Does hype help or hinder Video Games?

The ‘AAA’ industry uses hype as a key tool in the marketing of video games in recent times. But does this hype help push sales, or does the weight of expectation then turn a good game sour?

The first point I think we have to touch on is that hype as a major marketing tool isn’t new in any industry. Hollywood has long used hype and excitement to drive whatever film they please. The key difference in the modern era, is social media. The grandest echo-chamber of them all has resulted in an increase of ‘hype’ for all mediums of entertainment. Everything these days has at least one trailer, if not more. Think, how many times have read, said or heard ‘I’m so hyped for this game’ in some variation over the last 5 years? The rise of social media has exponentially increased the amount of ‘hype’ for most art forms, but video games especially.

Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of the developers and publishers (most of the time anyway) hype often kills a game before it’s even done. For instance, the original Titanfall is a good Multiplayer only shooter. However, the hype behind that game, with some dubbing it the ‘Call Of Duty Killer’ caused what was a good game to fall under exceedingly high expectations (and a serious lack of content). There’s a whole section of games that fall under on that list, Evolve, Destiny (I realise Destiny got good after DLC but I’m not but I’m not paying for the full game after buying the full game) just to name two. The marketing campaign for these games must have cost a significant amount of the games budget (it certainly would explain the lack of content in each of the games listed). So it makes you wonder, if they just pulled back on the marketing budget and invested more into the game, would it have made more long-term cash for the publisher and developer?

From a more personal perspective, hype has damaged a game for me, Fallout 4. Now, I love the Fallout series (well 3 and New Vegas anyway), and 4 is great, but it’s lacking something for me. I’m aware of how good the game actually is, it just lacks some of that Fallout essence for me. When that game was announced, I was beyond excited. I couldn’t wait to venture into the wasteland once again. The reality of the situation however, was I got myself so excited that my expectations of what was a truly fantastic game, were far too high. This made my opinion of a game that was actually very good, worse.

Hype does have its positives though. Imagine if there wasn’t a buzz on social media about that game you hadn’t heard of but love now. That game wouldn’t be in your life. That probably makes you sad (or at least a little less happy). Hype has driven lots of people to wonderful developers, and given them the platform they deserve aswell.

All in all, hype is a good tool, when used properly. However, we as consumers, need to temper our excitement/expectations for a game and take everything we see before a games release with healthy cynicism.


Erm… Anyone there?

Its the second coming, how underwhelmed are you?

Well… Remember when I said regular from September? I meant January. Easy to mix up the two though, right? That’s right, your tenth favourite game blogger is back (or he hopes to be) and still slightly below par. I’d like to start by apologising to the three people that still read this blog, I’ve started a new job and that has kept my attention for the past few months.

Right, I guess I should lay out my plans for the new year and beyond. The podcast is still in the works, however that’s gonna take a while to get set up and running and time is a rarity for me these days so expect a long wait (I know you all reallllly want to see it, but be patient). In the nearer future, posts will be regular once again starting in a fortnight or so. The usual silly rambling about topics within the game industry on a weekly basis, schedule withstanding.

Anyway, if anyone is still looking at this, thanks. Here’s to 2018 and let’s hope things go well.

Also, I have a new twitter it’s @Macca25678 so follow me for randow tweets and to keep up to date with me.

Thoughts on the COD: WW2 Beta

‘Let’s go backwards to move forwards’- Someone at Activision sometime during development

Over the past two weekends, the Call Of Duty: WW2 (Just incase you were unsure when the game was set) multiplayer beta has been available to those who pre-ordered the game on PS4 and Xbox One (one weekend only on Xbox). I was fortunate enough to obtain a code through a friend and put a good few hours into the game. Here are my thoughts.

The Maps

We were treated to five (I didn’t play the fifth because it was for the War mode only) maps in the beta. These were Pointe Du Hoc, a series of trenches and buildings set in France; Ardennes Forest, a winter forest map in France (who’d of thought it) ; Gibraltar, a military base in, you guessed it, Gibraltar and Aachen, a bombed German town. These maps varied in quality. For instance, Gibraltar spawns were rather one-sided and hardly switched. So, if you spawned there to begin with, it created an immediate disadvantage. Aachen’s lines of sight are another issue, the range on some of them created some of the slowest games since ghosts for me personally (although Sledgehammer Games have said they are looking at that map specifically). Lots of cover spots on all maps where only the head was visible (the kids call them head-glitches), so perhaps think about removing a few. Generally, the maps force you into tight spaces for close quarters combat so SMGs are the dominant guns to use on three of the four maps (SMGs are good on Aachen, but I’d use a rifle for those longer ranges). Most maps are three lanes with lots of flanking routes so the game does encourage you to move a lot.

The Guns

The guns, all things considered, were actually somewhat balanced. Sniping could be tweaked a smidge by perhaps making it a bit harder to hit Quick Scopes but that’s a minor issue that we can all deal with I think. I predominantly used the SMGs for most of my playtime but the rifles like the STG 44 and the M1 Garand are both useful and the shotguns are incredible at close range. The LMG’s are as you would expect, great at long distance and used by a specific type of player (*suppresses anger*) but due to the nature of both the speed of the game and the map layouts, LMG’s aren’t really viable.

The Scorestreaks

The scorestreaks available in the beta were all very good and usable except the mortar strike which was incredibly poor. The best available was the Glide Bomb (basically the predator missile from the Modern Warfare series) for me, due to its somewhat low score and lethal ability. The Molotov cocktails were, for the lowest streak on the game, surprisingly good if you were accurate with them. I feel the fighter pilot could either have a time boost or a damage boost as at times it felt a little weak to use. The other scorestreaks which included Paratroopers, AI controlled soldiers that were shit week 1 and pretty good week 2; Artillery which was an upgraded version the mortar strike; A Flamethrower; The Recon Plane (UAV) and Care Package.

Divisions and Create-A-Class

Divisions is the new specialist type system within the game. The player selects a ‘division’ from the five choices which are Infantry, Airborne, Mountain, Expeditionary and Armored. Each give you special rewards as you level each division up. For instance, Infantry level 2 allows you to take a third attachment for your weapons and Expeditionary level 2 allows you to take a piece of tactical and lethal equipment. Each division has 5 levels with each having a unique weapon unlocked at level 5 (the level cap was 4 in the beta for each division). The Create-a-Class system has regressed back to an older system. However, perks have changed completely. Instead of being able to select three perks for you character, COD WW2 has the ‘Ordinance’ system. This allows the player to choose one advantage such as being able to shoot while sprinting or reducing the score required for scorestreaks. Weapons are set to a maximum of 2 attachments unless you use the Infantry division as mentioned above. Players may only carry either a lethal or a tactical grenade unless you use the Expeditionary division. I personally don’t have issue with this class system but the ability to pick two types of ordinance would be a good balance for everyone.

Game Modes

The standard game modes like Team Deathmatch and Domination were in the beta, along with Hardpoint, a mosh pit game mode which was the previous three and eventually kill confirmed, and a brand new game mode called War. The premise of war is simple, complete a series of objectives to win the game. These range from pushing the enemy back by capturing a house to building a bridge for the tank to cross, to planting a bomb to destroy the ammo supply, to finally escorting a tank to destroy some anti-aircraft weapons, all while another team is attempting to stop you at each interval. War is a timed game mode and you both attack and defend.  From what I saw this mode was fairly balanced, but I didn’t play it myself.

Connection and Hit Registration

The connection, for me personally, was never an issue. However, that can not be said for everyone with some players claiming to have serious lag issues and bad dedicated server placement (i.e. the player is from the US and are being placed on a European server) . In terms of hit registration, the beta was a little hit and miss (I’m here all week). There were times that every shot went where it should and other times I might as well be shooting marshmallows at the enemy team.

Other Criticisms

The user interface was very clunky and difficult to navigate, having to move screens to see if my friends and I were in a party was an unnecessary inconvenience for. The end game cut-scenes were slow and tedious, also didn’t leave me any time to alter classes. Also, there was no clear way to view challenges which I thought was odd.

Final Word

The COD WW2 Beta was an all round solid showing, despite some teething problems which are easily fixed between now and November 3rd. There is a solid base for a great game and perhaps a ‘revival’ for the Call Of Duty series, which has been on the decline as of late.

Final score 3.8/5



I’m Back! Updates! News! Excessive Use of Punctuation!

Like Jesus, with far less importance

First of all, apologies for the absence. Life got in the way a little bit. But I should be back to posting somewhat regular content now. I’ll be putting up my thoughts on the COD WW2 beta either today or tomorrow so that’s a start.

Second of all I’m hoping to launch a podcast soon so keep an eye out for that. It will most likely cover the news of that week and occasionally a review/ thoughts on a game. Although I’m not sure how soon that will be up and running but I’ll plug that on here.

Anyway that was just a small apology for the lack of activity (Not that you lot were missing out on much anyway) and a few bits to look forward to (I hope?) for the near future.



Are Video Games getting easier? Also Microtransactions Update!

Git Gud for £3.99

There has been a long-standing argument that video games are getting easier to appeal to younger players. You often hear older players complain that they didn’t have it as easy when they were growing up. And with the recent release of Crash Bandicoot: The N’sane Trilogy, social media has been talking about the level of difficulty that game and games even before it. So the question remains, are video games getting easier?

What’s changed?

Mechanically, games function a lot better for the most part. I recently re played Banjo Kazooie and the swimming mechanic made me nearly launch my controller at the wall. Games run a lot smoother which can create the illusion that a game is easier to play. Look at any Ubisoft open world game. Despite what you make of them as games, they do run quite smooth mechanically (usually anyway, Assassin’s Creed Unity and floors with more holes than Swiss Cheese withstanding). Now I loved games like Crash Bandicoot and Banjo Kazooie, but the 3D technology was fairly new at the time, so there were going be some issues.

Are the players just getting better?

With the rise in online gaming and E-Sports over the past decade, its safe to say the skill level in video games has risen exponentially. With the help of YouTube tutorials, walkthroughs and game guides, every average player can learn to get better at a game. This compared to the PS2, SNES and NES era, where you could buy strategy guides and the average player was only the champion among your friend groups.

And Finally…

Are Games getting easier?

No, games are getting better mechanically along with a higher skill levelled player base. This creates the illusion of an easier game. In some cases, they are actually becoming harder (Demon/Dark Souls started this trend and it can royally go fuck it self). Explaining why some people find Crash Bandicoot so difficult is simple, your reactions are slower than when you first played it and the mechanics are ever so slightly outdated.

Now an update on Microtransactions and how EA has managed to make me look like a complete tool.

As all 5 of you know, I’ve been singing the praises of Star Wars Battlefront 2’s DLC system since its announcement. However in a interview with Gamespot  Design Director Niklas Fegraeus said:

When you want to progress and get stuff, you can either play the game and when you play you earn the in-game currency, and with that you can spend towards whatever you want. If you want to accelerate that, if you can’t play for a week, you can purchase that.’

Essentially, you can accelerate progress and get better stuff by paying for it. This is, bluntly put, fucking stupid. The system will no doubt be exploited by people, and kinda makes the game pay to win. This is not the way to do microtansactions and I hope EA changes their minds about this.

Edit: Turns out EA has been using this accelerator type thing in the Battlefield franchise for some time, so I guess long term it’s not an issue.


Are Microtransactions in AAA games really a bad thing?

I’ll be going into hiding after this one.

Microtransactions have become a mainstay in the AAA games industry as of late. Despite major criticism from customers online, they don’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. Why is that? Why do the get so much Criticism? What could publishers do to reduce criticism? What is the future for them? Are they really as bad as we think?

Quick Note: I see microtransactions in a free to play game as fair game as long as the items available can be obtained without having to buy them. Those games have got to make money too.

Why do Microtransactions get so much criticism?

There are a number of reasons why microtransactions get more flak than Trump in California these days. The most obvious reason being the fact that, after already paying $60 for a game, publishers expect us to fork out more money to unlock any of the cool items in game like skins, camo’s, in-game items, guns, voice over packs and even Flag packs (Really Activision, Really?). The other issue is the ‘game-breaking’ nature of some. Take Fifa as an example, you spend your money on what is essentially a wheel spin to get maybe a half decent player you can either use or sell on the in-game market for coins to buy another player you wanted. Now, you can ‘grind’ to get the coins to buy these players by playing games, but if you did that, the next game would be out by the time you got near the coin amount of the top players on the game (The introduction of FUT Champs went halfway to solving this problem). Despite all of this, isn’t it a little bit stupid that what players you get is essentially a random spin of a wheel? The points to open these packs are’t cheap either. 12,000 of them will set you back a cool £80 (£72 with EA/ Origin Access), and odds are you won’t make that back in terms of coin value or players ‘packed’.

Why are Microtransactions not going anywhere?

The short answer is money. Games like Battlefield and Call Of Duty make far too much money out of them. Activision made over $1 billion dollars last year alone in microtransactions in Call Of Duty, Overwatch and World Of Warcraft. From a business standpoint, you’d be stupid not to implement them in your games. Now, I am using Activision as the scapegoat here, purely because as a COD player for many years, it’s easier for me to explain the point I’m trying to make. However, EA, Ubisoft and soon to be Bethesda (it’s paid mods and I won’t hear otherwise Pete Hines) are all guilty for this too. And for the most part, in the publisher’s eyes anyway, these things aren’t affecting the game anyway as most are just cosmetic items (seriously if you put game changing items behind a random paywall with no other way to obtain them then you really are a pile of shit).

How can publishers make the system better?

There is a few things publishers can do to make microtransactions better for there audience as more of a goodwill gesture to customers. Publishers could take a similar approach to Valve’s Counter Strike: Global Offensive, by making in-game items worth real life money. However, if you wanted to avoid that legal minefield, make it an in game fake currency which you can exchange for other items in game that were perhaps more sought after. Another approach is making all other DLC free like Halo 5 and the upcoming Star Wars Battlefront 2 (as previously mentioned in the Call of Duty Conundrum). This method also would keep more players interested as you aren’t splitting them into groups of have and have not. In an ideal world, both systems would be used but if I had to pick one it would be making all other DLC items free.

What’s the future?

Simply put, they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Microtransactions make far too much money for any business to sacrifice for the sake of a few complaints. At what level they are integrated depends. I can’t see it going full free to play crappy mobile game but I see perhaps more detailed micro-transactions in future releases. I hope players can still grind and unlock these items without having to buy them.

And Finally…

Are Microtransactions all that bad?

In their current format, yes. But, with a few tweaks to the system and some general goodwill toward the consumer from the publishers, I think microtransactions can and will (s/o to Roman Reigns) be accepted by the majority of players worldwide.




Macca’s Game Blog


Hello people of the internet, my name is Macca. And like most of my generation, I’ve been playing video games since I was a child. From Zelda and Goldeneye on the Nintendo 64 to the first Modern Warfare (I did scream in a high-pitched voice at you and I apologise) all they way to modern-day, where choice for games and what system to play them on is greater than it ever has been.

About me:

Well, my name is Macca (Obviously) and I am 21 years old. I was born in the East Midlands. My earliest gaming memories are playing on my brother’s Sega Megadrive. The first game I actually remember playing, was Banjo Kazooie on the Nintendo 64. My favourite game of all time is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

What types of games do you play?

I generally go for action adventure games and RPG’s. I’m also a massive Fifa and FPS shooter fan. Although, I will play other genres like Horror and MMO’s.

What are your goals with the blog?

My goals are simple, I want to create a forum of discussion about games and how we can keep the ‘suits’ happy without ruining the integrity of the art form that is video games. The bottom line is, games are a business first, and finding a middle ground that suits both sides should be the ultimate goal for all people involved in-game development and distribution. So, will I criticise publishers and developers for completely anti-consumer business practices? yes. But, will I criticise them for things that aren’t necessarily great for the consumer, but make business sense and aren’t damaging to consumers overall?No. The point is to find a compromise that creates a win for both the consumer and the publisher/developer.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy what you read and feel free to follow me on Twitter: