model in the video gaming space, because it’s new and relatively untested. But to say that it’s “harmful” to game sales is, in my view anyway, entirely missing the point.
Consider what Microsoft’s objective is with Game Pass. They hope to create a “Netflix of video games,” where players sign up and remain subscribed for the long haul, playing the games they want as they become available. It’s intended to work in a similar way to the way subscription services work with other forms of media. By definition, that means fewer physical and digital sales. Microsoft will have known this going in, and fully expected it.
Game Pass is shaking up the industry.
Microsoft sees an opportunity to make the Game Pass model the future of gaming. Rather than buying individual titles, players will pay one monthly fee and have access to a range of titles on either PC, Xbox, or both. With a linked Xbox account also tracking achievements, adding friends, and playing online, the corporation hopes that this will keep players “loyal” to their brand for console generation upon console generation.
There’s a subset of self-professed “hardcore gamers” who vocally lament the decline of physical media in gaming, and it seems to me that it’s predominantly these folks who are upset by Game Pass as a concept – and they always have been. If I may be so bold: they’re dinosaurs, and the way they like to purchase and own games is on the way out. We’ve talked about this before, but there will come a time – perhaps within just a few years – when there will no longer be anywhere to buy physical copies of games. Certainly in the area where I live, most dedicated gaming shops have already closed their doors.
There are fewer and fewer retailers like this these days.
The industry is moving on because players are moving on. The convenience of digital downloads is, for a clear majority of players, something to be celebrated. It began on PC with the likes of Steam, but now it also includes Game Pass as well as other digital shops. The way most players choose to engage with games companies is changing – and that trend shows no signs of slowing down, let alone reversing.
Maybe Game Pass won’t end up being the subscription service that takes the gaming world by storm. Perhaps some other platform will come along to dethrone it, a service that offers more games at a lower price, or one that can – somehow – be available on multiple platforms. But Game Pass is, at the very least, the canary in the coal mine: a harbinger of what’s to come.
An example of some of the titles available on Game Pass for PC.
When I see folks criticising Game Pass or trying to manufacture stories about how difficult and problematic it is for Microsoft, I feel they’re rather like the old guard of the music industry railing against people taping their favourite songs off the radio, or a DVD retailer trying to fend off the likes of Netflix and Disney+. The way people consume media – all forms of media, gaming included – is changing, and subscriptions are the current direction of travel. That’s not to say it won’t change in the future, but right now, subscriptions are where the entertainment industry is headed.
With the convenience of digital distribution, it’s hard to see a way back. Having tried Game Pass for myself, it already feels like a big ask to go back to paying £50-60 – or more, in some cases – for a single title when there are dozens available on subscription. Even just playing a couple of new games a year is still cheaper on Game Pass than buying them outright. And the more people who sign up, the more that feeling will grow. Rather than whining about Game Pass, other companies need to be taking note.
Game Pass feels like good value right now.
In the television and film space, we’re firmly in the grip of the “streaming wars,” and that has been a double-edged sword for sure. On the one hand, there’s been a glut of amazing, big-budget content as streaming platforms and the corporations backing them up continue to slog it out, competing for every subscriber. But on the other, the industry feels quite anti-consumer, with too many services charging too much money. Not all of the current streaming services will survive the decade, I am as certain of that as I can be!
But gaming has the potential to be different. Unless Microsoft gives its explicit consent, no other streaming service could set up shop on Xbox consoles, nor could anyone but Sony run a subscription for PlayStation titles. The titans of the gaming industry will continue to compete with one another, but the issue of oversaturation of the kind we’re seeing in the film and television space should be avoidable.
Sony is (belatedly) getting started with the subscription model too.
Games companies will have to adapt. Raw sales numbers are already less relevant now that Game Pass is up and running, and they’re going to be of decreasing relevance as time goes on. The way in which developers and publishers measure the success of their titles will have to change as the industry continues this shift – and the companies that get this right will reap the rewards. Those who don’t – or who try to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it’s not happening – will fall by the wayside.
The way I see it, Game Pass is just getting started. 30 million subscribers may seem like a huge number – but it’s a minuscule percentage of the total number of gamers worldwide, so there’s huge potential for growth. There will be competitors that will rise to meet it – but all that will mean is that more players, not fewer, will get roped into long-term subscriptions. We’ve already seen the beginnings of this with Nintendo Switch Online, PlayStation Plus, and even the likes of Apple Arcade on mobile.
Subscriptions like Game Pass could reach huge numbers of people.
It’s mobile phones, more than anything, that I’d argue kicked off this trend. The biggest, fastest-growing gaming platform of the last decade is entirely digital and has been since day one. Players have always accepted digital distribution on their smartphones – because it’s always been the only option. Subscription services are the natural next step – and the only surprising thing, really, is that it’s taken as long as it has for a gaming subscription to become as successful as Game Pass.
The success of Game Pass is not without pitfalls, and as I said the last time we talked about the decline of dedicated gaming shops, it will impact some people more than others. Younger people, people on low incomes (as I am myself), and others will all find that their relationships with gaming as a hobby will change as a result. Not all of these changes will be for the better for everyone, and people who aren’t able to commit to a monthly expense, or who don’t have the means to do so, risk being left behind. But many of those folks are already priced out of the gaming market, especially as companies jack up their prices to unjustifiable levels.
A closed-down games retailer in the UK.
Some of the “hot takes” on Game Pass over the past week or so have taken me by surprise – but in some cases at least, we can look to the “usual suspects” of Sony supporters and die-hard believers in the supremacy of physical media. Stirring up trouble for Game Pass and Microsoft is a hobby for some outlets!
I’m not a defender of Microsoft by any means, and the corporation has made a lot of mistakes. But Game Pass, at least at time of writing in early 2023, feels like a good deal. It has a mix of new games, older titles, and some big releases – like Halo Infinite and Starfield – come to the platform on release day. I’ve discovered games I’d never have thought to try and been able to play games I’d never have purchased entirely because of Game Pass. That undoubtedly means I’m buying fewer brand-new games… but from Microsoft’s perspective, that’s entirely the point.
Microsoft operates the Game Pass subscription service.
We should all be vigilant and not simply accept what these big corporations want to do. They’re trying to corner the market and rope players into long-term subscriptions, and they’re doing so not because they think it’s particularly beneficial to players – that’s merely a coincidence. They’re doing it to maximise profits. Not having to split the proceeds with shops or storefronts is a big part of it, and Microsoft would rather take £7.99 a month, every month, than take a cut of the profits on a single sale that it has to share with other companies.
But if this corporate skullduggery is beneficial to players, why shouldn’t we participate? An Xbox Series S or a pre-owned Xbox One combined with a Game Pass subscription is an easy and relatively affordable way into the gaming hobby – offering players a huge library of titles that would be impossibly expensive for practically all of us if we had to buy each game individually. The disadvantages are the ongoing nature of the subscription and the inevitability of titles disappearing from the service either temporarily or permanently. But them’s the breaks – that’s the nature of subscriptions across the board. And with Microsoft doing all it can to buy up companies, more and more titles will be locked into Game Pass for the long-term.
There are reasons for scepticism, sure. But trying to spin this particular issue as a negative one for Xbox and Microsoft is disingenuous. Game Pass was always going to lead to fewer game sales in the long-run. Far from worrying about this, Microsoft’s executives will be rubbing their hands together gleefully… because right now, their plan is working.
Game Pass is available now for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X. Xbox, Game Pass, and other titles discussed above are the copyright of Microsoft; other games and titles may be the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are minor spoilers ahead for Disney Dreamlight Valley.
I don’t usually go for “early access” titles. Some developers and publishers really take advantage of early access, pushing out incomplete games and getting players to effectively pay full price to do the work of a quality assurance team, and just in general, I’d rather wait until a game is ready for prime-time before sinking my energy and money into it. A title has to be something truly exceptional to attract my attention while it’s still in early access. Enter Disney Dreamlight Valley.
At time of writing in November 2022, Disney Dreamlight Valley still has some of the issues that make early access titles so offputting – major missing features, an incomplete story, and some bugs, glitches, and areas where more development time is needed to give the game some polish. But despite that, I’ve sunk more than 100 hours into the game since it launched in early access back in August, and I’ve been having a whale of a time!
The title screen as of the most recent update.
Disney Dreamlight Valley blends the customisation and design gameplay of titles like The Sims with the casual life-sim gameplay of the likes of Animal Crossing, combines those with some simple but fun nonviolent puzzle-solving gameplay, and then also throws in character-focused storytelling that can absolutely compete with any narrative game on the market – at least if you’re a Disney fan! The game’s characters, all of whom are lifted directly from Disney’s extensive back catalogue of blockbuster films, feel real and feel fun to engage with, and the game has so much to offer to kids and adults alike as a result.
As expected, recent titles like Frozen and Moana feature in a big way, but Disney Dreamlight Valley also happily incorporates characters from titles that are almost certainly less well-known nowadays (especially among younger players) like The Sword in the Stone. In fact, the very first character that players will meet upon starting a new game is Merlin – a storytelling decision that I find incredibly bold.
Mickey Mouse, a player character, and Merlin.
Unlike in games like Animal Crossing, where villagers can feel flat and repetitive after a while, the characters in Disney Dreamlight Valley feel much more complete. Partly, it must be said, that’s because they’re all familiar characters from films that most players will be familiar with, but a big part of the way they come across in the game is down to some creative quest design and some pretty good writing. Characters will also interact with one another, stopping for a casual chat that players can overhear while wandering around the valley or participating in other quests, and this small detail goes a long way to making Dreamlight Valley feel like a real place and its inhabitants like real people.
As an early access title, there are of course areas with room for improvement. But I have confidence that developers Gameloft will take player feedback on board and implement changes and fixes as they have done already. Improvements have already been made, for example, to the in-game photo mode, to the impact weather can have on the game world, to certain character interactions that players generally weren’t happy with, and much more besides. One of the advantages of early access is that developers have an opportunity to get feedback from real players – and Gameloft has certainly shown a willingness to change, adapt, and tone down different elements of the game in response.
Promo screenshot featuring Ursula.
Disney Dreamlight Valley feels like it’s also taken on board feedback and criticism of other titles in the casual life-sim genre, particularly 2020’s Animal Crossing: New Horizons. Complaints and criticisms about that game and how difficult it was to play long-term when compared to other Animal Crossing titles abounded, and while Disney Dreamlight Valley is still very much incomplete – multiplayer and cross-platform play have yet to be added, for example – other criticisms that I and others levelled at New Horizons simply don’t apply here. Crafting, for example, is so much easier and smoother in Disney Dreamlight Valley, and the simple fact that tools don’t need to be replaced every five minutes is fantastic!
Characters feel dynamic and respond in real-time to events in the game, and each character has their own series of quests to play through in addition to the main storyline. While there’s a case to be made that exhausting all of the quests should bring the game to an end, there are still “daily duties” – mini-quests that can involve some or all of the game’s roster of Disney characters. Moreover, when the main quests and character quests have all been completed, Disney Dreamlight Valley remains fun to play as an Animal Crossing-esque casual life-sim game; there’s still fun to be had. Racing through certain questlines is not how the game is intended to be played, and several quests have natural timers – plants that take time to grow, or objectives that can only be performed at certain times of day, for instance.
Crafting in Disney Dreamlight Valley.
Although the in-game economy works relatively well at the moment, there are potentially things that could be reworked or rebalanced in future. The titular “dreamlight,” for example, that players accumulate as a reward for accomplishing tasks and finishing quests has a limited number of uses – and when all of the different areas of the map have been unlocked, I found myself simply accumulating dreamlight by the boatload with no way to use it or spend it.
Likewise, the in-game “coins”, while slow to acquire at first, soon build up, and I found that getting a moderately decent crop farm going soon racked me up over 2 million coins – and although there are things to spend those coins on, I’ve hardly made a dent in a money vault that even Scrooge McDuck would be envious of!
Scrooge McDuck in Disney Dreamlight Valley.
While we’re on the subject of currencies, it’s clear that when Disney Dreamlight Valley exits its early access phase and goes free-to-play that a significant focus for the game will be on recurring monetisation and in-game microtransactions. Gameloft and Disney have not promised that all characters and story content will take the form of free updates, either, so there’s a risk in the longer-term that Disney Dreamlight Valley will turn into one of those titles that can be quite a money-sink. For parents of younger kids, that can absolutely be an issue, and it’s worth being aware of at this stage. While Disney Dreamlight Valley is currently quite generous with its various in-game currencies, one in particular – “moonstones” – is clearly being readied to be sold.
Moonstones can be earned in-game at time of writing, and are used to purchase cosmetic items like furniture, clothing, and motifs that can be added to custom designs. Players are also required to spend a large cache of moonstones in order to unlock more items for purchase via a kind of “season pass” that, once again, feels like it will be the target for future monetisation. Free-to-play games and ongoing “live services” require a source of income, but again it’s worth being aware even at this early stage that this is the model Disney Dreamlight Valley plans to adopt.
In-game monetisation is planned in future.
Character customisation is fun in Disney Dreamlight Valley, and I feel that there are a decent range of options including different body types, hairstyles, and so on – with some extras that can be unlocked in-game that weren’t available right at the start. There’s also a huge range of different types of furniture – many pieces of which are lifted from or inspired by modern and classic Disney films. And while there are plenty of clothes to choose from, I think I’d like to see a few more outfits and costumes that allow players to dress up as their favourite Disney characters. Some of the clothes feel a little too “generic” to me, and some of the costumes and outfits are more “inspired by” the films rather than directly taken from them. So that’s an area that I’d like to see improved upon! To give one example that may be more relevant to some fans than others, while Disney Dreamlight Valley includes a decent approximation of Princess Anna’s dress from Frozen, there really isn’t a good facsimile of Elsa’s dress from the same film, despite it being one of the most iconic of modern Disney Princess costumes.
But for the creatives among you, Disney Dreamlight Valley offers a pretty extensive customiser, allowing budding designers to create their own Disney-inspired outfits. The game includes a range of blank clothes – tops, dresses, hoodies, and even Mickey Mouse ears – that can be customised with patterns, designs, and much more. These designs are unlockable through gameplay, so the more time players invest in Disney Dreamlight Valley, the more options there will be when it comes to making fun outfits. Although I have the imagination and creativity of a colour-blind slug, even I managed to create a few fun designs with an intuitive and easy-to-use customiser.
Customising a dress in Disney Dreamlight Valley.
So that’s all there is to say for now! I may take another look at Disney Dreamlight Valley in the months ahead, perhaps when it’s ready to leave early access and go free-to-play. If you have Game Pass either for PC or Xbox, Disney Dreamlight Valley is incredibly easy to recommend. At £35/$30, there’s more than enough content to justify the price in my view – and coming in at less than “full price” is fair for a game that is still in early access and has a few issues as a result. However, despite being in early access, I found my 100+ hours with Disney Dreamlight Valley to be remarkably smooth and free from major bugs; there have only been a couple of occasions on which the game crashed, and thanks to a frequent auto-save, I didn’t even lose any progress.
There are anecdotal reports from folks who play on Nintendo Switch having a worse time with more frequent crashes and finding the game to be a less stable experience, but as I’ve played it on PC I can’t speak to that – however, it’s worth being aware of that and checking out other reviews if you plan to play on Switch.
Remy from the film Ratatouille.
For my two cents, Disney Dreamlight Valley is probably the most fun gaming experience I’ve had in 2022. For anyone who’s a Disney fan there’s a lot to love – familiar and new friends to meet and hang out with in a game that blends both narrative storytelling and casual life-simulation. I haven’t seen some of the newer films from which some characters were taken (Remy from Ratatouille and the titular Wall-E were both new to me) but even with that limitation, I had a whale of a time.
Disney Dreamlight Valley is also one of the best early access games that I’ve played – speaking for the PC version, at least. Despite a persistent issue with cloud saving (which I’ve been repeatedly assured is being worked on) the game is largely bug-free on PC, runs smoothly and plays exceptionally well. Were it not for the incomplete story and some impassable doors, you’d hardly realise that the game was in fact still in early access!
So there we go. I’m happy to recommend Disney Dreamlight Valley at this time. Check back when the game leaves early access and I’ll try to share my updated thoughts!
Disney Dreamlight Valley is out now – in early access – for PC, Mac, Xbox One, Xbox Series S/X, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, and Nintendo Switch. Disney Dreamlight Valley is the copyright of Gameloft and the Walt Disney Company. Some screenshots used above are courtesy of Gameloft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Since I covered the announcement of The Last Of Us Remastered… Remastered last year, I’ve left the project alone. I’m flat-out not interested in a game that’s been remastered or reworked for the second time in just nine short years, especially when the PlayStation 4 version is perfectly playable. I don’t seek out projects that I don’t like with the intention of crapping all over them; there’s more than enough negativity in gaming communities online that I don’t want to add to it.
But a widely-reported remark from a developer/animator (whose name I won’t share to avoid piling on) really pushed me over the edge. The Last Of Us Remastered… Remastered (or whatever it’s going to be called) is a cash-grab. It’s the second remake of a game that was released in 2013 at the tail end of the PlayStation 3’s life, and it’s being resurrected for the second time entirely as a cheap cash-grab by Sony.
The Last Of Us is being re-remade.
After sharing my initial thoughts back when the announcement was made, I was content to ignore this new remaster. I have no plans to buy it – especially not with a ridiculous £70 price tag (or close to £100 for the deluxe version) – so that was that. Comment made, time to move on. But for one of the senior developers to have the audacity to speak about the game in such a brazen and dishonest way… I just couldn’t let it lie.
The Last Of Us is a good game. It was a great way to close out the PlayStation 3 era for Sony, and it was the game that convinced me to buy my first ever PlayStation console. I consider it one of the best games of the 2010s, and even though its sequel struggled under the weight of a clumsy narrative that tried to be too smart for its own good, the original game hasn’t been sullied by that controversy and remains one of the best examples of narrative, linear, single-player adventures.
The Last Of Us is undeniably a great narrative experience.
But this second attempt to “update” The Last Of Us for a new console generation is motivated purely by profit. Sony is cheaping out; recycling a game that they already have rather than investing in something new. By reusing things like recorded dialogue and motion-capture performances, and by not having to pay a team of writers to come up with a new story, the project can cut costs compared to making a new game from scratch.
There are remasters and remakes that are absolutely worth your time. Resident Evil 2, for example, was remade a couple of years ago from the ground up, and updating a title from 1998 to bring it into the modern-day with a new engine, new voice acting, and so on was absolutely worth doing. It introduced the title to a crowd of new fans who didn’t play it the first time around – and for whom going back to a clunky PlayStation 1 title would be offputting.
The remake of Resident Evil 2 feels much more worthwhile.
The Last Of Us doesn’t have that excuse. Not only is the PlayStation 3 version still perfectly playable in its own right, the PlayStation 4 remaster is an iterative improvement, bringing sharper graphics and ensuring that the game can be played on both PlayStation 4 and new PlayStation 5 consoles. As I said when the project was announced last year, I can’t imagine it would be worthwhile to resurrect the game for a second time – not so soon after the first two versions were released.
New video game generations have offered diminishing returns over the years. There was a huge difference between games from 1980 to 1990, and from 1990 to 2000. But even by the turn of the millennium, things were slowing down. The difference in graphical fidelity between a game from 2000 and one from 2010 was less noticeable than it had been in previous decades, and the difference between a game from ten years ago compared to a brand-new game released today can be so small that it’s difficult to spot.
Is this image from the PlayStation 3, 4, or 5?
Grand Theft Auto V is the same game fundamentally as it was when it was released in 2013 – the same year as The Last Of Us – and it’s still going strong. There have been tweaks as the game was brought to new consoles, but those changes have been criticised for being incredibly minor. Skyrim, The Witcher 3, and many other games from the past decade likewise hold up incredibly well and are still a ton of fun to play.
The only reason for a project like The Last Of Us Remastered… Remastered to exist is to be a cash-grab. That’s why it was dreamt up and that’s all it will ever be. It might be a good cash-grab – and with a game as good as The Last Of Us at its core it should be, provided the new team doesn’t screw it up – but it’s still a cash-grab. And I don’t want to claim that the people working on it aren’t working hard – I’m sure that they are. I’m sure a lot of energy and passion has gone into this cash-grab from the developers. As someone who worked in the games industry, I know how passionate developers can be, and even when a game isn’t great, good developers will still give it their all. That’s commendable.
Promotional image for The Last Of Us.
But that doesn’t excuse trying to present a project like this as something it’s not. The Last Of Us Remastered… Remastered may end up being decent with pretty graphics and neat animation work that talented developers put a lot of time, effort, and passion into making. But that doesn’t make it any less of a cash-grab. I genuinely hope that it will be good – because I don’t want the reputation of The Last Of Us tainted by being associated with a sub-par remaster. But this isn’t a fundamentally new or even different experience; anyone who’s played the original game won’t need to play this version.
And that’s what makes it a cash-grab. It’s an attempt by Sony to, well, grab as much cash as possible for as little investment as possible. Without spending the big bucks that would be needed to create The Last Of Us Part 3, or any other brand-new game, Sony hopes to grind out a remaster that will save them some money but still rake in the cash from fans of the original game. And that strategy will probably succeed, if past experience is anything to go by.
For just $100, you can own the “Digital Deluxe Edition!”
Buy The Last Of Us Remastered… Remastered if you want. Or don’t. If you haven’t played the game yet, it might even be worth waiting for the new remaster to get the most up-to-date and visually polished experience. It’s definitely a game worth playing… but I’m not convinced that this version will be, at least not for me – nor for most folks who’ve already played it.
But whether it’s good, bad, or mediocre, and regardless of how hard individual developers have worked on it, The Last Of Us Remastered… Remastered is a cash-grab. Trying to pretend otherwise is either pure and selfish dishonesty or abject self-delusion.
The Last Of Us Part 1 will be released for PlayStation 5 on the 2nd of September 2022, and for PC at an unspecified later date. The Last Of Us is the copyright of Naughty Dog and Sony Interactive Entertainment. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Depending on where you are in the world, today or tomorrow will mark the 20th anniversary of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. The open-world role-playing game was one of a few titles in the early 2000s that genuinely changed my relationship with gaming as a hobby – and kept me engaged when I might’ve otherwise began to drift away. To me, even twenty years later it still represents the high-water mark of the entire Elder Scrolls series, and I’d probably even go so far as to call it one of my favourite games ever.
It can be difficult to fully explain how revolutionary some games felt at the time, especially to younger folks who grew up playing games with many of the modern features and visual styles that still dominate the medium today. But in 2002, a game like Morrowind was genuinely groundbreaking; quite literally defining for the very first time what the term “open-world” could truly mean.
For players like myself who cut our teeth on the pretty basic, almost story-less 2D games of the 1980s on consoles like the Commodore 64 or NES, the technological leap to bring a world like Morrowind’s to life is staggering. Considering the iterative improvements that the last few console generations have offered, it’s something that we may never see again, at least not in such a radical form. Comparing a game like Morrowind to some of the earliest games I can remember playing must be akin to what people of my parents’ generation describe when going from black-and-white to colour TV!
One thing that felt incredibly revolutionary about Morrowind was how many completely different and unrelated stories were present. There was a main quest, and it was an interesting one, but instead of just random side-missions that involved collecting something or solving a single puzzle, there were entire questlines for different factions that were just as long and in-depth as anything the main quest had to offer. It was possible to entirely ignore the main quest in favour of pursuing other stories, and that made Morrowind feel like a true role-playing experience.
For the first time (at least the first time that I’d encountered), here was a game that gave me genuine freedom of choice to be whoever I wanted to be – within the confines of its fantasy setting. There were the usual classes – I could choose whether to be a sword-wielding warrior, a sneaky archer, a mage, and so on – but more than that, I could choose which stories I wanted to participate in… and choosing one faction over another would, at least in some cases, permanently close off the other faction to that character. That mechanic alone gave Morrowind a huge amount of replayability.
To this day there are quests in Morrowind that I haven’t completed – or even started! That stands as testament to just how overstuffed this game was, and as I’ve mentioned in the past, the amount of content in Morrowind eclipses both of its sequels: Oblivion and Skyrim. Morrowind offers more quests, more factions to join, more NPCs to interact with, more types of weapons to use, more styles of magic to use, and while its open world may be geographically smaller, it feels large and certainly more varied – at least in some respects – than either of its sequels.
I first played Morrowind on the original Xbox – the console I’d bought to replace the Dreamcast after that machine’s unceremonious exit from the early 2000s console war! But the PC version gave the game a whole new lease of life thanks to modding – and mods are still being created for the game 20 years later. There are mods that completely overhaul Morrowind’s graphics, meaning that it can look phenomenal on a modern-day PC, and there are so many different player-made quests, items, weapons, characters, and even wholly new locations that the game can feel like an entirely new experience even though it’s marking a milestone anniversary.
Although modding and mod communities had been around before Morrowind came along, it was one of the first games that I can recall to genuinely lean into and encourage the practice. The PC version of Morrowind shipped with a piece of software called The Elder Scrolls Construction Set as a free extra, and it contained everything players needed to get started with modding. I even had a play with the Construction Set when I got the PC version of Morrowind a few years after its release, and while I lack the technical skills to create anything substantial, I remember it being an interesting experience.
I followed a guide I found online and managed to create a companion for the main character, as well as added doors to a specific house so it could be accessed from any of the towns on the map! I also added a few items to the game, like an overpowered sword with a silly name. By this point, Morrowind and its mods were just good fun, and as I didn’t have a PC capable of running Oblivion when that was released a few years later, Morrowind mods were an acceptable stand-in!
Before Morrowind became overladen with mods, though, there were two incredible expansion packs released for the game. This was before the era of cut-content DLC or mini DLC packs that added nothing of substance, so both Tribunal and Bloodmoon were massive expansions that were almost like new games in their own ways. Both added new areas to explore, new factions, new characters, new items, and new questlines. While Tribunal was fantastic with its air of mystery, I personally enjoyed Bloodmoon even more. I like wintery environments, and the frozen island of Solstheim, far to the north of the main map, was exactly the kind of exciting environment that I’d been looking for.
So that’s it for today, really. I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the anniversary of one of my favourite role-playing games, to celebrate some of the things that made it great – and continue to make it a game that I’m happy to return to and to recommend to fans of the genre. Regular readers might’ve seen Morrowind on some of my “PC gaming deals” lists around Christmas or in the summertime, and when Morrowind goes on sale on Steam, for example, the game-of-the-year edition with both expansion packs can be less than the price of a coffee. It’s also on Game Pass following Microsoft’s acquisition of Bethesda – so there’s no excuse not to give it a try, at least!
In the twenty years since Morrowind was released, many other games have imitated its open-world layout, its factions, its branching questlines, and its diversity. Some newer games have bigger worlds, more characters, and so on… but Morrowind will always be a pioneer. It may not have got everything right, but it’s a landmark in the history of video games that showed us just how immersive and real a fantasy world could feel.
As one of the first games of its kind that I ever played, I have very fond memories of Morrowind. Often when I pick up a new open-world, fantasy, or role-playing title, I’ll find myself unconsciously comparing it to Morrowind, or noting that Morrowind was the first game where I encountered some gameplay mechanic or element for the first time. It really is an incredibly important game. So happy birthday, Morrowind! Here’s to twenty years!
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is out now and can be purchased for PC or via Xbox Game Pass. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios and Microsoft. Some images above courtesy of UESP.net. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
This is the first part of a new occasional series that I’ll be running here on the website in which I’ll be taking a look in more detail at some of my favourite video games. It’s a lot of fun to review brand-new games and keep up-to-date with all the goings-on in the video games industry, but sometimes it’s nice to step back and just geek out about some of my all-time favourites!
If you’re a regular reader of my gaming content you’ve probably seen me talk about Banished before; it’s a mainstay on my lists of recommended titles whenever there’s a big Steam sale! But despite having recommended Banished on several occasions going back to the website’s first month in operation in 2019, this is the first time I’ve taken a deeper look at the game.
A recent town of mine in Banished.
Banished was released in 2014 for PC, and I honestly can’t remember where I first heard about it. The early- and mid-2010s were a mess for me for all manner of reasons, and my memory isn’t great even under the best circumstances! Suffice to say that I discovered Banished shortly after its launch, and for a relatively low price of admission when compared to titles in a similar city-building space, I thought it was at least worth a shot. The fact that I’m still playing it almost eight years later should tell you how I feel about it!
What astonishes me about Banished is that its developer – Shining Rock Software – is actually just one person. A single person managed to create this incredibly intricate and challenging game, one that exists in a pretty unique niche within the overall city-building game realm. I think that’s absolutely incredible, and well worth taking a moment to consider. Banished was a labour of love – and it shows. Maybe it doesn’t have the flashiest graphics or the most complex and numerous in-game mechanics, but it brings a lot to the table regardless. I’d still include Banished as one of my all-time favourite titles even if it had been put out by an entire studio backed up by a major publisher, but the fact that it’s an indie game made by a single person is just mind-blowing.
A market, crop fields, a mine, and houses.
I usually like to play games on the easiest mode available. Particularly with fast-paced titles like action games and shooters, I find that I just don’t have the reflexes, reaction time, or just the ability to play those kinds of games at that level. This should be the subject of a longer essay sometime, but as someone with disabilities, I really do believe that difficulty options are an accessibility feature that as many games as possible should include. I’ve been playing video games for more than thirty years; if I haven’t “got gud” by now, I’m not going to! But we’ve drifted off-topic.
Banished offers several different difficulty options that can be combined in different ways to customise the experience. The number of families (and individual citizens) that the town has at the start, the harshness of the weather, and whether disasters (like fires breaking out) are switched on or off all make an impact, as does whether the randomly-generated map has more or fewer mountains. Instead of just offering a standard easy, medium, or hard mode, Banished allows players to really tailor the kind of experience they want to have – and I think that’s something more titles in the city-builder genre should try to emulate.
The “New Game” menu.
I would call Banished a game that’s deceptively complex. Its relatively small number of buildings and resources makes it seem, on the surface, that it should be relatively easy to get to grips with. Harvest enough resources to keep your small population healthy, happy, and well-fed. That’s all there is to it, right?
But when you get stuck in, there’s so much more to it than that. Balancing your resources so you aren’t over-producing and wasting storage space while also making sure you don’t produce too little of something and run out is like walking a tightrope at times! I’ve ended up in some very sticky situations because I had slightly too much or too little of something important at just the wrong moment – and it can be fatal, in some cases, if you get caught out.
Harvesting a crop of wheat in Banished.
For example, it’s tempting to use all the logs your citizens gather to construct new buildings – especially at the beginning of the game when you don’t have many. But if you burn through your supply of logs too quickly and don’t have enough citizens assigned to chop down trees or work as foresters to replace them, come winter everyone will freeze because there won’t be enough firewood! Conversely, if you construct a woodcutter’s cabin and don’t keep a careful eye on how much firewood they’re making, they can easily chop up all of the logs you have meaning you won’t have any when you want to construct the next new building!
Banished isn’t a game you can set and forget. In order to truly succeed you need to be on top of your resources pretty much all the time. Even though there aren’t that many you need to manage, it’s a balancing act to stay on top of all of them at once. A single disruptive event can completely bowl you over if you aren’t careful, and when citizens don’t have the right balance of resources their health and happiness will drop, making them less productive. In the worst case they can die – starvation, cold, disease, and so on can all spell doom for the residents of your community!
A small cluster of buildings in a forest.
Take a recent game I played as an example! While building up my town I was constantly hampered by a lack of stone to construct new buildings. Even after building a stone quarry this problem persisted for a while, so I prioritised things like building new houses closer to the quarry so I could get more stonecutters. I constructed other buildings in what I considered to be descending order of importance, prioritising things like making sure there was enough food for a growing population, which meant adding new crop fields, fishing docks, and assigning citizens to those jobs. After a while, there was an outbreak of disease – the measles, in this case. But because I hadn’t constructed any hospitals, the disease ripped through the population! By the time I’d figured out how badly I was screwed, half the town was infected. I pulled everyone off their jobs to get a hospital built, which happened in the nick of time. Doing that, however, meant that there was less food as the harvest went to waste as winter set in and the crops were still in the fields!
All in all, the citizens of my town had a very bad time because of a combination of bad luck and bad management on my part! A lot of citizens ended up dying because there was no hospital, and the disease was only stopped because a few hardy souls managed to scrape together enough resources to build a hospital from scratch at the last minute. It took a long time to recover from that!
Official Trekking with Dennis Top Tip: Remember to build a hospital!
Like many great PC games, Banished happily encourages modding. There is (or was) a solid modding community, with mods adding in brand-new buildings, gameplay elements, and visual overhauls to name but a few. Shining Rock Software was keen from the very beginning for fans and players to get involved and develop their own mods for the game, and there are some very popular ones that really transform Banished into something different. Playing the game without any of these is fine – wonderful, even – but if you’re ready for a different experience after playing the original version, mods like Colonial Charter give Banished a whole new lease of life.
Returning to the original game, though, there’s plenty to enjoy. There are eight different types of crops, eight different types of fruit trees, and three different types of animals for the town to take care of. These are all different – and the differences aren’t merely cosmetic, either. Some crops grow faster than others, or grow better in different conditions. Citizens are healthier when they have a varied diet – and that includes multiple types of crops, fruits, meats, and the like.
Citizens walking past an orchard in the winter.
The three different animals (cows, sheep, and chickens) all produce different resources for the town, too, and at different rates. Sheep will produce wool, which is great for making clothes, and cattle will produce leather – but you’ll get an awful lot more wool per sheep than leather per cow! Chickens will produce plenty of eggs! It can be easy to overproduce wool and eggs (in my opinion, at least) once you start building a lot of animal pastures – and this can eat up storage space that could be used for other goods!
There are many strategies that players have developed in the years since Banished was released. I play the game my own way, and I’m sure you can find a strategy that works for you either through trial and error or by looking them up online! The fact that there are so many different approaches to playing the game, and so many different recommendations and suggestions for how to get started, what to build first, and so on is testament to the fact that Banished truly is a complex and deep experience.
Pastures holding sheep and chickens near a market.
Banished is a game I can get lost in for hours at a time. Building up a small town, managing its starting resources, and then establishing a trading post to bring in different crops and herds is a ton of fun. Because maps are randomly generated, Banished feels different every time. Every game starts off in a different location, with a different combination of starting resources. There are some things I usually like to do first – my top tip is to make the first building you construct a school so your citizens will always be well-educated and thus more efficient – but other than that I like to play it by ear, see what resources I have in the immediate vicinity of my starting location, and then decide how best to expand!
If you haven’t tried Banished, keep an eye out for it when Steam sales roll around; in recent years it’s often been heavily discounted, meaning you can pick it up for the price of an expensive Starbucks coffee! Even at full price, though, Banished is a game I’d happily recommend to anyone who enjoys a richly-detailed and complex city-builder or strategy game. I would caveat that by saying that Banished isn’t a “casual” game that you can absent-mindedly play while distracted!
So that’s it for this time. After having talked about Banished on a number of occasions I wanted to give it its own full article here on the website. This “video game spotlight” series will hopefully be an occasional thing I do going forward, so keep an eye out for my take on a number of other titles that I’ve enjoyed over the years in future! Happy building!
Banished is out now for PC. Banished is the copyright of Shining Rock Software. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers are present for Dying Light 2, Red Dead Redemption II, Kena: Bridge of Spirits, and Animal Crossing: New Horizons.
I’ve talked a couple of times about video game length here on the website, and specifically about how some games can feel too short to offer good value at their price point. Games which cost £65 or $70 but only last five or six hours routinely get criticised for being too short, but my argument is that they’re really just priced incorrectly – had a six-hour game cost £25 instead of £65, it feels like a better price point and thus better value.
Take Ori and the Blind Forest or Kena: Bridge of Spirits as examples – relatively short games (under twelve hours) yet priced around the £30 mark. Both games felt like great value at that price point, and no one seemed to argue that they were somehow “too short.” In my review of Kena: Bridge of Spirits I even argued that padding out the game much beyond the 12-hour mark would’ve been too much.
Kena: Bridge of Spirits was the perfect length for the kind of game it wanted to be.
Over the past 24 hours I’ve seen a different argument arise online, particularly in relation to upcoming action-horror game Dying Light 2. Developer Techland recently claimed that total completion of the game is expected to take in excess of 500 hours – longer, they say, than it would take to walk from Warsaw in Poland to Madrid in Spain. That’s a distance of 2,631 kilometres, or 1,634 miles.
Long-distance hiking aside, I’ve seen a lot of folks online actually criticising Techland and Dying Light 2, proclaiming that its length “isn’t a selling point,” or that the game is “too long.” Having tackled a similar argument before with games that were said to be too short, I wanted to take a look at this and consider whether a game can indeed be too long.
This recent boast from the Dying Light 2 developers hasn’t gone down well with everyone…
In 2020 I spent in excess of 120 hours playing Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and the longest I spent in any single game in 2021 wasRed Dead Redemption II, which took me 103 hours to complete the main story and the epilogue. I’m not a completionist who has to get every single achievement and discover every single hidden item or collectable. According to Red Dead Redemption II’s in-game progress tracker, after my 103 hours I’d completed 84% of the game.
However, the remaining 16% was – for want of a better term – fluff. It consists of collectables, travelling to obscure locations, catching at least one of every fish… in a word, boring nonsense that I had no interest in! Likewise with Animal Crossing: New Horizons – after 120+ hours I felt I’d done everything that the game had to offer at least once, and I had no real interest in continuing to dig up fossils or buy random junk from the shop to keep playing.
After more than 100 hours, I’d completed 84% of Red Dead Redemption II.
Games have a natural lifespan, just like any other entertainment product. That length will depend on what the game has to offer, how repetitive some of the tasks and missions are, and many other factors. If Red Dead Redemption II had offered another 103 hours’ worth of proper story missions, I daresay I’d have kept playing because I found the story to be engrossing – but I wasn’t going to spend that time in a fairly static endgame world where all of the missions were complete and all I had left were collectables to find and minor tasks to perform. That doesn’t hold my interest.
For some folks, though, it does. Some games encourage players to keep playing over and over again, and in some quadrants of the gaming community, it isn’t uncommon at all to find players who’ve dedicated literally years to a single game, sinking thousands or even tens of thousands of hours of playtime into titles like Minecraft, EVE Online, or even the aforementioned Animal Crossing series.
EVE Online is well-known for having very dedicated players who play for years and years.
But statistics would seem to suggest that those kinds of players – and those kinds of games – are comparatively rare. For example, in Red Dead Redemption II, most players have unlocked the achievement or trophy for completing the game’s first chapter. Yet on all platforms – Xbox, Playstation, and PC – barely one in three make it to the end of the epilogue and see the credits roll. Red Dead Redemption II has been out for more than three years, so there’s ample time for most players to have progressed that far if they’d wanted to – but it seems that the game’s length sees more and more players drop out as the story goes on.
I like a long story. I’ll happily watch a television show with seven seasons or something like the extended versions of The Lord of the Rings films. And I enjoyed my time with Red Dead Redemption II. But perhaps players who seek out these very long experiences are in a minority – achievement stats for a number of big titles would seem to bear that out.
Scarcely one in five Steam players who started Red Dead Redemption II actually managed to finish its story.
I mentioned the length-versus-value debate at the beginning, and I think a variation of this argument comes into play for long titles just as it does for short ones. If a game is unnaturally “long” because it’s padded out with repetitive fetch-quests, a massive open world that takes ages to traverse, and hundreds of hidden collectables that make no impact whatsoever on gameplay and story, then a developer shouldn’t be bragging about length. That isn’t a long game – it’s a bloated, padded one, and one that probably won’t be much fun for 80% of the time!
This is what I think people were getting at with the Dying Light 2 situation. While some folks may feel that any game can be too long to be enjoyable, the real criticism seems to be that players are concerned that the developers of Dying Light 2 are making a nonsense brag based on how the game world is going to be stuffed with minor, inconsequential fluff. Tasks like shooting 200 pigeons in Grand Theft Auto IV aren’t actually a lot of fun for most players who wanted to complete the entire game, and while finally unlocking that last achievement or trophy may provide some folks with a brief hit of dopamine, the frustration of having to track down 200 obscure, hard-to-reach locations across a large open world probably wasn’t worth it.
Shooting pigeons was a minor task in Grand Theft Auto IV.
So is Dying Light 2 “too long” at 500 hours? Until the game is in reviewers’ hands and we can find out how many of those hours are spent on fun, interesting, or original quests, I don’t think it’s possible to say. Some people may argue that 500 hours will always be too long, and for them that may well be the case. Aside from Civilization VI, I can’t think of any game in the past decade that I’ve spent much more than 100 hours playing – so I guess I’m part of that crowd as well.
In principle, though, I don’t think 500 hours has to be too long for Dying Light 2. But it depends what the game has to offer by way of story, exploration, and engaging gameplay. If the bulk of players’ 500 hours is spent chasing boring collectables or slowly trudging across an open world that’s too large for the game’s mediocre level of content, then yeah, I’d agree that it’s too long and has been overstuffed with meaningless fluff. But if there’s a long story that manages to hook players in and keep their interest, then it’s a whole different conversation.
At the end of the day, we all want different things from our games. Folks who have busy lives and other commitments might feel the need for a shorter game, or a game that they can dip in and out of easily. Players with more free time or who like to stream their gameplay on Twitch might prefer longer, open-ended games that are chock-full of collectables. We all like different things, and there really isn’t an answer to a question like this that can satisfy everyone. If you think Dying Light 2 is going to be too long for you to enjoy… don’t play it, I guess. There are plenty of shorter games out there to take your interest instead. For my two cents, I’d rather see a game have too much content than too little, and be too long rather than too short – especially if it’s charging me £60 or $70!
Dying Light 2 will be released on the 4th of February 2022 for PlayStation 4/5, Xbox One/Series S/X, Nintendo Switch, and PC. All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective developer and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for some of the entries on this list.
At this time of year, practically every outlet – from dying newspapers to new social media channels – churns out list upon list of the best entertainment products of the year. The top threes, top fives, top tens and more of 2021 abound! I have something similar in the pipeline, but today I wanted to take a look back at a handful of films, games, and TV shows from previous years that I found myself enjoying in 2021.
I have long and seemingly ever-growing lists of films, games, and TV shows that I keep meaning to get around to! I still haven’t seen Breaking Bad, for example, nor played The Witcher 3, despite the critical and commercial acclaim they’ve enjoyed! I also have a huge number of entertainment properties that I keep meaning to re-visit, some of which I haven’t seen since we wrote years beginning with “1.” In 2021 I got around to checking out a few titles from both of these categories, and since there are some that I haven’t discussed I thought the festive season would be a great opportunity for a bit of positivity and to share some of my personal favourite entertainment experiences of 2021… even though they weren’t brand-new!
Film #1: The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03)
We’ve recently marked the 20th anniversary of The Fellowship of the Ring, the first part of Peter Jackson’s epic adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien’s magnum opus. The passage of time has done nothing to detract from these amazing films, and this year a 4K Blu-Ray release has them looking better than ever before.
The early 2000s had some serious pitfalls for film and television. CGI was becoming more mainstream and many filmmakers sought to take advantage of it, but just look to the Star Wars prequels and how outdated the CGI in those titles is; it hasn’t held up well at all. The majority of the special effects in The Lord of the Rings were practical, and combined with clever cinematography even incredibly dense and complex battle sequences still look fantastic two decades on.
Though I don’t re-watch The Lord of the Rings every single year without fail, I’m happy to return to the trilogy time and again – and I almost certainly will be for the rest of my days! The Hobbit and Tolkien’s Middle-earth was one of the first fantasy worlds I encountered as a young child; I can vaguely remember the book being read to me when I was very small. The conventional wisdom for years was that The Lord of the Rings was unfilmable – but Peter Jackson proved that wrong in some style!
Film #2: Despicable Me (2010)
I spotted this while browsing Netflix one evening, and despite having seen at least one film with the Minions, I hadn’t actually seen the title that started it all. I have to confess that I didn’t have particularly high expectations, thinking I was in for a bog-standard animated comedy. But Despicable Me has heart, and there were some genuinely emotional moments hidden inside.
The Minions got most of the attention in the aftermath of Despicable Me, and can now be found on everything from memes to greetings cards! The critters are cute, but they’re also somewhat limited – and I think it’s for that reason that I didn’t really expect too much from Despicable Me except for maybe a few laughs and a way to kill an empty evening. I was pleasantly surprised to find a much more substantial film than I’d been expecting.
There were still plenty of laughs and a ton of cartoon silliness to enjoy and to keep the tone light-hearted. But there was a surprisingly emotional story between the villainous Gru and the three children he adopts – especially Margo, the eldest. I can finally understand why the film has spawned four sequels, fifteen shorts, and a whole range of merchandise!
Film #3: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
The Final Frontierhas a number of issues that I’m sure most of you will be aware of. It arguably suffered from a little too much involvement from William Shatner, who sought to put Captain Kirk at the centre of the story at the expense of others. But The Final Frontier has some truly great character moments, including one of the final times that Kirk, Spock, and Dr McCoy would be together before The Undiscovered Country brought an end to Star Trek’s original era.
The film has some truly funny moments, too: the scene where Uhura catches Chekov and Sulu pretending to be caught in a storm being one, and Scotty’s moment of slapstick being another that never fails to win a chuckle. The Undiscovered Country was a great send-off for Star Trek’s original crew, but it was quite a heavy film with a lot of tense moments and high-octane action. The Final Frontier brings more light-hearted moments to the table, and that’s something I can appreciate when I’m in the right mood.
There are some exciting sequences too, though. The shuttle crash is a very tense and dramatic moment, and the final confrontation with the entity at the centre of the galaxy, while silly in some respects, does succeed at hitting at least some of those same dramatic highs. Though I wouldn’t suggest that The Final Frontier is anywhere near the best that Star Trek has to offer, it’s well worth a watch from time to time.
Game #1: Control (2019)
Though hardly an “old” game, I missed Control when it was released in 2019. It had been on my list for a couple of years, and I was pleased to finally get around to playing it this year. The game had a far creepier atmosphere than I’d been expecting, with protagonist Jesse having to battle an unseen enemy called the Hiss.
One thing I really admire about Control is the way it made incredibly creative use of some fairly plain environments. The entire game takes place in what’s essentially a glorified office building, and rows of cubicles or the janitor’s workspace could, in other games, come across as feeling bland and uninspired. But Control leans into this, using the environments as a strength, juxtaposing them with incredibly weird goings-on at the Bureau of Control.
I also liked that, for the first time in years, we got full-motion video sequences in a game! FMV was a fad in gaming in the early/mid-1990s I guess, primarily on PC, and titles like Command and Conquer and Star Trek: Starfleet Academy made use of it. It had been years since I played a game with FMV elements, and it worked exceptionally well in Control – as well as being a completely unexpected blast of nostalgia!
Game #2: Super Mario 64 (1996)
Despite the serious limitations of Super Mario 3D All-Stars on the Nintendo Switch, which I picked up last year, I can’t deny that it’s been fun to return to Super Mario 64. One of the first fully 3D games I ever played, Super Mario 64 felt like the future in the late ’90s, and even some titles released this year, such as Kena: Bridge of Spirits, owe parts of their 3D platforming to the pioneering work that Nintendo did with this game.
Super Mario 64 is and always has been good, solid fun. There doesn’t need to be an in-depth, complex story driving Mario forward to collect stars, because the game’s levels and bosses are all so incredibly cleverly-designed. Jumping in and out of different painting worlds is relatively quick and feels great, and the sheer diversity of environments is still noteworthy in 2021. Mario goes on a journey that takes him through snowy mountains, a sunken shipwreck, sunlit plains, cities, clouds, and more.
I can’t in good conscience recommend Super Mario 3D All-Stars. The way these games have been adapted for Nintendo Switch isn’t worth the asking price. But even so, going back to Super Mario 64 has been one of my favourite parts of 2021, a chance to reconnect with a game I played and loved on the Nintendo 64. If you’ve never played it, track down a copy and give it a go. You won’t regret it.
Game #3: Red Dead Redemption II (2018)
I’d been meaning to get around toRed Dead Redemption II for three years – but I’d always found a reason not to pick it up (usually it was too expensive!) It took forever to download on my painfully slow internet connection, but it was well worth the wait. I’ve had a fascination with America in the 19th Century for as long as I can remember – I guess partly inspired by playground games of “the wild west” that were fairly common when I was young. I even had a cowboy hat, toy gun, and “Davy Crockett” hat when I was a kid!
Red Dead Redemption II transported me to that world in a way that I genuinely did not think was possible. Films and TV shows can do a great job at pulling you in and getting you lost in a fictional world, but the interactive element of video games can add to that immersion – something that was absolutely the case with Red Dead Redemption II. The amount of detail in the game’s characters and open-world environments is staggering, and having finally experienced it for myself I can absolutely understand why people hail this game as a “masterpiece.”
I wasn’t prepared for the many emotional gut-punches that Red Dead Redemption II had in store. In many ways the game tells a bleak and even depressing story, one with betrayal, death, and many examples of the absolute worst of humanity. But every once in a while there are some incredibly beautiful moments too, where characters sit together, sing, play, and revel in their bonds of friendship. Red Dead Redemption II gave me the wild west outlaw fantasy that my younger self could have only dreamed of!
TV series #1: Star Trek: The Original Series (1966-69)
I’ve re-watched quite a lot of The Original Series this year, probably more episodes than I’d seen in the past few years. Because of its episodic nature, it’s easy to dip in and out of The Original Series, firing up an episode or two to spend an hour with Captain Kirk and the crew without feeling the need to commit to an entire season of television.
The Original Series started it all for Trekkies, and I’m always so pleased to see that modern Star Trek hasn’t lost sight of that. In this year’s episodes of Lower Decks and Discovery we’ve gotten many references and callbacks to Star Trek’s first series, keeping the show alive and relevant as we celebrated its fifty-fifth anniversary – and the centenary of its creator, Gene Roddenberry.
Though dated in some ways, many of the themes and metaphors present in The Original Series are still relevant today. Society has changed since the 1960s, but in some areas we’re still fighting the same or similar fights for acceptance, for equality, and so on. The Star Trek franchise has always had a lot to say about that, being in some ways a mirror of society and in others depicting a vision of a more enlightened, optimistic future.
TV series #2: Fortitude (2015-18)
I went back to re-watch Fortitude this year, for the first time since its original run. The series starts very slowly, seeming at first to be little more than a murder-mystery in a different setting. But it builds up over the course of its first season into something truly unexpected, crossing over into moments of political thriller, action, and even horror.
There are some truly shocking and gruesome moments in Fortitude, and it can be a harrowing watch in places. But it’s riveting at the same time, and I managed to get hooked all over again by the complex characters, the mysteries and conspiracies, and the bleak but beautiful arctic environment.
Fortitude featured some star names among its cast, including Michael Gambon, Stanley Tucci, and Dennis Quaid – the second-most-famous Dennis to be featured on this website! Although it was fun to watch it weekly during its original run, Fortitude is definitely a show that can be enjoyed on a binge!
TV series #3: Family Guy (1999-Present)
Family Guy’s sense of humour sometimes runs aground for me, dragging out jokes too long or failing to pay off neat setups with decent punchlines. But with the full series (up to midway through Season 20 at time of writing) available on Disney+, I’ve found myself putting it on in the background a lot this year. The short runtime of episodes, the lightheartedness, and the way many of the jokes are often disconnected from whatever nonsense plot the episodes have going on all come together to make it something I can dip in and out of while doing other things.
There are some insensitive jokes, and some entire storylines in earlier episodes have aged rather poorly. But Family Guy seldom strikes me as a show punching down; it satirises and pokes fun at many different groups. In that sense it’s kind of halfway between The Simpsons and South Park; the former being more sanitised and family-friendly, the latter being edgier and meaner.
I rarely sit down and think “gosh, I must watch the latest Family Guy episode.” But if I’m in need of background noise or something to fill up twenty minutes, I find I’ll happily log into Disney+ and put on an episode or two.
So that’s it.
There have been some great films, games, and television shows that were released in 2021. But there were also plenty of entertainment experiences from years past that, in different ways, brightened my year. As we gear up for New Year and for everyone’s end-of-year top-ten lists, I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge that.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas, a Happy Holiday, or just a relaxing day yesterday! I did consider writing something to mark the day, but I found that I had remarkably little to say that was different from the piece I wrote last year. 2021 has been “2020 II” in so many respects, unfortunately. However, unlike last Christmas I will be able to visit with some family members – I’ll be seeing my sister and brother-in-law later this week, which will be a nice treat! So here’s to 2021’s entertainment experiences – and as we enter the new year, it’s worth keeping in mind that we don’t only have to watch and play the latest and newest ones!
All titles on the list above are the copyright of their respective broadcaster, distributor, developer, network, publisher, studio, etc. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
It’s been a whole year since the launch of the Xbox Series S/X and the PlayStation 5. The consoles debuted a week apart in early November 2020, and I thought I’d mark the occasion by taking a look back on what has to be considered a pretty rough year for both machines.
At time of writing, both the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 are out of stock in the UK – and this has been the case for twelve months. Occasional deliveries of consoles to retailers are either sent out to folks who pre-ordered or are snapped up within minutes of going on sale – often by bots. Availability of the less-powerful Xbox Series S has been spotty, but generally better than its more powerful cousin, which is good news for gamers on a budget. However, availability overall has been poor.
Promotional image of the Xbox Series X.
These aren’t the first machines to launch without the supplies to meet worldwide demand, and it’s likely that they won’t be the last. But as I argued last year, this particular console launch feels far worse and more egregious than practically any other. It’s certainly true that other consoles in the past had supply issues. Getting a Nintendo Wii in the UK in 2006 and into 2007 was difficult, for example. But this feels far worse than that, and when compared to the launches of the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in 2013 it’s pretty damn bad.
As we keep hearing on the news, issues with “supply chains” abound across the world, and this was true a year ago as Microsoft and Sony prepared to launch their new consoles. Many components involved in the manufacture of the machines – from silicon to microprocessors – were feeling the pinch due to a number of factors. The pandemic had hit manufacturers in China and Taiwan hard earlier in 2020, but there were also additional pressures from a growing cryptocurrency mining craze that ate up vast numbers of graphics cards and other components. As a result of all of these factors and more, both the Xbox Series S/X and the PlayStation 5 launched with far less availability than necessary.
Two PlayStation 5 editions – with and without a disc drive.
Ever since the transition from 2D to 3D, it’s taken game developers a while to truly get to grips with new hardware and release games that can fully take advantage of the computing power on offer. As a result, for at least a couple of years following the launch of a new console many games are in transition – looking slightly better, perhaps, than the prior generation, but still nowhere near as good as they could. With the diminishing returns on offer considering that Xbox One and PlayStation 4 titles could already look decent, many games released for the two new systems over the past year haven’t really felt new or innovative.
This generation, like the one before it really, will almost certainly go down as an iterative step rather than a transformational one. When consoles from the previous generation could knock out visually-stunning titles like Red Dead Redemption II, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, and Ghost of Tsushima, it really feels like there’s limited room for improvement! Put the average player in a room with the best-looking games of the last generation and some of the first titles from this generation and they’d struggle to tell the difference.
Last generation’s Red Dead Redemption II is a stunningly beautiful game with an expansive open world.
There’s a case to be made that Microsoft and Sony should’ve waited. Rather than letting down their audiences by having totally inadequate supplies, if they’d delayed their releases by a year and used that time to build up stock in anticipation of a bigger launch in 2021, we could be talking about the new consoles releasing this month. It’s still possible that they’d both sell out just like last year – but it’s also possible that the extra manufacturing time, without the pressure of fulfilling pre-orders from increasingly irate customers over the past twelve months, would have led to a better launch window for both consoles.
So I guess that’s where I come down on the issue. The consoles were launched callously by both companies without adequate levels of stock to meet the demand that they knew existed. The predictable outcome has been that scalpers and touts have been re-selling consoles all year long for close to double the recommended retail price, lining their own pockets in the process. It seems as though Sony and Microsoft don’t care about this in the slightest, and they’ve been content to leave the problem of bots and reselling to retailers. Some retailers have tried to put in place mechanisms to prevent bots from buying up every available machine, but as we’ve seen all year long these reactions have been more miss than hit.
A handful of Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles being offered for sale via a popular auction website. Prices are easily approaching twice the recommended retail price for both machines.
In terms of games, both Microsoft and Sony – as well as practically all third-party developers – have pursued a year-long policy of making titles available on last-gen consoles as well as the two new machines. Only a handful of titles have been true exclusives, with PlayStation games like Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart and Returnal carrying their flag. Microsoft fans have to be content with basically no exclusives right now, with games like Forza Horizon 5 and the upcoming Halo Infinite also launching on PC and Xbox One.
Might there be some buyers’ remorse among PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X players? I would think so – especially if they paid over the odds for their console to an eBay scalper. Neither machine feels like particularly good value even at their recommended retail price, let alone at the prices folks have actually had to pay to get their hands on them! The handful of exclusive games are backed up by “enhanced” versions of last-gen titles, but in many cases I’ve genuinely struggled to tell the difference between different consoles’ versions of the same title. The improvements on offer over the past year have come in terms of things like frame rate – jumping to 60fps from 30fps for certain titles – and then in comparatively minor areas like controller battery life. These things are hard sells.
The PlayStation 5 DualSense controller.
There have been some changes over the past year, though. Microsoft’s aggressive pursuit of the Game Pass model represents great value for players on a budget, opening up an entire library of titles for a relatively low monthly fee. Sony still hasn’t caught up and doesn’t have a functional Game Pass competitor yet. Both companies have also made big moves into supporting PC gaming – with games that were once PlayStation exclusives making their way to a new platform. In lieu of having enough PlayStation 5 consoles to sell, perhaps that’s something of a consolation prize for Sony!
Overall, I can’t even be generous enough to call the past year a “mixed bag.” There are far more negatives than positives as I see it, and unless both companies can get to grips with the supply and demand issue, this Christmas will be the second in a row where folks are either going to have to pay silly money for a new console or go without. That isn’t a good look, and the longer these problems drag on the worse it will get for the reputations of both Sony and Microsoft.
Last year I felt that it was wrong to launch the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S/X given the low levels of stock and the myriad other issues that a pandemic-riddled world was facing. The past twelve months have done nothing to change my mind or convince me I was wrong about that. Inadequate manufacturing capacity has kept both consoles out of too many players’ hands, and those who did succeed at getting a pre-order – or more likely who paid close to double the price to a scalper – have found a perishingly small number of exclusive games on a machine that doesn’t feel like much of an improvement over the last generation. The Xbox Series S/X and the PlayStation 5 have potential – but over the past twelve months, neither have come close to reaching it.
Xbox and all other related properties mentioned above is the copyright of Microsoft. PlayStation and all other related properties mentioned above is the copyright of Sony. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Luigi’s Mansion 3.
Time flies very quickly, doesn’t it? I think that might be the single spookiest thing about my playthrough of Luigi’s Mansion 3! I started playing last October, with a view to putting out a full “Let’s Play” series of articles in the run-up to Halloween, but once Halloween had passed by I put the game on the back burner for a while.
I like Luigi’s Mansion 3. It’s a fun game with some clever mechanics involved, there aren’t any bugs or random spikes in difficulty, and overall it’s the kind of sweet, lightly scary fun that I like to see at this time of year. From my perspective, though, it just didn’t make for a great game to write about in-depth for a full series of articles.
Let’s wrap up Luigi’s Mansion 3.
The reason for that is simple: Luigi’s Mansion 3 has some fantastic gameplay but is relatively light on story. You know the premise: the spooky Hellen Gravely and King Boo have kidnapped Luigi’s friends, and over the course of a dozen or so levels – represented by the floors of the Last Resort hotel – Luigi has to fight various ghosts and spirits to get them back.
In short, the fact that I can summarise the game’s entire story in a couple of sentences encapsulates what made it a struggle to write about in such depth. I could easily write a review of the game – but to give a blow-by-blow account of every interaction on every level, which I tried to do at first, quickly became repetitive. I didn’t think the articles I was putting together were all that interesting to read, let alone entertaining, so I really didn’t know what to do with Luigi’s Mansion 3 for a while.
The game’s title screen.
I kept promising myself that I’d get back to the series once I had a better idea for making the write-ups interesting. But the only thing I could really think of was condensing the articles into fewer instalments, and even then I still didn’t like what I’d produced.
This website has involved a degree of experimentation on my part. Some things developed organically – like the weekly Star Trek theories I write when a new season is running. Others have been attempted, but for various reasons didn’t work as I initially hoped. The Luigi’s Mansion 3 series of articles has been one such disappointment.
Figuring out how to write about Luigi’s Mansion 3 was a challenge.
However, I like to think I’ve learned something worthwhile from the experience! The biggest takeaway for me is that I have more to say and more to talk about when a game has a strong narrative. Once I’d got the prologue out of the way and settled into the Luigi’s Mansion 3 gameplay loop, I found myself running out of things to say. That says something about the way I write as much as it does about games like Luigi’s Mansion 3, and I know that a lot of people have published playthroughs focusing on this game – and many other titles with a comparable style. But this is my website, and I have my own way of writing and of approaching this format!
I would definitely like to do more playthroughs – but as I approach the subject again, I need to consider the choice of games carefully. I chose Luigi’s Mansion 3 last October specifically because it had a spooky theme, but I didn’t really stop to think about how the game works and what I’d be able to write about at the end of each play session. Having learned a thing or two as a result of this experience, I’d like to think any future playthrough series will be a much more interesting read from your point of view – and a much more enjoyable writing experience from mine!
The titular Luigi.
With all of that out of the way, what did I think of Luigi’s Mansion 3? Having never played the first two games in the series, I was coming at the game from a newbie’s point of view. There were a couple of points where having a bit more knowledge of either the greater Mario franchise as a whole or the prior Luigi’s Mansion titles might’ve provided a player with a little more – but this was mostly in the form of “easter eggs” and references; nothing story-wise or gameplay-wise relied on knowledge of other games.
And that’s the way it should be! Luigi’s Mansion 2 came out for the 3DS in 2013, and the original game was a launch title for the GameCube back in 2001, so expecting Switch players in 2019 – when the game was released – to remember everything from the previous two titles would’ve been an impossible ask! I felt Luigi’s Mansion 3 was approachable and newbie-friendly.
The first title in the series was released in 2001 on the GameCube.
Nintendo’s first-party titles are almost always high quality. I didn’t encounter any bugs or glitches, and only a couple of very minor graphical issues. Luigi’s Mansion 3 looked decent even on my 4K television screen, and the Switch’s graphics in general are fantastic considering the console’s size and portability. With a file size of only a little over 6GB, Luigi’s Mansion 3 packs a lot into a small package – making it quick to download and easy to store even on the Switch’s limited internal storage.
Gameplay was fun, and offered several completely unique elements that I’ve never experienced in other titles. Luigi’s main weapon is his vacuum – the Poltergust G-00 – which makes a return from the two older titles, albeit in an updated form. This fun and unique weapon allows Luigi to tackle ghosts in a variety of ways, including slamming them into the ground, bashing them against each other, and firing a shockwave.
Gameplay was great fun.
The Poltergust can also be used to fire a plunger which can be used to interact with the environment. Though it does have applications in combat, the plunger shot was largely useful for navigating previously-blocked areas of the hotel as well as uncovering secrets and hidden items spread throughout the game world.
The addition of Gooigi – Luigi’s gooey doppelganger – made navigating levels much more interesting. Areas that Luigi couldn’t access on his own were easy for Gooigi to reach, and this had functionality both to advance the main story and for idle exploration and retrieving hidden gems. Having two playable characters with different abilities isn’t something new in video games, but Gooigi put a unique and fun spin on the concept, and came in handy on many different occasions!
Gooigi and Luigi.
Story-wise, Luigi’s Mansion 3 was pretty basic. That’s to be expected, though, and what story there was was done very well. These kinds of games don’t go all-in on big, believable narratives, and that’s absolutely fine. What mattered in Luigi’s Mansion 3 wasn’t really the story but the gameplay, and in that regard the game was an enjoyable experience.
Hellen Gravely was a King Boo superfan, and kind of a parody of a certain type of obsessive fan that I think we all see from time to time. Otherwise the story was a riff on a very familiar concept in the Super Mario series – a nefarious evil-doer has kidnapped someone special to our hero, and he must fight his way past the baddie’s minions, working his way up to defeating the big bad herself, in order to save them all.
Hellen Gravely, the game’s villain.
Trapping Mario and the others in paintings was itself a riff on the Super Mario 64 idea, at least on a superficial level, so in that sense nothing about the story of Luigi’s Mansion 3 was groundbreaking. What it did was put its own spin on a couple of existing concepts, then execute those ideas very well. As escapist entertainment it was perfectly enjoyable, and there was enough of a story to keep the game’s momentum going.
As someone who isn’t really into horror, what I liked about the setting was that it retained a spooky, creepy aesthetic, but kept things kid-friendly. I would wager that all but the most sensitive of children would be able to play and enjoy Luigi’s Mansion 3, and as a game to play in the run-up to Halloween I can hardly think of a better one! Striking the right balance in a game all about ghosts in a haunted hotel is a tricky task, and it would’ve been easy for the game to slip up and become scarier than intended. Luckily it avoided that particular pitfall.
I had fun with Luigi’s Mansion 3.
So Luigi’s Mansion 3 is an odd one for me. I failed in my mission to write up a full playthrough, but despite that I actually had fun with the game itself. The fact that it didn’t make for a good writing project is more to do with how I like to write and what I look for when it comes to writing up a full playthrough of a game. Luigi’s Mansion 3 is everything you’d want from a title of this nature.
I’ve been meaning to write this conclusion for a little while now, and October seemed like the right month once again! To those of you who tuned in for my Luigi’s Mansion 3 playthrough last year, thank you. I hope you enjoyed the pieces that I was able to write. Stick around, because I’ve got other ideas for playthroughs that – fingers crossed – will be more substantial!
Luigi’s Mansion 3 is out now for Nintendo Switch. The Super Mario franchise – including Luigi’s Mansion 3 and all other titles mentioned above – is the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
From time to time a video game will come along that causes controversy for its length. Titles like last year’s Resident Evil 3 remake, PlayStation 4 launch title The Order 1886, and even Gears of War 4 have all been criticised in some quarters for being too short, and whenever such criticism is made the same keyboard warriors crawl out of the woodwork. “There’s no such thing as too short!” they exclaim, stating that a game’s length doesn’t matter so long as the game itself is good. And that’s not an unfair argument; many players would rather play an excellent game that’s 6 hours than endure a bad game for 60 hours. But that isn’t the end of the affair.
This whole discussion seems to stem from a place of wealth and privilege. If someone has a huge budget for gaming, then of course the length of a game doesn’t matter. Paying £50 or £60 for a six-hour experience is absolutely fine – but only for players who can afford it. Many folks, myself included, have a limited budget for games and gaming, and the length of time we’ll be able to enjoy a game is thus a factor in deciding whether to purchase it and whether it meets our needs, especially considering how many games are out there waiting to be played.
Last year’s Resident Evil 3 remake is one title that has been criticised for its length.
In brief, if I’m confronted with two games that are each £55 (the standard price for brand-new AAA games in the UK at present) one of which is 6 hours long and one of which is 30 hours long, one game clearly offers better value than the other; I will get more gaming for my money with the longer title. “Enjoyment” is a nebulous concept which is difficult to quantify, but if we assume both games are in the same genre and both were well-received by reviewers, one game demonstrably offers better value.
It’s uncommon for me to pick up a brand-new title at launch specifically because of how pricey games can be. Though length isn’t the only consideration when deciding which new game to pick up, it certainly can be one factor among many. Though I would never say “short games are bad,” because many aren’t and can be a lot of fun, how much time I can expect to enjoy a game for is a factor for myself and, I have no doubt, for many other players with limited funds.
Anthem was also attacked in some quarters for its short campaign.
The length-to-value calculation assumes that games are initially offered at full price – £55 or $60 for the basic version, with some ultra-special editions going for a lot more. But there is a second component to this issue, and for me it gets right to the heart of the matter. Some games, such as Ori and the Blind Forest, are competitively priced right from the moment that they launch. Both games in the Ori series didn’t ask full price, and because both games were relatively short (at around eight and ten hours respectively) they still offered good value.
If a game only has six hours’ worth of content and asks for £55 or $60 up front, it deserves all of the criticism that it gets. But if the same game were to launch for £20 or £30, practically all of that criticism would melt away. The game could be seen as good value because it would be priced accordingly. Raw length on its own isn’t the issue, the real reason why some people – especially those of us on lower incomes or with less money for gaming – can feel ripped off by a short game is that they feel like bad value.
The Ori games aren’t particularly long, but they don’t charge full price either.
Getting the best value for money isn’t always about buying the cheapest product. If I buy an incredibly cheap roll of bin liners (garbage bags) but they leak so I have to use two each time, I haven’t necessarily got the best value. If I buy a cheap pair of headphones that break, and I have to keep replacing them every few months, I haven’t necessarily got the best value. The same is true of video games: I could log on to Steam or any other digital shop right now and buy the cheapest game I could find – but there’s no guarantee I’d enjoy it or even be able to play it.
Value for money exists whatever kind of product we’re talking about, and video games are commercial products. Just like the cheapest game isn’t necessarily the best value game, nor is the longest game. But when considering all of the different factors involved in deciding whether or not to go ahead and make a purchase, for a lot of folks length absolutely can be a valid consideration.
The Order 1886 is another title that was subject to criticism.
If a game is too short, and a player only has enough money for one new game, I can quite understand that player choosing to overlook that game in favour of a longer one. For someone whose primary hobby is playing video games, how long a video game lasts can be important. If a game is over within a few hours, and can thus reasonably be beaten in a day or even in an afternoon, someone on a limited budget could find themselves stuck with nothing to play for the rest of the week or the rest of the month.
This is why length matters. It isn’t the only thing that matters, and I don’t believe that most folks on this side of the argument are trying to simplistically argue that “short game equals bad game.” But what we are saying is that short games that ask full price aren’t great value, and that some publishers need to reconsider how much they charge if their latest title is particularly short.
Game length can be one factor in determining value for money.
There are many short games that I’ve played over the years that I had a lot of fun with, and I would never say that short games are inherently bad or not worth playing. But at the same time, when reviewing a title like that you can expect to see me comment on the length and even go so far in some cases as to recommend players wait until a game’s price is reduced before picking it up. That’s simply because of my own perception of a game’s value.
Think about it like this: a six-hour game that costs $60 is charging you $10 per hour of playtime, whereas a six-hour game priced at $20 is only charging $3.33 per hour of playtime, and a game with a hundred hours’ worth of content at $60 is charging you a mere 60¢ per hour of playtime. Now it’s true that not all games and thus not all hours of gameplay are created equal, but assuming that we’re looking at games with similar review scores within the same genre then I think the comparison is apt.
Let’s conclude by answering a question: can a game be too short? No, but it can be too short to offer good value at its price point. Asking for games to be priced accordingly instead of blindly leaping to the defence of publishers who are, in some cases at least, trying to get away with overcharging and underdelivering, will see this argument all but disappear.
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional art courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Have you ever wondered why so many so-called “live service” games fail to live up to expectations and ultimately get shut down? Or why so many of these types of titles are actively despised by players all around the world?
I’ve lost count of the number of times an exciting-sounding game has been announced only for me to end up sighing with disappointment when I hear the dreaded words “live service.” To many players, those words have come to epitomise all of the worst things about gaming as a hobby in 2021, and it’s got to a point where a game has to offer something truly exceptional before I’ll even consider stepping over the live service hurdle to give it a shot.
This is how “live service” games make me feel!
I’ve talked on a number of occasions about the “release now, fix later” business model that has corrupted the modern games industry. In short, games companies see the internet as an easy way to roll out patches and fixes after a game has been released, thanks to the ubiquity of internet connectivity on every gaming platform nowadays, so they figure they can release a game in an incomplete state and fix it after launch. Though games like Mass Effect: Andromeda and Cyberpunk 2077 prove that this isn’t a phenomenon unique to live services, these kinds of titles are almost universally afflicted.
Many live service games launch with a “roadmap” – another dreaded gaming neologism that rightly turns off anyone who hears it. In lieu of actual gameplay features, levels, and content, the game arrives in a threadbare state with a so-called roadmap, which is little more than a euphemism for promises of updates and new content. All too often, though, the promised updates never arrive because the game gets shut down. The roadmap leads to a dead end.
How’s that roadmap working out for you, Anthem?
If a game felt complete – with enough characters, levels, and whatever else it needs – promises of further content would be no bad thing. It would give the game’s fans something to look forward to while they enjoyed what was available at launch. But it’s rare that a live service feels complete at launch, and most roadmaps end up promising content that should have been part of the original game.
So we come to what I’m calling the “live service spiral.” Here’s how it goes: a live service game launches to mediocre reviews from critics and players, with many criticising its threadbare state and unfinished nature. Though there is a roadmap promising further content to come at some nebulous future date, many players who were considering picking up the game instead adopt a “wait-and-see” approach, biding their time until the promised updates arrive and the game is actually worth playing. But this leads to lower-than-expected sales, which in turn means that the publisher panics and decides to cancel the roadmap, ending development on the game and cancelling planned updates and patches. The game’s remaining players drift away, disappointed, to await the next title and begin the cycle again.
The first Destiny game was an early example of this phenomenon.
In 2021, having seen so many of these live services stumble out of the gate and get unceremoniously shut down shortly thereafter, I have less and less sympathy for players who still believe the hype and get hooked in with promises. If a game isn’t good enough when it launches to be worth my time – and more importantly, my money – why should I give it either on the back of vague promises? And if you choose to invest in a live service game knowing how many have come and gone in the blink of an eye, why should I offer you my sympathy when the next one follows the pattern and also fails?
So many games have been in this position. Just in the last few years we can call to mind titles like Anthem, Star Wars Battlefront, WWE 2K20, Destiny 1, and probably Marvel’s Avengers within the next few months. So there are more than enough examples to serve as warnings that this business model is not worth investing in.
Marvel’s Avengers could be next on the chopping block.
Here’s the basic problem that games industry managers and executives can’t seem to wrap their corporate heads around: for every Fortnite or Grand Theft Auto Online there are a dozen or more Anthems or Destinys. For every title that adopts a live service model and makes a success of it, there are dozens more that fail. And if a company isn’t willing to put money and effort into creating a title that players actually want to spend their time playing, desperately chasing the faltering live service trend will always be a losing proposition.
Many live service games were doomed from the very moment they were conceived in the mind of a business executive. Someone with precious little understanding of the industry looked at Fortnite or Rainbow Six Siege, and without knowing the first thing about those games nor realising they’re about a decade too late, said to their team “make me one of those.” From that very moment the game was dead on arrival – but nobody realised it, or at least nobody had the balls to tell the publisher.
Not every game will see the success of titles like Fortnite. Companies need to set realistic expectations.
All the way through development and through the extensive marketing campaign that followed, dedicated developers tried their best to build a game to the specifications of some moron in a suit, and it was all for nothing. All of that time, effort, and money was pissed away chasing after a concept that’s already played out for a company that never understood it in the first place. In many cases, “crunch” and other abusive working practices saw developers and other employees suffer actual quantifiable harm, all for the sake of a meaningless, useless piece of shit game like Anthem. Imagine working yourself half to death for the sake of Anthem, only to see the game shut down months after it launched.
Hopefully the backlash some of these games generate, combined with lacklustre sales and continued failures to meet expectations, will see this business model slowly start to die off. But all of us need to be very careful about throwing our money into any live service game that comes along in future. Companies have proven time and again that they see these games as disposable and they’re willing to cut and run from a failing project no matter how many players get screwed over in the process. If they treat their own games with such little respect, why should we buy into such a model?
We have to find a way to break the live service spiral, to show games companies that this business model is no longer viable. Some noteworthy failures, like those mentioned above, will start to cause a rethink in corporate boardrooms, but the process needs to accelerate. Not just for the sake of us having better games to play, but for the physical and mental health of those in the industry working on these titles.
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
A couple of months ago I took a look at some of the trends I hate the most in the modern games industry. But one list wasn’t comprehensive enough, apparently, because I’ve found ten more of the worst things to look at today!
Gaming as a hobby has come a long way since I first owned a Super Nintendo. Games have evolved from being little more than electronic toys to being a legitimate artistic and storytelling medium in their own right, and many of my favourite entertainment experiences of all time are in the gaming realm. Games can equal, and in some cases surpass, film and television.
Mass Effect 2 has to be one of the best stories I’ve ever experienced.
But not everything about gaming is fun! There are annoyances and problems with games today, some of which didn’t exist a few years ago, and others which have dogged the medium since its inception. As always, this list is entirely subjective, so if I criticise something you like, or ignore something you hate, please keep in mind that all of this is just the opinion of one person. If you want to check out my previous list, you can find it by clicking or tapping here.
With all that out of the way, let’s get started!
Number 1: Checkpoints
Cal Kestis at a checkpoint in Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order.
Is it 1996? No? Then let’s stop using checkpoints and allow players the freedom to save their game whenever and wherever they need to! With relatively few sensible exceptions – like in the middle of a boss fight or during a cut-scene – there’s no reason why modern games can’t incorporate a free save system.
Checkpoints were a limitation of older hardware and software; games and consoles weren’t always able to offer players the ability to save the game anywhere, so designated save zones – or checkpoints – had to be incorporated. This was already a step up from passwords that you had to write down (remember those?) but checkpoints are simply unnecessary and out-of-date in modern games.
Control also uses a checkpoint system.
With gaming having grown in the years since checkpoints were the only way to manage save files, more people from different backgrounds are getting into the hobby – including many more adults, working-age people, and folks with less free time. Having to replay a lengthy section of a game because the game didn’t offer the freedom to save when you needed to is incredibly frustrating, and considering that there is no technical reason for not implementing a proper save system, in my opinion there’s no excuse.
Whine all you want about “vision” and “integrity” and that players should “git gud,” but a lot of folks simply want to play through a fun and entertaining narrative. We also want to play through it once, not multiple times because of the lack of a convenient save function. Checkpoints seemed to have largely disappeared until the likes of Dark Souls brought them back as part of its “extreme difficulty” shtick. But there’s a difference between a challenge and something frustrating; checkpoints are definitely in the latter category.
Number 2: Boring and/or repetitive side-missions
“Another settlement needs our help.”
It’s no good bragging about the number of quests or missions in your game if 80% of them are the same – or equally as bad as each other! Open-world games tend to fall victim to this, but it’s a phenomenon that can plague all manner of different titles.
These kinds of missions follow one of a couple of different formulae: “go to location X and pick up item Y” or “go to location X and kill Y number of enemies.” Then that’s it. Mission over, receive a few experience points or a random, usually-not-worth-it item, and repeat. Such quests are nothing but padding for a game that should’ve been shorter and more focused.
The Mako in Mass Effect: Legendary Edition.
Even otherwise good games can end up going down this route. Mass Effect 1 is a case in point. The main story missions in the game are phenomenal, and while the stories which set up some of the side-missions sound like they could be potentially interesting, each one basically consists of “drive vehicle to location, kill enemies, press button.” Because 90% of the side-missions use basically identical maps and environments, this gets old fast – even if the storyline setting up the mission seems superficially interesting.
If you can’t make a good side-mission, skip it. I’d rather play a game that isn’t as long but doesn’t have this unnecessary fluff padding it out and, frankly, wasting my time.
Number 3: Collect-a-thons
Another feather. Yay.
On a related note, many open-world games have recently begun being padded out with miscellaneous items to collect. Upon picking up a feather, for example, the game will tell you that you’ve discovered 1/100 – only 99 more to go! These items almost always have no impact on the plot or gameplay of a title, and often don’t even give out a reward for finding all of them. At most you might get a trophy or achievement for collecting all of them.
At least boring side-missions usually have some kind of setup. A villager needs you to kill the rats in his basement, an admiral needs you to shut down all four computer cores, etc. Though the missions themselves are junk, a modicum of thought went into their creation. Collect-a-thons have no such redeeming feature. Often the items to be collected are so random that they have no link whatsoever to the plot or character.
Pigeons in Grand Theft Auto IV are another example.
Why does my grizzled war veteran on a mission to save the world need to spend his time hunting down 100 feathers or 50 leaves? If the items did something – anything – like if they could be used for crafting or if they were notes or recordings containing lore and info about the game world, well at least there’d be a point. It wouldn’t necessarily be a good point, but still.
These items are added into games – often in obscure or hard-to-reach places – purely to pad out the game and extend its runtime. They serve no purpose, either narratively or in terms of gameplay, and while I have no doubt that some players find collecting every single in-game item fun, for me I’d rather the effort and attention wasted on features like this was refocused elsewhere. One side-mission, even an average one, would be better than 100 random pieces of shit to collect.
Number 4: Online cheating
An aimbot for popular game Fortnite.
If you have a single-player game and want to turn on god mode or assisted aiming, go for it. Cheats can sometimes be accessibility features, offering a route through a game for players with disabilities, as well as providing a way to skip the grind for players who don’t have much time. But when you go online and play against real people, you damn well better leave the cheats behind!
There are so many examples of cheating players getting caught and banned that it can be kind of funny. Even some professional and wannabe-professional players have been caught out and learned the hard way that the internet never forgets. But no one should be doing this in the first place.
Some losers even cheated at Fall Guys, for heaven’s sake…
Trying to take away the most fundamental tenet of competition – fairness – is so phenomenally selfish that I don’t even know what to say. If there were a financial incentive – like winning the prize money at a big tournament – I could at least recognise that some folks would be tempted to try to take the easy route to payday. But in a game like Fall Guys where it’s supposed to be fun… I just don’t get why someone would feel the need to cheat.
Some games have a bigger problem with cheating than others, and games that don’t get a handle on a cheating problem fast can find themselves in serious jeopardy. It’s unfortunate that the anonymity of the internet means that a lot of players simply get away with it, with some even going so far as to use “disposable” accounts, so that if one gets banned they can just hop to another and keep right on cheating.
Number 5: Overly large, confusing levels
Looks like fun…
We kind of touched on this last time when considering empty open worlds, but some games have poorly-designed levels that are too large and almost maze-like. Getting lost or running in circles – especially if no map is provided – can become frustrating very quickly. These kinds of levels are often repetitive and bland with little going on.
Some games have levels which are simply not well laid-out, making it difficult to find the right path forward. I’ve lost count of the number of times I was trying to explore, thinking I was investigating a side-area, only to find it was the main path forward, and vice versa. Advancements in technology – particularly as far as file sizes go – have meant that levels and worlds can be physically larger. Sometimes that’s a good thing, but sometimes it isn’t!
This also applies to featureless open worlds or maps without landmarks for ease of navigation.
If a game has a map, or if a level is well-signposted (either literally or figuratively) then it shouldn’t matter how large it is. Players will be able to figure out where to explore and where to go to proceed with the story or quest. But too often that isn’t the case, and getting lost, backtracking, or not knowing where to go are all annoyances! Not every level has to be massive. Some work far better when kept concise, especially if the number of things to find or do in the level are limited.
Obviously I don’t include in this category mazes or levels which are deliberately designed to be puzzling. Some games make clever use of deliberately puzzling levels, where exploring and figuring out the right path is all part of the fun. Others just screw up their level design and leave players wandering around, confused.
Number 6: Orphaned franchises/unfinished stories
I’m not even going to say it…
Though the phenomenon of a story being abandoned partway through is hardly new – nor even unique to gaming – the rise of more cinematic, story-driven games since the turn of the millennium has brought this issue to the fore. The first encounter I had with this was in 2001 when Shenmue II dropped off the face of the earth (following abysmal sales in Japan and elsewhere) meaning that the saga was never finished.
But it isn’t just financial failures that don’t land sequels. The lack of a third game in the Half-Life series has become a joke at this point, more than fifteen years after the last mainline entry in the series. Fans have been clamouring for Half-Life 3 for a long time, and the recent success of VR title Half-Life: Alyx proves there’s a market and that the game’s audience is still here.
Will there ever be a Bully 2?
Sometimes a studio gets busy with other projects. There hasn’t been a new Elder Scrolls game, for example, in part because Bethesda has worked on the Fallout franchise and Starfield in the years since Skyrim was released. But there are also plenty of cases where a developer or publisher finds a cash-cow and abandons all pretence at making any new game so they can milk it dry.
Look at Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto V’s online mode, or Valve with its Steam digital shop and the success of online games like Dota 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Those studios could make new games or sequels to existing games, but instead choose to focus on older titles. Similarly, studios like Bethesda found success by porting existing games to new and different hardware, as well as releasing new or updated versions of older games.
Number 7: Ultra Special Super Extreme Deluxe Editions
How many different “editions” does a game need?!
I’m not talking about so-called “collector’s editions” of games, which are often simply the game plus a statue or other memorabilia. Those can be fine, because if someone is willing to part with silly money to get a resin statue of an in-game character who am I to judge? What I greatly dislike are games that are sold with multiple “editions” – i.e. a “basic” version with missing features, then several progressively more expensive versions with those missing features added back in.
Some games take this to silly extremes, with a “basic” version retailing for full price (£55/$60) and the most expensive “deluxe” edition being far more expensive for the sake of adding in-game content (extra skins, missions, etc.) that were literally developed alongside the main game then cut out. Some of these ultra extreme special editions can retail for £80, £90, or even £100 in some cases, and that’s just deceptive.
Sports games, like the FIFA series, do this a lot.
This is an evolution of the “day-one DLC” phenomenon that was present a few years ago. In the case of Mass Effect 3, for example, an entire main character, a mission to recruit them, and all of their scenes and dialogue, was literally developed along with the game, perfectly integrated and designed to be part of the game, then cut out and sold as downloadable content literally on the day the game launched.
In multiplayer titles, the extreme special supreme editions can come with in-game advantages, making them literally pay-to-win. In free-to-play games, perhaps a degree of paying for an advantage is to be expected – but some of these games are asking full price, then giving a competitive advantage to players who pay above full price.
Number 8: Unrepresentative trailers/marketing material
Anthem made a fake trailer… and look what happened to the game.
I used to work in video games marketing, and I thought I’d seen every shady trick in the book! But some of the trailers and marketing material that publishers show off in the run-up to the launch of a new game can be downright deceptive. Some games, like notorious failure Anthem, even went so far as to create fake “in-game” footage to be shown off at marketing events, which is incredibly bad form.
Cyberpunk 2077 is another example. That game was developed to run on high-end PCs and next-gen consoles, and the Xbox One/PlayStation 4 version was so poorly-optimised when it launched that many folks considered it to be literally “unplayable.” The trailers and marketing material hid this fact, and developer CD Projekt Red deliberately kept those versions of the game away from reviewers. The result was that no one realised how broken the game was until it was too late.
CD Projekt Red didn’t show things like this in the Cyberpunk 2077 trailer…
Mobile games are notorious for putting out trailers that are entirely unrepresentative of the games they’re selling. Many mobile games are samey, basic tap-a-thons with unimpressive graphics and mediocre gameplay, yet the trailers make them seem like big-budget console-quality games. In a way this isn’t new; 2D games in the 8-bit era were often marketed with cartoons and fancy graphics that made them look far better than they were!
The thing is, unrepresentative marketing always comes back to bite a company. Just ask CD Projekt Red, whose implosion in the aftermath of Cyberpunk 2077′s abysmal launch will enter gaming history.
Number 9: Massive patches and updates
Yikes.
Last time I criticised ridiculously huge file sizes for games, and this time I want to pick on updates and patches in particular. There’s no feeling more disappointing than sitting down to play a game you’ve been looking forward to all day only to find that either the game or the console needs to download a stupidly large update before you can jump in.
Some updates can be dozens of gigabytes, and if you’re on a slow internet connection (like I am) or have limited downloads, it can take forever to update the game – or be outright impossible. Once again, folks with limited time for gaming are in trouble here; even on a reasonably fast connection, a massive update can cut into or erase the time someone set aside for gaming.
After buying a brand-new console, downloading patches and updates can be a time-consuming task.
The stupid thing is that many of these updates appear to change absolutely nothing! I’ve lost track of how many times Steam has updated itself on my PC, for example, only to look exactly the same every time. While it’s good that games companies can roll out bug fixes, patch out glitches, and even fix cheating issues remotely, these things can happen at the most inconvenient times!
In the run-up to Christmas it’s now commonplace, even in mainstream news outlets, to see advice given to update new consoles and games before giving them out as presents. Little Timmy’s Christmas would be ruined if he had to spend all of Christmas Day waiting around for his new PlayStation to update before he could use it!
Number 10: We’re drowning in sequels, remakes, and spin-offs
The Final Fantasy series is up to its fifteenth mainline title…
It’s increasingly rare for a games company to produce a new game that isn’t based on an existing franchise or property. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t an issue unique to gaming – it’s happening on television and in cinema too. We’re 100% in the era of the franchise.
As great as it is to play a sequel to a much-loved title, it’s also great fun to get stuck into a completely new story with new characters and a new world. Unfortunately, as is the case in television and cinema, companies are increasingly viewing brand-new stories as risky – if fans don’t respond well then their investment will have been wasted!
How many Call of Duty games have there been by now?
Sooner or later, I think this franchise and sequel mania has to break. It can’t go on forever, not least because existing franchises will run out of material and fans will lose interest. But right now it shows absolutely no signs of abating, and some video game franchises have become annual or almost-annual fixtures. The Call of Duty series is a case in point – there’s been a new game every year since 2005.
I appreciate studios willing to stick their necks out and take a risk. Control is a good recent example of a successful new IP, and Starfield will be Bethesda’s first wholly new property in decades when it’s finally ready. But there’s certainly less storytelling innovation than there used to be, and fewer new games in favour of sequels, franchises, and spin-offs.
So that’s it. Ten more things that bug me about modern gaming!
I’m sure I’ll be able to think of more later!
Although we’ve now found twenty annoying trends in modern gaming, the hobby is generally in a good place. Technological improvements mean games look better than ever, and the increase in gaming’s popularity has seen more money enter the industry, as well as quality standards generally rising rather than falling. There are problems, of course, but the industry as a whole isn’t in a terrible place.
At the end of the day, it’s fun to complain and have a bit of a rant! The last list I published seemed to be well-read, so I hope this one has been a bit of fun as well! Now if only someone would make a Star Trek video game… perhaps the lack of one warrants a place on my next list!
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional art courtesy of press kits on IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for the Star Trek franchise, including minor spoilers for Star Trek: Discovery Season 3.
The Star Trek franchise has not been particularly well-served in the video game realm, especially in recent years. With the exception of Star Trek Online, which continues to receive updates, there hasn’t been a major release since 2017’s Bridge Crew. Both Online and Bridge Crew are somewhat niche titles, too, with the former being a massively multiplayer online game and the latter being a title designed with virtual reality in mind.
There have been a couple of new smaller games released this year, including free browser game Star Trek: Kobayashi Maru and Star Trek Legends for Apple Arcade, but considering the renewed popularity the franchise is currently enjoying, it feels as though there’s potential for ViacomCBS to do more with Star Trek as a video game franchise.
Star Trek: Kobayashi Maru is a free browser game. And it’s pretty good!
Star Trek Online was originally launched in 2010, and while the game is still being supported at time of writing, surely its lifespan is limited and it will eventually come to an end. The only other significant release really in the last decade has been the awful 2013 Star Trek action/adventure title, which was so badly-received that director JJ Abrams criticised it, fearing it actually harmed Star Trek Into Darkness when it was released that same year.
In this article I’m going to suggest five potential Star Trek video game ideas, and we’re going to consider different ways that the franchise could make a new attempt to score a hit in the gaming realm – something that hasn’t happened in a long time! Two of the biggest and most successful Star Trek video games that I can recall were 2000’s Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force, which celebrated its twentieth anniversary last year, and the Star Trek: Armada duology of real-time strategy titles which were also released around the turn of the millennium.
As always, caveats apply! I’m not saying that these games will ever be made, and I don’t have any “insider information!” This is just a wishlist from a fan. Nothing more.
Number 1:Star Trek: First Contact
A Borg drone seen in First Contact.
I’ve already proposed a First Contact tie-in once before, but this time I want to hone in on one particular aspect of my suggestion from a few months ago. In short, First Contact – which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year – would make for an excellent first-person shooter title with horror elements. Think Star Trek’s answer to Doom Eternal and you’re in the right sort of area!
Players would take on the role of a security officer aboard the Enterprise-E during the mission to Earth, and this character could be customisable which would be a nice touch. After arriving in the past, the player character would be one of the security officers tasked with holding the line and retaking the lower decks of the ship from the Borg as they attempt to assimilate the Enterprise-E and prevent first contact from taking place.
An Enterprise-E security officer firing his phaser rifle.
Though the main cast of the film would be present at points, the game wouldn’t necessarily have to follow the entire story directly. This would be a looser adaptation, with a focus on the battle for the lower decks of the Enterprise-E while Picard, Riker, and co. are busy with the main plot of the film. This would allow for maximum storytelling leeway, and I think a fun and engaging story could be written depicting the fight between Starfleet survivors and the Borg, which was something we saw parts of in the film but not the entire thing.
The first mission might take place during the Battle of Sector 001, and the player character could be present for significant moments like the holodeck scene with Picard and Lily, or even the spacewalk to prevent the Borg using the main deflector. In addition, the narrow hallways of the Enterprise-E, as well as jeffries tubes, catwalks, and even areas of the ship we haven’t seen like nacelle tubes would all make for dangerous and scary enclosed spaces to battle the Borg!
Number 2:Star Trek: Discovery
The USS Discovery.
As Discovery approaches its fourth season later this year, it’s not unfair to say the series has well and truly established itself in the franchise! As the series which brought Star Trek back to television after a twelve-year break, Discovery has been flying the flag for Star Trek for almost four years now. Some Discovery characters have been included in Star Trek Online, but it would be wonderful to see the series get its own video game adaptation.
Though there are many different ways a Discovery game could go, I feel like a third-person action/adventure title would be a great fit. Think Star Trek meets Uncharted or Jedi: Fallen Order and you’re on the right track! A game with a strong focus on story and with mysteries and puzzles to solve along the way would suit this game perfectly, and while it could be connected to either the Control story or the Burn, perhaps an altogether new and original storyline would work even better.
Michael Burnham would be the game’s protagonist.
Players would, of course, take on the role of Michael Burnham. However, at points in the game it would be possible to assemble away teams, picking up at least two other characters to join Burnham on her mission. Games like the Mass Effect series worked well with three-person squads, and adapting it to work here would be great.
The game could be set in either of Discovery’s time periods, but the 32nd Century naturally allows for the most storytelling options, as there’s nothing in canon to constrain it. The game could bring back familiar Star Trek races that haven’t been seen since past iterations of the franchise, and all of this could be done without treading on the toes of anything the series wants to do on television. Tying a game into an ongoing series makes a lot of sense, and while it isn’t something we see every television show try to do any more, it would still be a fun idea.
Number 3:Star Trek: Armada III
A sequel to this game would be fantastic!
I mentioned the Star Trek: Armada games earlier, and they were great fun to play around the turn of the millennium. The real-time strategy titles – of which there were two – played similarly to games like Age of Empires, and there were campaigns to get stuck into as well as random matches. Star Trek: Armada II in particular became a LAN party favourite for a couple of friends and I, and we played it regularly!
In addition to starships that could fight, part of Armada II involved base-building and resource collecting, with different kinds of ships and space stations required to research, build, and maintain the fighting ships. There were different factions to choose from as well, which is a must for this kind of title.
A screenshot of Star Trek: Armada II.
Armada III could pick up where the earlier games left off in the early 2000s, with a setting around the 2370s-80s. Or it could be set in the 23rd Century to connect with Strange New Worlds, with factions like the Klingons, Tholians, and Gorn. Alternatively, a 32nd Century setting would be an option, with the rump Federation and factions like the Emerald Chain and Ni’Var.
Regardless, I’d keep the real-time strategy gameplay more or less unchanged, with options for deathmatches and a single-player campaign. There are plenty of real-time strategy titles at the moment, with the genre going strong. There’s no reason why a new Armada title couldn’t be one of them!
Number 4: The Dominion War
A Jem’Hadar attack ship.
If Armada III would be a real-time strategy game, I imagine that the Dominion War could be adapted to make a wonderful grand strategy title. If you can imagine Star Trek mixed with the likes of the Total War series, you’re on the right page.
The Dominion War is perfect for this kind of grand strategy game, and players would have the choice of siding with either the Dominion and Cardassians or the Federation Alliance. The game would depict the entire war from beginning to end, starting with the loss of DS9 and concluding with the Battle of Cardassia… or the Dominion conquest of Earth!
Earth seen in Discovery Season 3. Think you could conquer it if you were in charge of Dominion forces?
Both factions would change as the game wore on, with the Romulans joining the Federation alliance midway, and the Breen throwing in with the Dominion about two-thirds of the way into the campaign. Perhaps, though, these events would not be set in stone, and failing to achieve certain objectives or keep key characters alive would mean the new allies don’t join.
The game would be similar to Total War titles in that there’d be an overall campaign map, but players would also be able to dive in and participate in individual battles. Pre-made battles or randomly created ones could be available to play in multiplayer as well, though the main campaign would be a single-player experience.
Number 5: An open world title
A map of the galaxy seen in Discovery Season 3.
Perhaps the expression “open galaxy” would be more appropriate! It would actually be tricky to create a true open world in a Star Trek game, unless the action was to take place entirely on a single planet. But in the vein of games like the Mass Effect series or Knights of the Old Republic, perhaps a role-playing/adventure game could be created with multiple planets to visit.
Players would have their own starship or runabout to command, along with a variety of potential recruits to join their crew, giving this game a “Mass Effect meets Star Trek” kind of feel. In addition to a main quest, which would see players tasked with defeating some kind of nefarious villain, there would be many smaller missions and side-quests allowing for plenty of opportunities for Star Trek fun.
A Mass Effect-style game in the Star Trek galaxy? Yes please!
I imagine the player character would be a Starfleet officer, given a “covert ops” assignment and sent on their way with minimal interference from Starfleet command, which would account for the large degree of player choice on offer. Though there would be a main story to follow, a big part of the fun of open world titles is exploring the map, discovering fun locations and side-missions, and getting lost in the world.
Star Trek has what I consider to be the best world-building of any franchise, so crafting a game that took advantage of the deep lore that the Star Trek galaxy offers should be something achievable. Giving players a practically blank slate to create a character and take them on their own Star Trek adventure sounds amazing, and I bet a game like this would win the franchise new fans.
So that’s it. Five ideas for future Star Trek video games.
Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force (2000).
Star Trek video games, unlike comparable titles in the Star Wars franchise, have never really hit the mainstream in a big way. There have been some successes: Voyager – Elite Force had a moment in the year 2000 where it was popular with PC gamers, for example. But I don’t think it’s unfair to say that most Star Trek games have really only appealed to hardcore Trekkies. Finding a way to reach out beyond that is key to the success of any future title.
That doesn’t mean ViacomCBS should jump on some of the gaming industry’s fads or worst trends, but I think it does mean that, if they’re going to go to the expense of developing a video game, it should be one that has more than just niche appeal. I’ve mostly considered single-player games, because those are my personal favourites in most cases, but as Star Trek Online has shown, there is room for multiplayer experiences as well.
Star Trek is currently enjoying a renaissance, and if this continues it’s not implausible to think that future Trekkies might look back on the 2020s as a “golden age” of Star Trek in the same way fans of my generation look back on the ’90s! Video games aren’t essential to Star Trek’s success going forward, but the medium continues to grow and there’s a huge degree of crossover between Trekkies and gamers, so taking advantage of that and producing a high-quality, engaging game that’s fun and easy for new fans to get stuck into seems like a no-brainer to me. I’d dearly love to see a new Star Trek game some time soon – and I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed!
All video games mentioned above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, publisher, etc. The Star Trek franchise – including all titles mentioned above – is the copyright of ViacomCBS. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Civilization VI was released for PC in 2016, and was subsequently ported to home consoles. The game quickly became one of my favourite strategy titles, despite not having played many turn-based strategy games beforehand. There have been new games in the Civilization series every five or six years on average, so with the current title approaching its fifth anniversary, now seems like as good a time as any to consider a few historical factions (and their leaders) that the next game in the series could include.
In the 1990s, when the first couple of Civilization games were around, I was more of a fan of real-time strategy offered by the likes of Command and Conquer, Red Alert, and Age of Empires. It wasn’t until 2016 that I gave the series a fair shake and came to realise just what I’d been missing! Civilization VI became my most-played game of the late 2010s, and at this point I’ve sunk hundreds of hours into playing it.
Civilization VI (2016)
Civilization VI has a roster of almost 50 factions, some of whom have two leaders to choose from. These factions come from all over the world and represent a huge span of history, from the distant past to contemporary times. I’ve tried to pick a similar range for my list, including factions from different continents and who flourished at different points in history.
Some strategy games can feel European-centric, partly because of the unconscious bias of their developers, perhaps, but also because European history is generally subject to more detailed study and has more archaeological and documentary evidence preserved. Civilization VI – and the whole franchise, really – has done well to avoid this particular pitfall, and I hope to do the same!
For the sake of clarity: I don’t have any “insider information.” I’m not claiming any of these factions will appear in Civilization VII or any future entry in the series. I don’t even know for sure that such a game is in development! So please keep in mind that this is a wishlist from a fan of the series. Nothing more. With that out of the way, let’s take a look at the list!
Number 1: Faction: Wales Leader: Llywelyn the Great (13th Century)
The flag of Wales.
Starting close to home, the Civilization series has previously featured the English and Scottish, but never the Welsh! Though England and/or the British Empire are mainstays of this series – and of strategy games in general – it would be great to see an independent Wales featured for a change.
Wales still exists today as a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and recent decades have seen a degree of self-government, with powers delegated from the British parliament in London to the Welsh Assembly. But Wales existed as an independent realm for centuries before falling to English conquest in the 13th Century.
Modern statue of Llywelyn the Great.
There are many historical and legendary figures from Welsh history to choose from, but few are as successful as Llywelyn the Great. He came to dominate Wales in the early 13th Century through a series of conflicts, annexations, and wars. He successfully defended Wales against the English, sided with the Barons against King John in 1215, and after starting his reign as a minor noble, came to be recognised as the ruler of practically the entire country.
In terms of a unique tech, unit or building, Wales could have the Millennium Stadium – home to the Welsh football and rugby teams. Wales is a strong sporting nation, with a rugby team that punches above their weight, frequently appearing at the pinnacle of the game despite the country’s small population.
Number 2: Faction: Inuit Leader: Nerkingoak (18th Century)
Territorial flag of Nunavut, Canada, a territory with a large proportion of Inuit peoples.
The Inuit peoples (also known historically as Eskimo) inhabit the northernmost reaches of North America. Related populations also exist in northern Russia, Greenland, and Europe. Though Civilization VI introduced several Native American factions – and Canada – the Inuit were not amongst them, and it would be great to see them included in future.
Bringing indigenous peoples into works of fiction like this can be controversial, but developers Firaxis have managed to work with representatives of different groups during the development of past games and expansions to ensure their perspectives are listened to. In short, the controversy boils down to two things: these games involve war and conquest, something native groups argue their ancestors did not participate in, and the fact that indigenous peoples have to be “westernised” in order to be competitive factions, developing technologies they didn’t historically use. Those are understandable objections.
Mikak, daughter of Nerkingoak. Painting by English artist John Russell c. 1769.
Little is known about the life of Nerkingoak, who was a tribal leader in the mid-18th Century. His daugther, Mikak, visited England in 1768 as part of a plan by the English to broker better trading agreements with Inuit leaders. Because of the harsh environment of the Arctic Circle, many Inuit peoples lived traditional lives with little interference from European powers well into the 19th Century.
The natural fit for the Inuit in a Civilization game would be to give them the ability to live and settle in the coldest parts of the map! Perhaps by ensuring Inuit settlements could thrive on snow and ice tiles they’d get a unique gameplay advantage, being able to settle areas of the map that most other factions would consider to be out-of-bounds.
Number 3: Faction: Madagascar Leader: Queen Ranavalona I (19th Century)
Modern-day flag of Madagascar.
Though Madagascar’s capital city, Antananarivo, appears in Civilization VI as an independent AI-controlled city-state, Madagascar itself – or its Malagasy people – have not been a playable faction. Madagascar’s location as an island off the African coast has led to its society being a blend of African, Asian, Arabic, and European, and while still considered “off the beaten track” in the 21st Century, tourism has become a big part of the Madagascan economy.
Madagascar was one of the last parts of Africa to be colonised by Europeans, spending 63 years as a French colony. The island was invaded during World War II by the Allies to take control away from Vichy France, and would be important later in the war for Allied shipping around Africa.
An engraving of Queen Ranavalona I.
In the early 19th Century, with European powers intent on colonising all of Africa, Queen Ranavalona I stood in opposition, successfully maintaining Madagascar’s independence for her entire reign. At a time when women were not generally in positions of power anywhere in the world, her powerful and successful policy of isolation – while marred by other domestic problems – can certainly be considered a success.
In terms of unique technologies, perhaps Madagascar could take advantage of its incredibly diverse wildlife, with some kind of animal park or national park. Alternatively, Queen Ranavalona I’s policy of strict isolationism could see opponents’ units or religions deteriorate inside Madagascan borders.
Number 4: Faction: Xia China Leader: Yu the Great (2nd millennium BC)
No known flag or banner of the Xia dynasty exists. This jade axe head is believed to date from the period of the Xia dynasty.
Chinese history falls into many distinct dynastic periods, the earliest of which is the Xia dynasty. Though the Xia did not govern all of modern-day China, their influence on successive Chinese rulers was significant, as the Xia established the concept of dynastic rule by Emperors.
As we head this far back in time, history, legend, and myth all blend together, and although there are extant relics and artefacts from the Xia period, little can be reliably known about the Xia period or its leaders; practically everything we know comes from later sources.
Han dynasty depiction of Yu the Great.
Yu the Great was the legendary emperor who was said to have “controlled the waters,” reducing flooding in the Xia heartlands. Rather than damming rivers directly, or building dykes and levees, Yu dug canals and irrigation channels to mitigate the worst floods, keeping Xia farms safe from unpredictable flooding.
Surely one of the unique properties of Xia China would have to be connected to that! Perhaps Yu would be able to build farms further away from water sources due to his irrigation prowess, or if natural disasters are part of the game, Xia China could be immune to flooding.
Number 5: Faction: The Confederate States of America Leader: Jefferson Davis (19th Century)
The flag of the Confederate States of America c. 1864.
A controversial choice, perhaps, but the Confederate States of America (a.k.a. the Confederacy) is seldom depicted outside of titles specifically about the American Civil War, and could be an interesting inclusion in the next Civilization game. The CSA was founded by political leaders from the American Southeast in 1860-61, and it was their intention to break away from the United States of America following the election of Abraham Lincoln, a known abolitionist. On a personal note, the American Civil War has long fascinated me, and is a subject I studied at length while at university.
To this day some neo-Confederates defend the CSA as pushing for “states’ rights,” but there can be no separating the attempted creation of the country from the issue of slavery. The Confederacy would formally exist for a mere four years before defeat in the American Civil War in 1865 saw the USA re-occupy all of its territory. The breakaway states were slowly given full readmission to the Union in the second half of the 1860s, and the country tried to move on – not always successfully.
Jefferson Davis.
Jefferson Davis was the Confederacy’s first and only president, and by his own account didn’t want the job when it was first offered to him. Regardless, he accepted, and though unsuccessful during the war, in the 1870s and 1880s he wrote a significant work detailing the events from his point of view, becoming a leading proponent of the “lost cause” mythology that defined southern thinking for decades.
Perhaps the Confederacy could be given a unique unit – General Robert E. Lee. Historical analysis generally ranks Lee as one of the finest military tacticians of his generation, and his leadership of Confederate forces in the latter part of the war arguably postponed the Confederacy’s defeat.
Number 6: Faction: Knights Hospitaller (a.k.a. Order of St. John) Leader: Jean Parisot de la Valette (16th Century)
Shield of the Knights Hospitaller.
The Knights Hospitaller were a Catholic religious order, created during the crusades. They were initially headquartered in Jerusalem, following the city’s conquest by crusaders, but subsequently lived on Rhodes and finally Malta. The Knights’ defence of Malta is legendary, defeating a massively superior Ottoman force at the height of the Ottoman Empire’s expansion into Christian Europe.
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta still exists today, albeit in a very different form. Finally driven from Malta by Napoleon in 1798, the Order is now headquartered in the Vatican along with other Catholic religious orders. They have recently returned to Malta in a limited capacity, however, leasing Fort St. Angelo – an important fortification during the defence of Malta – from the Maltese government.
Jean Parisot de la Valette was a French nobleman who was Grand Master of the Order during the 1550s and 1560s. He commanded the defence of Malta against Ottoman forces led by Dragut on behalf of Suleiman the Magnificent. The Knights’ victory after a brutal siege was the first reversal the Ottomans suffered, and marked the beginning of the end of Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Maltese capital Valetta is named in his honour. I cannot recommend the book The Great Siege by Ernle Bradford highly enough if you want to learn more about this fascinating event!
The Knights could draw on either their defensive strategy at Malta or their inhabitation of islands for unique techs and bonuses in Civilization VII, perhaps with a unique defensive fortification that could restore a portion of its strength at the end of each round, mimicking how the Knights resupplied Fort St. Elmo during the siege of Malta.
Number 7: Faction: South Sudan Leader: TBD
The flag of South Sudan.
South Sudan has been a country for less than a decade, officially becoming independent from Sudan in July 2011. It’s the world’s newest country! Despite the joy many South Sudanese felt at independence, however, economic issues combined with a bloody civil war have made the country a difficult and dangerous place to live.
African nations and civilisations tend to be under-represented in strategy games – and in western media in general – so South Sudan would be an interesting inclusion in any future game. With other independence movements around the world, South Sudan won’t remain the world’s newest country forever, but the fact that it’s in that position now would make it a first for a game like this!
South Sudan’s location in Africa. Picture Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Because of the South Sudanese civil war and ongoing problems within the country, it’s difficult to choose a real-life figure for the game. It would feel wrong to encourage players to take on the role of one of South Sudan’s real-life political or military figures given things like restrictions on freedom of the press and accusations of criminal acts during the civil war. Perhaps that rules out a country like South Sudan for a game like this – but there are positives too, including the mere act of representation.
As a new nation born in the 21st Century, South Sudan could have a unique characteristic based on that. Its status as a nation on the upper reaches of the River Nile could also be the source of a unique technology or ability.
Number 8: Faction: Nepal Leader: Prithvi Narayan Shah (18th Century)
Nepal has a unique flag!
Despite being sandwiched between China to the north and British-controlled India to the south, Nepal managed to remain independent. That’s no mean feat considering much of the region came under the control of European powers in the 18th and 19th Centuries, and perhaps Nepal – which was for a long time the world’s only Hindu monarchy – was helped by its location in the Himalayas.
Nepal coalesced in the mid-1700s following a series of annexations and conflicts, and has remained unified ever since. Its terrain helped keep it relatively isolated, and though there were contacts and trading going on with India and China, Nepali society and culture developed separately from its larger neighbours.
A painting of Prithvi Narayan Shah.
Prithvi Narayan Shah is considered the “Father of the Nation.” He was the first King of Nepal, and he was the leader who first unified (and conquered) the smaller kingdoms present in the region, coalescing them into a single nation. The Shah dynasty he founded would rule Nepal until 2008 when the country became a republic.
In a game like Civilization VII, Nepal’s bonuses would surely be derived from mountains. Nepali units could be able to traverse mountains, they could found cities and build other improvements on mountain tiles too. In the late game, perhaps Nepal could see a tourism boost, reflecting the increase in the number of tourists in the 21st Century who flock to the country to visit and climb Mount Everest.
Number 9: Faction: Khoisan Peoples Leader: ǂKá̦gára (mythological)
There is no Khoisan flag that I could find. This piece of Khoisan cave art may be over 20,000 years old.
The Khoisan peoples are not one single homogenous group. They are, in fact, a collection of related peoples who inhabit southern Africa. The Khoisan peoples were South Africa’s first inhabitants, arriving millennia before the Bantu-speaking peoples and white colonists.
Anthropologists consider Khoisan peoples to be the descendants of the first humans to leave the “cradle of humanity” in Africa, and thus they may very well be the longest-established groups of people anywhere on Earth, having inhabited southern Africa for more than 150,000 years. Though they suffered greatly under South Africa’s apartheid regime, many Khoisan peoples retained their traditional hunter-gather nomadic lifestyle well into the 20th Century.
Khoisan people depicted in colonial-era art.
Khoisan languages were never written down, and are still being studied by linguists and anthropologists. There is a mixture of history, legend, and myth in their oral traditions, making it hard to choose a distinct historical figure. ǂKá̦gára, the one I’ve proposed here, is almost certainly mythological, perhaps closer to a demi-god than a human!
The Khoisan peoples in Civilization VII could benefit from staying in their starting region, reflecting the Khoisan peoples’ real-world history of continuous inhabitation of southern Africa. Additional bonuses could be added for each era the Khoisan stay put, granting defensive bonuses or economic ones.
Number 10: Faction: Wessex Leader: Alfred the Great (9th Century AD)
A modern flag of Wessex.
We come full-circle and end where we began: the British Isles! As mentioned, England and Scotland have been included in past Civilization games, but none of their predecessors have been. Wessex was an independent kingdom from the end of Roman rule in Britain until the formation of England itself – which was done under the rule of the royal house of Wessex.
Wessex was initially one of many smaller Anglo-Saxon kingdoms during England’s dark ages. The end of Roman rule left a power vacuum, and sub-Roman Britain collapsed into a number of independent realms, one of which was Wessex in the south-east. After fighting against other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and against the Vikings, Wessex would eventually succeed at unifying England into a single country.
18th or 19th Century depiction of Alfred the Great.
Alfred the Great is an historical figure with legendary status in England. His rule saw conflict at first, but eventually he was able to make peace with the Vikings, leading to a period of stability for his kingdom. Alfred also paid great attention to education, insisting that schools switch from using scholarly Latin to vernacular English as their language of instruction.
Any bonuses previously assigned to England could in theory be assigned to Wessex in a future Civilization game, but there could also be bonuses based on Alfred’s reputation as a learned man with a passion for education. For example, schools and universities could generate additional science and/or tech points.
So that’s it. Ten factions and leaders who could potentially be part of the next game in the Civilization series… whenever that may come!
The Civilization series has come a long way since its debut in 1991!
I’ve tried very hard to be respectful to the diverse peoples and nations on the list above, and I hope that comes across. There’s always a debate about how to include different civilisations and peoples in games like this. I’m a big advocate of representation in all forms of media, especially for peoples who have been historically under-represented, but I understand the argument that has been made by different peoples and their representatives in the past about their inclusion in games about warfare and conquest, as well as the “westernising” of their cultures. Developers have to walk a delicate line between making a game that’s fun to play and in which factions are balanced while avoiding “whitewashing” or excessive historical revisionism. I hope developers Firaxis and publisher 2K Games can manage to get the balance right.
This could be an entire essay in itself, and perhaps one day I will write on this subject in more detail. For now, suffice to say I’ve tried to pick some different factions and leaders that I haven’t seen depicted in many games or in the Civilization series. Whether any of those above will be included in future is anyone’s guess, but I think it would be neat if they could be.
Though I don’t know for sure whether a new Civilization game is in development, it feels like an inevitability that a new game will eventually be made. The popularity of Civilization VI shows that there is a market for this kind of turn-based strategy or digital board game, and while there are other titles in the genre on the horizon – such as the upcoming Humankind – I’ll be really interested to give Civilization VII a try whenever it’s ready!
Civilization VI is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, Nintendo Switch, and Xbox One. The Civilization series – including all titles mentioned above – is the copyright of Firaxis and 2K Games. Some images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
The first home console I owned – after saving up my hard-earned pocket money and pestering my parents for ages – was a Super Nintendo. Gaming has changed a lot since then, and while many of those changes have been fantastic and introduced us to new genres, not every change has been for the better! In this list I’m going to cover some of my biggest pet peeves with video games in 2021.
As always, this list is entirely subjective. If I criticise something you like, or exclude something you hate, just keep in mind that this is only one person’s opinion. Gaming is a huge hobby that includes many people with many different perspectives. If yours and mine don’t align, that’s okay!
Number 1: No difficulty options.
Some people play video games because they love the challenge of a punishingly-difficult title, and the reward of finally overcoming an impossible level after hours of perseverance. I am not one of those people! In most cases, I play video games for escapism and entertainment – I want to see a story unfold or just switch off from other aspects of my life for a while. Excessive difficulty is frustrating and offputting for me.
As someone with health issues, I would argue that difficulty settings are a form of accessibility. Some people don’t have the ability to hit keys or buttons in rapid succession, and in some titles the lack of a difficulty setting – particularly if the game is not well-balanced – can mean those games are unavailable to folks with disabilities.
While many games are too difficult, the reverse can also be true. Some titles are just too easy for some people – I’m almost never in that category, but still! Games that have no difficulty settings where the base game is incredibly easy can be unenjoyable for some folks, particularly if the challenge was what got them interested in the first place.
In 2021, most games have difficulty options as a standard feature. Difficulty settings have been part of games going back decades, and in my opinion there’s no technical reason why they shouldn’t be included. There’s also not really a “creative” reason, either. Some developers talk in grandiose terms about their “vision” for a title being the reason why they didn’t implement difficulty options, but as I’ve said before – the inclusion of an easier (or harder) mode does not impact the game at all. It only impacts those who choose to turn it on, and considering how easy it is to implement, I find it incredibly annoying when a game is deliberately shipped without any difficulty options.
Number 2: Excessive difficulty as a game’s only selling point.
While we’re on the subject of difficulty, another pet peeve of mine is games whose entire identity is based on their difficulty (or perceived difficulty). Think about this for a moment: would Dark Souls – an otherwise bland, uninspired hack-and-slash game – still be talked about ten years after its release were it not for its reputation as impossibly difficult? How many late 2000s or early ’10s hack-and-slash games have dropped out of the cultural conversation? The only thing keeping Dark Souls there is its difficulty.
A challenge is all well and good, and I don’t begrudge players who seek that out. But for me, a game has to offer something more than that. If there’s a story worth telling under the difficult gameplay I’m impressed. If the difficult, punishing gameplay is all there is, then that’s boring!
Difficulty can also be used by developers as cover for a short or uninteresting game. Forcing players to replay long sections over and over and over can massively pad out a game’s runtime, and if that’s a concern then cranking the difficulty to ridiculous levels – and offering no way to turn it down – can turn a short game into a long one artificially.
I’m all for games that offer replay value, but being forced to replay the same level or checkpoint – or battle the same boss over and over – purely because of how frustratingly hard the developers chose to make things simply isn’t fun for me.
Number 3: Ridiculous file sizes.
Hey Call of Duty? Your crappy multiplayer mode does not need to be 200 gigabytes. Nor does any game, for that matter. It’s great that modern technology allows developers to create realistic-looking worlds, but some studios are far better than others when it comes to making the best use of space! Some modern games do need to be large to incorporate everything, but even so there’s “large” and then there’s “too large.”
For a lot of folks this is an issue for two main reasons: data caps and download speeds. On my current connection I’m lucky to get a download speed of 7 Mbps, and downloading huge game files can quite literally take several days – days in which doing anything else online would be impossibly slow! But I’m fortunate compared to some people, because I’m not limited in the amount of data I can download by my ISP.
In many parts of the world, and on cheaper broadband connections, data caps are very much still a thing. Large game files can take up an entire months’ worth of data – or even more in some cases – making games with huge files totally inaccessible to a large number of people.
This one doesn’t seem like it’s going away any time soon, though. In fact, we’re likely to see file sizes continue to get larger as games push for higher resolutions, larger environments, and more detail.
Number 4: Empty open worlds.
Let’s call this one “the Fallout 76 problem.” Open worlds became a trend in gaming at some point in the last decade, such that many franchises pursued this style even when it didn’t suit their gameplay. Read the marketing material of many modern titles and you’ll see bragging about the size of the game world: 50km2, 100km2, 1,000km2, and so on. But many of these open worlds are just empty and boring, with much of the map taken up with vast expanses of nothing.
It is simply not much fun to have to travel across a boring environment – or even a decently pretty one – for ages just to get to the next mission or part of the story. Level design used to be concise and clever; modern open worlds, especially those which brag about their size, tend to be too large, with too little going on.
The reason why Fallout 76 just encapsulates this for me is twofold. Firstly, Bethesda droned on and on in the weeks before the game’s release that the world they’d created was the “biggest ever!” And secondly, the game had literally zero non-player characters. That huge open world was populated by a handful of other players, non-sentient monsters, and nothing else. It was one of the worst games of the last few years as a result.
Open worlds can work well in games that are suited for that style of gameplay. But too many studios have been pushed into creating an open world simply to fit in with a current trend, and those open worlds tend to just flat-out suck because of it. Even when developers have tried to throw players a bone by adding in collect-a-thons, those get boring fast.
Number 5: Pixel graphics as a selling point.
There are some great modern games that use a deliberately 8-bit look. But for every modern classic there are fifty shades of shit; games that think pixel graphics and the word “retro” are cover for creating a mediocre or just plain bad title.
It may be hard to remember, but there was a time when the idea of using a deliberately “old-school” aesthetic would have been laughed at. The first few console generations were all about improvements, and I’m old enough to remember when 3D was a huge deal. It seemed like nobody would ever want to go back to playing a SNES game after trying the Nintendo 64, and while there are still plenty of gamers who love the retro feel, I’m generally not one of them.
That isn’t to say that realistic graphics should be the only thing a game strives for. And this point works for modern graphics or visual styles in general – bragging about how detailed the graphics are, or how unique a title’s art style is, means nothing if the game itself is shit. But it likewise works for pixel-graphics games – an outdated art style does not compensate for or cover up a fundamentally flawed, unenjoyable experience.
Games with pixel graphics can be good, and many titles have surprised me by how good they are. I’ve written before about how Minecraft surprised me by being so much more than I expected, and that’s one example. But I guess what I’d say is this: if your game looks like it should have been released in 1991, you’ve got more of an uphill battle to win me over – or even convince me to try it in the first place – than you would if your game looked new.
Number 6: Unnecessary remakes.
We called one of the entries above “the Fallout 76 problem,” so let’s call this one “the Mass Effect: Legendary Edition problem.” In short, games from even ten or fifteen years ago still look pretty good and play well. There’s far less of a difference between games from 2011 and 2021 than there was between games from 1991 and 2001 – the pace of technological change, at least in gaming, has slowed.
“Updating” or “remaking” a game from ten years ago serves no real purpose, and in the case of Mass Effect: Legendary Edition I’ve struggled at times to tell which version of the game is the new one when looking at pre-release marketing material. There’s no compelling reason to remake games that aren’t very old. Re-release them or give them a renewed marketing push if you want to drum up sales or draw attention to a series, but don’t bill your minor upgrade as a “remake.”
There are some games that have benefitted hugely from being remade. I’d point to Crash Bandicoot and Resident Evil 2 as two great examples. But those games were both over twenty years old at the time they were remade, and having been released in the PlayStation 1 era, both saw massive upgrades such that they were truly worthy of the “remake” label.
I’ve put together two lists of games that I’d love to see remade, but when I did so I deliberately excluded titles from the last two console generations. Those games, as I said at the time, are too recent to see any substantial benefits from a remake. In another decade or so, assuming sufficient technological progress has been made, we can talk about remaking PlayStation 3 or PlayStation 4 games – but not now!
Number 7: Fake “remakes.”
On a related note to the point above, if a title is billed as a “remake,” I expect to see substantial changes and improvements. If all that’s happened is a developer has run an old title through an upscaler and added widescreen support, that’s not a remake!
A lot of titles that acquire the “HD” suffix seem to suffer from this problem. Shenmue I & II on PC contained a number of bugs and glitches – some of which existed in the Dreamcast version! When Sega decided to “remake” these two amazing games, they couldn’t even be bothered to patch out bugs that were over fifteen years old. That has to be some of the sloppiest, laziest work I’ve ever seen.
There are other examples of this, where a project may have started out with good intentions but was scaled back and scaled back some more to the point that it ended up being little more than an upscaled re-release. Kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Reckoning springs to mind as an example from just last year.
Remakes are an opportunity to go back to the drawing board, fix issues, update a title, and bring it into the modern world. Too many “remakes” fail to address issues with the original version of the game. We could even point to Mass Effect: Legendary Edition’s refusal to address criticism of the ending of Mass Effect 3 as yet another example of a missed opportunity.
Number 8: The “release now, fix later” business model.
This isn’t the first time I’ve criticised the “release now, fix later” approach taken by too many modern games – and it likely won’t be the last! Also known as “live services,” games that go down this route almost always underperform and draw criticism, and they absolutely deserve it. The addition of internet connectivity to home consoles has meant that games companies have taken a “good enough” approach to games, releasing them before they’re ready with the intention to patch out bugs, add more content, and so on at a later time.
Cyberpunk 2077 is one of the most recent and most egregious examples of this phenomenon, being released on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 in a state so appallingly bad that many considered it “unplayable.” But there are hundreds of other examples going back to the early part of the last decade. Fortunately, out of all the entries on this list, this is the one that shows at least some signs of going away!
The fundamental flaw in this approach, of course, is that games with potential end up having launches that are mediocre at best, and when they naturally underperform due to bad reviews and word-of-mouth, companies panic! Planned updates are scrapped to avoid pumping more money into a failed product, and a game that could have been decent ends up being forgotten.
For every No Man’s Sky that manages to claw its way to success, there are a dozen Anthems or Mass Effect: Andromedas which fail. Time will tell if Cyberpunk 2077 can rebuild itself and its reputation, but its an uphill struggle – and a totally unnecessary one; a self-inflicted wound. If publishers would just wait and delay clearly-unfinished games instead of forcing them to meet arbitrary deadlines, gaming would be a much more enjoyable hobby. Remember, everyone: NO PRE-ORDERS!
Number 9: Forcing games to be multiplayer and/or scrapping single-player modes.
Some games are built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind – but many others are not, and have multiplayer modes tacked on for no reason. The Last Of Us had an unnecessary multiplayer mode, as did Mass Effect 3. Did you even know that, or notice those modes when you booted up those story-focused games?
Some games and even whole genres are just not well-suited to multiplayer. And others that are still have the potential to see single-player stories too. Many gamers associate the first-person shooter genre with multiplayer, and it’s true that multiplayer games work well in the first-person shooter space. But so do single-player titles, and aside from 2016’s Doom and the newer Wolfenstein titles, I can’t think of many new single-player first-person shooters, or even shooters with single-player modes that felt anything other than tacked-on.
Anthem is one of the biggest failures of the last few years, despite BioWare wanting it to be the video game equivalent of Bob Dylan. But if Anthem hadn’t been multiplayer and had instead maintained BioWare’s usual single-player focus, who knows what it could have been. There was potential in its Iron Man-esque flying suits, but that potential was wasted on a mediocre-at-best multiplayer shooter.
I started playing games before the internet, when “multiplayer” meant buying a second controller and plugging it into the console’s only other available port! So I know I’m biased because of that. But just a few short years ago it felt as though there were many more single-player titles, and fewer games that felt as though multiplayer modes had been artificially forced in. In the wake of huge financial successes such as Grand Theft Auto V, Fortnite, and the like, publishers see multiplayer as a cash cow – but I wish they didn’t!
Number 10: Early access.
How many times have you been excited to see that a game you’ve been waiting for is finally available to buy… only to see the two most awful words in the entire gaming lexicon: “Early Access?” Early access billed itself as a way for indie developers to get feedback on their games before going ahead with a full release, and I want to be clear on this point: I don’t begrudge indie games using it for that purpose. Indies get a pass!
But recently there’s been a trend for huge game studios to use early access as free labour; a cheap replacement for paying the wages of a quality assurance department. When I worked for a large games company in the past, I knew a number of QA testers, and the job is not an easy one. It certainly isn’t one that studios should be pushing off onto players, yet that’s exactly what a number of them have been doing. Early access, if it exists at all, should be a way for small studios to hone and polish their game, and maybe add fan-requested extras, not for big companies to save money on testers.
Then there are the perpetual early access games. You know the ones: they entered early access in 2015 and are still there today. Platforms like Steam which offer early access need to set time limits, because unfortunately some games are just taking the piss. If your game has been out since 2015, then it’s out. It’s not in early access, you’ve released it.
Unlike most of the entries on this list, early access started out with genuinely good intentions. When used appropriately by indie developers, it’s fine and I don’t have any issue with it. But big companies should know better, and games that enter early access and never leave should be booted out!
Bonus: Online harassment.
Though this problem afflicts the entire internet regardless of where you go, it’s significant in the gaming realm. Developers, publishers, even individual employees of games studios can find themselves subjected to campaigns of online harassment by so-called “fans” who’ve decided to take issue with something in a recent title.
Let’s be clear: there is never any excuse for this. No game, no matter how bad it is, is worth harassing someone over. It’s possible to criticise games and their companies in a constructive way, or at least in a way that doesn’t get personal. There’s never any need to go after a developer personally, and especially not to send someone death threats.
We’ve seen this happen when games are delayed. We’ve seen it happen when games release too early in a broken state. In the case of Cyberpunk 2077, we’ve seen both. Toxic people will always find a reason to be toxic, unfortunately, and in many ways the anonymity of the internet has brought out the worst in human nature.
No developer or anyone who works in the games industry deserves to be threatened or harassed. It’s awful, it needs to stop, and the petty, toxic people who engage in this scummy activity do not deserve to be called “fans.”
So that’s it. Ten of my pet peeves with modern gaming.
This was a rant, but it was just for fun so I hope you don’t mind! There are some truly annoying things – and some truly annoying people – involved in gaming in 2021, and as much fun as playing games can be, it can be a frustrating experience as well. Some of these things are fads – short-term trends that will evaporate as the industry moves on. But others, like the move away from single-player games toward ongoing multiplayer experiences, seem like they’re here to stay.
Gaming has changed an awful lot since I first picked up a control pad. And it will continue to evolve and adapt – the games industry may be unrecognisable in fifteen or twenty years’ time! We’ll have to keep our fingers crossed for positive changes to come.
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. Some stock images courtesy of pixabay. Some screenshots and promotional artwork courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Whenever a new console generation kicks off, it’s inevitable that there will be some games that are released on both new and old systems. This is perfectly understandable in many cases, as games which are new and have had a lot of time and effort put into their development want to get the widest audience possible. Many titles in this category go unnoticed, or at most some reviewers will point out that the game may not be fully-optimised for new hardware. But some other titles are the subject of pretty heavy criticism, and I can fully understand why.
When it was announced that Grand Theft Auto V would be ported to the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5, many fans were upset. This was a game initially developed for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and it’s going to be ported again?Grand Theft Auto V has been a juggernaut this console generation after getting its start in 2013, but after more than seven years fans are itching for a new entry in the series.
Grand Theft Auto V was originally released in 2013 for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
In 2014, when Grand Theft Auto V was re-released on current-gen consoles, it was barely a year old. No one at the time begrudged Rockstar the chance to port the title to new hardware because there was an understanding that the game had been a big undertaking. As the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 era drew to a close, it made sense to bring some new titles to the new systems.
But that was six years ago, and in that time Rockstar has developed and published precisely one new game – Red Dead Redemption II. There are arguments to be heard that the pace of game development as a whole has slowed, and I don’t want to ignore the reality that developing an open-world game on the scale of Grand Theft Auto V is a colossal undertaking. But that doesn’t excuse what seems to many fans to be the company taking shortcuts.
Red Dead Redemption II is Rockstar’s only game in seven years.
What’s worse is that the time and effort spent on creating a next-gen port could arguably be better spent creating a new title. Even in a studio with the financial resources of Rockstar, porting existing games does take time, resources, and personnel away from other projects. So it’s not just a case of corner-cutting – fans feel that the company is wasting time.
Practically every current-gen title is going to be “forward-compatible” with new hardware anyway. What that means is that any Xbox One game should work on the Xbox Series X, and any PlayStation 4 game should work on PlayStation 5 by default – including titles like Grand Theft Auto V. So there’s no need to spend time and money reworking a seven-year-old game for new hardware; existing versions will work just fine.
Both next-gen consoles will be backwards-compatible with current games by default.
If the upgrades were going to be free, allowing players who own a current-gen copy of the game to experience the tweaks and changes on new hardware, I don’t think anyone would mind. In fact, players have praised companies like CD Projekt Red, whose 2015 title The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is receiving such a free upgrade. But Rockstar – and other companies too – plan to re-release their old games and get gamers to shell out more money for the next-gen version. It feels decidedly anti-consumer.
Even though I’m not a big online multiplayer person, I recognise the appeal that Grand Theft Auto V has as an online experience. But after seven years I feel that online experience has run its course, and most players will be ready for a new challenge. Those who want to stick with what they already have can either continue to play on Xbox One/PlayStation 4 or can even bring their existing copy of the game to the new consoles; there’s no need to buy it all over again.
Grand Theft Auto V is getting a next-gen re-release in 2021… eight years and two console generations later.
Another company that has been roundly criticised for its approach to next-gen is 505 Games, publisher of Control. This is a game I’ve been looking forward to playing, as it has great reviews, but it’s another example of next-gen upgrades being denied to existing fans. The only way to play Control will be to buy it again on the new consoles, and to many fans the small upgrade seems like a big expense.
The Last Of Us was similarly criticised at the beginning of the PlayStation 4 era for being re-released in a “remastered” state less than a year on from its PlayStation 3 debut. At the time I was genuinely shocked by the gall of developer Naughty Dog; how can a game less than a year old be remastered already? But The Last Of Us sold very well on PlayStation 4, cementing this business model in the minds of executives as one that works and will rake in cash for comparatively little effort.
The Last Of Us was re-released on PlayStation 4 mere months after its PlayStation 3 premiere.
At the end of the day, that’s what this is all about. Money. Re-releasing a game with a few minor upgrades and hardware-specific tweaks is relatively inexpensive and offers companies huge financial rewards. It should be no surprise to learn that a big company wants to make more money, and I get that we live in a society where profit and growth matter. It’s just that it feels so anti-consumer, and even big companies need to be aware of their reputations. It’s easy to dismiss criticism and backlash as coming from just a whiny minority of hardcore fans, but companies like Electronic Arts have found – to their great cost – just what can happen when they push players too far.
It’s only in the last console generation that the idea of cross-generation releases has been such a big deal anyway. In the days of the SNES and the Nintendo 64 the idea of a game from one system being ported wholesale to new hardware just didn’t exist. There were ports, but they tended to be things like Super Mario All-Stars, which was a compilation of several games instead of a single title, and offered players good value as a result.
There weren’t many ports in the SNES era, and those that did exist were bundles like Super Mario All-Stars.
But if you’d told me in 2005, when the Xbox 360 was launched, that the original Halo game was just going to be straight-up ported to the new system and that players would be expected to “just buy it again” I’d have been absolutely gobsmacked. What a nonsense idea that would have been even as recently as 2005! We’ve come to accept some of these things in the fifteen years since, but even by today’s standards, some of the proposals for next-gen re-releases are drawing well-earned backlash.
Though it wasn’t possible to predict the impact of the coronavirus pandemic even a few short months ago, the changing situation in the world should be something companies take note of. There’s a good chance that many folks are going to have less disposable income at least in the short-term, and being asked to re-purchase a seven-year-old game on a new console is definitely not something that should be considered under current circumstances. Even were it not for the pandemic, I think this practice would still be inappropriate and anti-consumer. But given where things currently sit, it’s even worse.
This is the kind of practice that can start big companies on a slippery slope to reputational damage and more widespread criticism, and I would advise them to tread carefully. Rockstar – or any other company engaged in a similar practice – could garner a lot of goodwill today by announcing that the next-gen version of whatever game they’re working on will be free to anyone who currently owns it. Or, on the flip side, they could continue to draw criticism and ire for their greed and lack of care.
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional artwork courtesy of press kits on IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Trekking with Dennis 