I Don't Care if the Nintendo Switch Fails

Nintendo is my favorite software developer. Nintendo-made games on Nintendo-made consoles are more consistently enjoyable for me than any other. The two parts of this statement are not correlated however. Nintendo games are good regardless of Nintendo's consoles, not because of them.

Nintendo is releasing their new gaming machine, the Switch, on March 3rd, a mere 4 weeks from the time of this piece being published. I am going to be purchasing the console on launch day, and this will be the third time in a row I am an early adopter of a Nintendo console. Nintendo's past two consoles have been fascinating endeavors, something you can't really refute regardless of your opinion on their quality. The Wii was a completely shocking phenomenon that became one of the best selling consoles of all time due to its interesting motion controls and accessibility that drew in a traditional fanbase as well as new audiences that didn't traditionally purchase games, such as "the grandmas" of the world, as so many people like to say. The Wii U tried to ride on the Wii's coattail with a shared name and a focus on another central gimmick, that being the gamepad and the introduction of two-screen gaming to the home console market. Economically speaking, the Wii U underperformed, falling below the sales numbers of any Nintendo console before it. 

The Switch is likely a last ditch effort for Nintendo, combining their console and portable markets into one piece of hardware, and if it were to flop, they couldn't muster up their reputation enough to ever make another console (this is regardless of the fact that their astonishing savings from the Wii and DS era could probably fund new consoles for decades, whether they succeed or not). A lot of passionate Nintendo fans are terrified by this prospect, they don't want the console they buy in March to be the last new Nintendo system they ever buy. I understand this concern, and back in the days where we were still hearing whispers about the mysterious "NX" I felt the same way. My perspective has changed since then, especially after Nintendo's big Switch presentation in January.

The Switch presentation was a thrilling prospect for me, finally hearing all the details about the console we have been discussing for many months now. I went into the presentation excited by the console and left excited about the games. Something dawned on me during the Super Mario Odyssey reveal trailer, I was excited for the game they were showing me, and I didn't once consider the hardware it would be played on. Don't get me wrong, the portability of the Switch is an exciting prospect that I am thrilled to use, but I have always been a big fan of Nintendo because of the games they release, not the hardware it's on. They always have a couple games that really nail the gimmick of the given hardware, but most of their games would be just as excellent on a PS4 or a PC. 

If the Nintendo Switch falls far below expectations, I am confident that Nintendo will exit the hardware market. This is a mild disappointment for me, no doubt, but I do not think the loss would be too massive. Nintendo would simply move into solely software development for other systems on the market, and as long as I am able to play a new Mario, Animal Crossing, or Super Smash Bros. game every few years, the Nintendo magic that makes me love them as a company and game maker, and the magic that always keeps me engaged in the games industry, isn't going anywhere. 

The Nintendo magic that so many people know well and that many consider a major essence in the games industry is very real, and I cannot blame any fans who are scared that it would die if the Switch failed, but I encourage these people to consider what makes Nintendo "Magic" truly magical. 

Nintendo magic is not waggling the Wiimote; Nintendo magic is not poking the Gamepad's touch screen; Nintendo magic will not be undocking your Switch to go play on a plane; Nintendo magic, is, always has been, and always will be, the games that Nintendo makes that give you a sense of pure joy and wonder. Even if you are playing your Nintendo made game on a Playstation in 10 years, you still will be in your child-like state of awe for every moment of it. I do not mind if the Nintendo Switch fails. Nintendo doesn't need to remain in the hardware market to keep alive their magic. The Nintendo Magic is not going anywhere.

The Resounding Impact of The Last of Us, and Why It Scares Me

Naughty Dog's The Last of Us

I have said in the past, 2013's The Last of Us is one of my favorite video games of all time. The story, characters, gameplay, aesthetics, and essentially everything else-- it's simply wonderful. I was thrilled for what this wonderful game could do for the industry as a whole. Developers could learn from Naughty Dog's near-perfectly received game, refine future outings in a number of ways. I didn't even consider any potential negative. Now, 3 years on, I am personally feeling a sense of dread for the generation that we are in and what could possibly happen to franchises we all love. 

Uncharted 4 released only a couple of months ago, and the game was a thrill. The entire thing was a polished, visual marvel. The story and characters were at their series pinnacle. The visuals were at times photo-realistic. And the gameplay... it wasn't inherently Uncharted. Something felt off, not in a bad way necessarily, it was just not the same as the previous generation's trilogy. I have played through every Uncharted game and The Last of Us multiple times, so it didn't take long for me to recognize the changes and draw the parallels.

Uncharted 4 had a far more deliberate stealth system. Sneaking made your character feel heavy, every step was an individual movement and felt like a precise action. It doesn't feel as though you could just go crazy and try to stealth takedown every enemy in sight as quickly as in the past, and enemies (while still noticeably oblivious, as they have to be for things to remain fun) seem more aware than in the past. To make this long-winded explanation short, it felt like The Last of Us.

Aesthetically, inspirations from TLoU were inevitable, Naughty Dog is at the forefront of photo-realistic console gaming, so its only natural that their games share some visual aspects. Uncharted's writing had better take inspiration, The Last of Us was arguably the pinnacle of writing in video games for last generation, and as long as their is no copying going on, taking cues from it is a great step. But with the gameplay, that is where my concern arose. These two games felt hugely distinct, one allows you to make absurd jumps and shoot madly without a second thought, and the other has no real jumping function and the gunplay is a conservative face off between you and enemies on the same level as you. Uncharted 4 still has a lot of its classic aspects, the jumps you make are far from reasonable, and its still possible to go absolutely nuts with hip-fire and throw all caution to the wind in gun fights, but select sequences absolutely feel built for stealth and low-speed.

I don't think that Uncharted was spoiled by some of these changes, I think it made the experience feel a bit more fresh actually. It wasn't until E3 2016 that the resounding impact of The Last of Us began to scare me. I love the current state of our industry, games are rarely just gray and brown first person shooters that feel the same as all the rest, there are colorful games, there are games that try to break convention, there are weird games that people are really paying attention to. There is also God of War.

The recently announced PS4 revival, God of War

God of War has been a PlayStation staple since its 2005 debut. It was a high speed, blood stained action game. The series cemented itself as a completely unrealistic romp, killing gods from Greek Mythology without a second thought. The game was, as previously mentioned, not realistic. The way Kratos moved, the flow of the actions, it wasn't grounded in any sort of reality, but it was satisfying and fun. The high up camera makes your quick maneuvers through large environments and around huge enemies feel controlled and keeps you aware. That was the case for all of the past entries.

The God of War revealed at this recent E3 was not that, the camera was moved to behind Kratos, and he moved much slower, with a much more realistic walking/running speed. Attacks appear to be aimed, slow, and limited. No longer can you just aim Kratos in an enemy's general direction and go nuts with a barrage of attacks. There is even a slow aiming segment in the gameplay reveal, something that feels far from at home when directly compared to the predecessors.

Visually speaking, the game is approaching photo-realism, with a few absurd monsters spread throughout to keep things true to the series' roots. The general aesthetic, the snowy environment, and the aiming of a bow at a deer-- I find it impossible to miss the strong ties to The Last of Us. I don't think that this new God of War looks bad, I just do not think it looks anything like a typical God of War game does, and in my opinion, it should look like the classic game.

This issue, if it even is one, is not particularly pressing. I don't think that one game feeling unfittingly similar to The Last of Us is a great threat to the industry. If it continues though--if another established series has the same thing happen to it--that is when I think concern is essential. The Last of Us is a major pillar for video game storytelling, it sold amazingly well for a new IP, and very few games should feel like it. Some of its aesthetics will inevitably become commonplace, its simply the consequence of photo-realistic gaming, but a series that was nothing like it in the past should never bend to become like the smash hit.

What are your thoughts on this? I am aware that this is not currently a visible threat to gaming, this is more of a cautionary thought regarding what could happen to game series that aren't The Last of Us that we love. Leave your thoughts in the comment section or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

The Place of Video Game Remakes: In Our Hearts, and in the Market

Insomniac's Recent Remake, Ratchet & Clank

This past Tuesday, Insomniac Games released Ratchet & Clank for the PlayStation 4. Ratchet & Clank is a well established franchise that made its premiere on PlayStation 2 fourteen years ago, since then, the series has appeared on the PSP, PS3, PS Vita, and now, PS4. This most recent game is actually a remake, or as some Sony representatives called it, a reimagining, of the original outing of the same title featuring the cartoony duo. This is not the first remake I have played in my life, but it is the first I have played of a series that I am familiar with. I have stated in the past, Ratchet & Clank is one of my favorite series of all time, having played it throughout my childhood and continued to follow it loyally until now, and inevitably in the future. I love what I have experienced of the remake so far, and I see it as very deserving of this treatment.

Ratchet has really gotten me thinking about the place for remakes. Video games, like most other popular entertainment industries right now, are suffering in the originality department, with too many games being sequels, parts of annualized franchises, or the currently mega-popular reboot. We are in a weird place right now where remakes of older games are more justified than ever. Games reached a major milestone during the lifespan of the PlayStation 2, where controls became dual control stick central and timeless because of that mechanic's relevance still today. Our memories, games' stories, and in some cases, their graphics, these things make certain games timeless, but gameplay is one of the biggest challenges that pre-dual-stick games face in whether or not they stay timeless. Certain games, say, Super Mario Bros. or even Crash Bandicoot, will stay timeless forever. The thing that they have in common that makes them timeless, simplicity: Few buttons, easy to grasp mechanics, and no camera controls.

Most modern games take advantage of the ability of the player to easily control the camera, the right control stick is an invaluable resource for game developers, and it makes the players experience far more immersive. The majority of games today, excluding side-scrollers and games like that, give the player full control over the camera positioned in the first person perspective or behind the shoulder of their character. This is such a common game mechanic, that its exclusion from a game causes confusion that, in many cases, ceases to subside even after much gameplay. Looking at games like Metal Gear Solid or others with intricate controls, this lack of a now universal mechanic with the camera control creates a rift between the games' brilliance and player accessibility. I have tried multiple times to play the original MGS for the PlayStation, but, as hard as I try, I fail every time. I have a great deal of interest, the story and characters and future entries fascinate me, but even with a passion for older games, I cannot get into this modern-style game that lacks the modern polishes that the PS2 brought us.

Games like MGS deserve a remake. (Yes, MGS was remade on Gamecube with Twin Snakes, but I am talking a remake with these mentioned modern polishes, and Twin Snakes did not achieve that.) Games that are a part of an established franchise that is still relevant, ones that have a brilliant story and characters, but graphics and gameplay that have fallen to a point that's difficult for modern players to appreciate or approach, those are the ones I am suggesting. This argument largely applies to a frequent subject of mine, Final Fantasy VII Remake. This game has one of the best original stories of the past 20 years, and characters that compete with classics in any medium. I love this game to death, but the only reason I can play the original today is because of a powerful nostalgia. The original PlayStation game, while it may be a turn-based RPG, still has gameplay that shows its age and has a multitude of confusing and wonky mechanics, and the visuals, sad as it may be, really are now terrible. The argument of something being good for its time does not matter, we aren't in that time, so we have to cater to the modern consumer. I believe that remaking games like these; games that have aged in almost all places besides their writing; games whose fanbases still care immensely; games who deserve to be exposed to a larger and broader market; these are the remakes that should have a place on the game store shelves.

PlayStation and Naughty Dog's Classic, But Currently Dormant, Crash Bandicoot

So, as the title implies, I believe that there are two different motives for remaking a game. One, which I just explained, is updating games that have aged too much to be accessible to most of the modern market. The other, one that is hard to recognize as unnecessary, is their role in filling gaps where classics used to be in our hearts. I played a great deal of the original Crash Bandicoot trilogy on PS1, and I enjoyed every minute of it, and continue to when I return to it even now. The series has a special place in my and many others' hearts. The original does not need remade or rebooted. The biggest reason to remake a game is if it is no longer accessible to the modern market, Crash is not inaccessible at all. The game was very simple, and the gameplay makes it very easy to pick up still today. Graphically, this game went for the cartoony approach, so even if the polygon count isn't tremendous, the characters and environments are still a joy to look at, and really can stand the test of time. It's not fun to hear from anyone that a favorite series of theirs does not need to continue, I know, I also wish I could stand to defend a remake of the game. Crash Bandicoot is essentially dead right now, the franchise hasn't seen anything even close to its former glory since its last PlayStation main series game, being the third in a trilogy. The first three games are truly timeless, a remake is not the best way to use developers' resources, there are plenty of new games that are more deserving of those. Now, this is not to say anything negative of the original trilogy whatsoever, it is tremendous, it is important to PlayStation's early history, and it will stay important to gaming forever. I also would still buy a remake or reboot if it was released, which Sony seems to have hinted at in the not too distant past. I am simply proposing that it might be a non-essential effort.

Now, how can I sit here and say this when I am a supporter of the very recent Ratchet & Clank remake? Well, the circumstances differ a bit. Ratchet & Clank has had a far more active, more consistently high-quality franchise than Crash. The series has rarely dipped in quality over its multi-console lifespan. I personally would like to see Ratchet sit on the sidelines for a few years to allow Insomniac to try something new, but considering this series is by far the biggest presence of the mascot platformer in the market (when not looking at Nintendo), its presence is sure not to shrink anytime soon. 

Why a remake instead of a sequel then? For those who haven't played the original Ratchet & Clank and/or the later entries of the series, the first game had a very different feel than every other game. The main character, Ratchet, was a far less likable and friendly presence, and it was also the only time that he wasn't voiced by his current voice actor, James Arnold Taylor. The gameplay saw a huge jump with the second entry in the series as well, introducing a number of mechanics that the original lacked, all of which are now series staples, including challenge stadiums, a dynamic health bar, strafing, and biggest of all, weapon leveling. Considering that the Ratchet & Clank series will definitely not be going away anytime soon, a remake of the first game seems to be the best step to have taken. 

This game can bring the origin story of the characters Ratchet and Clank into the gameplay standard that began in the second game, a nice service to long time fans who want to experience the original story in a more modern gameplay setting. It also is a good way to introduce gamers that are new to PlayStation with this generation to the series and mascots. The biggest selling point for me is the introduction of this series to a brand new generation of gamers; there are many kids who are getting PS4s as their first console, and being able to introduce them to this fantastic and family-friendly franchise, as well as getting them intrigued in the mascot based platformer-- its simply wonderful. Keeping this sometimes seemingly childish genre alive has been proving a challenge as developers aim their focus at the aging players. This remake has a great deal of potential to keep the mascot platformer, and potentially just family-friendly games in general, alive and well outside of Nintendo platforms.

Remakes are a touchy subject for many, and it would take a great deal of time and effort to figure out what all older games deserve to be remade, but hopefully, with a sort of criteria for what we should and should not ask developers to remake, it will become clearer to us what beloved childhood franchises we want remade.

What series do you think deserves to be remade? Do you think remakes deserve a strong presence in the current market? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Final Fantasy XV Uncovered, and the Potential of Similar Events

Square Enix's Upcoming Final Fantasy XV

Last week, Square Enix had a special event for its highly anitcipated Final Fantasy XV.  The event, accordingly titled Final Fantasy XV Uncovered, contained a massive amount of information about the newest entry in this fan favorite series. This event, as a fan, was an absolute blast. Being a huge Nintendo fan, soit wasn't completely profound for me to experience a big game news drop outside the typical E3 conferences, but there was something special about this.

Nintendo Directs are typically very versatile events (excluding the game specific ones), full of small bursts of information for a variety of games, similar to the E3 press conferences that happen every summer. This is a grand time for fans of the entire company and most of its IPs, but it isn't the only way that these info drops have to go, or necessarily should go.

Now, let it be made clear, I absolutely am not recommending we get rid of or even change these multi-game news events. So long as publishers aren't just blowing hot air as they sometimes do, the place for these events is still very important. I am simply here to discuss the possibility of introducing a new kind of event into the mix of the usual. I personally believe that it would be smart for Square Enix Japan to go ahead and establish "Uncovered" as a brand. This style of event could certainly apply to their other major upcoming titles, such as Kingdom Hearts III and Final Fantasy VII Remake.  But while Square Enix may own the literal "Uncovered" brand, the idea of an event exclusive to one game could apply to most any major game release.

The idea of events ultimately aimed at fans is brilliant. The event will definitely be viewed by loyal fans, and the developer can show them both what they have to look forward to in the actual game, as well as some additional things that they can be excited about, such as a release date, or, as was the case with Final Fantasy XV, something like an anime or a demo of the game. The event can also be viewed by prospective buyers, people who think it might interest them but aren't sure, with the information being released acting as a way of gauging their own interest in the game. And the advantage for gamers outside this fandom is that they can simply ignore that it exists, whereas during a major conference, you feel somewhat obligated to pay attention to a couple minutes about a game you don't care for in case something that excites you would come right after.

Publishers have the tools directly in front of them to excite fans and increase their own sales in a respectable manner at the same time. This tactic of giving loads of information to fans to earn a guaranteed sale is a practice that I am surprisingly happy with. The biggest plus here is that with events like this, there is enough shown off that one can actually develop an accurate confidence in the quality of the game before release, as it would be very challenging to hide if a game is bad when you are showing it off for over an hour. I am not a fan of using hype to sell a game in many cases, because it is just far too common for publishers to show off just what they need to to build hype while avoiding the display of the games problems. The possibilities for events like "Uncovered" that has been made clear to me is exciting, and I can only hope it is used well and commendably by developers and publishers in the near future.

What are your thoughts on having events dedicated to only one game? What upcoming games do you think deserve this treatment? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

The Potential Future of AAA Episodic Games

Square Enix's upcoming remake of the PlayStation classic Final Fantasy VII

Final Fantasy VII was one of my favorite games as a child, and remains as such to this day, just as it does for a great deal of other gamers who played it from the day it came out until now (I personally was 10 years late, but enjoyed it no less because of that). The game is, and forever will be, revered as a huge lunge forward not just for the Final Fantasy franchise, but for the video game industry as a whole. A huge, engaging world and a revamp to some familiar RPG mechanics gave this 1997 PlayStation game the equipment it needed to become an instant classic to most everyone who played it, and it succeeded. 

Last year, during Sony's annual E3 press conference, something was announced that fans have been clamoring for since about 2005, a full Remake of Final Fantasy VII. The response was remarkable; nearly universal hype. The original reveal trailer was merely a cinematic, but that didn't slow things at all. People discussed the possibilities madly, as small bits of news came around and new questions arose. It was in December of the same year as the announcement that the first bit of gameplay was shown off at Sony's other annual event, PlayStation Experience. The response was more mixed than that of the initial announcement, but there was still positivity all around. 

Shortly after this trailer, but not during the event, it was announced that Remake would, in fact, be a staggered multi-part release. The fan backlash was immense. Almost all of the positivity brought up by the new trailer was destroyed, fans were horribly unhappy with this decision. I was among these people. I tried desperately to look for positives, but all that I could feel was dread regarding how this would ruin one of my favorite games of all time.

The flashy new combat system in Remake

While I can't deny that I hated the idea of an episodic approach to the remake of Final Fantasy VII for a couple months after its announcement, I'd like to believe that I am now at a point where I can see it as it is and develop hopes for the potential positives of it. I believe that these hopes for the development of an endeared IP apply not only to Remake, but also to other future AAA episodic games.

"Episodic game" is now a phrase that has a strong stigma that it's carrying, due largely to Square Enix alone, giving two of its most established franchises this treatment, being Final Fantasy VII and Hitman. It doesn't have to be this way. While I would definitely say that the stigma is deserved in the current state, I think that we are also close to a point where it can be changed. Most games that were made for episodic thus far have not been quite to the mainstream standard that Final Fantasy VII is, but considering that more AAA games and IP's may take the approach in the future, its important to see what can make these series' great in this form of development. For the sake of relevance, I will be using Remake as the main example for what can be done, but all of what is being said can and should be applied to any retail game being released in an episodic format. 

To start, the most important thing for developers to do is to ensure economic integrity. These AAA games that are being made in episodic format are almost certainly going to carry the typical retail price tags, meaning the discounted $20-30 prices of many multi-part games of today is not applying to them. That is okay, as long as they are supplying no less content than they would in a single package. As for each individual part, they need to cater to the fact that people want these parts to last a long time. I understand that the amount of original content that they can create per part is more limited than a full release, so it is the developer's duty to assure that the replayability is great. Some focus needs to be placed on making a sizable world that the players are eager to explore, full of fun side quests and challenges.

The greatest thing that the developer and publisher are responsible for is proper advertisement of the way the game is being sold. Like I discussed last week, not making the cheapest option to get the whole package clear to the consumer is an unethical practice. Publishers can have the split up approach available, that way certain customers can purchase parts as a way to test out a fair amount of the game before dropping money for the full game, but for other consumers, the multi-part approach needs to be clearly laid out. Consider the casual gamers who don't keep up on news of the industry, just playing and buying things as they release, or the parents who are generous enough to purchase for their children, this base of buyers needs to know what they are getting into with their initial purchase of Final Fantasy VII Remake or whatever other major games may release in episodic format.

Final Fantasy VII Remake being episodic is not an inherently bad thing, in my opinion, it could actually be a good thing. This approach could very well create a game more faithful to the fun value and scope of the original (integrity to a large size in a game is one of the few legitimate reasonings for making a game episodic that I accept), and future episodic games could benefit in development from this staggered release as well. The pool that is 'Episodic' is full of opportunity to improve a number of games and create a new approach to developing great and huge games. We as consumers must put our money behind the games that do things well, it wouldn't take much for greedy publishers to fill this metaphorical pool with toxic sludge and ruin it for a long time for everyone. We have the power to prevent this, so long as we let the publishers and developers know what we want.

What are your thoughts on Final Fantasy VII and its upcoming remake? How do you feel about the rise of the episodic approach in gaming? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

The State of Episodic Games

IO Interactive and Square Enix's Hitman

I was considering purchasing Hitman, which released on March 11th, just one week ago. I was considering it at two separate times in two very different ways. The first time I considered purchasing developer IO Interactive's newest entry in the Hitman franchise was during this previous E3. Throughout the gaming festivities, my eyes were drawn to Hitman a few times. Being a series I had no experience with, I figured that this reboot of sorts was a great place for me to begin, with the trailers having me intrigued by the core gameplay concepts. Hitman lies in a different place now than it did then though. It has joined the number of games getting in on a new trend in publishing; an episodic release. 

I actually do not have a problem with episodic gaming, I think that it has its benefits; providing smaller experiences with a greater sense of longevity and increasing public interest in a potentially otherwise unseen game due to its smaller price tag and time commitment. While I personally would prefer to wait until all episodes of a game are released to experience it, I don't see much harm in games being built from the ground up with an episodic structure in mind, with successes like Telltale's projects and Life is Strange (interestingly also a Square Enix published game) quite demonstrative of the potential. Not all games are built for episodic though, and not all games should be released in the format even if they are built in similar fashion to them.

Hitman was always planned for some form of staggered release, but not originally as a 7-episode split (at least it was not advertised as such). A game being released in 2 parts at different times is hard to call episodic, and a game which is purchased that later adds free content absolutely should not be. Hitman was certainly split up for an economic gain, and I know because of the second time I considered purchasing the game. 

When the 7-episode format was announced in January, my initial interest completely faded, I leaned more towards the idea of waiting until all parts were released in a singular package later this same year. The date of release for the first episode approached, and my mind began to change, largely due to the full package release being delayed into early 2017. Whether this delay was an intentional move on Square Enix's part is impossible to say, but I would not be shocked considering how it effected me and likely others of the same mindset. I strongly considered downloading the first episode to the game, with my biggest impulse being driven by the seemingly tiny $15 price tag. It seemed completely reasonable, but upon some objective thinking, I realized what I'd truly be doing. When the full package releases in 2017, it will cost the average retail price of most other AAA games; $60. If I purchased episode 1, and then decided that I had interest in the entire series of episodes, I would pay a bare minimum of $65. This may seem like a small increase, but there are other factors to consider; that is simply the minimum. I could (as some less aware consumers very well may do) purchase each episode as it releases, and be paying a significant amount greater than $60. 

The approach of splitting a larger cost into a number of smaller payments to increase the appeal to the average consumer is not new in the world of business and sales, but when it is done in a quiet and shady manner like I believe Square Enix did, I dislike it greatly, I don't see it as having any place in the video game industry. The games industry currently has enough economically corrupt tactics -- I'm looking at you, microtransactions -- and so long as other things continue to be rampant, we shouldn't have to worry, as consumers or gamers, about the list getting longer.

Square Enix's upcoming episodic remake of the PlayStation classic, Final Fantasy VII

I believe episodic could have a place in the future of gaming, not only as something bearable, but as something great. There is simply too much for me to say regarding my thoughts and hopes for the future to fit into this editorial about its current state. I hope that you may give me your time again for my next editorial where I will look into this prospect, spring-boarding off the discussion hub that is Final Fantasy VII Remake.

What are your thoughts regarding episodic gaming right now? Do you enjoy this format of gaming? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Same-Sex Marriage in Fire Emblem Fates

Nintendo's recently released Fire Emblem Fates

Fire Emblem Fates released its two retail versions, Birthright and Conquest, 3 weeks ago on February 19th. I have been playing Birthright quite actively, and am planning to move on to Conquest shortly, after I finish my current play through. There is also a third download exclusive version that released just yesterday, Revelation. I am in love with the game. Mechanically speaking, the gameplay is hugely polished and improves the turn based style that the series is known for through a number of improvements to the formula. The maps are as unique as ever and add a great amount of depth to each chapter. The story is engrossing and powerful and each of the 3 versions introduces different twists and characters.

Another thing that I can't help but appreciate is the relationship system and the inclusion of same-sex marriage. During battles, having units paired up and working together builds bonds via a support system, these bonds increase the rating of their relationship (represented with C, B, A, and S/A+). When two characters reach S ranking, they can be married. In the series' past, only characters of the opposite sex could be married. Now, in Fates, while it is somewhat limited, marriage is allowed between two characters of the same sex.

Your avatar character, who we'll call Corrin for the sake of clarity, is not your typical avatar character. You can pick their gender, their design, and their name, but the character is still developed beyond player control, having a similar amount of dialogue to most of the main characters. Sexual orientation is something that is not pointed out at all in the plot of the game (neither for Corrin nor any other character), so it makes sense that that is among the things that the player has a choice in. 

You aren't manipulating certain characters to be homosexual, characters that are straight are straight, nothing can be done about that, and that is fine. I discussed in the past that representation of alternate sexualities should be proportionally accurate to that of the real world, so it matches the truth of life that not everybody the player wants to be gay, for the option of marriage or otherwise, will be.

There are two characters in Fire Emblem Fates that are bisexual, and thus available for marriage to either gender. There is one male in Conquest and one female in Birthright. While this is a rather small representation, and I still would like to have seen an exclusively gay character or two, it is where this representation is happening that makes me hopeful. There are many games that have at least a partial purpose of being progressive and giving alternative groups representation that they can appreciate. Nintendo is not generally known to do this, and neither is Fire Emblem. 

While this specific franchise does not have the strongest aim at children like some of Nintendo's other franchises do, the audience still exists without a doubt, evidenced by the new difficulty modes aimed at those who aren't capable of fully comprehending the strategy gameplay. Children are one of the best audiences to portray gay marriage to, especially in the way that Fates does it. Sexuality is never discussed, the support system simply is a place where the bond characters have built is displayed through endearing conversations. If you were to marry someone of the same sex to Corrin, it is treated no different than any other marriage. Most importantly, the marriages in the game are not sexual, they are simply a sharing of love. To show same-sex marriage as a bond that is created through love is tremendous, it shows normalcy in these relationships instead of trying to show it as some sexual deviation.

Fire Emblem Fates' contribution to the non-straight community's representation in gaming is small, but it's the fact that it wasn't trying that makes it great. Fates is just another game release, so the fact that it integrates homosexuality so well without it having been a major goal of the developers is what makes this occurrence stand out to me. I just hope more games come out in the future that follow in these footsteps.

Have you been enjoying Fates for the past couple of weeks? Are you happy with the inclusion of gay marriage and how it was handled? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.