Nanoreviews: Uncharted 4: A Thief's End; Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty; Stray

The G catches you up on some quality titles 

Uncharted 4: A Thief's End - Remaster (PS5, PC) 

I went straight into this remastered PS4 classic after finishing the excellent Indiana Jones and the Great Circle. I was not disappointed. A Thief's End is considered by many to be the best entry in the series, and a fitting end to the story of Nathan Drake, treasure hunter. The remaster is superbly done, with crisp high-res graphics and subtly optimized gameplay. This one features a lot more action and a lot less stealth than Indiana Jones, and on balance I prefer stealth - but the 3rd person shooting and platforming are all well done. The story is surprisingly compelling, focusing as much on interpersonal relationships as the quest for Henry Avery's treasure. I have two complaints, though. First, whereas Indiana Jones captures the sense that you are a human being with physical limitations (which heightens tension in key moments), the action here is more like what you find in a superhero film drunk on CGI and VFX. I found that annoying and distracting. Second, there's no map! Sure the game is pretty linear, but there are more open stages - making the decision to forego a map super annoying. Rating: 8/10.

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty (Series X, PS5, PC)

Cyberpunk 2077 is one of my favorite games of the past decade - I've played through it twice and will probably do so one more time. It's that good. Phantom Liberty is a meaty addition to the story, designed to be played about 2/3 of the way through the main story. It opens up a new section of the map, Dogtown, which is the autonomous fiefdom of a warlord and his private army. The story begins with a downed plane, carrying the President of the USA. You are contacted by a member of her inner circle to go into Dogtown to save her. But nothing - as you can imagine - is what it seems. As you progress through the storyline and its many double-crosses, Phantom Liberty poses interesting questions on the nature of consciousness in a transhuman, AI-powered social landscape. As far as expansion packs go, this one is about as good as they come - and definitely a worthwhile purchase for fans of the game. Unfortunately, it's not quite as compelling as the main questline. Rating: 8/10. 

Stray (Series X, PS5, PC)

In this one, you - a cat - become lost in an underground world populated by robots. Your journey to the surface uncovers a dark secret - as well as a message of hope. Sound enticing? That barely does the game justice. Stray is beautifully rendered, melancholic and completely absorbing. In fact, it's one of the most remarkable games I've ever played. My only complaint is that it isn't long enough. Rating: 10/10. 

--

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a Feather founder/administrator, since 2012.

Nanoreviews: Star Wars Outlaws, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart

A roundup of video games The G has been playing lately.

Star Wars Outlaws (Series X/S, PS5, PC)

Haley reviewed this one back in September—and her take mostly holds for me too. So instead of reinventing the wheel, I'll just add a bit of color from my personal experience with the game. First the good. Outlaws is a charming game that does a fantastic job immersing you in one of the most interesting geographies and time periods established in Star Wars canon: the Outer Rim under partial Imperial occupation. Gameplay is modeled after the earlier Assassin's Creed games, deploying the same mix of stealth, action and platforming. Once you get into the flow of things, it's pretty great. Now the bad: it takes 5-10 hours to get into the flow of things, and before that matters, Outlaws is a frustrating mess. Most people won't stick it out, unfortunately—and that's on Ubisoft. The main culprit is the broken save system, which allows you to quick save unless you are on a mission, where you are captive to a badly-implemented checkpoint system that only allows one autosave at a time—coupled with the fact that, if you load up a previous save, all the NPCs you blasted or knocked out respawn. A lot of early missions force you to replay long sequences that can fall apart with one tiny timing mistake. It's the bad kind of challenging, to be honest. But, again, once you're past that, this largely (but not fully) smooths over and the game ends up being a lot of fine. Recommended for stealth enthusiasts, Star Wars stans and the very patient only.

Score: 7/10 (same as Haley).

Indiana Jones and the Great Circle (Series X/S, PC)

Another licensed property, this time an Xbox exclusive published by Bethesda Software—and developed by MachineGames, a Swedish studio founded by refugees from Starbreeze Studios. That DNA is very much in evidence here, as Indiana Jones and the Great Circle immediately reminded me of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay—one of the best licensed properties I've ever played. Indiana Jones and the Great Circle is up there as well. It's a first-person action game that will bring the Uncharted series to mind for most folks, and it's true—there is a lot in common in terms of both gameplay and thematic content between Great Circle and Uncharted 4 in particular. But, while both games are very good, they don't really feel the same. The shift to first-person gives it a level of immersion that you don't quite get from the third-person perspective, so you really feel like you are Indiana Jones. And the vibes are just different, like comparing James Bond to Jason Bourne. The game is beautiful, expertly paced and —despite not having a quick-save function— presents a decent challenge that never gets tedious or frustrating (I'm looking at you, Outlaws). It really does feel like you're in an Indiana Jones film. One small quibble: the map is terrible—though at least there is a map (now I'm looking at you, Uncharted 4).

Score: 9/10.

Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart (PS5)

I've been a fan of this series since the original came out for PS2. Ratchet & Clank was one of Sony's most popular exclusive properties during the PS2 and PS3 eras, releasing a whopping 12 titles from 2002 to 2013. But then the series took the PS4 era off, as the devs focused on other projects (including the well-regarded Spider-Man games). Rift Apart is a triumphant return to the market, combining series mainstays like crazy weapons and tight platforming action with some new gameplay dynamics, like the ability to traverse interdimensional rifts. The writing is quite good, with an engaging story and strong characters—including Rivet, a Lombax-like Ratchet fighting an even worse version of Dr. Nefarious in her dimension. Now, the not so good... while the game is generally a lot of fun, the boss battles get very repetitive. They aren't especially hard, just long and, well, they're all pretty much the same.

Score: 8/10.

***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a Feather founder/administrator, since 2012.

Video Game Review: Pentiment by Obsidian Entertainment

A beautifully painted Renaissance whodunit.

I heard a positive, albeit quiet, buzz surrounding the release of Pentiment and was intrigued by its very existence. A new Obsidian story-based murder mystery game set in the Renaissance era with a story-book art style? Yes, please. Unfortunately, I didn’t own either of the platforms on which it launched, but thankfully that has been fixed by the kind folks over at Xbox Publishing. The first in a new wave of Xbox-published games on PlayStation has been happily received, and I have to say, Pentiment is a treat.

Andreas Maler, like the paintings he creates, is an intricate canvas of possibilities, fleshed out by the player. The character has certain staples to his personality that transcend the options given to the player, but on the whole, player choice feels like just the right touch of impact for a game this size. Choosing between rapscallion and bookworm will open very different dialogue choices. His areas of study at university and previous locations also open up even more dialogue and problem-solving decisions. Particular problems, like reading script in Italian for instance, become simple if Andreas knows how to read Italian. Otherwise, Andreas must hunt someone down who could help with his specific problem. This adds a bit of replay value to this little gem, and even better yet, keeps the dialogue fun. I’ve almost completed Pentiment twice and can see these small tweaks affecting each playthrough.

The visual aspect of this game is a breath of fresh air. A unique storybook style paints characters in vibrant hues, bringing life to these two-dimensional theists. Almost every character is memorable, a combination of brilliant artwork and writing. The animations are clean and simple, and the game always looks fantastic. Pentiment is a treat for the eyes.

On par with the artwork, the dialogue is king here. With witty writing, the characters pop off the page. Especially Andreas. His ability to thread his way between pious and respectful or sacrilegious and scandalous always created engaging options. I loved the sarcastic lines, and loved it even more when other characters picked up on my sarcasm and called me out (much respect to the ever-intuitive Father Thomas). The game lives by the dialogue, as there isn’t anything else here. Players looking for anything outside of the narrative need to look elsewhere. There are small mini-games throughout that bring in a bit of a distraction (a card game, fixing horseshoes, etc.), but they are ever only distractions and don’t add much to the game. Thankfully the writing is strong enough to hold the rest of the title upon its shoulders. Sitting around and having dinner with the townsfolk is just as engrossing as solving murders (well, almost).

All is not perfect in this picturesque storybook though. The game begins at a dawdling pace, creating a bit of a slog. It’s unfortunate because the game isn’t particularly long. I can see how the absence of a varied list of sound effects and music in combination with a slow start could turn people off. Stick with it and you'll be rewarded, but I admit some of the gameplay choices create a monotonous air. For instance, the entire game sees the player backtracking to find out more information or spend time with specific people.

Pausing the game brings up a book-like menu that allows the player to view the town/abbey and what is available to do in these areas, but it’s not always accurate and doesn’t always show who is currently available to have a discussion. What follows (if you want to be thorough in investigating the murder) is that I found myself going into every house in every area of the game to see if the townspeople or clergy members had something to say. Sure I could have just talked to a few people and gone off of inconclusive evidence, but how could I condemn an innocent person to death without as much information as possible? The system for traversal was inconvenient, even if it didn’t take long to get from place to place.

As dialogue exits characters’ mouths in Pentiment, a quill scratching paper makes a sound. It’s a nice touch, but over time I desired more. The music is lacking, and as much as I enjoy the silent aspect, the game’s clever writing had me hoping for some fantastic voice acting. The music is so ambient as to be absent (though it does flare up during important revelations). A more prominent soundtrack or voiced dialogue would have elevated the experience for this reviewer.

Regardless of these annoyances, Pentiment paints a brilliant picture of life in a small town connected to an abbey in the 1500s. Taxes raised on the peasants create cruel times that force bold action. Most characters are fleshed out and are worth learning more about. Deciding who to accuse when the time comes feels like a hefty decision and actions taken in Act I play out in Acts II and III, so the player must choose wisely. Will you ignore the abbot and investigate the abbey against his wishes, thus drawing his ire in Act II? Would you accuse a character you didn’t have enough evidence to convict but simply didn’t like them? The choices are in the player’s hands, and regardless of how the story goes, Obsidian manages to make the hefty decisions feel incomplete. Reminiscent of the actual convictions cast in the Renaissance era with insufficient data, the weight of a character’s life is in the balance, whether you have enough information or not. Spoiler: you never do, and that makes the game all the more brilliant.

When the credits roll on Pentiment, it is easy to consider pressing New Game right away to see the other options. To see how the peasants and townsfolk react to the accusations of different characters. And to see how your choices will play out differently through the acts. The beauty of Pentiment, despite my issues with its traversal and sound, is that it isn’t a long game, so experiencing it more than once is a feasible option. Any fan of a highly story-focused game should give this a look-over. Clever writing and beautiful artwork steal the show and is a great example of what an established developer could do with a smaller side-project. Pentiment is a polished, highly memorable experience.

--

The Math

Objective Assessment: 8/10

Bonus: +1 for witty dialogue. +1 for the beautiful storybook art style.

Penalties: -1 for endless backtracking. -1 for lacking some sound effects.

Nerd Coefficient: 8/10

Posted by: Joe DelFranco - Fiction writer and lover of most things video games. On most days you can find him writing at his favorite spot in the little state of Rhode Island.

The State of the Video Game Industry: A Discussion

Shaking up the Video Games Industry

Recently it was announced that Microsoft will be bringing some of its first-party games to rival platforms. While it is not unheard of (as is the case with the Ori series to the Nintendo Switch), this cracks the door open to a potential new era in the console gaming sphere. But before this, some history.

A little over twenty-two years ago, on November 15, 2001, Microsoft released a new gaming brand; the Xbox. This act reintroduced an American console manufacturer into the fold and brought innovations and new corporate tactics to the console side of the gaming industry for the next two decades. As Sega phased out (their previous two consoles failing to break the ten million mark), a huge shift occurred; Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft were now the big three. With an American console maker in the mix, the two Japanese giants would make pivots to stay competitive in a market that they’d dominated.

Bill Gates wanted a competitor in a sphere he assumed would compete with the PC industry. With the PS2’s ability to play DVDs and CDs in addition to games, this was perceived as a potential threat and thus a need to enter the arena. While the PS2 handily trounced Microsoft’s first offering and Nintendo’s Gamecube (Playstation 2 sold over triple the amount of its competitor’s combined sales), Sony relied too much on its namesake for their successor and hubris caused a gaping opportunity. This is when Microsoft brought out the big guns.

While Nintendo ended up doing its own thing with the Wii (lower power console for a more casual audience), Xbox and Playstation competed directly for the same audience. This is the generation in which Microsoft introduced the Xbox dashboard, better Xbox Live services, higher visibility of indie games, a great controller, and easily replaceable hard drives. They also highlighted micro-transactions, pointless DLC, a higher focus on timed-exclusive content, and the biggest repair bill that any console manufacturer has had to dole out (thanks Red Ring of Death). Despite Xbox 360’s shortcomings, Sony priced their PS3 at $600 and launched a year later. Their online tech was miles behind (though free), and their messaging equated to: “If you can’t afford it, get a second job.” It took Sony years to recover from their mistakes and eventually overtake the 360, but in turn, they learned a very important lesson; exploit your opponent’s weakness and hammer away when the opportunity presents itself.

Microsoft’s launch of the Xbox One (their third console, not to be confused with the original, simply named Xbox) was a mess. Their messaging confused fans and casuals. The inclusion of Kinect frustrated those who didn’t want it, the console requiring a constant internet connection angered those with poor or no connectivity, the focus on digital-only games left physical lovers in the dust, and to top it all off, the console was weaker, yet more expensive than it’s competitor; the PS4. The Xbox One was ahead of its time. This singular major Microsoft error set Sony up for success throughout the entire generation, which bled into the current one with the PS5. Sony deployed the same tactics Microsoft used in the previous generation; timed exclusives, full exclusive content, procuring franchises synonymous with the other platform, keeping certain characters exclusive to their platform, using their leading position to make better deals, etc.

Though Microsoft has put out some decent games these past few generations, they couldn’t match Sony or Nintendo in the breadth of titles that were either high quality or could sell on name recognition alone. Their Forza games have been a highlight, but their bread and butter, Halo and Gears, dropped from “legendary” status to “great”. In the case of Fable, it disappeared completely (though there is a new one in development). While they’ve released some fantastic indie games, nothing has propelled the Xbox brand to reach the same heights that they had in the 360 generation. So, Microsoft decided to buy a bunch of developers. Then they did the unthinkable in the console space; they bought entire publishers.

With Bethesda and Activision (and let’s not forget Obsidian, Mojang, and inXile) under their umbrella, Microsoft was sure to take the top spot, put their main competitor out of business (or at least demote them to third place), and begin to take control of the console narrative once again as they did in the glory days of the 360. But something happened. Despite all the acquisitions and even an entire exclusive Bethesda title (Starfield), GamePass subscriber numbers haven’t increased and Microsoft has decided to shift tactics. Recent rumors stated that the heads of Microsoft want ubiquity, no more console squabbling. Every screen is now an Xbox. The internet went wild with speculation. Which games would come to rival consoles? What was the point of owning an Xbox if there were no more true exclusives? Will there be another Xbox console?

Unfortunately, the messaging from Phil Spencer and company wasn't entirely clear. What we do know is that Microsoft will be dipping its toes further into the waters of third-party publishing (on PS5 and Switch) with four titles. Microsoft says that Pentiment (Obsidian), Hi-Fi Rush (Tango), Sea of Thieves (Rare), and Grounded (Obsidian) will be the first four titles to have the honor of building the bridge between Sony and Microsoft. While all four will be coming to PlayStation platforms, only Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush will release on Switch.

With this bit of history and current information in mind, I’d like to ask G, being an Xbox owner, what his thoughts are on the matter. While it may make sense for Microsoft as a whole in the long run, is this a good idea for the Xbox brand or does it weaken its value?



G - I’ll be honest, I thought Microsoft was going to bring Gamepass to the PlayStation and thus end The Console Wars. I was convinced that Microsoft didn’t really want to be selling consoles anymore, but did want to be the Netflix of the coming age of video game streaming. What better way to do that than to first become the biggest and best provider of subscription content and then to offer it on all platforms?

That didn’t happen, of course. Instead we found out that some Xbox-exclusive titles would eventually come to the PS5. Which…doesn’t really move the needle for anyone. But I think it does point to a structural problem in gaming: namely, that The Console Wars are a relic of a lost age and don’t really make any sense for anyone anymore, but Microsoft and Sony are still stuck in the trenches because they are too heavily invested to pivot.

I want to explore that idea in a bit more depth - and get your extended thoughts. Here are mine:

So I’ve been on Team Xbox since around 2002. I had a PS2 already but got an Xbox so I could play Halo and the Splinter Cell games, which at the time were Xbox exclusives. When it came time to upgrade to the next generation, I went with the Xbox 360. It felt like a no-brainer - at that point Xbox Live was lightyears ahead of the PlayStation Network. If you wanted to play online with your friends, Xbox Live delivered a streamlined experience that Sony just couldn’t match. And, like a lot of others at the time, I got hooked on Call of Duty’s competitive multiplayer.

Of course Sony caught up, so when the Xbox One squared up against the PS4 Microsoft needed a new selling point. The Kinect was the gimmick, but really they wanted to sell the Xbox One as a media platform - the centerpiece of your entertainment system. This was around the time that streaming began to replace cable in earnest. The problem, of course, was that Apple, Roku and others were developing devices that could do this just as well, but were much smaller. And that’s even before Smart TVs hit the market. Now you don’t even need a device.

Microsoft’s pivot to streaming turned out to be both a dead-end and a distraction. As you say, the Xbox One just didn’t have the exclusives that powered the Xbox and 360. Sony, meanwhile, had decided to focus on games, bringing a diverse array of critically-acclaimed exclusives to the market that Microsoft failed to match. Turns out people buy consoles to play games - and that’s why the PS4 outsold the Xbox One by more than 2-to-1.

Fast-forward to the current generation. I debated getting a PS5 instead of a Series X, but it wasn’t easy to find either at launch. Eventually I managed to find a Series X bundled with Gamepass Ultimate so I went with that. It wasn’t intentional, though I’ve enjoyed the Series X and Gamepass quite a bit.

What I learned, though, is that Gamepass is more or less all that’s on offer. Despite all those big acquisitions, there aren’t many exclusives to speak of, and the ones that exist have been underwhelming (Halo: Infinite was a massive disappointment). Microsoft wants you to pivot to streaming - and the recurring revenues that a subscription model provides. And like with online play and video streaming, they have correctly identified the next big thing. But as with Netflix, there’s going to be a lot more competition soon too. And that doesn’t just mean fighting for customers’ subscription dollars; it also means fighting rival streaming platforms for content.

That said, Sony has also been struggling. The PS5 may be outselling the Series X/S, but Sony has overinvested in VR and spent a ton of money trying to get another Destiny on the market - and, in the process, lost focus on the exclusive single-player games that helped it win the last round of The Console Wars. This is partly because budgets for triple-A titles have ballooned, reducing their ROI - but it’s also partly because big corporations can be really dumb (and often are).

So here we are, at a crossroads where both companies seem a bit lost. Microsoft, for the 2nd generation running, is trying to find its killer app when we all know the killer app is releasing top-flight games. Sony, meanwhile, should know it needs to focus on games but those games aren’t as profitable as they used to be. Does anyone really benefit from The Console Wars anymore? And what does a viable alternative look like?

Joe D - It’s funny, I completely forgot about the whole multimedia approach that Microsoft tried to sell at the Xbox One reveal. It may have been the single most detrimental aspect of the showcase. While I never ended up getting an Xbox One—I had three 360s die on me and was hesitant to invest—I heard the television integration was well implemented. As I said, I think they were way ahead of the times with their focus. It may have gone differently if they focused as much on the games.

Getting back to the question, I do believe the consumers benefit from competition, but not the Console War itself. It has grown from a simple rivalry (from the Nintendo/Sega/PlayStation days) to a vitriolic cesspool. Console zealots now send death threats to developers and tear to shreds all who criticize their beloved. God forbid you want to make a post on social media criticizing a company you support (as I have tried to with some of Sony’s poorer choices), the rabid dogs find their way to you immediately. But outside of the crazy hecklers, the competition between the companies has forced innovation in the video game industry. Let’s go back to the 360/PS3 competition. Sony was so comfortable resting on their laurels at the end of the Playstation 2 generation that they didn’t think they needed to compete. With more third-party companies supporting Xbox, Microsoft’s pressure forced them to rely on their first party a whole lot more than ever before. During the PS3 era, Sony was much more daring than today. We got the Resistance 1, 2, & 3, Infamous 1 & 2, Uncharted 1, 2, & 3, The Last of Us, Killzone 2 & 3, LittleBigPlanet 1 & 2, and so many more. On the reverse, PS2’s success made Microsoft come out of the gates early and set the precedent for online reliability and services for not only that gen but the future of gaming on consoles. Sony’s insistence on BluRay made Microsoft do the same (Yay, no more disc swapping). Nintendo meanwhile just does unique things that Sony or Microsoft try to piggyback off of (motion controls anyone?). Once Nintendo began to do their own thing with the Wii, it became a two-horse race between Sony and Microsoft.

(List of Sony Published PS3 Games)

I think the reason the rivalry has gone on so long is because, as you said, both companies are entrenched. Sony even more so due to PlayStation’s importance to it, with PS accounting for a third of its revenue. This next part is speculation, but I believe Microsoft allowed the Xbox division to do their thing, to make Xbox the number one place to play, and the guys at the Xbox division were like rich kids at a playground trying to one-up their opponent. As recently as 2019, they spoke about how they were in a position to “spend Sony out of business.” After failing to get out of third place three generations in a row, and more importantly, after the massive acquisitions they made (Bethesda for $7.5 billion, Activision for $69 billion), the higher-ups at Microsoft decided it was time to recoup their investment and come up with a new strategy.

I agree with you that Sony seems a bit lost. I don’t know of any first-party games planned for this year (a first in a very long time), and that’s rather disappointing as I love a majority of their studios. I revere The Last of Us and thought that the Part 1 remake was brilliantly done, but if Naughty Dog releases one more remaster or remake of that series before another new game, I will lose my mind. Tying into what you said about Sony trying to create another Destiny, Naughty Dog’s live-service game was canceled because the studio was going to have to choose between being a live-service studio or a single-player game studio. I was rather disappointed because I enjoyed the Factions multiplayer, but I would prefer their single-player focus. That said, forcing studios that don’t traditionally make live-service games into live-service studios is an odd choice, especially considering people have come to PlayStation for their prestigious single-player experiences. Hopefully, their current success with Helldivers 2 will make them realize they could outsource to second parties for that sort of thing (or purchase a multiplayer dev).

There is something that worries me though. If Microsoft exits stage left, will Sony continue to produce as much excellent content, knowing that no competitor is trying to usurp their market share? Sony was misleading with their “We believe in generations” message at the beginning of this generation, but they have consistently released at least one or two Game of the Year contenders every year since 2015 despite being far ahead of their prime competitor. What will happen if Microsoft pulls out of the console space and simply goes full streaming? Will Sony keep their service as well, or will it let it die off since they own the hardware front? Their PlayStation Plus upper tiers have become much better in response to Microsoft, but it’s not their priority.

I fear that video games will go full streaming service and it affects the quality of the games. While we may get some decent AA games, AAA games will become a relic of the past. As much as I love my Netflix shows, I won’t find a movie with Avengers: Infinity War’s budget as a day and date release. I think Sony may go on for a while longer with consoles while Microsoft becomes more ubiquitous with GamePass. If every game has to eventually launch on a streaming service on release day, as Microsoft says they want to do, how do you think that affects the game industry and the games themselves? While I agree both streaming services are great for consumers, do you think it will be good for devs in the long run? Could it affect creativity in the AAA and AA space?



G - I’ll never understand why some fans think aligning with one massive corporation over another is an important moral choice. Just make the best choice for you and be happy with that choice - why does it matter what anyone else prefers? But everything is zero sum these days, no matter how mundane or, ultimately, inconsequential the battle is.

But anyways, back to the topic at hand…at this point I don’t think we have to worry about Microsoft abandoning the Xbox, at least not for a few years. But I also don’t think The Console Wars, as currently structured, really benefit either Microsoft or Sony. Sure, PlayStation revenues are higher, but the Xbox platform appears to be more profitable; as a percentage of revenues, Microsoft’s margin is almost double Sony’s. So there is something for each company’s Board to be unhappy about.

Also worth noting that Nintendo’s profit margins are the highest of all, and by a long-shot. This is a direct result of Nintendo’s decision to opt out of The Console Wars. They’ve had their ups and downs, but scored a hit with the portable Nintendo Switch - which is now the 3rd best-selling console of all-time. How did they do it? They stopped trying to keep up on hardware tech specs and instead focused on making high-quality first-party games and then making them fun (and convenient) to play.

I don’t know if either Sony or Microsoft can emulate Nintendo’s model, the same way Dell or Lenovo can’t really emulate Apple’s. But it’s time for a rethink - and that’s why it seemed plausible that Microsoft would start to offer Gamepass available on the PlayStation. They aren’t doing it, apparently, but would it really be a bad idea?

I agree that we don’t want a situation where only Sony makes a console for triple-A games, and recent layoffs suggest that’s not even a great bet right now. But maybe there are alternatives! Maybe what we really need to see is Microsoft and Sony strike a partnership where they both keep making consoles, but those consoles are compatible with each other. You would need a standard OS but each could have a custom build of that OS. Both could then focus on delivering games - and their streaming services, as I’m 100% convinced this is where the market is heading. Thoughts?

Joe D - You’re right about Sony’s current model being unsustainable, the profits get smaller while game costs continue to rise. More info will come from the recent layoffs, though it seems to me to be a restructuring of how they manage their studios. With Jim Ryan on the out, maybe the company will go back to focusing on single player games, or at least that's what they say. When it comes to hardware, I doubt that Sony gives Microsoft any leeway in the console space. If Microsoft backs out of making consoles, then maybe Sony will take a Nintendo approach and make their games with a lower budget. I think that having a dedicated gaming system could eventually become obsolete, with people streaming from their television, computer, or some kind of attachment (like an Amazon Fire Stick). Who knows, maybe the Amazon Fire Stick will eventually provide both PlayStation Plus and Game Pass on it within ten years. If it comes down to competing streaming services, Microsoft is well-positioned to demolish any competitor.

I think the situation could be this: Nintendo makes the casual console, Sony makes the high-spec console, and Microsoft tries to proliferate through using Game Pass. If Microsoft gets rid of the need to spend as much on competing consoles, they could use that money to grow the Game Pass library and put it on PlayStation and Switch. When the streaming service space expands, they’ll have more leverage to force Sony to innovate.

Eventually, I see the space becoming a place where Microsoft and Sony simply have timed-exclusive content on each platform (like Netflix and Hulu), with exclusive content that they make in-house. It’s kind of like it is now, but you won’t own any of the content unless you decide to buy it, and even then it will be digital so you’ll only own the license, not the game itself. So long as Microsoft produces a console, I’m not sure when Game Pass would come to PlayStation, as it would make their console obsolete. The only reason to get an Xbox would be because you like their OS, but I doubt that would be a high consumer motivator in the console space. I think that by publishing these four games on PlayStation, Microsoft is testing the third-party waters and it will eventually lead to their exit from the console space (possibly after the next generation). 

Though this is an inconclusive viewpoint, I think it could have both positive and negative effects on the industry. While we already discussed the negatives, the positives would allow Microsoft to play to its strengths and get on more screens, and it would allow Sony to back off on spending so much on their games since their main competitor is out of the race, giving them more profitability and the ability to create more first-party content. I can’t be sure how this is going to change the industry, but I’m sure it will have a profound effect in the upcoming years. I’ll keep my fingers crossed that whatever happens, I’ll always have a way to own my media.

https://www.deviantart.com/creepertube83/art/CT83-Big-Three-Gaming-Consoles-973691629

https://www.reddit.com/r/PS3/comments/m3mgo0/heres_all_the_ps3_games_that_are_published_by/

https://www.essentiallysports.com/esports-news-as-per-reports-playstation-scores-the-lowest-in-profitability-as-compared-to-xbox-and-nintendo-but-rules-in-revenue/

https://www.rappler.com/technology/gaming/xbox-game-pass-playstation-plus-philippines-comparison-2022/

Microreview [game]: Halo Infinite by 343 Industries

Sometimes you just don't want to go home

After a year of failure, this December I finally managed to procure an Xbox Series X. As a longtime user of the platform, going all the way back to the original Xbox, I naturally had to get my hands on Halo Infinite - the latest entry in the venerable series. 

Halo Infinite is in many ways the perfect launch vehicle for the new console. Featuring crisp, high-resolution graphics and excellent gameplay mechanics, you'd think this would be Microsoft's veritable ace in the hole. The reality, however, is more of a mixed bag - a melange of good, bad and ugly. 

First, the good. Halo Infinite is gorgeous to look at and looks amazing in 4k. The multiplayer is everything you want it to be, operating in the middle ground between Call of Duty's frenetic action and Battlefield's more languid pace. The maps are tight, the various modes fun to explore and the encounters as tactical as they were when Xbox first went online. I also appreciated the post-rock lobby music - a nice and unexpected touch. Matchmaking can be a little buggy, but once it gets going, the game is a lot of fun. 

The campaign starts strong as well, setting you on an open world island where you can wander about, capture forward operating bases (FOBs), eliminate notorious enemies, free imprisoned marines and - when you feel like it - initiate and complete various missions that advance the story. You also have a series of special moves that you can level up with Spartan Points, which you find scattered across the island. There's a grappling hook, threat detector, thruster and drop shield, all of which are useful at various points in the game. 

The open world dynamic is a lot of fun, particularly as you can approach the tasks in a number of different ways: going in guns blazing, using vehicles or picking enemies off from a distance with the sniper rifle or skewer. There are also enemy bases and bridges to capture, which are very tactical but still frenetic affairs. At this early stage in the game, I figured Halo infinite would end up one of my 2 or 3 favorites entries in the series. 

Unfortunately, the denouement of the campaign is...well, calling it "forgettable"would be a kindness - because it's memorable for all the wrong reasons. 

Let's start with design. As mentioned above, the open-world segment of Halo Infinite features tight gameplay mechanics and intriguing tactical battles, which force you to think as well as twitch. But once the game shifts into the more traditional linear corridor model, its weaknesses quickly become apparent. Throughout the game you are basically facing 4-5 enemy classes, each with a few variations. The lack of variety or evolution is masked by the openness of approach that you can take. However, once we're back in the corridors, you're struck by the fact that you're just doing the same thing over and over again, against the same baddies, in more or less the same environments. 

Then there are the boss battles, which to a tee incentivize the "keep running in circles" tactic. Boss battles should feel epic and thrilling, not like a chore you just want to get over with so you can do something that's actually fun. 

Finally, the story - which has to be one of the worst I've ever encountered in a game. First off, it's incoherent. The game starts with Master Chief almost dying at the hands of a Brute named Atriox, who leads a breakaway faction of the Covenant called the Banished. Then it turns out he's dead. The guy who replaced him? Completely indistinguishable from Atriox. And for the record, both come from the tired genre of "ME STRONG, YOU WEAK" barbarian baddies. Sleeping emoji. This villain, whose name I can't remember and don't especially feel like googling, shows up periodically to announce some variation on the "ME STRONG, YOU WEAK" line. Eventually you fight him by running around in a circle for what seems like years. What a game! 

ME STRONG, YOU WEAK!

There's also something about Cortana, your erstwhile manic pixie dream girl AI companion, who has been replaced by "Weapon," your new manic pixie dream girl AI companion. Weapon is mostly notable for her facial expressions. Cortana is mostly notable for something about a Halo Ring and Atriox. 

And then there's the pilot, who exists mainly to tell you that everything is useless and you should just give up - even when things are clearly going well for the Master Chief. When the pilot is captured and tortured by the Atriox clone, I wondered if there was a way to progress the game without rescuing him. Alas, there is not. Oh, and there's another villain who I guess is some kind of ancient alien and killing her is just as annoying as killing "ME STRONG, YOU WEAK." 

To conclude, despite a strong multiplayer mode and an enticing open world dynamic, it's hard not to see Halo Infinite as a massive disappointment. This is supposed to be Microsoft's marquee franchise, one that is not only supposed to extol the virtues of the company's hardware, but provide a truly memorable experience. Halo Infinite fails to meet those standards, providing gamers instead with a glimpse of that, until it devolves into a tedious and repetitive slog.  

The Math

Baseline Assessment: 7/10

Bonuses: +1 for the open world segments and tactical gameplay; +1 for a balanced and fun multiplayer experience

Penalties: -1 for such a godawful story; -1 for repetitive enemies, weapons and environments;  -1 for the worst villains -1 really the story is as bad as I've ever seen in a video game

Nerd Coefficient: 6/10.