Morally Grey?

Here there be spoilers. You have been warned.

Like many of you, I recently picked up The Last of Us Remastered. I didn't play it on PS3, and I steered clear of any spoilers, so I didn't know a whole lot about what goes on, beyond the very basic Joel/Ellie dynamic.

If you played it on either PS3 or PS4 through to the end, you'll know it has a very dramatic conclusion. Joel ultimately takes Ellie away from the Fireflies, destroying their chances of finding a cure. He then baldly lies about the circumstances to Ellie.

Many people disagreed with his actions, saying they only begrudgingly participated and consider him wrong, even a monster. Many others disagreed, but understood and accepted his choice, whether they saw it as morally grey or outright wrong - albeit justified. I fall into a third camp. I completely agreed with every decision Joel made. He was right to rescue Ellie, he was right to kill the Fireflies - including the doctors (I killed them all, with my only hesitation being a moment to think the game would consider this the wrong action even though I thought otherwise) - and he was right to end Marlene too. And the lie to Ellie was also entirely justified.

You see, the Fireflies, for all the efforts to portray them as morally grey in pursuit of a righteous solution, are unspeakably and irredeemably immoral. While it's true that Joel, like them, did not seek Ellie's input on whether or not it would be fair to sacrifice her for a cure, his decision was to spare her life. Theirs was to take it. Theirs was the thievery. They not only made no attempt to seek informed, rational consent (and, for reasons we'll get into, even if they had it would have been dubious) before rushing her off to die in pursuit of medical research they had no way of knowing would work (Naughty Dog's word of god that it would have is irrelevant: the Fireflies didn't know that, so everything they were doing was in reckless pursuit of an uncertainty), they did the whole thing while she was unconscious. And they knowingly kept it from someone who would have sought to protect her.

Marlene is by far the worst of them. She flagrantly abused her position as a surrogate mother to Ellie in order to fortify her crumbling standing among the Fireflies. It's not merely that she greenlit the procedure, it's that she failed to even try to speak to Ellie about it, and only spoke about it to Joel reluctantly - and with muscle to intimidate and remove him. She apparently held them off from killing him in his sleep because she felt he was the only one who knew the gravity of her decision, but that's just more evidence of her selfishness in this regard. Her betrayal of Ellie is all the more wretched because she claims to have equal or greater affection for her to/than Joel. She says Ellie would have agreed, and it is implied Joel thinks so too. So what? Why then did she not ask? Why make the decision for her? And what kind of person sacrifices a child they claim affection for, a child apparently in their care, so callously?

All the Fireflies are among the more evil people in The Last of Us. The vast majority of the Hunters are absolute scumbags, but only in as much as a thirst for survival drove them there (David and his merry band of cannibals, but him especially, are the absolute nadir of the Hunters and probably about as bad as the Fireflies, but most of the Hunters in the game are far more combat pragmatic than evil). The Fireflies and their mad doctor achieve this level of unspeakable immorality because of their undeserved belief in the righteousness of their actions. The Hunters are at least honest enough to acknowledge, for the most part, their savagery and their rationalisation is somewhat reasonable. The Fireflies have the gall to believe their killing of Ellie, their terrorism, their murders...are noble and just.

And maybe you're sat there fuming at me for implying that their aim is insufficient justification for their means, since you might argue they seek to save mankind.

Perhaps you think I am about to argue that mankind in The Last of Us doesn't deserve saving, or at least not enough to justify Ellie's sacrifice. Many have argued the same in the discussions I've read since finishing the game.

You're wrong. I'm not making that argument, because it's irrelevant. I kind of agree, but not enough to dismiss the idea of a cure outright as many have. No, my objection is more straightforward:

Mankind does NOT need saving in The Last of Us. Ellie's sacrifice would have been pointless. There is nothing to save mankind FROM.

It was a feeling I first had when Joel and Ellie met up with Joel's brother Tommy. The Jackson community is a fully-functioning society. Safe. Secure. Civil. The infection is an outside threat - periphery and manageable. Tommy offers them a chance to stay. While I saw the logic in his idea, I initially agreed with Joel that pursuing the cure was worth it - after all, we could always come back with Ellie when it was all over and make a life for ourselves (as seems to be happening in the epilogue). The thing is, like Joel, I was at the time working under the assumption that Ellie simply needed to get to the Fireflies so they could take samples or study her or something. It hadn't crossed my mind their "cure" would be "kill Ellie and study the brain". Incidentally, they're after her BRAIN? That raises the question of who're the real zombies: the infected or the damn Fireflies?

You see, heading off to assist in researching a cure for a disease, that's just a noble pursuit in a pretty crapsacky world. Escorting a girl to her death to cure a disease is another thing altogether. I can see an argument for it (though I'd still have misgivings) to save mankind, but again...That's not what was going on.

The disease had twenty years to wipe humans out, and it didn't. Joel survived. Tess survived until she took one too many risks. They talk about it as being luck, but it's not. Everyone we saw get infected after the time skip was taking a risk when they did. They put themselves in situations where infection was more likely. Ish's community was doing fine in the sewers until someone was careless and failed to shut the door. The same thing happens in Left Behind. If Riley hadn't been inexcusably reckless for someone who grew up in that world, she and Ellie would have been fine.

Then there's Jackson. Safe. Secure. Civil. Infection-free. The quarantine Zones are cesspits of crime and loose morals, generally portrayed as horrible places to live, and this is blamed on the infection. But it's not the infection. It's the people. More specifically, the leadership. They're military dictatorships. All military dictatorships are awful. It doesn't matter why they were implemented, martial law is an awful way to live.

But then...there's Jackson. Jackson proves the dictatorship is unnecessary to survive the infection. In fact, Jackson is flourishing. It is, by every conceivable measure, a better and more functional society. Quality of life may not be quite back to pre-infection levels, but it's high. They have amenities, companionship, pets, safety, power, food...

They restored civilisation without a cure. Mankind re-asserting its civility and social advancement even with the infection still out there. Life, and humanity, found a way. There was no need for a cure. Certainly not enough need to justify Ellie losing her life in pursuit of the mere chance of one. A cure would be nice, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" does not mean "for some to live longer, others must die".

Had Ellie chosen a noble sacrifice for a cure anyway, then so be it, but that didn't happen. She was given no choice, and that act damned the Fireflies as unworthy of pursuing a cure. They did not deserve it. And the people of Jackson, who might have, did not need it. Marlene's justification that Ellie would have agreed is pathetic. Not because it's unlikely, but because it's definitely true. Ellie would have agreed. But it would not have been a noble sacrifice. It would have been out of survivor's guilt and a desire to end her sorrow over the path she was forced (though she is unlikely to have admitted as much to herself) to lead by Marlene.

Now, as for the lie, at least one of the creators has suggested Ellie knows Joel is lying and resents him for it, even though she still loves him as a father. From what I understand, this is not canon and the conclusion is deliberately ambiguous. I said above I don't disagree with the lie. And the reason plays again into Ellie's mental state. Right or wrong of the lie goes out the window when you consider that Ellie is not going to see the events objectively, or even from a rational subjective viewpoint. She makes it clear in that scene that her view is blurred by regret and sorrow. Joel opts to protect her from more of that by absorbing it himself. Some say it is ultimately selfish of him to choose to keep her in his life and lie to keep her from shunning him (which undoubtedly played in to his decision), but to that I say...Is it any less selfish of Ellie to expect Joel to watch her sacrifice herself or take on a burden he can protect her from after all he's been through - after Sarah?

The Last of Us is ultimately a story about people having to look out for them and theirs. To my mind, nobody is a saint - not even Ellie. What sets our heroes (Ultimately, the Jackson citizenry including Joel and Ellie) apart is that they choose to make things happen for themselves, to sacrifice themselves for those around them and to attack only as a means of survival. The villains seek to coerce, manipulate or force others into sacrificing themselves for them (the villains) or "the greater good". The Fireflies, and the Cannibals, each did this in their own ways. Joel, Ellie, Tommy and his settlement...They took on burdens and confronted danger themselves.

Saints? No. Survivors? Yes. There is no need for a cure.

22 Comments

The Destiny Beta in Video

The Destiny Beta has drawn to a close. Throughout the adventure, I was regularly broadcasting my gameplay on my Twitch Channel and posting highlights to my YouTube Channel. The full playlist of Highlights is above, and below are a couple of my favourite individual videos.

First up, there's my first run in the beta through the Strike, Devil's Lair:

Next, a more bite-sized video of a rapid takedown of the Devil Walker from a Public Event a bit later in the Beta's run:

In the Beta, there were two variants of the competitive multiplayer "Crucible" available, both using the same game type (Control - "Capture & Defend, Guardians!"). Of the two, I preferred Iron Banner, the limited time only event where Level Advantages were enabled so your gear counted. It also granted access to two additional maps, both of which were far better than the First Light map which came as one of the two available in standard Crucible. Here's a quick match on Rusted Lands:

Little bit longer now, but still shorter than that Strike, here's the Mission on the Moon (The Dark Beyond) in standard difficulty. Along the way, we take out a Servitor as part of our first ever Moon-based Public Event. This was a fun adventure, with time limited access, and it teased us mercilessly with the gorgeous environment Bungie has created on the Moon:

And now, the feature presentation...After running through The Dark beyond on standard difficulty, we cranked it up to the Level 9 difficulty and went back in. But this time, partway through, I looked off down a road and wondered aloud what was at the other end. For the next our, we explored the moon, including getting semi-lost in the depths of the Hellmouth, deep below the surface of the moon, discovering giant enemies and terrifying doors and chains and hooks. It was incredible how much of the moon, way off the track of the mission path, was open to us and we crawled over as much of it as we could. Here is that adventure in its entirety:

This Destiny Beta video stuff was also a bit of a Beta test for me. This Twitch channel is new, replacing my old one which was actually a semi-converted Justin.tv channel and thus missing some important features. Now I've proved it works as I wanted, come the full release of Destiny, I'll be doing The Destiny Daily, a daily (or as near as possible) Destiny broadcast on Twitch, with archives on YouTube. Between times, I'll have some less structured video fun from the world of Destiny, and I'll post a weekly review of the best bits right here on my Giant Bomb Blog.

Before that, I'll be doing some broadcasts of the PS4 games I'm using to fill the insufferable 42.5 days left until Destiny drops (Including The Last of Us Remastered and Oddworld: Abe's Oddysey - New 'n' Tasty!). and looking ahead, I'll probably add a regular DRIVECLUB broadcast once Sony's new racer finally hits store shelves.

2 Comments

Unofficially Officially Unofficial musings

All this drama has coincided with me going back to a question we once had an answer to, back in the very early days.

What if there was a place that gave Giant Bomb users a face and voice?

What if we took that old answer and updated it for the here and now?

I'm actively exploring this...So there may be more soon.

Start the Conversation

Ken Levine is a Failure

There are two things all leaders should do. The first, is take the fall. The buck should stop with them. The second is to ensure that there is an effective tier of leadership below him-, her- or them- self to continue in the event of a disaster or simple departure to prevent the ship from ever being without a rudder.

Steve Jobs at Apple managed to do just that. The second time. The first time, egos meant that the lower tier led a coup and eventually damn near tanked the company. The second time around, an effective group was groomed over a decade to ensure an effective succession. And lo and behold, Apple is no weaker since Steve left and was ultimately lost.

At Nintendo, the home console business has imploded spectacularly. From the top of the pile in 2010, to enduring an embarrassing no-holds-barred beatdown from rivals Sony just three years later. Satoru Iwata made a bad call to wait so long on the Wii U. They probably had reasons - costs and difficulties in development and so on - but mistakes were made. The Wii U was about two years too late to execute on the strategy it represents. Iwata stood up, held out his hands and admitted his fault, and promised to redouble his efforts to fix it. The buck stopped with him, and he said so publicly. He did the same with the 3DS's mis-fire of a launch and turned it into a hit.

Microsoft were in crisis last year because Steve Ballmer fundamentally failed at both taking blame and building a succession plan. A few years ago, Microsoft was positively lousy with potential future CEOs. Ballmer ultimately forced all of them out of the company, one way or another, and never took responsibility for the failed visions that were holding back so many of Microsoft's operating divisions. It eventually cost him the support of founder Bill Gates, and now Microsoft is to be retooled by its new CEO, with his help. It will take time. There are open wounds.

Ken Levine is like Steve Ballmer. He is a failed leader. He lead a group of talented people and steered them per his vision, and they made a game. I didn't like it, you probably did, but it doesn't really matter. No matter what you think of BioShock Infinite, it was a failure financially, costing far too much and taking far too long to be profitable with anything less than mind-blowing sales, which it did not achieve.

There are credible arguments that it failed in terms of gameplay, narrative or in marrying the two as well, though those points are far more debatable. There is a common thread though. Anything about BioShock Infinite you can say failed, can be traced back to one man. The guy with the vision. The one calling the shots. Ken shaped the team, he pointed the way, he was responsible for the themes and the choice of gameplay style. He was the classic auteur. BioShock Infinite was his baby, more even than Titanfall is Vince Zampella's.

Its failures are his failures.

Ken still has a job, most of the people working for him don't.

Apparently Ken will go on to make smaller games with a small subset of the existing Irrational employees. The BioShock franchise will live on with 2K, but apparently keeping around the people who made those BioShock games to do that for them was not feasible. The implication is that 2K and Levine do not think those guys capable of conceiving of a new BioShock and building on it without Ken. If that's true, it is to Ken's eternal shame that he failed to impart that knowledge and ability to his subordinates, failed to engender an environment where new creativity could flourish.

Really though, does anyone believe that? That those guys couldn't handle the BioShock franchise, considering they built it? It's simply not credible to claim the series is in better hands being farmed out.

The game failed because Ken failed. Maybe 2K was going to shutter the studio because of that either way, but why is it okay for Levine, who should ultimately be held responsible, to get a secure job pursuing his creative interests, while the guys on the front line get the chop? Why does he think that's okay? Why is he willing to stay with 2K if this was their idea?

It just raises too many questions. And there are precious few answers.

But I know one thing for sure.

Ken Levine is a failure.

Start the Conversation

In Memoriam: Ryan Davis

I still haven't really managed to come to terms with the idea that Ryan's infectious laughter won't be here to lift our spirits in the future. I can't imagine how those who actually knew him personally must be feeling, and my thoughts and my heart are with them at this time.

In Ryan's memory, I want to share with you the earliest thing I can remember he and Jeff doing together which has really stuck with me. It's from a whopping ten years ago, and it's the phrases "$20 is $40 too much for Dragon Ball Z: Ultimate Battle 22" and "Hey Jeff, remember the first time we played Dragon Ball Z: Ultimate Battle 22?" which really stuck with me, probably because of Ryan's fantastic delivery.

This whole video is a fantastically honest and entertaining production considering it's just a couple of minutes long, but the fact Ryan's words here have stuck with me, popping into my head to elicit a chuckle at random ever since, should indicate just how good Ryan was at what he did. He is, already, sorely missed. This world is so much poorer for having lost him.

1 Comments

Xbox One Debacle Redux

So, yesterday, Microsoft did a one-eighty on their consumer-hostile disc-based game DRM policies. All through today, some people have been lamenting the loss of the Xbox One Family Sharing plan as a part of that. As it turns out, they shouldn't have been. It turns out, it was going to be awful. One of the architects of the Xbox One has (allegedly) posted the following information on PasteBin. It's got more than its fair share of crazy, and I'm going to respond to it paragraph-byparagraph.

It’s 4am and I’m still up, some hours ago, we at Microsoft had to basically redact on our Always Online infrastructure and dream. Being part of the team that created the entire infrastructure to include the POS (point of sale) mechanisms I must say that I am extremely sad to see it removed. But the consumer knows what is best, I can place the blame on no one but us here at Microsoft. We didn’t do a good enough job explaining all the benefits that came with this new model. We spent too much of our time fighting against the negative impressions that many people in the media formed. I feel that if we spent less time on them and more time explaining the great features we had lined up and the ones in the pipes gamers and media alike would have aligned to our vision. That stated, we felt the people we would have loss would have been made up by the people we would have gained. We have 48 million Xbox 360 users connected online nearly 24 hours a day. That is much more than any of our closet competitors and vastly more than Steam. The people that we would have left behind I feel would have eventually come around as they saw what advantages the platform had to offer. But as I previously stated we at Microsoft have no one to blame other than ourselves for failing to convince those hesitant to believe in our new system. Microsoft might be a big company, but we at the Xbox division have always been for the gamer. Everything we’ve done has always been for them, we have butt heads with the executives many times on what we’ve wanted to, some times we lost (removing the onboard processor from Kinect 1.0) and other times we’ve won (keeping Gears of War as an exclusive).

Okay, right off the bat he's off to a bad start, because he just tried to characterise "making Gears of War an Xbox console-exclusive" as being something done for the benefit of gamers. Now, on some level, I'm sure there are Xbox fans who were pleased Gears never went to PlayStation. But, really, nobody but Microsoft benefitted from that.

While publishers have never come right out to us at MS and say “We want you to do something about used gaming” we could hear it in their voices and read it in their numerous public statements. The used gaming industry is slowly killing them and every attempt to slow down the bleeding was met with much resistance from the gaming community. I will admit that online passes were not well received nor were they well implemented, but I felt given time to mature it could have turned into something worth having as a gamer much like DLC (we went from pointless horse armor to amazing season passes like Borderlands 2!). Videogame development is a loss leader by definition and unlike other forms of media videogames only have one revenue stream and that is selling to you the gamer. So when you buy a game used you’re hurting developers much more than say a movie studio. Many gamers fail to realize this when they purchase these preowned games. It is impossible to continue to deliver movie like experiences at the current costs without giving up something in return. It’s what gamers want and expect, the best selling games are blockbusters, the highest rated are blockbusters, the most loved are blockbusters. How can developers continue to create these experiences if consumers refuse to support them? Many will argue the development system is broken, and I disagree. The development system is near broken, it’s used gaming that is broken, but regardless I think more emphasis on this from both us at Microsoft and publishers would have gone a long way in helping educate the gamer, but again it is us who dropped the ball in this regard for that we’re sorry.

Here we have a tired re-tread of the false idea that used gaming is killing the gaming industry. It really isn't. If it was, used sales would be killing every entertainment industry that has them. Further, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that eliminating the used option would lead to more sales of new games, and every reason to believe it would just mean less sales overall. But you all know this. Hell, even the third party publishers have had to start begrudgingly admitting this. Used sales allow the new game buyers of the future (kids) to develop interest in franchises they will be loyal customers to later. Used sales contribute to the ecosystem. But again, you all know this. Microsoft was fundamentally out of touch with the real world on this.

Next, he suggests Online Passes might have evolved into something positive for consumers. That's...Certainly dreaming big. I fail to see how that is even conceptually possible myself. Maybe you guys have some idea what the hell he was getting at? I sure don't.

Anyway, he moves on to blaming consumers for the industry being inefficient and not generating enough money, whilst adamantly refusing to accept the idea that if you can't afford to produce something you should probably find a cheaper way to produce it. He's blaming consumers, and then he almost flat out calls consumers stupid, saying that Microsoft needed to 'educate' consumers about how unfair it was of them to want to pay less for games, as if seeking the highest possible value is somehow a behaviour unique to gamers and not something any rational consumer does. Frankly, it arguably becomes more insulting as he continues, because no sooner has he implied we're stupid and Microsoft are a benevolent force seeking to enlighten us, than he tries to walk it back by dropping a quick "but it's our bad" - without, actually, retracting the implication that consumers are wrong and Microsoft alone knows what's best.

Going back to Xbox One’s feature set, one of the features I was most proud of was Family Sharing. I’ve browsed many gaming forums and saw that many people were excited about it as well! That made my day the first time I saw gamers start to think of amazing experiences that could come from game sharing. It showed that my work resonated with the group for which I helped create it for. I will admit that I was not happy with how some of my fellow colleagues handled explaining the systems and many times pulled my hair out as I felt I could have done a better job explaining and selling the ideas to the press and public at large. I’m writing this for that reason, to explain to gamers how many of the features would have worked and how many of them will still work.

I find this kind of incredible. He seems to be implying there was absolutely a clearly-defined, succinct set of principles and ideas. If that's the case, why did employees like himself not simply produce a simple, one-page memo for the likes of Don Mattrick and Phil Harrison to memorise? Anyway, more on this later.

First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it. One thing we knew is that we wanted the experience to be seamless for both the person sharing and the family member benefiting. There weren’t many models of this system already in the wild other than Sony’s horrendous game sharing implementation, but it was clear their approach (if one could call it that) was not the way to go. Developers complained about the lost sales and gamers complained about overbearing DRM that punished those who didn’t share that implemented by publishers to quell gamers from taking advantage of a poorly thought out system. We wanted our family sharing plan to be something that was talked about and genuinely enjoyed by the masses as a way of inciting gamers to try new games.

And this is where it gets ridiculous.

The way Family Sharing was understood, based on Microsoft's vague FAQ, people shared to would have full access to the game. Nothing ever implied otherwise. The questions were all about how many people could use how many games at once, and what the prerequisites for being included in someone's sharing plan were. Now, to be fair, he addressed the latter, and the requirements were indeed at the more positive end of the readings people had of the FAQ.

But here he is, trying to make us believe that Family Sharing was this huge, mind-blowing revolution...And what we find is, it was actually way more limited than the version we were all imagining, which we were still not universally sure was worth the tradeoff. His whole aim in writing this was to convince us the old Xbox One philosophy was better after all, and it turns out it was actually worse than we imagined when we rejected the idea in the first place.

This is stunning. I cannot believe Microsoft actually thought this was going to win people over to their policies. I mean...Look, at PlayStation Meeting 2013 (Sony's two-hour 'The Future of PlayStation' reveal of the PS4), Sony had the CEO of their newly acquired Gaikai service reveal that Sony plans to allow every game on the PSN Store to be tried before purchase, instantly, by streaming the game. Now, sure, Microsoft was going to let the games run natively and we don't know if Sony's option will allow progress to carry over to the full game (It's unlikely to). But, on the other hand, you don't need to be in a friend who has the game's sharing group. That's one less hoop to jump through. Microsoft's solution is really not that impressive. Frankly, it's kind of pathetic. Fifteen minutes? Are you kidding me? It'd take longer to download & install the game!

The motto around the offices for the family plan was “It’s the console gaming equivalent to spotify and pandora” it was a social network within itself! The difference between the family sharing and the typical store demo is that your progress is saved as if it was the full game, and the data that was installed for that shared game doesn’t need to be erased when they purchase the full game! It gave incentive to share your games among your peers, it gave games exposure, it allowed old games to still generate revenue for publishers. At the present time we’re no longer going forward with it, but it is not completely off the table. It is still possible to implement this with the digital downloaded versions of games, and in fact that’s the plan still as far as I’m aware.

No, it's not even remotely like Spotify or Pandora. OnLive Pass is like those things. PSPlus's Instant Game Collection is even arguably like those things. The Xbox One Family Sharing Plan was like BlackBerry Messenger Music. BBM Music was a colossal failure. You know why? Because you couldn't access any music your friends weren't sharing, which meant there wasn't a lot of use to it. Twitter's #Music has the same problem. This kind of "sharing" of content is way too limiting. People prefer discovery where they can passively see what their friends are into and then check it out for themselves. Something like seeing "Sarah Greene earned a Platinum Trophy in Knack" and then going and playing the game. Accessing a gimped version of someone else's library is like (though still inferior to) being at their house and browsing the shelf. It works, sure, but it's a much less passive experience for both parties, and that makes it a bigger hassle.

It's certainly not some major innovation that justifies the DRM policy on disc games. It does nothing that Sony's PS4 isn't doing anyway - and as noted above, Sony's PS4 is arguably doing it better.

Another feature that we didn’t speak out about was the fact we were building a natural social network with Xbox One in itself that didn’t require gamers to open their laptops/tablets to post to their other friends nor did they need to wrestle with keyboard add-ons. Each Xbox Live account would have a full “home space” in which they could post their highest scores, show off their best Game DVR moments, what they’ve watched via Xbox TV and leave messages for others to read and respond to. Kinect 2.0 and Xbox One work together and has robust voice to text capabilities. The entire notion of communicating with friends you met online would have been natural and seamless. No reliance on Facebook, or Twitter (though those are optional for those who want them). Everything is perfectly crafted for the Xbox One controller and Kinect 2.0 and given that shine that only Microsoft can provide.

I'm not going to waste too much time on this, because it ties into the same thing about the feature not being all that unique. Both Wii U and PS4 also feature bespoke social networking features which can show off high scores, screenshots and video. Microsoft guy seems to be implying that the integration of Kinect with this stuff makes it much better, and for some gamers maybe it is. But many of them, myself included, think barking orders across the room and waving hands around like a flight-traffic-controller are crummy ways to control a TV experience, so that really isn't all that much of a plus.

We at Microsoft have amazing plans for Xbox One that will make it an amazing experience for both gamers and entertainment consumers alike. I stand by the belief that Playstation 4 is Xbox 360 part 2, while Xbox One is trying to revolutionize entertainment consumption. For people who don’t want these amazing additions, like Don said we have a console for that and it’s called Xbox 360.

And he closes things up by being a total dick. As if the rest of his article wasn't already enough of a pile of shit.

There's a reason this posting is anonymous. If the name was attached, this guy would be getting the Adam Orth Special. This is the exact same horrendous messaging that Microsoft made the change to get away from. In fact, it's arguably worse, because this guy genuinely seems to think this is an improvement on the message coming form the likes of Don and Phil Harrison. He explicitly said he was frustrated about how much trouble guys like them were having articulating his "vision".

Well I got news pal, I liked it better the way they described it, and I hated that shit. What does that tell you about your revolutionary vision?

1 Comments

What a difference Seven Years can make

I recently stumbled back across this, from the folks at Sarcastic Gamer:

It amused me remembering just how badly Sony started the Seventh Generation compared to Microsoft, considering how thoroughly the tables have turned. In some ways, it lends hope to the idea that Microsoft can come back from their bad start. Of course, Sony had some help in the form of a few stumbles from Microsoft like the RROD, but generally it was their own course correction which saved them. Maybe Microsoft will learn from their excellent example of disaster recovery.

Anyway, listening to the song again, it made me wish someone would do something as funny for the current situation. I'm sure someone will. I would do it myself, but I'd need some kind of musical talent to do it well. In the meantime, I was overcome with the urge to at least re-write the lyrics.

So I did:

Step 1, You make your console cost the most,

You Beat your chest and proudly Boast,

Instead of good exclusive games

You make a bunch of ridiculous claims,

Then ignore our need to play offline

Forced to connect to Xbox Live

Use Kinect, Which I don't need

Now you're getting your ass kicked by Sony

Redmond you went wrong, with your Xbox One

We don't want clouds, just games that are fun

Hope this song has helped, you understand

Now you know, How You Killed Your Brand.

Phil Harrison yeah you know best

Except you didn't Beta Test

Sure I can watch TV

But I can't trade in Witcher 3

Say 499 Don't worry you

Because you offer Kinect 2

But Kinect 1 sucked before

So what made you think we wanted more?

Redmond you went wrong, with your Xbox One

We don't want clouds, just games that are fun

Hope this song has helped, you understand

Now you know, How You Killed Your Brand

Redmond you went wrong, with your Xbox One

We don't want clouds, just games that are fun

Hope this song has helped, you understand

Now you know, How You Killed Your Brand

Redmond you went wrong, with your Xbox One

We don't want clouds, just games that are fun

Hope this song has helped, you understand

Now you know, How You Killed Your Brand

2 Comments

Greatness Awaits

Going into this week’s Electronic Entertainment Expo, I was as jaded and cynical about the video gaming industry as I have ever been. In years gone by, for every E3 in the past eight years, I have gone in excited to see what was going to be shown. Ready and eager to be wowed by the big three platform holders. Usually, at least one always did manage to excite me. More often than not, it was Nintendo, whose fun-first games design philosophy has always really spoken to me. But many a time, Sony showed a Killzone 2 or Microsoft a Halo: Reach (Halo. But with jetpacks) or what have you, and I was as delighted with their showing as I as when I first saw Nintendo’s Wii in action, in 2006.

Last year though, nothing anyone had to say about home consoles enthused me especially. Nintendo’s Wii U revelations were neat, and it’s undoubtedly a cool bit of hardware, but not in a “huge leap forward” kind of way. And aside from the interest in the exciting newness of Wii U, nothing but 3DS games really caught my eye and made me go “wow, I need to own this!”.

The back half of last year, I got Halo 4, Epic Mickey 2 and Borderlands 2. There were some other games I was interested in enough to have played if I had more money, but nor was I sat in my room before E3 2013 thinking “gosh I missed so many good games”. I’m going to be playing XCOM: Enemy Unknown from tomorrow, thanks to Sony generously giving me a free month of PSPlus, and I have wanted to check it out. But it was the game’s coverage upon its release at Giant Bomb which got me interested in that game, not E3 2012.

Really, I left E3 2012 feeling throughly bored. Very little in the home console space felt new, exciting or fresh. The PS3 and Xbox 360 were still pushing Call of Duty and Fifa and Madden…I’m so done with Call of Duty I can’t even describe it. It bores me to tears. And seemingly every other game being touted was an out-and-out clone of it.

Microsoft’s damp squib #XboxReveal event, where they unveiled the improbably named third Xbox; the Xbox One; compounded my feelings of detachment and boredom with the console gaming mainstream. All I could see were games I’d either had my fill of or never wanted to begin with. Sony’s “The Future of PlayStation” PS4 reveal event left me with a slightly more positive impression a while before, but it was too early to say for sure if the games were going to draw me in.

Microsoft’s event in particular presented a vision for the future of gaming which, to me, was a total non-response to everything that was wrong. It was as if Microsoft were oblivious to how expensive and unsustainable things were. As if they saw no problem with assembly-line sequels to generic games with little creativity. As if the rise of the increasingly high-quality and inventive indie games on platforms as diverse as iOS, Android, Windows, OS X, Wii U, PlayStation 3 & PSVita was mere rumour and conjecture. Here then was a console which would do what AppleTV and Roku already do at a significantly lower cost (and without the recurring subscription fee Microsoft demands for Live Gold to get at the media streaming services) and also play a load of painfully unexciting games which are virtually indistinguishable from the ones you’ve been playing for the past seven years. Except for those powered by EA Sports Ignite, which are distinct in that the engine makes character models more detailed but a million times less believable.

I had been told to wait for Microsoft’s E3 Press Conference. There, it was said, Microsoft would roll out the games that make the Xbox One worth a damn. Well; after confirming ahead of time that yes, they are – unaccountably – messing around with the existing game sales model; Microsoft trotted out first at E3 and showed some relatively interesting games. None that made me sit up and really go “whoa”, but some decent ideas that had some nice graphics. Then they said they wanted £429.99 for their console. A price eerily similar to the one Sony charged for the PLAYSTATION 3 (£425), back before they resolved to make amends for their hubris in planning that system’s launch. Nothing I saw from Microsoft, game-wise, justified that cost of entry.

So then, it fell to two of the third party juggernauts to have their say. EA and Ubisoft. EA said the magic words for me with “Star Wars Battlefront”, but I was (at the time) disappointed that it was coming to platforms I wasn’t planning on owning. Nothing else they showed particularly excited me. Their next-gen sports titles continue to look horrible, and their presentations annoyed me with their superfluous buzzword names for minor physics and graphical subroutines. Ubisoft showed a couple of games I was already interested in (South Park, Watch_Dogs, Assassin’s Creed 4) but had nothing new that piqued my interest. And to be honest, I would go on to be more enthused by the Assassin’s Creed and Watch_Dogs demos in Sony‘s Press Conference than those in Ubisoft’s own.

Then came the wait for Sony, with me in a sort of “Meh” sate of mind. Nothing I’d seen of E3 had yet completely sold me on the continuation of the big-budget high-end video game. However, I had less reasons to run in the opposite direction than previously. If nothing else, at least they had stopped parading Call of Duty in front of me as if it was new, and had instead shown things like Watch_Dogs which are a bit more inventive.

Sony nailed it. They sold me games-wise. Kingdom Hearts 3′s mere announcement was a standout, along with the demos of Assassin’s Creed 4 & Watch_Dogs (As I mentioned), the trailers for inFamous: Second Son & Killzone: Shadow Fall, the procession of great looking indie games like Transistor, Outlast and the Abe’s Odyssey remake and…Well, the real jaw dropper was Bungie’s Destiny. I was already mostly on board with the game conceptually. But seeing it in action floored me. It combines the appeals of Halo, Borderlands and MMOs into a gorgeous package. For me, it looks very much like Destiny is the next big thing – succeeding, with any luck, the painfully repetitive Call of Duty. And probably obviating the need for more Halo.

Then, as if that wasn’t enough, Sony confirmed the PS4 will not lock down games with draconian DRM, won’t require online authentication checks and is coming in £80 ($100) cheaper than the Xbox One, at a more than reasonable £350 for the 500GB hard drive equipped machine (And yes, it ships with a headset in the box, undoing a frequent PS3 frustration – unlike the Xbox One incidentally, which instead includes the divisive KinectOne. Also in the box is an HDMI cable, undoing another PS3 foible). Their hardware is significantly more attractive too, evoking the much-beloved PS2.

Indeed, the only bad news from Sony was them putting multiplayer gaming on the PS4 behind the PSPlus paywall. But with online entertainment services like Netflix still available on the free tier (Unlike on Microsoft’s platforms), and PSPlus being so compelling a service as it is with Instant Game Collection that I was planning to buy at least a year’s worth later his year anyway, I wasn’t particularly phased by that.

You can buy a PS4 and a year’s PSPlus, and be set for a year. You’d get a new game every month, for an upfront cost less than the price of one new boxed game. It’s tremendous value. Which is the key thing here. Xbox One, and the vision of the next generation it follows, and which I was afraid of, is terrible value for money. PS4, in stark contrast, is terrific value for money. I’m on board. Sony, you’re PS4 is my number one pick among next generation hardware.

So where does that leave Nintendo? They went earlier today with a slightly more understated event, a Nintendo Direct @ E3 broadcast. They didn’t blow me away. But nor was I disappointed. Mario Kart 8, the latest entry in my favourite franchise, looks fantastic. Similarly, Super Mario 3DWorld and the new Super Smash Bros pair look like wonderful new games. And the Wind Waker HD remake sure looks pretty, and having not had a chance to play it the first time around anyway, its lack of out-and-out newness doesn’t really bother me. Oh, and on a handheld aside, the new Pokémon games look like must-haves.

Definitely a more attractive slate of exclusives on the Wii U than on the Xbox One, for me at least. I’m still interested in having a Wii U, but now it’s behind the PS4 in the queue, so to speak. A PS4 I am willing to buy any time I can from launch day onwards. With the Wii U, I can wait at least until Mario Kart 8. If Nintendo are smart, they’ll do a Mario Kart 8 bundle, and I’ll probably buy that. It seems likely, given the success they had bundling Mario Kart Wii with the Wii.

So there you have it. E3 2013, when I was successfully brought back into the core gaming fold. Bravo Sony, keep on trucking Nintendo, make Battlefront good EA, for the love of god, just make it good. And Microsoft…Well, there’s always the integration of Bing with Apple’s Siri to console yourself with.

(Oh yeah, that reminds me, iOS 7 adds gamepad support, so AirPlay games are about to get a lot more awesome. That happened yesterday too. It was a busy day.)

Start the Conversation