A Deep Dive into Sombra's Hacking

Sombra has finally, FINALLY hacked her way into Overwatch, and seems set to do some interesting stuff with the meta. However, today I want to cast that all aside and take a close look at one single aspect of her moveset: her hacking.

Source

First, a brief rundown. Sombra’s hacking ability has a 12 second cooldown and may be used on an enemy hero, turret, or healthpack. If applied to a hero, they are unable to use abilities for 6 seconds. If applied to a healthpack, it becomes unusable by the enemy team and recharges faster for one minute. Turrets hacked are useless for 6 seconds. Hacking takes about 1 second and taking any damage stops the hack from going through.

First of all, we must ask what this ability’s intended use is, fairly obvious here. It’s mainly meant to deny area control and mark a target to take out. It is able to deny enemies health regen otherwise available to them, and makes areas covered by turrets safe. If you decide to hack an enemy, however, it takes on a dramatically different use. This ability is one requiring teamwork to effectively utilize. Since Sombra cannot hack while under fire, she relies on the enemy being distracted while she gets her hack off, essentially meaning teammates need to draw fire. Teammates are often needed after the hack goes through as well, since Sombra’s primary fire often will not be enough to kill the enemy by herself. While it is rather situational as a result of these caveats, it’s an incredibly powerful ability if used at the right time, enabling guaranteed picks on a weakened target, or an opening to attack by disabling a dangerous enemy.

And really, the fact that she needs a team to get stuff done with her hack is emblematic of her whole kit. Sombra is, more than anything else, an enabler for her team with this hack. Use it on a D.Va and she’s a sitting duck with no defense. Hack a Reaper or Mei and your team no longer needs worry about their invincibility-granting moves. Sombra’s hack fits the role of making your movements as a team safer rather than faster. She lets you go all in on that Roadhog, knowing he can’t slip away and heal.

On the flipside, she can also blunt the force of an enemy assault, once again ensuring safety for your team. Take Roadhog once again. Many a defense have fallen because Roadhog hooked the healer for a guaranteed kill. Sombra can, if not stop the assault, delay it with a well placed hack, forcing the team to wait as their setup has been taken away from them for a short while. On defense, Sombra fills the role of disruptor, throwing wrenches into the enemy team’s plan and letting her allies bear the brunt of an assault more effectively. Once again, she’s making a team’s defense more secure and safer.

So that’s what her hack is trying to get people to play like. But what about the mechanics of the hack itself, the numbers and effects?

The cooldown is the most interesting number on the move to me. 12 seconds is quite a long cooldown, and in fact the only moves with higher cooldowns are Soldier: 76’s biotic field, Hanzo’s sonic arrow, and Winston’s barrier. This is mainly due to the dual use of it, forcing players to choose between uses of her hack in between engagements. Since Overwatch moves at a pretty rapid pace, most fights take at most 20ish seconds to fully resolve. This means that often if you hack an enemy in the middle of a fight you will lose the ability to hack a healthpack in the aftermath, and if you hack a healthpack you may be without a valuable disrupting tool for much of the next fight.

The cooldown is in place to ensure Sombra can’t quite literally “hack the planet”. She has to decide between area control and teamfight effectiveness at any given time. Area control lasts longer, but it may not matter if one team pushes up past the area you’ve locked down.  Teamfight potential can swing a game, but if you don’t punch through the enemy lines you’re giving up a solid defense to fall back on. On a very broad level, you can think of it as risk (Offensive enemy hack) vs. safety (Defensive healthpack hack).

Ok, let’s switch over to the numbers on the enemy, mainly how long the hack lasts for. Those 6 seconds are quite deliberately chosen, as most abilities in the game have  an 8 or more second cooldown. Pluck a random ability out of the air, and there’s a good chance it falls in that 8 seconds or higher range. What this means is that it’s totally possible to, in essence, whiff your hack even if you get it off.

Imagine a scenario where Zarya has just shielded herself and an ally, and right after you hack her. Well, that hack isn’t going to do much, as she wouldn’t have been able to use her abilities on cooldown anyway. The cooldown ensures you can’t use it mindlessly, and forces to to stay cognizant of the fight at hand.

One final element adding to the cooldown is the ability to see if an enemy has their ultimate up when you hack them. You’re able to use this ability for recon as well, although it’s generally viewed as a suboptimal use of the hack purely to gain this info. Still, in the scenarios where it is useful in this way, you have a 3rd use if need be.

Last, but certainly not least, is the amount of time needed to execute a hack. It’s about 1.2 seconds, and if Sombra takes any fire at all the hack is cancelled automatically. Nothing too complex here, this is to force Sombra to use it when flanking or working together with an ally to take fire. She can’t get into the fray at full effectiveness.

So, overall, the elements of the hack are:

- Area control by hacking healthpacks

- Safe picks with an offensive hack

- Ability to shut Torbjorn’s turrets down

- Delaying enemy pushes with defensive hacks

- An inability to use it when under fire

When you put it all together, you end up with an ability that’s focused around Sombra’s team rather than Sombra. She can’t hack a turret or enemy in a 1v1, as taking fire renders the hack unable to execute. The health pack hack lasts for a minute, leaving it open for her whole team to use it. She personally doesn’t benefit from defensive hacks as she’s meant to be hard to pin down, but her teammates more in the enemy’s face do benefit.

So, overall if I had to describe this ability in a single sentence…

An area control and team enabling ability used to deny health and ability use to the enemy, making your team safer, yet cannot be used if Sombra is in immediate danger.

Whew, this article took way longer than it really should have. Did you like looking into each individual aspect of a small game element? This is something new I really enjoy and want to try more, so feedback and feelings on this would be greatly appreciated! Thanks for reading and have a great day.

Overwatch Vs. Atlas Reactor: The Loot Box

Yeah yeah, more Overwatch AND Atlas Reactor. Sue me.

Source

As you have no doubt heard about Overwatch, the Loot Box system is, to put it politely, not very good. It's microtransactions in a 60$ game, and it's all RNG based, meaning you have no control over what items you get or how much money you get. And to top it all off, cosmetics are all there are to unlock, making an unrewarding system that is a blatant attempt to get money out of consumers in one of the worst ways possible.

I'm saying all this because they could and should have done better. Atlas Reactor proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. It too has loot boxes (called loot matrixes) that you gain at every level, duplicates that give you a small amount of currency, and the whole system in general being dictated by RNG. However, it takes this base and improves, improves, improves. Overwatch is the base, and nothing more. AR is the base and so much more. Let's take a closer look.

We can start with what both games actually have on a base progression level. Overwatch has loot boxes. AR has loot matrixes, character specific matrixes, a mod system to change abilities, rewards for hitting certain levels, and daily/seasonal missions.

Already you can see there's simply more to actually work towards in AR rather than Overwatch. In Overwatch, you either grind out levels or pony up some cash. In AR, if you don't want to grind levels, you can play characters a lot to gain their matrixes. You can work towards a mission for an XP boost. You can try out different mod loadouts. You can work towards a concrete reward rather than a vague RNG box. At all times, you're working towards a variety of different objectives and goals at different points. Missions are brief, and give smaller, faster rewards, while levels take a bit longer. It's all staggered out nicely, and there's never a sense of an endless grind since you're gonna achieve something just around the corner at any moment.

Not only are the rewards more plentiful, but when you actually get them, it's miles better than how Overwatch doles them out. In Atlas reactor, you are guaranteed a character skin/taunt in every matrix. This does wonders for the progression system by itself, let me tell you. Besides the obvious effect of having something of value every time you open a matrix, it also lets the good aspects of using RNG loot come out into the open.

Did you just get a legendary skin for a character you've never played much? Might as well try them out for the skin. Did you get a cool new taunt? Why not give it a spin? Forcing the player into unlockables for other characters lets them expand their play experience and pushes them to try other playstyles. Overwatch doesn't let you do this as much. The odds of getting a skin are already low, as there are icons, sprays, and voicelines in every crate too, and the odds of getting a legendary skin are even lower. So the odds of you getting a cool new skin and trying the character out are just so low as to not even matter.

On a second point, AR has another type of loot matrix: character specific matrixes. Get a character up 5 levels, and the game will give you a matrix guaranteed to give you a character specific skin or taunt. This is one of the many ways in which AR gives you quite a bit of control over the RNG. You get skins for a character you want with these, mitigating the frustration of RNG a lot. It's an important step helped along by missions.

Every day you get a daily mission, and there are season chapters that give you several long term missions. The effect of these are twofold: immediate goals and help with other goals. You get something to work towards, something concrete, not dictated by RNG. A quest like “Play 5 games” or “Play 2 games as a certain class” gives you a short term goal to work towards and contributes towards the longer term goal of a matrix.

Meanwhile, Overwatch has... a first win of the day XP boost. At best, you lose a few games before getting this, not a fun player experience. At worst, you get this already small boost immediately, and then what do you progress on?

And to cap this all off, AR has stuff outside cosmetics to play around with. You can actually change your characters with mods, and try out different playstyles. You get the opportunity to try out individual playstyles, a much more powerful motive than simply trying out a new team composition. Team comp diversity immediately disqualifies solo queue players from this depth, as it's almost impossible to get 5 other people on the same page quickly, if they even want to. And even if you can, you're not changing anything about how you play. If you play Roadhog in one team comp and  then another, well, he's still playing the same. Individual depth lets you take control of the gameplay and have a guaranteed difference in two different games.

So why is this all so important? Like I mentioned in a previous post, progression is a key factor in retaining a lot of your audience for a long period of time. Some people are motivated by gameplay, some by improvement, and some by unlocking stuff. You lose a lot of people if you mess progression up. And even ignoring that, it just makes the game better for crying out loud! Would you rather play a game with a satisfying unlock system or not? Even if it doesn't affect you, it makes the experience better since more people will now be playing.

Look, I've tried to be unbiased and distant throughout this whole thing, but the fact is this demonstrates something quite distasteful on Blizzard's part. They can no longer have the defence of there being no better way to do this system, because another game has just done it better. What reason could there be except wanting more money? I have been thinking on this for days, and I can't think of another reason for the life of me.

Blizzard, you have no conceivable alternative motive at this point. Another game has done your system infinitely better as of now, and you need to step up or fess up. Either improve your system, or just say you want to squeeze money out of people. There can be no other reason.

And as for Trion? Keep doing awesome stuff with Atlas Reactor. If you keep going on like this, I'll be with you all the way.

A Personal Retrospective on Apollo Justice

Spoilers. Obviously.

Source

In light of the recent news that Apollo Justice is finally getting a mobile release, now seems a good time to talk about this one game, and hoo boy. This one's a beast to tackle. If you know anything about this game, you know how divisive and controversial this game is. On one hand, you've got the corner of fans who hate this game with a passion, and everything it represents. In the other corner are the fans who like it quite fine, and think the outrage over it is totally unjustified.

If you wish to know where I'm coming from when writing this, I'm moreso in the first camp. Apollo Justice is my least favourite Ace Attorney game, though not because of any drastic shifts in the world. My issues come from the story and actual logic it uses and how confusing it gets. So, sit back and let's figure out where this game went wrong, and more importantly, why.

So how did this all start? After the 3^rd game wrapped the story of the series up quite nicely, Capcom was at a bit of a crossroads. Ace Attorney was undoubtedly a money making series that they would do well to continue, but how does one continue after a clean end? Well, usually a reboot is what a lot of writers go for, but in this case, they decided to bring in a totally new character and story, keeping the game mechanics. However, it was eventually decided that they should keep some continuity, so they brought in some old characters as well to appease old fans.

Yeah, that didn't go over well at all. Most notably, Phoenix Wright was brought back, and let's just say a lot of people weren't' very happy with how they did this. It's interesting to look at, because it's a prime example of how not to implement changes in a character. 

The important thing to remember here is that at first, most changes are neutral in concept. I believe that the idea of making Phoenix lose his lawyer's badge wasn't what got most people upset. I personally think it's not a bad idea, and it's even a fantastic story hook to start off with. The problem is that this idea was clearly thought of in a vacuum, and they didn't properly take steps to make this make sense in the game.

This is made abundantly clear in 2 areas, both relating to the smoking gun of this idea: forged evidence. First of all, the manner in which Phoenix loses his badge is contrived as hell and totally clashes with the story and characters set at the end of the 3^rd game. At the end of T&T, it was clearly established that going forward, Phoenix had truly outgrown his weak, unconfident roots, and had truly risen to the level of a great lawyer. Nice ending, all wrapped up with a bow. But they ignored this, having him make the truly dumb choice of trusting evidence he had no time to vet. They also make him go against clearly established core values in previous games, him hating the idea of crooked tactics in court.

I rag on these tired points because it would not have been hard to fix these issues. Why not put Phoenix into a scenario where he has no choice but to present the suspect evidence? Say he had a personal connection to the defendant or something along those lines. It would have given a reason for him to act so recklessly. And on the other point, why not use the MASON system's capabilities to show past events to show hints of Phoenix becoming more jaded and disillusioned?

It's very clear that the writers were trying to recapture the essence of the first Ace Attorney game. Rookie lawyer, new world to establish, new gameplay mechanics. But in doing so, they fell into the trap of mostly looking to the first game for inspiration, and that led to Phoenix acting how he did in the first game. When you're not looking to how characters were at the end, you're not going to see any need to explain changes. So of course it seems obvious Phoenix would make a dumb move in that mindset. 

Alright, alright, I slag the game off a lot, but credit where it's due, besides how Phoenix acts, the game pretty much nails the first 2 cases. While a lot of people do just write the entire game off, it's important to recognize that the old AA magic is still very much present in a lot of the game. The setting may not be your cup of tea, but the first case has an excellent and engaging opening unlike any of the other games, and the 2^nd case is more of the same old AA excellence in a lot of areas.

Alright, I'm not here to give every detail on this game, as much as I would enjoy that. Just remember that I'm not saying as much about the good aspects of the game because of this fact. What I'm about to say is an analysis of what went wrong in the 2^nd half of the game, not what I personally think about it. Just remember that most of the stuff I don't mention I like quite a bit (Especially the music oh my god). 

So, case 3. This is widely considered a bad case by many, and it's an excellent example and word of warning to all story writers wanting to follow in the footsteps of crime stories. It's clear to me here that the separate elements of this case were almost certainly thought of separately, with no cross checking between them to see if they would work well together. It's easy to imagine such a scenario, too.

They come up with the basic idea of the scene being a concert, and they've already got a performer in the cast, so it already fits. They then think of the elements of this case, a defendant who can't speak English, a gun as the weapon, a “locked room” scenario, and the defendant can even be a kid. Maybe we can incorporate international smuggling, and undercover agents too!

Now, all this stuff sounds fine, but the details muddy it up, details that were clearly not , let's say, cross-examined. How is a kid supposed to fire a powerful gun? What motive would a kid have? How would an international smuggling operation fit into the overall story? How do we get the kid to show any personality, since all we really have is text?

All these elements, when you lay them out, look ridiculous if you try to combine them (Seriously, just throwing in international smuggling isn't a good idea). We can see how ridiculous this seems now, so why not back at the conceptual level? I can't say definitively, but the most likely scenario in my eyes is that they created the story in a modular fashion. By the time the separate parts started to grind up against each other badly, it was likely too late to change the fundamental parts of the case. It's a lesson in being sure to check and double check all the important beats in your ideas before expanding on them.

And, finally we arrive at case 4. No, that's not what I'm really wanting to talk about here. Case 4 is fine. Let's discuss MASON.

MASON is the most ambitious thing Ace Attorney has ever really tried. I'll be blunt; it didn't work. I'm not talking about the story, I'm talking about how it was conveyed. MASON, for those of you who don't remember well, is supposed to be a database of sorts where the jury is supposed to trawl through it and come to their own conclusion on the proceedings.

Sigh

I could literally write a whole article about this system, and why in the game universe it makes no goddamn sense. From conflicts of interest to half the stuff in it being seemingly irrelevant to the case, there is no way this would be greenlit. But let's assume for a second that it could get by (With the crazy legal systems in place it wouldn't be too surprising), and examine why it fails the player specifically.

For all the heat I give it, MASON could have worked in theory. A system where we jump between recorded events to try to piece together a story? Sign me up! But the issues are too glaring here to ignore.

It's linear to a disappointing degree. Yes, Ace Attorney isn't known for story paths or anything, but it doesn't let you discover clues and evidence on your own. Rather than using your own logic to figure out what you need look for next, it is in every way like a tightly written investigation sequence, just hopping between time periods. Yes, it still works, but why would we even need to go about figuring out this in such a convoluted manner? In such a story driven game, every piece needs to have a purpose, otherwise it's just fluff and not valuable to the story.

Of course, everyone's biggest complaint with MASON is how it seemingly allows you to transport evidence from the future into the past. Again, if you don't remember, often you would gain evidence from some recorded event in the future, but then go back to a recorded event in the past and still being able to use it. This is handwaved as not being a 100% accurate representation, but that's just not good enough. In a game built around logic and reasoning, such blatant lazy storytelling should not be allowed. It makes no sense, and even if there is a good reason it's confusing to the player, the death knell for any story.

MASON is the sign of the biggest problem with Apollo Justice: things just weren't fitting together well. You can see all the signs of good ideas underlying the problems at every step. Apollo is an interesting idea for a character. The music is SO GOOD (It's my favourite OST in the series guys it's that good).

The problem they hit looks very much to be scheduled related. Many of the ideas and characters were never given enough time to be expanded upon, and a lot of the plot beats simply needed more thought put into them. Apollo Justice is the victim of running out of time.

But it's not all bad, and I want to end this little look back on a positive note, because Apollo Justice is not a train wreck. Not by a long shot. Apollo Justice has excellent side characters, on par with the other games easily. I know everyone hates some of them, but they stick out and are very clear, and you're not supposed to be comfortable with Spark Brushel anyway guys. Seriously.

The game also has engaging cases, something I think a lot of people ignore. Yeah, looking back there are plot holes, but in the moment they've got a great pace to them, and ensure you're always engaged. The game has very clear signposting and good indicators for what you need to do next, something the older games did often fail at.

Regardless of what it does right and wrong, this game is likely going to remain contentious for a very long time to come. And that's fine by me. Every game series is gonna have one of these, right? I still recommend this game to any Ace Attorney fan despite all this, and I encourage you to try the upcoming mobile port if you haven't gotten a chance to play it yet.

And the music guys oh my god can we just talk about this again it's so amazing holy cow

Atlas Reactor: Sheer Brilliance

If there's one game you need to be looking at right now, it's Atlas Reactor.

Source

Have you ever played any turn based strategy game and wondered “What if it were multiplayer?” Your time, good friend, has come. Atlas Reactor is what you would get if everybody moved at the same time in Fire Emblem, what you would get from a 4v4 Advance Wars. I've even heard it described as insane 4v4 chess. It's the most unique, special, and innovative game released in 2016 so far, and it backs up that uniqueness with quality. You don't get games like this often, folks.

So, what exactly is Atlas Reactor? It's a multiplayer team game that fuses elements of real time strategy and turn based strategy. Each team makes their choices at the same time, each having only 20 seconds to chose what to do, and afterwards they all resolve simultaneously. So, for example, you and an enemy could choose to shoot each other, and each would deal the damage during the resolution.

It's a lot more complicated than that, however. Atlas Reactor has one last genius trick up its sleeve: the 3 phase resolution. The game has 3 distinct phases you can chose to take actions in. Phase 1 is the prep phase, where players heal others, throw shields up, and set traps. Phase 2 is dash, where players use mobility abilities to move before attacks. Phase 3 is blast, where most damaging attacks reside.

Are you seeing how brilliant this is yet? I'll spell out a scenario. Say you're playing Lockwood against an Elle, and you're both facing each other. You could just shoot her, but you risk taking damage back. You could shoot her, but she could dash away and she would shoot you back. However, her dash is short, so you may want to use Lockwood's arc fire to predict where she'll move. Alternatively, if you think she'll dash, you could set a trap beforehand to ensure she'll dash through it.

She could also be just trying to shoot you, and you could use Lockwood's dash to run away before she takes damage. If you think she'll use her dash attack, you could dash away yourself, making her waste an attack and forcing it on cooldown. And this isn't even accounting for ultimate abilities, which charge up over the course of the match. If she has her ult, you definitely want to dash out of the way if you think she'll use it. However, you could also use Lockwood's ult if you have it, dashing behind her, doing damage, and making her miss her ult.

And finally, you need to account for your enemy predicting what you'll do. Elle could predict you dashing, say, and use her prep ability to increase her next attack's damage. She could shoot where she thinks you'll dash. She could psyche you out, making you think she'll ult, making you dash, and next turn you're vulnerable.

By the way, the last 3 paragraphs were all describing one scenario. One single turn. Against a single opponent, when usually you have 4 enemies and 3 allies. Oh, and may I remind you you only have 20 seconds to make your choice.

This is the sheer brilliance of Atlas Reactor, the incredible brilliance of the possibility space for each individual turn. Every move begets the possibility of a counter. Every time you move, you have to wonder if an enemy is going to set a trap. Every time you use an ultimate, you need to ensure the enemy can't dash away. Every time you shield, you need to be absolutely sure the enemy will attack you.

The game makes this complex presence easy to digest and understand as well. The game has clear indicators about what is going to happen, you can hit a single button to check the cooldowns on enemy attacks, and you can see what allies will do as you make your choice. It sounds like a lot of confusing information, but the game lays it all out in front of you, and simply asks you to use your own discretion about what to do next.

So Atlas Reactor sure brings the thunder in gameplay, but does it satisfy in other areas? I think you know what I'm gonna say. It has a robust cast of unique characters, from a sentient fish with legs to a robotic dog. They're all very fun to listen to, and even better, the game lets you use them to taunt your enemies as well. You're able to choose to taunt before an attack if you feel it's going to be particularly impressive. It's a lot of fun to rub it in your opponent's face how awesome you are as you take them down.

As for the visuals, it's got a nice style, but more importantly it's clean and easy to understand. Lines are distinct, characters are different enough at a glance, and the visual design of what your attack will do is clear. It's not earth shaking, but it's very well done.

Meanwhile, the soundtrack is just... mmmmmmm.

So Atlas Reactor is a unique, innovative game that rides on it's excellent character design, personality, and tight game design. It's got an active Discord server where the devs are constantly communicating, satisfying progression systems that reward you for playing a freelancer a lot, and to top it all off, it's not free to play, a refreshing move in this current market. If any of this sounds interesting to you, they've even got a free mode where you can try before you buy, a consumer friendly practice that few games chose to try now.

While this is a close to a review as I think I'll ever get, nor do I ever want to be a reviewer, I feel the need to get the word out on this game. I only heard about it through a single friend, and it's sorely underrepresented outside of it's very dedicated community. This is a game that deserves to be shouted about, a game that deserves to be considered as one of the best of 2016, a game that deserves to be shared. So happy launch, Atlas Reactor. Here's to you, one of the best games I've played in quite a while.

Overwatch and Progression

Overwatch has a progression problem.

Source

Overwatch is a fantastic game in so many ways. It's got stellar characters, great maps, grade A game design, and some spectacular sound. But outside that, the actual game, it's got a glaring issue I want to discuss here today. You see, Overwatch has a terrible, terrible progression system.

Now, some of you may be shrugging your shoulders right now and saying “so what”? I'll get back to why this is so bad in a bit, but first I want to start by breaking down how Overwatch fails in this area.

I like to divide successful progression systems into 3 general categories. Gameplay based, unlockable based, and change based.

Gameplay based progression systems either let you unlock more gameplay elements (think Call of Duty), or they let you customize loadouts for many different playstyles (again, like Call of Duty). This lets the player play around with the mechanics the more they play, and the progression comes from a deeper understanding of the game mechanics. Note that this does not just mean getting better at the game. It comes from being able to unlock/use customization ways to change how your character can play.

Unlockable based is a catch-all term for anything you can unlock that doesn't affect gameplay. Cosmetics, emotes, that sort of stuff. It provides progression in the form of more fun stuff to show off, and the ability to customize yourself how you want.

Finally, change based progression is the type of change where the game is balanced and updated over the years. Adding new content and changing the current content, essentially. Look at any MOBA, with many characters and items to tweak, and how different the meta will be from month to month, and you get the idea. This can only really work if the developer constantly updates and supports the game.

So, how does this all relate to Overwatch? Quite simply, Overwatch lacks a good, solid foundation for any of these progression systems. It has nothing to unlock in the gameplay department, as all the characters are open from the start, and no way to change any of the character's playstyles or moves. It doesn't lend itself well to change based progression, as there are only 22 characters to change and update, so Blizzard can't update the meta very much. And finally, I think we can all agree a luck based system for unlockables is a horrible idea.

The loot box system is the only concrete progression Overwatch has, and it fails on nearly every level. It doesn't give the player a goal to work toward, because they can't control what items they buy. Even with the caveat that you can get gold from duplicates, it still means that how much you save is entirely dictated by RNG. And there are seasonal items, still dictated by RNG, but with a time limit, meaning players are locked out from some items as well.

We can quibble all day about why this was done in this manner, but that's unimportant. What is moreso is why Overwatch not having a satisfying progression system is important, and here we come back to what I mentioned at the start. A lot of people reading this are going to say, “So what?” To a lot of people, the raw gameplay should be what really matters, with cosmetics and progression not being all that important. And that's fine, because it's not what's really important to you.

Here's the issue. Raw gameplay isn't enough to keep a lot of people playing for a long time. A lot of people want change as they play, whether that be through gameplay or cosmetics. Having a bad progression system can really hamper how long a game lasts for, as a lot of people aren't going to keep playing if there's nothing satisfying to work towards.

Gameplay isn't enough to keep a lot of people engaged if they're not aiming to get truly good at the game. Overwatch is a special case because it's a lot more cheery and casual than other shooters in tone. A lot of people are going to be playing it because of the characters and world. How do you think they'll feel when the unlocks that let them have fun with the world are completely out of their control?

Overwatch having a bad progression system is not a gameplay issue, it's not a game world issue, and for the truly dedicated, this really isn't an issue in the first place. It's a reach issue. If Overwatch wants to engage more people and get them talking, it would do well to ensure as many people can be motivated as possible.

Sonic and Addition

What the hell happened to Sonic?

 

Source

One word: addition. Sonic is the victim of reckless addition, a franchise killed by it's own enthusiasm. There comes a point when adding something to a series is detrimental, and Sonic has long passed that point. It's like they listened to people asking for innovation in the industry, yet never realized innovation by itself is worthless.

It's a true shame, because the first 3 Genesis games got it so right. They added things like characters, enemies, levels, music, but did not ever add a crazy new direction for the series to take. The core gameplay was iterated upon, improved, but never truly altered. This is how you do a sequel.

You see, if you don't get a sequel right, you did one of three things wrong. You could have simply made a bad game, something that does happen. But more relevant to this article, you either changed nothing, or you added too much. If you add too little, you don't make much progress and your game feels samey and pointless. If you add too much, usually the game changes dramatically and you've left yourself no solid base anymore. Basically, a good sequel either needs to magically have that new base be amazing, or more likely, it needs to add just the right amount of stuff, and more importantly the right things.

Let's compare the first 3 Sonic games to the ones after. Between Sonic 1 and Sonic 2, what was added?

• Tails the Fox, a new character
• New zones
• New enemies
• New boss who is not Eggman
• A new gameplay mechanic, the spin dash
• Super Sonic, powered up version of base Sonic

I'm likely forgetting some stuff, but the point is that: a) Nothing major was changed and b) all the additions supplement the gameplay of Sonic 1. As for Sonic 2 to 3?

• A new character, Knuckles
• More enemies
• More bosses
• More zones
• Hyper Sonic, powered up version of Super Sonic
• Super forms for Tails and Knuckles

Again, they didn't change anything major per se. They simply added onto what was already there. Building a new character off the base mechanics and giving more tools like super forms do not change the core very much.

After that, it's a whole different story. Almost no game after Sonic 3 gets a pass from me in the sequel department. You want a list?

Sonic Adventure 1 added 3D gameplay, 5 more styles of gameplay, voice acting, a hub world, minigames,the chao garden, and a new villain.

Sonic Adventure 2 might be the only game that tried to stick with a nice sequel philosophy, not adding much new besides a villain.

Sonic Heroes changed the 3D mechanics, added team play, 4 different teams, wallrunning, block breaking, flying, pole ascension, take your pick.

Shadow the Hedgehog added gunplay, swearing, vehicles, and the ability to chose your own story.

Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 changed the 3D mechanics, added 12 character playstyles, brought the hubworld back, added high speed segments, 3 separate stories, and last but not least upgrades for characters.

I could go on, but I think you're getting the point. Every single game after the 3^rd Gensis one adds stuff for the sake of adding stuff. Whether it be to ride a trend, trying to innovate, for whatever reason they keep adding things rather than expanding. There are good ideas here at their core. 3D sonic. Team gameplay. Things like that sound like they'd make for fun games, if they had more time. But the issue is that it seems like if they don't strike gold on their first shot (something that rarely happens) they assume it's bad and toss it aside, adding more stuff to try to find that new amazing idea.

Sonic the Hedgehog is a franchise often maligned for just being bad, and Sonic Team are accused of being bad game designers just as much. But I'm not sure that's the issue. We got great games like Sonic Generations after that had 3 games of that fun, arcadey style. I think they have a good grasp of what they want to to, and their ideas are good. Their issue is time, and perception. They really don't know how to make a show-stopper on their first try, and that's fine, but they refuse to refine it. They just add and add and add.

Many people have no hope left for Sonic. I disagree. I say that if Sega stop trying to add mindlessly, we may have hope left.

Paladins Vs. Overwatch: Just Stop

I might be a wee bit frustrated.

Source

I had a whole nice article planned, you know. It was going to talk about Paladins, and why I'm so excited about it, how to handle a game right, and what elements can be missing from a game and not matter as much. I'm sure it would've been good, too.

But nope, rather than the internet talking about this new and interesting game, the only thing I've heard is “IT RIPS OFF OVERWATCH AHHHHHHH”.

I think we might be having an issue with the line between “ripoff”, and “similar”, guys. I'm really frustrated that a unique game is having all discussion about it sucked into an argument over whether it copied another, and I think we mayyyy need to actually discuss what a ripoff really is.

So, for all intents and purposes, let's start with what a ripoff should be defined by. Merriam Webster defines it as “something that is too much made like something else”. Obviously that's very subjective, and altogether not very useful to define by any objective standards. Instead, let's first look at this in the only objective manner anyone can: the legal system.

I'll be using U.S law, since that's where Blizzard and Hi-Rez are based, and I'll just be linking sections on Wikipedia because that site's the easiest for anyone of limited legal knowledge to read.

When it comes to intellectual property law, there are 2 pertinent areas that could be applied here. Game mechanics can't really be patented, as companies who try basically find them unenforceable. So that leaves trade dress.

Trade dress basically gives protection to any visual design of a product. It's why you can't make a Mario fan game and sell it for profit(or really for any reason when it comes to Nintendo). I highly doubt anyone would confuse Paladins for Overwatch, they look so incredibly different. No way this would hold any legal water.

Trademark wouldn't apply because no duh. Industrial Design rights don't apply either because the mechanics are different, and they don't serve the same function under the law. Not copyright either, that only applies to direct asset rip offs really. Any way you look at it, there is no way possible that a legal case could be made for either game ripping the other off. It just couldn't happen.

And as for Paladins being a ripoff in spirit, well that's a bit different from person to person, and I don't really want to get into that directly. What I do want to talk about is how this sucked up all other discussion about Paladins into a meaningless black hole.

This is frustrating to me not just because I'm a Paladins fan (although I do enjoy it immensely), but it's not a good way to go about things. One part of this post is talking about how by all objective standards, Paladins is quite different from Overwatch. The other part is a cry for reason, a plea for it. Because this stuff happens, guys.

League of Legends and DOTA 2 are very similar in a lot of areas. Call of Duty and Battlefield are similar in a lot of areas. Half the fighting games on the market are close in nature. So many RPG's copy stuff from each other. Platformers borrow from each other with reckless abandon. So why in the frakking heck is Paladins suddenly considered so shameless?

A few things could be the culprit here. First off, the timing isn't great. Overwatch is still very relevant in the public eye, so any game with similarities is going to draw eyebrows from at least a few people. Adding to that is the fact that several popular internet personalities (I am looking SQUARELY at you, Dunkey) kinda jumped on the bandwagon and made a deal about it being similar. It's quite unfortunate how nowadays these people do have to rush research just to get more clicks because otherwise you're not going to last. And finally, it's a competitive market, and ulterior motives can therefore be drawn more easily. Sad but true.

I understand that games don't exist in a vacuum, but when exactly did games start to be judged entirely outside of their own merits? The outrage culture of the internet has certainly shown itself to be prevalent, so I suppose it's no surprise that a game I like would bound to be consumed by it eventually. I guess I'm just... I don't know. A bit disappointed? Regardless, this seems to ultimately be a good cautionary tale for any dev wanting to make a game similar to one on the market already. Watch your step, everyone.

Now can I please write an article about Paladins and why it's good?

PC Master Race is Everything Wrong with Games

This is not hyperbole.

The entire concept of the “PC Master Race” joke is something that already comes from a place of relatively uncomfortable humor, but it's morphed into something much, much more. It's bad for the industry, it's bad for the perception of it, and it embodies all the negative aspects of this business.

Exclusion

If you asked me when the biggest attitude problem in the industry was, I'd answer with “exclusion”. Gamers trying to exclude people from an already pretty high-entry hobby are seriously the worst sometimes. Gaming can already cost hundreds of dollars, and then people will say stuff like “You play mobile games, you're not a REAL gamer”, and other crap like that. It's why gaming doesn't have a good reputation by most people who don't play them.

You can already see how the “PC master race” thing is exclusionary, I hope. It excludes people who prefer to play games on consoles (See “console peasants”). It excludes those with lower end PC's and those who play mobile games. And it excludes those who don't play games in the first place.

I do not care that it is a joke. It's an extremely poor one, and one that does nothing good for the medium. It makes people look like elitist jerks, and is one of the most cited reasons behind why people I know don't game on PC. They think the community is elitist because of stuff like this. Ditto for people who don't even play games.

Conflict

Beyond even the exclusion, it creates conflict in the industry, and not the good kind. The good kind of conflict has people with opposing opinions talking, comparing, and ultimately coming to understand both sides better.

The bad side is one we see more often, unfortunately. The typical “You suck”, “F*** you, you suck” back and forth does nothing of worth, and just leads to a whole lot of anger.

Yeah, PC master race encourages this, too. The stance it takes is as follows: “PC's are the best, and anyone who says otherwise is inferior.” How in any way does this facilitate discussion? It does the exact opposite. Insulting one group and holding another up is a bad way to go about things. It's what prevents people from rationally discussing stuff like Playstation Vs. Xbox, and contributes to all sorts of insults on forums. You ever wonder why people get so mad over games? Conflict encouragement is why.

Context

Finally, I want to cover one last thing about this topic. The wider context PC master race fits into shows off just how the industry is going to be perceived if we don't change something.

PC master race, in a modern context, brings up memories of Hitler, and his concept of an Aryan “master race”. It's not exactly a nice memory, and it's one that this “joke” handles awfully.

It's going to be taken badly. Either gamers don't give a shit about the awfulness of WWII and just wanna go make jokes about it, or they don't realize and are ignorant of the culture that isn't gaming. Either way, it makes gamers look insensitive.

And I get it, it is a joke. But it represents so much bad stuff in this industry, it's not even funny. I've listed 3, but there is so much more. “It's just a joke” only goes so far before the joke becomes more than just a meaningless bit of fun, before it starts to represent something. It's only so far before it morphs into something meaningful, and at that point it's irresponsible to pretend otherwise.

This idea is a great checklist for the cultural shift this industry needs, and what it needs to shift away from. We should take advantage of that.

Happy Birthday, Undertale

Holy shit, it's been a year.

 

It was September when i first heard about Undertale. Everyone I knew that was into games was talking about it. I only caught brief glimpses of it, and was honestly very confused. For the next few months, it was everywhere, and I do mean everywhere. After months of hype, I decided to see what this game was all about.

Best damn gaming decision I've ever made.

A year on, Undertale still stands as my favourite game ever. It's an experience I'm never going to forget, and one that will undoubtedly impact anyone that's played it. So, one year later, this is why Undertale remains #1 on my list of video games.

Oh, and spoilers. Why haven't you played Undertale yet?

Let's start at the beginning

I went into Undertale 99% blind. I saw a bit of the sans fight, the ruins, and a brief colourful glimpse I didn't realize was the Asriel fight. That's important, because Undertale starts out so unassuming, so small, so basic. It has a lot of personality, but nothing much else at that point.

Then Toriel showed up, and punched me in the gut. I love it when a game turns all your expectations around in once moment, and Toriel does just that. The game tells you that some monsters may need to have their health reduced. It shows itself as a simple RPG. It stays faithful to the retro aesthetic. It's not very serious.

The game does all this to fool you into thinking that it is indeed nothing more than it seems. Then, BAM, Toriel is dead, my knowledge about sparing monsters seemed wrong, and it's not just a goofy retro RPG anymore. There's death. There's emotion. There's tragedy. The first hour of the game sounds dreadfully boring, but it's so important for building up your expectations. Everything I knew was wrong, and now I had to travel into an unknown world that I knew nothing about. That is when Undertale had me interested.

Let's talk emotions

Undertale's got em'. This has been talked about to death by almost everyone, but I wanted to talk about what Undertale did for me. Undertale, more than anything else, was genuine at a time I needed it.

2015 was a rough year for my optimism in the games industry. I saw publishers try to squeeze money out of everyone in every way, I saw Nintendo starting to go down the same route after I supported them, and from my perspective (A misguided one now that I look back), the whole thing just cared about money.

So a game that just wanted to be a good game was just what I needed at the time. Undertale's quirky humour and random dialogue felt like a breath of fresh air. The battle system felt like something new and fresh. And this willingness to get into something new played a large part in how much the game pulled me in.

The game does have genuine emotion, I'm not discounting that. Papyrus is hilarious, Undyne and Alphys are adorable, Metatton is......

Flowey is legit terrifying, and the fight with Asgore is one of the few times I will use the word “epic” to describe something. What I am saying is that Undertale resonated with me because it just does what it wants. It's not restrained by doing what it thinks the audience wants, nor is it trying to do the “current” thing. The emotion isn't a list of check marks. It's genuine.

Undertunes

I remember the exact moment I knew I was gonna love Undertale. I had just arrived in Snowdin, and went to fight Papyrus because I wanted more of his dialogue. The fight started. I flirted with him (If you don't get it you need to get out because you haven't played it), and he activated his special blue attack!

Then Bonetrousle kicked in.

This was when I first thought “Holy cow, this is some amazing music!” It perfectly fit the scenario, character, battle, and raised it from a great fight to a fantastic fight with some sweet tunes.

And it just went uphill from there. From Spear of Justice to Dummy! to CORE, every single song is not only nice on its own, it also lifts every scene and scenario up to amazingly emotional levels.

When I traversed the waterfall, the music made me feel sorrowful and introspective, like this area held the ideals of freedom and wildness once held by the monsters.

When I fought Undyne, her theme was menacing. Here was an opponent actually trying to kill me for the first time, and the entirety of monsterkind would back her in this quest.

When I fought Omega Flowey, this theme instilled a level of panic in me the scenario by itself could never do. It felt like I was trapped in the madness for hours.

When I listened to the title theme, it was a retro jingle, one I'd heard many times over. After I finished the game, it was an opener to an amazingly realized and full experience.

When I fought ASGORE, this song was chilling, sorrowful, terrifying, awe-inspiring, regretful, epic, and final. This song embodied so many things, but more than anything else, it embodies the end of a journey, with all the mixed up emotions that come with it. It is one of the most emotional songs I have ever heard, and truly makes the battle against Asgore one of gaming's greatest. Undertale's soundtrack is legendary.

My emotions

Finally, I want to end off with something very personal to me. It was the moment Undertale connected with me in a deep way unlike most other games and media in general.

This song, and the walk you take with it, is burned into my head. It let me just think about everything that had led up to this point. Toriel, mosterkind's fate, Flowey, Asgore....

It let me think about loss.

Loss is something I am terrified of. Loss is something I worry about daily. What will happen to my friends after high school? Will my family still be here tomorrow? Is there anything I can do?

Undertale just gave me a scenario, a story, a song, and let me think. Those 6 minutes are precious to me. I thought about loss in the game. I thought about the loss I have faced and will inevitably have to face. I thought about the loss that occurs every day, by many people. I just stared at the screen even after the song was done, and just thought.

I couldn't sleep that night. No other game since Mother 3 has done that to me. The next day, I got up, and fought Asgore.

I cried. I cried tears of all kinds. I cried tears of sorrow, loss, and sadness, but also happiness, laughter, and appreciation. Undertale is the only game, no, time that I have ever, ever, experienced tears of joy.

This is why Undertale is my favourite game of all time. I could talk about how objectively good it is. But truly, it came at the perfect time. 7 months later, I lost a relative close to me. It is experiences like this that help me to understand, cope, and get through all sorts of things in this crazy experience called life. This is my personal connection to this small game called Undertale.

I truly and deeply thank you for reading.