Fortnite is G.I. Joe of This Generation

Being a 90s kid, I was at the tailed end of the G.I. Joe action figure craze of the 80s but was very much aware of their existence as I had older cousins that had quite a collection. Fast forward 30 years, and we now have a video game that reminds me of the G.I. Joe days.

G.I. Joe was popular amongst kids because it portrayed heroism in the form of military. You had all sorts of crazy weaponry or vehicles that you could use with them. The animated series propelled the toy line to great heights. 

For me, the comparison with G.I. Joe and Fortnite is an easy one as the game very much feel like you're playing with action figures from a bunch of different IPs. It's great fun to run around as a banana trying to shoot down Spiderman only to get killed by John Cena. 

Fortnite is the G.I. Joe of this generation ... it's somewhat surprising that we still don't have G.I. Joe skins inside of the game - perhaps it's because most kids of today wouldn't know who half of them would be.

Street Fighter 6 World Tour is Final Fight

The older gamers amongst us may remember a game called "Final Fight" set in the same universe as Street Fighter. The brawler hasn't received much love over the years, however, but all of this seems to have change with the latest entry of the Street Fighter game.

Street Fighter 6 include 3 main modes - one of which is called "World Tour" which is essentially you creating a custom character in the Final Fight/Street Fighter universe.

World Tour is Street Fighter's control in a brawler open world. You can fight almost anyone and sometimes it's multiple people against you. This is as close of a Final Fight game as we've gotten in quite some time and you need to try it.

If you haven't picked up Street Fighter 6 then maybe you should as it's not only the best in the series but quite possibly the best fighting game created so far.

Game Companies To Follow the Community

With Age of Empire 2 making its way to the Xbox, it re-ignited my love for the game I used to play as a kid. What Microsoft did here is something we don't see much of in the gaming industry. They realized, a few years ago, that Age of Empire 2 was still being played by the community and hired a few community molders to work on the HD edition of the game and the Definitive Edition soon afterwards.

The reason why we still see updates for the game is because there's an healthy community that still plays it.

Games should live, or die, based on the community but how often do we see games seemingly loose support either too soon (Splitgate) or too late (Battlefield 2042). If there's a healthy community, then keep supporting the games; if there isn't then stop.

It's annoying to see a game loose support too soon or too late. If we look at the mess that was Battlefield 2042, it doesn't really matter that they managed to bring the game to a playable state as the community as rejected it in favor of earlier entries or other series altogether. If the community hasn't moved on from Battlefield 1 or Battlefield 5 then why not spend additional resources into those games rather than attempting to fix the latest/broken entry?

If you're lucky enough to have made a game that resonates with players then keep investing in it rather than dropping support in favor of a new iteration of the series. If Battlefield 1 still average decent numbers then stick to it! There must be something to this game that players appreciate over the competition and working on a new iteration doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be able to move that community forward. 

High End Gaming PC for This?

I've recently gotten my hands on a High End Gaming PC and was surprised by how many games actually struggle to run decently using the bells and whistles found at the high-end spectrum. While not all games caused crashes I found that some didn't handle being played at their highest settings very well. This could always be an hardware/driver issue from my side, of course, but since the issues seems to be occurring for some games under some specific conditions, and not others under similar conditions, It seems to me like the issue is with the game rather than anything else.

The 2 items that seems to be causing the most problems for me are:

• RTX - This newish technology doesn't seem to work well for some games as using the highest RTX settings directly impacted the stability of some of the games tried.
• Refresh Rate - Some games gives the option of a higher refresh rate than the standard 60hz but stability seems to be taking a hit whenever choosing anything beyond 60hz for some games.

I would argue that the reason why some games have bugs at the higher end settings is because not as many people play games using high-end parts. Most gamers likely use mid to low range systems and games work fine with lower configurations.

I'm not ruling out the hardware/driver issue entirely. This is my first high end gaming PC and I thought everything would run without any issues. The reality, however, seems to be that high end gaming still has some, different, issues than my experience with lower/mid range gaming PCs.

The Sonic Frustration

While I never was a fan of Sonic, I have come across a few Sonic games over the years which were polar opposites in terms of quality and fun factor. Essentially, it's difficult to get excited at a Sonic game release as you never know what to expect from the SEGA mascot. 

If, on the other hand, I would tell you that another Mario game is coming out there's some sense of predictability that can be felt. Mario games, unlike Sonic games, have consistently been quality experiences that, sure, may not always appeal to everyone but they were generally bug free with an experience that felt well thought out.

Even with Sonic Frontier's positive reception, I'm reluctant at the idea of picking the game up as I get flashbacks of other Sonic experiences that I would rather forget (is that PTSD?). SEGA has sandwiched good Sonic games in between bad ones and I no longer care to give their games a try - even the seemingly good ones.

Sonic is, to me at least, a "don't buy or buy on discount/sale" type of mascot.

Minecraft - Different World Same Process

I've recently started playing Minecraft again with my sister, after a year long hiatus, and was surprised to find my sister doing the same thing she pretty much was doing last time she played with me. She started off by cutting down a few trees, dig a hole where she spent the first night, then proceeded to build chests/farm/animal enclosers with a few houses, largely the same format as I've seen before... essentially, I felt like we were playing the same game as last time even though it was a totally different world. Similar to last time, once she started losing interest once she became "wealthy".

How can you loose interest in a game where you can literally build anything anywhere?

Well that's simple to answer: You loose interest because you never leave your comfort-zone. Minecraft is a game that lets you do anything but human nature tends to favor routine. Once the cycle for success is found then it's a matter of repeating it every new playthrough.

How can you get out of the creative rut? 

Since I grew up with legos, I understand full well the creative rut that we sometime can get into with building blocks (or art in general) but the following should help anyone that wants to get out of it:

• Build something new by looking at tutorials online.
• Build on the landscape "as is" instead of making everything "flat" for your structures.
• Add details to your existing structures.
• Build in places that you're not used to building such as underwater or underground.
• Automate things using Redstone.
• Recreate your surrounding within the game.

Minecraft is an amazing game that's at its best when played creatively. Don't be afraid to experiment with it and most importantly: Have fun!

Why the Steam Deck Didn't Launch with Windows

The Steam Deck has been out for a while now and still only comes with Steam OS. While I don't have inside scoop on why Valve decided to omit a windows version, we can deduct reasons just by thinking logically about it. The following is what I was able to come up with:

• Cost - Anyone that wants Windows on their device need to pay for a licensing fee which would of likely made the cost of the Steam Deck 100-200$ more than it is now. They were able to keep the cost down by having their own OS.
• Console Experience - Valve is attempting to create a console experience (accessible/just works) with the Steam Deck which would of been difficult in a situation where they don't have full control over the OS.
• They want to get away from Windows - The older gamers amongst us will remember a time when Microsoft was throwing around the idea of everything needing to go through their store similar to what Apple is doing with their Mac/Devices. Valve wasn't on board with this idea which is how the "Steam Box" came to be. The Steam Box was ultimately a failure but it was Valve earliest attempt at independence/console nonetheless.

Would you of preferred a Steam Deck with windows on it out of the box? 

The Tourist

Video game tourism is going from game to game for the purpose of playing it until the loop is understood, perhaps not appreciated, and moving on to the next one. It's a relatively costly way to play as it means the player is purchasing games after games with no real intention of finishing them. 

I would consider myself a video game tourist as I have a vast library of games of which I have completed but a fraction of. I have my favorites, such as Rocket League, that I play in-between purchases.

Gamepass, or other related services, are a godsent as it allows me to browse through an ever changing library of games for a relatively low sum when compared to buying them upfront and it's generally better than the trials/demos than the game companies are putting together. 

My biggest turn off with games nowadays are the big open worlds that include such things as "find X treasures" as a way to add game time without actually adding anything of value. I don't have time for this and would rather play Rocket League instead.

The Optimum Time to Play A Game

We used to be able to buy a game, play it right away, and enjoy it the way the developers meant for it to be enjoyed. Our first impression of the game was the final build from the developers. Things have changed for the worse since...

Now, the release date isn't considered a date when the product is finished as much as it is just a date the product will be released to the public. With Battlefield 2042, Cyberpunk... we can quickly see how problematic that strategy is with many not having a first good impression of the game.

First impression is everything because there's only one time that it's going to be the first time. If you fail to make a good impression, the player base will simply move to the next shiny object likely never to come back. Do you really want this to be the experience your players go through?

It's not about making the experience perfect as much as it is making it enjoyable and for it to be enjoyable there needs to be some degree of quality tied to it.

When is a good time to play games nowadays?

The answer used to be "anytime after the game is released" but nowadays I'm more tempted to say that the best time is when the game is stable which could be soon after release or, in the case of Cyberpunk, almost 1 and half year after release.

Speaking of Cyberpunk, I recently came across news that v1.6 was out which brought fixes as well as technical improvements on next gen consoles... in other words if, like me, you haven't picked this game up yet then now IS the optimum time to play it... almost 2 years after it originally came out. Hey! At least they didn't drop support of it like EA did for Anthem.

Car Licensing In Racing Games is Bonkers

If you want to design a racing games that use "real" cars then you'll need to pay for a license to use said cars. The most common licenses are for 5 years meaning that after five years the game company either needs to renew the license for the game or stop selling it. If you have purchased the game during that time then you usually are able to still play it however it's no longer possible to buy new copies and it usually signals the end of the online as well.

The problem with licenses is that you have some amazing games stuck somewhere making it difficult for players to play. The Need For Speed series, for example, have a handful of games stuck in the PS3/Xbox 360 consoles as the license agreements are such that they can't be played anywhere else or purchased.

How do you get around this?

There are three things that could help get around these licensing issues:

• Don't use licensed material - If there's anything that we can learn from the Burnout/Wreckfest/TrackMania series is that it's possible to create great racing without relying on licensed cars.
• Let the players include the licensed stuff via mods - TrackMania is a great example of this has earlier entries allowed players to add their own vehicle assets to the game which usually resulted in a few real world cars making their way into the game.
• One thing to note here is the rights-holder may request to have the mod removed from the game but most will turn a blind eye to this has nobody is profiting from it. Removing a mod also doesn't negatively impact the base game.

Obviously, the above strategy likely wouldn't work in all instances as players come to expect licensed material from some of their games. Would you play, for example, a Gran Turismo game without licensed vehicles or tracks? Perhaps some of the changes need to come from the licensing agreement itself. 

My hope is that the future will be better in this regard as the current situation is pretty annoying...

3DS end of an Era

It was recently announced that the 3DS online store would close in March 2023 and can't help but reminisce about, what I consider to be, the best handheld console ever created. One of the best feature of the console was the ability to automatically download someone's Mii while you were nearby. I vividly remember carrying my 3DS around in airports only to come home and having hundreds of Miis added from people all over the world... I mean how cool was that?

Another great feature of the 3DS was the 3D that made everything popped out...

It's sad that the online will soon be discontinued - I wished there was a successor to the 3DS or a device that could still play the games after the 3DS is no more.

Stop Making Games for Fans?

Game companies are quick to say that they listen to the fans while making their games but is that really a good thing? Can anyone say that the games that was made for fans was more successful than the one that wasn't?

When a musician tries to make music to please the fans they usually end up pleasing no one. The best example I have for this is with Sum41 that started off as a punk rock band but by the third/fourth album they all but lost their way in an attempt to make music to appeal to whatever was popular at the time (remember their emo album?)

While it's normal for an artist to want to make something that will be loved, that's how they get paid after all, the reality is that if it's not who they are then the listeners will feel it.

Here's the thing about fans; they don't know what they want. One will say that they want more explosions from their games while another will say they want better control... Since you can't please everyone, why not do something that you like and release it to the world as it is. It may not be loved but it will be authentic.

Racedriver Grid Was Something Special

Having only recently given a second chance to Codemaster games, I've decided to pick up their entire DiRT and GRID series and realized that I truly missed out on some amazing games. Race Driver GRID (2008) stands out to me as not only being ahead of its time but also a masterpiece that hasn't quite yet been surpassed even by its creator.

What's the big deal?

The career mode is an highlight here as you can play it for as long as you want since you can choose either to do the pre-defined events or the randomly generated ones. The handling feels right, the cockpit view is quite detailed for the time, the car can get damaged quite significantly, the rewind feature is better implemented than in Forza... overall I'm just impressed at what is being offered here.

In 2008, you had Forza Motorsport 3, Gran Turismo 4, Need for Speed Prostreet & Undercover, Mario Kart Wii... the competition was fierce and yet, for many, Race Driver GRID stands out as offering an experience still remembered fondly today.

What has been your experience with the game? Is it one of your favorite racing games?

Should Privacy Policies and Agreements be Available Before Purchase?

It's not uncommon nowadays to have to go through license agreements and privacy policies before the game can even load but what if you don't agree with the information that you read?

By the time you get to the information, you've already purchased the game and installed it to your device. Then you're asked to review the documentation and if you don't agree to them you can opt to not play the game... but how to you refund the game at that point? Shouldn't those agreements be readily made available upon the purchase of the product rather than after purchased?

If you buy a car, the you have to review/sign documents BEFORE you leave with it. Why are video games different?

Let's Rethink Racing Games Career Modes

Career modes in racing games are often barebone requiring the user to win event after event to completion. While some companies have spiced things up by adding a storyline into the mix it's still very much a "win all to complete" affair in most cases.

Needing to win every event in order to complete a racing game makes for a lazy career mode. There's not a racer that ever lived that could say he's won every race he registered in. Why, then, is this the requirement in most racing games career mode? 

Essentially it boils down to this: People hate loosing therefor racing games are designed to make the player win. If the game is designed to make the player win then why would they design a career mode that would be anything else than to have the player win every race?

Folks at Kylotonn seems to have understood this with their WRC and V-Rally 4 games. These games have career modes that don't require you to win everything you set your eyes on. In those games, winning is good and loosing isn't fatal unless you loose badly often as you won't get enough money from the events to maintain your crew. How well you progress in those careers also determines the events that will come your way which makes every playthrough feel unique.

Kylotonn, which was an unknown company to me as of 2 months ago, showed me a better career package than what I was used to. I would love to see those types of careers in the likes of Forza, Dirt, Grid, Gran Turismo... as we need to move away from the "point and click and win" type of events. If you add a storyline, but still require the player to win everything in the background, then it's just adding fluff without fixing the issue.

Let's Have Better A.I. in Racing Games

Quite a few racing game nowadays seems to have A.I. that not only follows a straight path but also slows down near the end of the last lap. These patterns can become quite noticeable the more familiar you get the game. Some A.I. also has access to different laws than the player needs to abide to. The below are some of the most popular racing games with their, what I consider to be, problems:

• Forza Horizon 3/4/5, Forza Motorsport 5/6/7 - The A.I. slows down on the last lap, for most difficulty settings, and follows a straight path.
• Need For Speed Heat - The cops aren't as aggressive on A.I.
• Project Cars - A.I. has access to different laws of physics than the player. If the player goes through the same "water puddles" as the A.I. he'll crash and they won't.

Out of the most popular racing game companies, Codemasters (Dirt/GRID) and BugBear(Flatout/Wreckfest) seems to understand this problem the most and have created some of the most engaging A.I. as a result.

While the difficulty settings does affect the maximum speed of the A.I., in Wreckfest, they don't slow down on the last lap nor do they follow different handling mechanics than the player. Similar strategies have been applied for Dirt/GRID games.

This is the philosophies that I hope will be considered for future racing games:

• The A.I. shouldn't have different handling mechanics than the player regardless of the difficulty.
• Move away from straight paths. It's true that in real racing you'll see people follow each other but they typically will pass each other every once in a while and mistakes will happen. In video games, you shouldn't have A.I. start at "8th" place and remain there the entire time. They should be hungry to reach 1st place.
• No more slow downs on the last lap. I understand the need to make people feel like their winners but nobody likes cheap wins in the long run.
• More unpredictability in the races. Forza Horizon series is notorious for this as every single races will have 2-3 cars way ahead of everyone else up until the finish line where they seem to slow down. 

Of course, you'll find none of these problems online as racing with other players is as unpredictable as it can get. Have you noticed these problems with the A.I. in racing games?

Do you like to Win Races?

 Many, if not all, modern racing games comes with a host of accessibility features designed to make the experience more approachable. Some people need these in order to play while others use them in order to simply get that jolt of dopamine every time they win. My question to you today is: Do you play to win or do you play because you want to race? In other words, do you go easy on yourself by using these accessibility features (assuming you don't have a disability that requires them) or do you go through the pain to actually get better in the game?

I've been a virtual racer for most of my life using a controller and recently got my hands on a racing wheel which I thought would be an easy transition - it wasn't. Over the years, using the controller, I had learned to forgo accessibility settings and use the hardest of difficulties for the A.I. but with introduction of the wheel I started looking at those accessibility features again thinking to myself that I needed to climb that ladder again. 

Then it kind of hit me: I was looking at the accessibility features because I cared more about winning than actually racing. I didn't want to go through the "pain" of loosing every race until I got good.

Videos games have helped create scenarios where players constantly win because it's been proven that people prefer to win than loose. We're more likely to play games if we feel like we're progressing/winning than if we're loosing. We feel that we're not making any progress when we loose when infact we learn just as much from it, from a skill perspective, than winning it easy. 

It's frustrating to loose the races that I used to win easily at, as the wheel is adding a dimension I'm not used to, but I don't want to make it easier on myself anymore.

Racing Wheel Isn't For Everyone

I've always been a fan of racing games and wanted a racing wheel for the longest time. I managed to get my hands on the G920 recently and was left disappointed. The wheel itself has no issues it's actually using it, over a controller, that's somewhat of a frustration to me.

The major issue here is that I'm good at racing games while using my controller not the racing wheel. It's like needing to learn how to walk again which is very difficult to me to do. Basically, I went from being top 3 on the hardest of difficulties to being near the bottom at an easier difficulty... I mean, do I even know how to drive at all?

Speaking to a friend of mine, he said that wheel does require some getting use to as it adds an extra dimension to the racing game. You feel the road in such a way that wasn't possible before with a controller and must become accustomed to it.

Time for me to learn to drive I guess?

Codemasters Got A Second Chance

My first Codemasters game was a complete disaster. I had bought it when I was a teen, at a time when money was scarce, only to find that it could only be played on Radeon graphics card (I had Nvidia). 

The game looked to be a space simulation of some sort where you could land on planets and explore them on foot or in vehicles - think of "No Man Sky" but at much smaller scale. 

Obviously, it was my own fault for not looking at the requirements before buying the game but it was my first time seeing a game restricted to one graphic card chipset and I hated the company for it.

It was years before I was able to play this game and when I finally did; it sucked! Needless to say that Codemasters didn't leave a good first impression. I vowed never to buy a Codemasters game again and I've held that vow up until I tried "Dirt" on Gamepass (roughly 20 years later) which was a pleasant surprise.

After 20 years, I've bought my second, ever, Codemasters game: Dirt 3 Complete Edition on Xbox 360. At this point, it probably won't be another 20 years before I buy my third Codemasters game...

Take Away the Microtransactions And Diablo Immortals Is Still "Meh"

It's been reported that Diablo Immortals has made a crazy amount of money and I find this fact very surprising considering how stale the game felt to me. As someone who's been through hundreds, if not thousands, of rifts throughout the many seasons of Diablo 3 seeing it again in Diablo Immortal just felt not only familiar but lazy.

Rifts, for those of you who doesn't know, are basically dungeons where you kill monsters to fill up a meter until a boss appears that, once defeated, drops loot. The more difficult the rift, the higher chances of getting better loot... at least that's how it used to work in Diablo 3 but in Diablo Immortals the chances at good loot is heavily influence by items that you have to purchase with real money.

One of the best thing about the game is how you can just run into another player, get a group together, and venture forth with them. There's somewhat of an enjoyable MMO feel to the experience but everything else feels like a step down or deja vu from Blizzard previous entry in the series. This is very much a mobile game in every sense of the word which is likely why I didn't connect to the game as it's not a market that appeals to me.

The game is "free" with a good chunk of it that you can do before you even become aware of the monetization but once it's starts to hit it won't let go. The game has been intricately weaved with layers of microtransactions enough so that it would require you to spend time just learning about them all and their uses. Once you reach the end, you can still play without paying anything but your progress will severely be hindered and perhaps that's when you'll need to ask yourself "what's the point?".