During Q4 and full fiscal year financials, it touted the success of franchises like Assassin’s Creed and Rainbow Six Siege while promising updates for Shadows, Star Wars Outlaws, XDefiant and other titles at Ubisoft Forward on June 10th. Speaking of the free-to-play and totally-not-facing-troubled-development shooter, it’s out on May 21st. Life is seemingly looking up for the company, especially after so many underwhelming releases and controversies.

However, one announcement almost went under the radar amid all the hype for the next Assassin’s Creed. Ubisoft confirmed that development on The Division Heartland had stopped to “redeploy resources to bigger opportunities such as XDefiant and Rainbow Six.” Your response is probably: The Division What? If you know about the game, then it’s more likely, “It was still in development?” and you would be justified for asking.

The Division Heartland was first announced in 2021 for Xbox Series X/S, Xbox One, PS4, PS5 and PC. It was touted as a free-to-play PvEvP-focused “survival-action shooter”, but instead of Washington D.C. or Manhattan, taking place in a more rural location called Silver Creek. The story concerned some “new breed of poison”, Rogue Division Agents and hostile survivors.

Players could collect materials and supplies, fighting off other players and AI enemies while completing objectives. The hook is that night could fall and add new enemies. Like an extraction shooter, it was paramount to extract or lose all of your gear upon death. Another challenge is the virus dynamically moving around the map, which necessitated filters for players to survive. Still, it could provide some nice loot if you ventured inside.

While multiple classes are nothing new for the franchise, Heartland sported six playable characters. Presumably, they would play a role in the “expanding” story, which never came to be, but alas. As you complete operations, new missions and areas on the map become available while your Base of Operations improves. Two types of Operations were available – Storm Operations, which saw 45 players competing in a PvEvP environment and Excursion Operations, which were PvE only.

It all seems simple enough, as does the reason for Ubisoft ultimately canning the project. After all, it cancelled the team-based title Project Q, the battle royale-focused Ghost Recon Frontline, Splinter Cell VR (and an alleged Splinter Cell battle royale title), and other such projects. Clearly, the tide was turning on the extraction shooter trend, and Ubisoft decided to cut its losses.

The call would likely have been easy since Heartland suffered multiple delays and developer Red Storm Entertainment was better off supporting XDefiant (cue the “Is it though?” reaction). The studio isn’t closing down like some other publishers, so all’s well that ends well, sort of?

It would seem so on the surface, but it’s still bizarre that Heartland would still be cancelled after all this time. Lest we forget, Ubisoft is the same publisher that kept Skull and Bones alive for years and years, through multiple reboots and departures at its Singapore studio, to release it to a middling critical and commercial response. Would The Division Heartland not have found more appeal, especially considering the popularity of IP?

According to those who participated in its playtests over the years, the answer is “No.”

Insider Gaming’s Tom Henderson reported after the game’s cancellation that it “changed pretty significantly the last couple of years and had constant ongoing playtests, but it still didn’t resonate with players.” While more details will be forthcoming, streamer ConnorEatsPants offered his thoughts on a playtest from last year, which boiled down “what the fridge is this.” He then posted an in-game image of signs on a telephone poll stating, “All Way,” “One Way”, “No Cycling” and “Yield to Pedestrians” (on bicycles no less).

Other impressions from alleged playtesters on Reddit indicate multiple other problems, from PvP only being available at night time (which meant waiting for nearly an hour for the night to arrive) to mind-numbing tasks that involved collecting materials on a loop. You couldn’t access higher-level zones without doing these missions, and based on impressions, it seems that some of the best content, like Vulture Raids with multiple players teaming together.

One also criticized how the best elements of The Division were either dumbed down or outright absent (aside from the shooting).  I’ve always believed that the roots of The Division Heartland lay in the first game’s Survival expansion, available in November 2016. Alone in the Dark Zone and freezing, collecting weapons and clothing to survive while battling against enemies and up to 23 other players – it felt genuinely nerve-wracking to play, especially when Hunters are on the loose.

The main goal is to gather antivirals and extract them, but looting medicine to manage your own infection was also necessary. Considering Escape from Tarkov’s closed beta launched in June 2017, The Division’s Survival may have been the first proper extraction shooter.

Maybe the goal was to capitalize on this but expand it into something more, not unlike Outbreak from Rainbow Six Siege, which spun off into Rainbow Six Extraction. Perhaps Red Storm’s vision for the game was just at odds with what people liked about The Division and couldn’t fit into the extraction shooter model despite literally having a template in Survival. Maybe it couldn’t use the same premise as Survival and had to fit this whole “evolving story” into a brand new location. Perhaps it was greenlit to tide series fans over while Ubisoft Massive worked on projects like Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and Star Wars Outlaws.

Whatever the case, it wasn’t working, and instead of dropping millions more into a project that was too big to fail, like Skull and Bones, Ubisoft opted to cancel it while the cancelling was good. It’s unlikely to be missed since Massive announced The Division 3, with Julian Gerighty, co-director of the first two games, becoming an executive producer for the brand after Outlaws launches. The fact that Heartland was cancelled before he took the position seems to indicate that it’s more of an executive decision. Otherwise, those resources may have gone into the franchise’s future, especially given Red Storm’s experience with past titles.

For now, The Division Heartland can be considered another victim of Ubisoft attempting to chase trends, greenlighting too many projects and ultimately cutting back after several failures to focus on its top franchises. The series will continue to thrive, while Heartland is likely forgotten by everyone but the developers who worked on it. It’s a shame in many ways – there’s no comfort in having a years-long project cancelled out of the blue – but the sooner Red Storm can move on to bigger and better things (preferably after XDefiant), the better.

No Man’s Sky

Hello Games’ No Man’s Sky was a complicated case. With its initial reveal, the developer unveiled large alien creatures and a fairly dense planet teeming with wildlife. Enormous fleets and epic space battles were teased in screenshots leading up to launch. In comparison, the final game felt kind of empty. Those massive animals and epic space battles were almost no where to be seen. Procedural generation could be blamed for some of that and No Man’s Sky did have some pretty stunning vistas. They were just far from what the trailers before it had promised. Fortunately, Hello Games has been heavily supporting the game after launch and given us incredible forests, the potential to build massive bases and vastly improved visuals overall.

The number of miles traveled, the amount of hours played, the square kilometers of an open world, the money earned – whatever it is, we need those numbers going up. We need those numbers going up to pay the bills, to unlock the goodies, to be satisfied. We want those numbers going up because bigger equals better – it’s something our brains have been conditioned to crave since childhood, at least in terms of socioeconomic status. Higher paychecks, a fatter bank balance, more mileage on a car – the list goes on.

"So why do we seek the looter, the grinder, the slog when we could easily click that LMB or tap that screen for more instantly satisfying results?"

There’s something about looters that taps into that inner desire. A clicker game is more straightforward – perform this action (X) and the numbers will just keep going up. Perform that action enough times and there will be more intuitive ways to increase it like auto-clicking bots. Oh, and here are some special items you should click on and upgrade menus to navigate that will make the long-term benefits of clicking (i.e. Higher numbers and thus even more means to increase the click-to-number ratio). And don’t get me wrong – this may not be 2015 but clicker games still very much have their own niche and success stories.

So why do we seek the looter, the grinder, the slog when we could easily click that LMB or tap that screen for more instantly satisfying results? There are a number of different reasons. Much like clickers, the feedback loops of gameplay in looters push us to keep repeating the same actions for the sheer sake of performing them. See the combat in Path of Exile, Destiny, Warframe and even Diablo 3 as examples.

The key difference is in the more nuanced gameplay aspects like variety, ingenuity, skill floors and ceilings, competition and complexity. Production values can also play a strong part. Clicker Heroes 2 may look much better than its predecessor but it still doesn’t match the art-style, aesthetic, music and sheer presentation of the hottest looter shooters.

"Then there’s the end-game. Ah, the end-game. It’s a smorgasbord of mysterious activities, modifiers, tougher challenges, secrets and repeatable content."

Take Bungie’s Destiny as an example. Story may not be the first thing that comes to mind when you consider a looter shooter but Destiny‘s lore has an exceptionally strong following. It was strong enough to encourage Bungie to not only bring back the Grimoire in Destiny 2: Forsaken along with an in-game codex of sorts to read it, but to also double down on tying lore into key activities. This has resulted in some activities like The Last Wish raid, The Dreaming City Curse, the Ace of Spades quest and so on being extremely well-received by the community.

Warframe, Path of Exile and Diablo 3 also have fairly strong lore that provides a good amount of context to the events unfolding. The stories in Borderlands 2 and Monster Hunter World are also relevant to the conversation as they present fun single-player experiences in their own right.

Then there’s the end-game. Ah, the end-game. It’s a smorgasbord of mysterious activities, modifiers, tougher challenges, secrets and repeatable content. Of build optimization, min-maxing, stats, grinding and pushing higher and higher difficulties. Every looter has an end-game system – Path of Exile‘s Atlas of Worlds, Diablo 3‘s Greater Rifts, Destiny 2: Forsaken‘s disappointing drops and pretty much everything in Warframe. Combine all this together, throw in a hefty amount of updates (or post-launch DLC) and you’ve got yourself a compelling looter. Right?

Not exactly.

"Borderlands 2 was the defining winner of both single-player and co-op looter shooters but there wasn’t a ton of competition."

BioWare’s Anthem has been in development since 2012. At the time, it seemed difficult to imagine the developer creating a looter shooter. Even with the Mass Effect franchise’s shift more towards a third person squad shooter in its gameplay, the RPG mechanics still allowed for a good degree of customization both in skills and weapons. More importantly, the decision-based story-telling, incredible world-building and characterization that BioWare had prided itself on still remained relatively strong. This was the case even after Mass Effect 3’s ending disappointed its fair share of fans.

However, back then, the looter shooter genre was still relatively young. Borderlands 2 was the defining winner of both single-player and co-op looter shooters but there wasn’t a ton of competition. Destiny was little more than a name with Bungie attached to it. Tom Clancy’s The Division hadn’t even been conceived. Warframe was still struggling to get off the ground at Digital Extremes following a long history of publisher rejections.

First-person RPGs were still defined by the likes of immersive sim games like System Shock, BioShock and Deus Ex. Far Cry 3, despite a fair number of skills to learn, was far more of an open world shooter than the “light RPG” approach that Ubisoft is looking to apply to Far Cry New Dawn.

"For all intents and purposes, Anthem looks to be fun when many of the technical hurdles subside."

When Anthem debuted in the limelight for the first time at E3 2017, it wasn’t really in the best spot to build enthusiasm. Despite a gorgeous gameplay trailer showcasing the world and the destructive power of its Javelins, BioWare was still under scrutiny for the failure of Mass Effect Andromeda. EA also faced its fair share of controversy in the coming months with its version of loot boxes in Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Need for Speed Payback. That’s not including all the rumours of development challenges, the subsequent delay or the relative lack of information regarding its gameplay. Anthem not being a traditional BioWare RPG would only be the first of its many hurdles.

BioWare has done its due diligence in offering more information and gameplay, going over the personalization options, loot, Elder Game activities, difficulties, potential build options and much more. Its communication with the small but growing community has been complimented for its transparency (even if that’s something that a number of different developers have adopted in recent times). The community wanted a social space to interact with each other and got the Launch Bay. The community spoke out about AI problems and BioWare acknowledged the same, noting it was a bug that was corrected. All post-launch DLC and story content has been confirmed to be free. In the words of BioWare GM Casey Hudson, “If there’s something you want more of, we can build it. If something isn’t right, let us know.”

Anthem in general looks all fine and dandy – this article isn’t trying to be skeptical abou the game’s development and monetization, whether it will live up to the hype or if it will “save” BioWare. I haven’t tried the VIP access demo and as such haven’t suffered the multitude of issues that cropped up like connectivity problems, infinite loading screens, performance problems and whatnot. For all intents and purposes, Anthem looks to be fun when many of the technical hurdles subside.

"At the end of the day, it satisfied that urge to keep killing enemies to get better loot, which would then be used to kill more enemies, repeat unto infinity."

Instead, I wanted to talk about my general skepticism around looter shooters. Anthem – and by extension, games like Tom Clancy’s The Division 2, Destiny 1 and 2, Fallout 76 and so on – represent a similar trend in the genre for the past several years. It’s a trend with regards to the looting cycle and the urge to grow ever stronger in these types of games.

Let’s take a look at Borderlands 2, considered by many as the blueprint for a stellar looter shooter. When it launched, the base game was already feature-complete and ticked almost all of the boxes. It had a fun and engaging story (with characters and writing that admittedly wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste), plentiful loot, a post-campaign raid boss for additional challenge and a strong progression curve that continuously made the player stronger.

Leveling up felt fun as did running around and completing side-quests, even if it was to kill a handful of Skags and Knuckle Draggers. Doing all kinds of random things to earn Badass Ranks was fun. There were four different classes to experiment with which all played differently from the first game, even if the Commando with his deployable turret seemed similar to the Soldier.

Borderlands 2 didn’t receive a ton of free content via post-launch updates. Instead, it received paid expansion packs with new story-lines, raid bosses, loot, areas and quests like Mr Torgue’s Campaign of Carnage or Tiny Tina’s Assault on Dragon Keep. It received smaller paid Headhunter packs inspired by notable holidays and seasons. There were new characters and cosmetic packs as well. All of this had to be purchased and while there was plenty of criticism at the time regarding the content of the Headhunter packs, Borderlands 2 with all of its content still stands as the definitive looter shooter experience. At the end of the day, it satisfied that urge to keep killing enemies to get better loot, which would then be used to kill more enemies, repeat unto infinity.

"Monster Hunter World is a great example of a looting cycle that keeps escalating, making you ever stronger."

It’s really hard to explain why it satisfied that urge so well though. Did it do something different in terms of its quest structure? Does it have better shooting mechanics? A more appealing visual style? Or could it be that the looting cycle just feels more complete? A game like Destiny 2 after its Forsaken expansion seems to satisfy many of the above conditions and even surpasses a few of them.

The looting cycle in a game like Destiny 2 is a little iffy though. The systems just don’t feel like they’re pushing you into a continuous cycle (and no, I don’t mean having a schedule or weekly checklist for pulls of the slot machine). True, you’re always grinding for something and some of the recent Exotics have stood out for their uniqueness and power. However, the game’s Power level grind and Enhancement Core economy feel stifling. There are some great weapons and Exotic items but for the most part, it’s a constant grind that can be fairly roughshod in its rewards, from cosmetics to something as simple as titles.

Maybe it’s that form of progression, going from start to finish, that’s so appealing. Monster Hunter World is a great example of a looting cycle that keeps escalating, making you ever stronger. Sure, that power will become only one component of the end-game process – skill, knowledge of the fight and the right conditions falling into place are just as important in late-game hunts. Not to mention that even with all the variables at hand, though, the looting experience eventually comes to a halt. Your build are as super-optimized as they can be and there’s really nothing left to hunt.

However, you can start a new weapon class and get on that grind again to experiment with new builds. While you’re still experiencing all of that same content again, the looting experience feels just as phenomenal. The fact that Monster Hunter World was never really considered a games-as-a-service title and more like a game that has a definite finish – as evidenced by the campaign itself and the upcoming Iceborne expansion – means that the looting cycle feels more robust.

"An excellent looting cycle is the soul of any looter. It may seem obvious but simply having a “good” looting cycle is not enough."

While Monster Hunter World does offer additional content that can offer pretty good increases in power – which you have to grind out, with Kulve Taroth being the biggest case of RNG – the games-as-a-service trend has other ideas. It wants your power to increase but for you to have relatively new experiences while keeping you on that collection/grind.

This isn’t to say that Anthem will fall into the same rut. That’s because, well, I haven’t played the full game so I can’t say it will. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the game quickly descended into grinding out Coins and collecting cosmetics. Borderlands 2 and Monster Hunter World didn’t have infinite content or a tons of stuff to collect (if you’re not seeking those coveted Attack Jewels, that is). What they had were stellar looting cycles that encouraged players to keep coming back.

An excellent looting cycle is the soul of any looter. It may seem obvious but simply having a “good” looting cycle is not enough (for me, anyway). Offering players great loot isn’t enough. Letting players create super OP builds is great but still not enough. And yes, as great as the combat can be in some games, it’s still not enough. It’s having all of these factors in conjunction with an excellent looting cycle – even if players are stuck with the same guns and load-outs at OP8 in Borderlands 2 – that ultimately defines a looter’s existence. It’s one of the reasons I feel that even an action RPG like Diablo 3 that faced so many problems at launch is still played to this day. And also why titles like Path of Exile and Warframe, which continue to refine their looting cycles along with everything else – power, depth, combat, lore, enemy types, encounter design and so on – manage to stay relevant. Yes, even when they have their own ideas for “games-as-a-service”.

"History has shown that some of the best looting cycles are those which “end” and yet, encourage you to keep replaying because the cycle is just so much fun."

What is Anthem‘s soul at this point? Some will try and call it a Destiny rip-off. Some will say it’s like Warframe meets Mass Effect. But I think much of my skepticism for Anthem‘s looting cycle comes from the games-as-a-service tag as a whole. History has shown that some of the best looting cycles are those which “end” and yet, encourage you to keep replaying because the cycle is just so much fun. In that respect, I’d say Path of Exile has it down better than Warframe simply by virtue of how it handles the cycle.

New Leagues often hold all the new content – if you want to experience the new content, you’ll have to create a new character and experience the looting cycle again. However, refinements are made to the old content as well to keep that cycle fresh without messing with the core. Warframe takes a slightly different approach, continuously introducing new activities, weapons and cosmetics while also revisiting and refining old content. Of course, it also goes off the deep end and introduces stuff like hover-boards, open worlds, and soon-to-be space combat.

Don’t get me wrong. Anthem‘s soul can’t be properly defined without playing it. Comparisons to Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer are tough because that was a just co-op shooter at the end of the day. Anthem wants to encourage socializing and working with groups (“Stronger together” and all that jazz), combining abilities together while also flying about, taking in the world and completing your weekly activities. Eventually this world will expand and so (hopefully) will the story which focuses mostly on one player.

"My main worry with Anthem is that its looting cycle won’t encourage players to think out of the limited box that the developers have provided."

You could say that Anthem is the natural progression of Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda‘s multiplayer. Like those games, the basic fundamentals of movement, UI design and quality-of-life features still need plenty of work but the core combat is incredibly solid. But in terms of a looting cycle and progression, they couldn’t be more at odds.

My main worry with Anthem is that its looting cycle won’t encourage players to think out of the limited box that the developers have provided. Players will become more powerful and probably solo Grandmaster 3 difficulty after launch without many problems. But the confines of the system will still be readily apparent. Borderlands 2, Path of Exile, Monster Hunter World (to a pretty good extent) and even Diablo 3 encouraged us to think differently with each new character.

The experience was refined for a singular playthrough but still provided tons of fun for those who kept coming back. I feel that the games-as-a-service approach to looter shooters (and some looters in general) doesn’t even offer the best possible singular playthroughs with their limited playgrounds. I mean, sure, the campaign for Destiny 2: Forsaken was good and The Division’s main story-line was perfectly acceptable.

But for me, neither of those games had the same impact as seeing Sanctuary rising from the ground or unraveling the mystery of the New World while encountering all these fearsome beasts for the first time. Neither really made encounters feel vibrant thanks to all the crazy ways to combine abilities or the variable factors of monster AI and environmental conditions.

"Time will tell if its looting cycle stands out as an experience unto itself rather than simply keeping players hooked, chasing a dragon that never existed."

In terms of end-game content, neither gave me the kind of rush that building Armageddon Brand in Path of Exile and running through hordes of enemies, dropping literal houses on them at every turn, could provide. Let’s not even talk about the sheer sense of power that a Shadow’s Mantle with Impale provided in Diablo 3.

This doesn’t make those games bad by extension and it doesn’t mean Anthem will be bad if it pursues the same approach. For the time being, Anthem needs to work on its fundamentals and refine them to near-perfection if it wants to capture the audience it’s seeking. It’s just funny to me how after all these years, we’d praise looter games for keeping us on the hamster wheel, constantly grinding away to glory. When in reality, they offered intricate journeys that took us to satisfying conclusions. Maybe the grind is getting to me and I’m yearning for the old days. Maybe I’m just skeptical about Anthem in general, having sunk so many hours into so many other looters.

Whatever the case may be, BioWare has its work cut out for them. In an industry that’s constantly seeking the next big thing, a fair amount of hype has latched on to Anthem. More soaring and less sinking would definitely be preferred as this stage but time will tell if its looting cycle stands out as an experience unto itself rather than simply keeping players hooked, chasing a dragon that never existed.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

Feeding/Throwing

One-tricking, raging because the team isn’t working together or just for fun – whatever the case may be, players intentionally sabotaging their team is annoying. The worst part is, you never know what could cause someone to start feeding. You could die once, pick a bad hero, choose some “non-meta” weapons and effectively trigger someone into losing the game for everyone.

Mad Max

It’s a lonely road out there, full of endless deserts and roaming bandits. Mad Max takes the sheer expanse of its landscape and ties it closely to the vehicular play. You’re either roaming the land, scoping out different bases to take out, or assaulting convoys for precious rewards. A decent story and top-notch characterization for Max help push the game past your average cinematic adaptation.

It’s imperative to note that while a vocal community probably represents a small percentage of the actual user base, it is a direct source for identifying preferences, interests and feedback. It’s not strange at all to see a developer take feedback from a percentage of their user base since, well, it’s not the be-all, end-all solution in a developer’s thought process. However, even after the dust settled with Fallout 4 and its “exploration, shooting, looting” loop was enjoyed for what it was, the sentiment to have a more narrative-focused experience, one that could compete with modern contemporaries like Horizon: Zero Dawn, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and even linear single-player games was pretty clear.

"Despite what you’ll hear, the initial reaction to Fallout 76 wasn’t immediate anger. Instead, there was a mixed response geared more towards skepticism at just how the game would work."

Yes, an enormous open world would have been great. But freedom of customization, the ability to role-play a character as opposed to arbitrarily leveling up Perks on a large sheet, and having a multitude of ways to expand upon the core gameplay as opposed to sticking with its narrow focus, was desired. Having a strong narrative on top of all this would have been the icing on the cake.

To be blunt, I don’t think implementing all of this is currently possible for the franchise. You could argue that the first two Fallout games did it while Fallout 3 and New Vegas did it quite well from a first person perspective. But to have the massive world that Bethesda is known for, co-existing with a strong narrative (or what’s considered as such these days) that can compete with the best is a massive undertaking. Even something as simple as providing enough freedom to role-play whatever the player wants is at direct odds with following a constrained narrative. Consolidating the two, that too in a universe with lore that’s both established and a bit iffy, is tough.

So perhaps, Bethesda decided to go all in with the aspect of complete freedom. Perhaps it wanted players to be exactly whoever they wanted to be, even if the blank slate was far more pronounced than ever. Perhaps it wanted them to have a world that they wholly affected and controlled as opposed to simply being the hero within the context of its stories. And sure, why not, let’s go multiplayer because that’s something that’s never been done before.

Despite what you’ll hear, the initial reaction to Fallout 76 wasn’t immediate anger. Instead, there was a mixed response geared more towards skepticism at just how the game would work. It’s always online and seems to have survival elements (but don’t call it a survival title, insists Bethesda). Is it like Rust? Well, it’s very heavily focused on co-operation and you kind of exist within the world as your own entity, helping travelers along the way. So was it a shared world experience like Destiny?

"I can’t help but think at this point: Who would enjoy Fallout 76? This isn’t an indictment on people who like the game. Heck, if you just like playing games, alone or with your friends, then that’s great."

Well, sort of but the over-arching narrative didn’t put too much focus on you as a protagonist (which Destiny 2 wholeheartedly did). Instead, it was about wandering the world, trying to find the Overseer of Vault 76 and launching some nukes to prevent the Scorched virus outbreak. The lore and side-stories inherent were meant to flesh out and build upon the world but only within the context of what’s essentially a side game in the mainline series.

While some could appreciate Bethesda’s desire to try something different – especially after numerous assurances that it had full-fledged single-player projects like The Elder Scrolls 6 and Starfield in development – others quite simply couldn’t find the initial appeal in Fallout 76. I was one of those people. Don’t get me wrong – I’ve played and enjoyed experiences like Destiny and The Division over the past few years. But when I played Fallout 4, it was because of the larger context of the world to its narrative, the different characters and their stories populating these areas, and the bizarre circumstances that possibly awaited around every corner.

Fallout 76 didn’t exactly provide that. The news is rife of retailers discounting the title – which seems to have been due to Black Friday sales. The majority of critics have outright panned the game. Those who liked some aspects still took serious issue with the bugs and other fundamental design choices.

I can’t help but think at this point: Who would enjoy Fallout 76? This isn’t an indictment on people who like the game. Heck, if you just like playing games, alone or with your friends, then that’s great. It’s just an honest question – who is meant to enjoy Fallout 76? Which audience is it for?

Let’s break down the mechanics and who they were meant to appeal to. The base-building and survival elements could appeal to a wide demographic of players from Rust to Minecraft. However, it falters due to the restrictions of the C.A.M.P system, terrible inventory management and bugs that stop you from retaining your base if someone builds on top of the same location. Heck, you could log out and all the progress made in the world – from turning different locations into bases and sanctuaries – is effectively undone. The survival mechanics also don’t extend beyond simply eating and drinking water while administering RAD-X every now and again. There’s no real depth to any of it. Don’t even get me started on the limited stash space.

"Even those who enjoyed Fallout 4, for all of its faults, are receiving an extremely stripped down experience that is rife with bugs and issues while dealing with all the hangups of a multiplayer title."

Okay, how about those who enjoy looter shooters, particularly with their friends in co-op? You know, the Borderlands crowd? Also, let’s throw in some events in the shared world that the whole server could take part in a la Destiny 1 and 2. In terms of loot, Fallout 76 suffers from a lack of impressive weapons, a degradation system that punishes players for engaging with its combat and limited ammo in the world. Build diversity feels very limited – you can’t even respec to change things. Some Perk Cards seemingly work on a whim. The core loop of looting seems to emphasize farming for garbage to convert into materials to upgrade and build your C.A.M.P. And ultimately, even if you find some cool piece of loot, the game’s terrible gun play and clunky melee combat ultimately prevent you from deriving any joy from it.

How about Fallout fans, let-alone RPG fans? The game doesn’t just strip away many aspects of the Fallout franchise – like dialogue systems, interesting quest-lines, worthwhile non-playable characters and companions – to shoehorn multiplayer and shared world elements in. The features it substitutes those with, like the repetitive side quest design that’s mind-numbingly one-note and boring, are ultimately boring from a multiplayer perspective as well. What kind of online Fallout title could possibly feel so restrictive and so boring on such a massive scale, from the selection of playable races and skills to the sheer dullness of the environments and their lore? Fallout 76, apparently.

The list just goes on. PvP fans have nothing rewarding here and the gameplay isn’t even dependent on skill. MMO players would laugh at the end game, reward system and encounter design. Even those who enjoyed Fallout 4, for all of its faults, are receiving an extremely stripped down experience that is rife with bugs and issues while dealing with all the hangups of a multiplayer title. There isn’t even official mod support so that players can customize their own experience (aside from current bootstrapping solutions).

Honestly, we could spend all day talking about the bugs, crashes, glitches and performance issues with Fallout 76. All of that can be fixed in good time and in fact, Bethesda has announced features like a stash limit increase, SPECIAL point respec, quality of life C.A.M.P. improvements and whatnot. Those will be out in updates for December 4th and 11th.

"There’s nothing that says someone can’t spend time playing and enjoying Fallout 76, either now or when it’s been improved down the line."

Even if the multitude of performance issues and bugs aren’t fixed, modders will probably bring in enough to improve the experience in good time. Having modders fix everything isn’t something Bethesda can always fall back on though – unlike with its single-player games, the developer has promised extensive post-launch support, from small content updates to large expansions, on a relatively frequent basis. If the game changes so significantly on such a frequent basis, likely introducing new bugs in the process, how far can modders can really go?

But I digress. For all the technical issues that Fallout 76, Bethesda has a bigger problem. Even if it manages to outright revamp the title, raising it from the ashes like your average No Man’s Sky, The Division, Diablo 3, Destiny 1 and 2, Rainbow Six Siege, and so on, who will play it? Open world fans are already more engaged in Ubisoft’s offerings.

Competitive PvP players find more solid experiences with the hottest first person shooters and MOBAs. MMO and looter shooter players have similarly more rewarding experiences that are riddled with significantly less issues by comparison. If Fallout 76 suddenly becomes “good”, who’s to say there will be an audience for it?

I can empathize with those who like the game and want it to improve. The wait for the game to get “better” will no doubt be an agonizing one given the magnitude of issues on hand, especially at the fundamental design level. And hey, if it does offer a rewarding experience for all and sundry, catering to multitudes of audiences as the designers probably intended, then that’s great. There’s nothing that says someone can’t spend time playing and enjoying Fallout 76, either now or when it’s been improved down the line.

" Fallout 76 isn’t dead yet but the clock is ticking on its relevance in today’s crowded games-as-a-service space."

The main problem is the economics side of it. Fallout 76 is, for all intents and purposes, a “games-as-a-service” title. All the post-launch content will be free and it’s propped up by a microtransaction store. Forget the competition that’s coming in the next few months, namely Anthem and Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 (or the recent Red Dead Online). Other titles that offer frequent updates and either paid or free content drops like Destiny 2, Overwatch, Sea of Thieves, Monster Hunter World, Final Fantasy 14: A Realm Reborn and Rainbow Six Siege are simply in a better place. Games like Minecraft and No Man’s Sky are in a far better place. Even free to play titles like Path of Exile, Fortnite: Battle Royale, Dota 2 and Warframe are in far better places.

If Fallout 76 becomes a “good” game in the coming years, there’s no guarantee that it will survive in such a crowded space. Even if Bethesda ultimately turns things around, what guarantee is there that even current players who inevitably leave will ever come back? With the reputation that Fallout 76 has garnered, what’s the guarantee of new players ever hopping on board? This may all come across as doom-saying but if the numbers are not up to Bethesda’s mark, who’s to say that Fallout 76 won’t simply be shut down, even if its reputation is further besmirched?

The only real future for Fallout 76 lies in its community. If the community doesn’t stick around because it doesn’t want to wait for improvements, what reason is there to keep the game running (besides microtransaction revenue, obviously)?

It’s a tough spot for the development team – either revamp the whole experience (which itself will be tough) or scrap it, leaving future consumers distrustful. I don’t know what could have possibly guaranteed the success of Fallout 76. But if the various developers under Bethesda Softworks had targeted their core audience, providing a compelling role-playing experience (even if it did have online support) with minimal issues, who’s to say if things wouldn’t have been different? Fallout 76 isn’t dead yet but the clock is ticking on its relevance in today’s crowded games-as-a-service space.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

Constantly Reloading

What do amateur players and veterans have in common, especially when it comes to first person shooters? If you answered “Reloading after firing a few bullets”, you’re correct. We don’t know what it is – obsession, compulsion, habit – but we just need a full magazine at all times. Curse developers who put so much attention into reload animations as well – it only makes the process that much more addictive.

But when we first booted up Rockstar’s 3D open world title, there was an innate feeling that had overridden everything else. There was that idea, that concept and that facilitation of our deepest, darkest desires in video game form that just didn’t seem possible until then.

Freedom.

"To a large extent, Grand Theft Auto 3 pushed you to set your own goals even as it offered a traditional (by today’s standards) campaign and side missions."

For the record, open world games had been around for a while before Grand Theft Auto 3. There was Mucky Foot Productions’ Urban Chaos, a game about Union City PD officer D’arci Stern and her attempt to pull a chaotic city back from the brink. Urban Chaos had a set number of levels but these were large maps that the player could freely move in. Citizens could be conversed with, crimes could be stopped, side missions could be partaken of and there were even some indoor areas to explore. One neat little twist was being able to arrest enemies which would change people’s impression towards you. This was on top of the base story with missions like rescuing hostages and assaulting baddies.

In Grand Theft Auto 3, there were no fixed levels per say. There was Liberty City and all the intrinsic vices that lay dormant. Protagonist Claude could embark on a bloody story of betrayal and revenge. However, the real appeal lay in pushing the boundaries of what was essentially an enormous virtual playground. Players could run around, blowing things up and killing cops to raise their Wanted level, testing the game’s attempts to kill them in as bombastic a manner as possible.

Players could also hijack different vehicles and partake in side-activities that weren’t clearly outlined or obvious. Hijacking an ambulance let you take victims to medical facilities while stealing a taxi allowed for ferrying passengers while getting paid. In one of the cooler twists, it was possible to steal a police car and head to different crime scenes, doling out some vigilante justice.

Those are only a handful of things that could be done. Though the game did keep a check on the stuff completed in terms of percentage, not everything was super obvious or laid out. Much of this could be pinned on technology but while waypoints and directions were still very much a thing, Grand Theft Auto 3 didn’t try to hold your hand and explain everything the game had to offer. You really had to figure it all out for yourself, right down to the beating heart of the Statue of Happiness. What rewards were to be had from the side activities? Which were the most fun? Which were the least? Which vehicles made travelling around Liberty City easier? How could you make life more entertaining whether it was through weapons, cars and other luxuries? To a large extent, Grand Theft Auto 3 pushed you to set your own goals even as it offered a traditional (by today’s standards) campaign and side missions.

"In a sense, Grand Theft Auto 5 did much of what made Grand Theft Auto 3 so liberating – it gave us an immense playground rife with details and the real joy was just getting out there and exploring it."

To say that this game (and its sequels Vice City and San Andreas) caused a massive upheaval in game development at the time would be an understatement. Suddenly, every game wanted to be an open world title. After San Andreas, every game wanted their worlds to be roughly crime- and gangster-centric. Some clones like Saints Row saw the meaning in Grand Theft Auto 3’s side activities but attempted to incentivize them further, giving people an actual progression-related reason to play them (not to mention pushing the boundary of possible shenanigans). But that feeling of freedom was tough to replicate for a number of titles, whether it was because of glitches and terrible gameplay or just not thinking outside the box in terms of world design.

When I played Grand Theft Auto 5 for the first time in 2013, it wasn’t as this brave new open world experience that redefined a generation. At least, not in the sense that I thought. It’s not because open world games were becoming more common, as evident in the rise of Assassin’s Creed and The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim. It was because for me, especially in the wake of developing a connection to more grindy looters, Grand Theft Auto 5 was approached in the completionist sense. I sat there wondering just how much cash I could grind out to buy all the cool stuff.

To the game’s credit, it did a great job dissuading that urge to grind and finish everything. It presented a compelling story and side missions, not to mention some phenomenal heists (with many outcomes presenting the futility behind high-stakes, high-paying crime). The entire map was opened from the start for the first time in the series. However, much of this pivotal content was one-and-done. The real appeal, once again, lay in walking around Los Santos and actually figuring out all the crazy little things you could get up to. All the various stunts you could pull off, the characters you could speak to, areas to visit, mysteries to solve, vehicles to steal, playing fully realized games of golf and tennis, messing about with the Epsilon Program, skydiving or just murdering everything out there (again) – the list goes on.

In a sense, Grand Theft Auto 5 did much of what made Grand Theft Auto 3 so liberating – it gave us an immense playground rife with details and the real joy was just getting out there and exploring it. Yes, it had markers and clearly designated side activities for its three characters. It had a linear story that would guide you and feel prey to the many “essentials” of the triple-A gaming experience. And yes, it kept track of all the things you did in a universal kind of record book but that sense of freedom was unrivaled.

"I’m not trying to hate on Ubisoft but for some people, it’s hard to look at games like Ghost Recon: Wildlands and The Crew 2 as pushing gigantic maps whose missions and icons as little more than open world checklists to tick boxes off of."

Times change. Systems evolve. Well, it’s probably more accurate to say that certain systems represented a more enviable standard as the years went by. Assassin’s Creed was still its collect-a-thon self but Assassin’s Creed Origins established the series as more of a third person action RPG set-up with quests, points of interest and loot as the central gameplay loop. Tom Clancy’s The Division dotted its map with numerous side missions while lending a loot-grinding aspect to the overall shared world shooting. Watch Dogs 2 and Far Cry 5 did away with towers but were still about completing rudimentary missions to hit a certain milestone and garner progression.

Also, look at Mass Effect: Andromeda, Saints Row 4, State of Decay 2, Just Cause 3, Middle-Earth: Shadow of War and so on and so forth. Each game had its own open-world bent but seemed primarily geared around completing a set checklist of missions and objectives for the sake of leveling up or gathering more followers or clearing icons on a map. I’m not trying to hate on Ubisoft but for some people, it’s hard to look at games like Ghost Recon: Wildlands and The Crew 2 as pushing gigantic maps whose missions and icons as little more than open world checklists to tick boxes off of.

Why have many open world games gone down this route? Why do some games handle it better than others. Is there really a sense of freedom and/or mystery like the good ol’ days? The chance to truly do what you want or feel part of this world rather than a typical playspace?

It’s first important to note that all of the above games more or less fit into the sandbox genre. This means that the player is taking non-linear routes to reach their goals. Said goals could be defined in a number of ways but it’s not strange for a game to define these for the player. Remember how the first Saints Row tried to make side activities more cohesive and fitting into the larger scheme of things? Think of liberating camps, garnering followers, achieving planet viability or even just having a bad-ass set of fortresses and followers as that larger scheme for the other titles.

"The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild could be pointed to as a paragon of open world design. However, some fans of the franchise don’t really consider it exceptional from a story-telling point of view."

One could argue that many games don’t offer the freedom that Grand Theft Auto 5, much less 3, did. Gameplay-wise, the diversity in gameplay concepts is greater than ever. In Middle-Earth: Shadow of War, you’re fighting to build up an army of followers while invading fortresses, exploiting the Nemesis system for bolstering that army or installing spies, and whatnot. Along with the free-flowing third-person combat, there is a range of stealth abilities and monsters to control that can wreak serious havoc.

Let’s look at Mad Max. For whatever you might say about the game, the core loop of exploring the open world, assaulting convoys for parts and further augmenting your death machine is appealing. Vehicular combat is a huge draw but so is fighting through these different outposts, beating down baddies to garner resources for yourself. In essence, this is what Mad Max is even if the side quests and missions are fairly rote.

Could it be solid writing and world-building that sets certain open world “masterpieces” apart from others?

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild could be pointed to as a paragon of open world design. However, some fans of the franchise don’t really consider it exceptional from a story-telling point of view. Case in point, the lack of exposition for Ganon and his motives, the characterization and otherwise reduced role of Princess Zelda – you could pick holes in Breath of the Wild’s story for days. Okay, maybe not days but definitely for a good few hours.

The world itself is exceptionally well built though. Link can’t just rush to Hyrule Castle and face Ganon since his stasis has left him significantly underpowered. Some guidance is provided to familiarize players with the world and there’s even a base direction to follow with freeing the Divine Beasts. The strong subplots and characters inherent in these quests also help give some sense of progression, as the more Divine Beasts freed, the weaker Ganon can become in the final fight.

"This is the result of Nintendo’s design. Divvying the world up into triangles and rectangles, it carefully controlled movement and the flow of exploration."

Breath of the Wild lets you choose your own path, however. What order you’ll tackle the Divine Beasts in, how many Shrines you’ll visit to augment your Hearts or Stamina, the utter depths and insurmountable highs you’ll go to for discovering rare materials to craft better armour, scavenging and foraging for better meals to temporarily boost stats – these choices are left up to the player. Even the Divine Beasts don’t have to be freed – after a point, the player can head to Hyrule Castle and fight Ganon since the actual area relies on knowledge of bosses, how many weapons and meals you have, armour level and parrying skill. Heck, after the opening area, you can ignore everything and just go exploring.

While more “traditional” dungeons are lesser in number here, the Shrines also provide a surprising amount of space for creativity. Look no further than players double-jumping with shields to bypass entire sections or connecting circuits using metal weapons for that kind of creativity. Another notch in Breath of the Wild’s strap is how superbly it enables getting out there and exploring your surroundings.

This is the result of Nintendo’s design. Divvying the world up into triangles and rectangles, it carefully controlled movement and the flow of exploration. Using data to properly track play footsteps and seeing which areas players would typically avoid, Nintendo created numerous points of interest to draw them in. The result is unique monster camps and hideouts, Shrines, mysteries like the dragons, villages, towers, NPCs that have unique things to sell, world bosses, mazes, side quests, and so on. There’s also an element of collecting with all the Shrines, Korok Seeds, Memories and photographs that exists as an overall meta-game for those who want to keep grinding. But the core gameplay loop encourages exploration, even if it ordinarily punishes you for going beyond your means.

None of the above mechanics are new, to be frank. They’re building blocks for the core gameplay’s base. It’s how that base is arranged and the overall gameplay is executed, not to mention the world’s make-up with so many unique sights and sounds, that enable a sense of “true” freedom.

"So while open world games aren’t necessarily dead in terms of freedom and impetus to explore, why do so many games seem to fall back on a more checklist-style of questing and exploration?"

Let’s look at Horizon: Zero Dawn. For all intents and purposes, the game is a traditional open world action RPG in the vein of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Players can take on extensive quests, explore different points of interest, hunt down machines for crafting materials and complete a plethora of side quests. Synchronizing with a Tallneck opens up more of the map, revealing new missions and points of interest like in old Assassin’s Creed titles. So why does it feel so much more fresh and compelling than your average open world game? Because of its writing and world-building.

The characters aren’t God of War-level compelling but there are some genuinely likeable personalities throughout Horizon: Zero Dawn, to say nothing of Aloy herself. Furthermore, there’s a mystery at the core of the game that drives the urge to explore and venture further out into the wild. The world-building makes use of familiar tropes and mechanics from games like The Witcher 3, Monster Hunter and Assassin’s Creed.

However – and gorgeous presentation aside – it packages them together in a compelling way. You could hunt wild Machines, each with their own unique traits and behaviours, for spare parts. Alternatively, you could head to the Cauldrons and attempt to garner new overrides and fight some tough bosses there (the fact that Cauldrons aren’t properly revealed until you’re close enough further incentivizes exploration). Various trials, unlockable weapons, Tallnecks NPCs and much more litter the world but Horizon encourages you to strike out spontaneously while rewarding you amicably.

So while open world games aren’t necessarily dead in terms of freedom and impetus to explore, why do so many games seem to fall back on a more checklist-style of questing and exploration? Why do so many Ubisoft tiles like The Crew 2, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, Far Cry 5, Watch Dogs 2 and Tom Clancy’s The Division partition their activities into specific tabs, whether it’s luring out Joseph Seed’s Heralds, completing missions to unlock specific portions of your home base to enable specific skills in Manhattan, or garnering followers to progress to the next tier of racing?

"It’s worth noting that even if numerous open world games, particularly from Ubisoft, suffer from lacklustre writing, there’s nothing wrong with appreciating them."

Honestly, it’s because there’s an appeal to that core gameplay loop, segregated into smaller portions that add up cumulatively into one big package of content. When you load into Ghost Recon: Wildlands, you have the freedom of exploring and liberating camps, causing random chaos, finding random weapons and whatnot. However, you could also complete a few missions in a region, lure the Santa Blanca Cartel boss in question out and then either take them down or capture them to progress the story (depending on requirements).

This gameplay loop relies on some unique twists in the stealth gameplay, co-op gaming with friends, and the appeal of a large sandbox to hook players. But the very basics are easy to grasp and fall back on when necessary while players gain the benefit of progression through levelling up, acquiring new skills and new guns, and so on. It’s comfort gaming much like easier content in Warframe, Diablo 3 or Destiny could be, but with the added ability to go nearly anywhere and immerse one’s self in a completely fantastic world.

Of course, the writing can make a huge difference to immersion. Look at Assassin’s Creed Syndicate. It’s relatively similar to previous titles in terms of open world exploration, side questing and core gameplay but also brought in new combat mechanics, gang wars and even a grappling hook. However, it was the writing that truly cemented it as something special. Each side mission and famous figure felt delightfully rendered. The Frye Twins were genuinely appealing protagonists, each with their own unique set of morals that introduced relatable sibling wrinkles. Even if Assassin’s Creed Syndicate failed to really ignite enthusiasm in the franchise after the disastrous launch of Unity, it still made a strong effort with its writing to try and bring fans back in. The authenticity of the world also didn’t hurt though having to go through the motions with the same type of gameplay felt detrimental to the world-building.

It’s worth noting that even if numerous open world games, particularly from Ubisoft, suffer from lacklustre writing, there’s nothing wrong with appreciating them. The world-building may feel fairly archetypal but it works, creating a solid feedback loop that spurs players to take in the world without too many hang-ups. Could these games be truly genre-defining? Probably not but they’re definitive. They cater to an audience that wants some kind of structure, an easily discernible gameplay loop that hooks them and a world that’s interesting enough to give back what they put in.

"There’s no denying the utter craftsmanship that’s being seen in the genre today, providing experiences that build off that first destructive romp through Liberty City in fun ways."

Just look at the Forza Horizon franchise. In terms of open world structure, it’s not all that different from The Crew 2 (garner fans, unlock new cars and events and so on). However, its core gameplay loop evolves in new and interesting ways while the top-notch world-building immerses players in the environment. It’s one thing to be told you’re in Australia but details like Forza Horizon 3’s mud-caked backwaters, the dust-filled outback or the gorgeous beaches work overtime to pull you in. Having strong progression systems that strike a fine balance between realism and arcade gameplay doesn’t hurt either. Forza Horizon also scores strong by being wholly customizable, at least from the third iteration onwards. Change events and tournaments to suit your own needs or design your own tournaments and challenges from the ground-up that other players can partake in. That’s not including the freedom of customization for one’s vehicles.

The real question isn’t whether games like Horizon: Zero Dawn and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, or even the upcoming Red Dead Redemption 2 and Anthem, will provide an unmatched level of freedom that feels emergent based on gameplay choices. It’s whether their style of open world design is possible across a wider range of franchises, especially those with yearly or bi-yearly cycles like the upcoming Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. While I personally want more personality and freedom in a world full of very significant dangers and rewards, there is something to be said about the sheer number of open world titles that successfully cater to a more worn formula.

Whether you’re a fan of first person shooters, third person shooters, loot-grinders, games-as-a-service titles with constant updates, hack and slash titles or racing games, there are a number of games just waiting to provide that dollar per hour value in a massive world. And while something truly revolutionary like Grand Theft Auto 3 may take time to come about, there’s no denying the utter craftsmanship that’s being seen in the genre today, providing experiences that build off that first destructive romp through Liberty City in fun ways.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

It’s easy to lose track of the number of games that releases every year. Between PC-exclusive titles, console exclusives, mobile games, remastered games, indie titles, ports, expansions, DLC, free to play titles, free games, retro games, web browser games and of course, remakes, there are hundreds of announcements, crowd-funded titles and Early Access gems. Good games like Cosmic Star Heroine and Polybius (2017) can see next to no revenue after years of hard work. However, a game like Fortnite, in development for years and years, can bring out a Battle Royale mode and have it become the biggest thing on the planet.

"We’re talking about games that seem so fundamentally flawed in their design that extensive work is required to make them better. The industry demands they release at their ordained time though."

The beast never rests. It can survive without certain games becoming successful but it needs certain games to survive. It needs them more than others. Think of Hollywood with its reliance on big budget blockbusters, the Star Wars and Marvel films of yore – all those visual effects studios, production companies, 4K camera operators and 3D rotoscopy experts need them to stay in business. The gaming industry doesn’t just need games with a huge budget. For better or worse, it demands that some games release before they’re fully realized visions. The film industry isn’t all that different – how many times have we heard about Justice League’s reshoots, Wonder Woman’s nightmarish production or the sheer agony that was Fantastic Four? Two of those three movies turned out to be utter disasters, by the way.

Games do have one key advantage though – they can make up for it later. There’s this trend of releasing a game and attempting to improve it later. Granted, this was a fear long, long ago as more games began receiving heftier patches for bugs and other issues. The fear of developers simply leaving key features out until launch when a patch would arrive wasn’t fully realized just yet. Nowadays, it isn’t strange to see games receive mammoth Day One patches that fix all manner of bugs while rounding out the content in a game.

But that’s not what we’re on about. We’re talking about games that seem so fundamentally flawed in their design that extensive work is required to make them better. The industry demands they release at their ordained time though. A delay or two may have been allowed but lo and behold, they still release in their rough forms, waiting to be properly shaped.

Take Evolution Studios’ DriveClub. The PS4 racing sim was delayed by a whole year before releasing to a myriad of issues. Its single-player component was cited as “dull and lifeless” without the benefit of online connectivity. Unfortunately, server troubles and other problems prevented proper connectivity for a very long time. If you picked up DriveClub at launch, then you didn’t experience the great career mode until servers properly came online. It was a long painful wait though and most people pretty much abandoned the game at that point itself. That’s saying nothing about the crashes that occurred even when offline.

"It’s absolutely insane that DriveClub would face so many issues at launch and then morph into one of the better racing games of this generation."

But Evolution Studios didn’t let up. Free DLC was offered. A free Photo Mode, replays of all races. New tracks and events. A new car every month. One expansion was devoted to introducing motorbikes into the game. And somehow, Evolution Studios continued improving the game’s visuals. If that weren’t enough, car handling was also improved, offering a more arcade-like experience for newcomers while promising a more realistic racing experience for gearheads. It’s absolutely insane that DriveClub would face so many issues at launch and then morph into one of the better racing games of this generation.

Strangely enough, as Evolution Studios was shuttered and shifted over to Codemasters to develop Onrush, it seemed to be repeating that exact same pattern. The pattern of releasing a game before it’s fully ready. If you played the beta for Onrush, then it might have felt a little…unpolished. Forget about most of the content not being there but the actual gameplay itself. Forget the fact that the actual balancing of the classes felt strange. Or that net-code was flaky, with AI cars blinking this way and that. Or even that actual takedowns felt inconsistent, ranging from a single nudge on the environment instantly wrecking you (which seemed intended) to numerous vehicles smashing your car from behind as it hung in there. The overall teamwork aspect didn’t feel wonderfully pronounced with different classes working together in unison to win a race. It was highlighted when team members failed to really hit checkpoints or rack up points in Overdrive.

Even if Onrush releases (which it currently has) without any network issues and the single-player mode feels consistent enough (especially since it’s not an actual campaign but roughly 100 “events”), it feels like its core mechanics will need more time. More iteration. More work. There is something there but in its current form, it just feels like a whole lot of potential waiting to be tapped, not unlike DriveClub. And yet, Onrush’s beta took place a good two weeks before the game’s full release. The chances of ground-breaking changes to its structure seem nil at this point.

"Changing so many fundamental aspects while expanding on the core premise of Destiny 2 is still a work in progress."

I’m always reminded of Destiny 2 whenever I think about a design being pushed through, whether the players like it or not. Much like Destiny 1, Destiny 2 launched in a very strange state. The game itself wasn’t horrible but Bungie elected to cut several features that fans had come to appreciate from the sequel. On the one hand, I can understand streamlining the experience. On the other hand, every single change felt like it was meant to transform Destiny 2 into a more, ultra-competitive PvP experience but with a much lighter PvE experience geared towards “casual” players. Bosses felt more bullet-spongey than ever. Light level meant pretty much nothing. The weapons and gear were pretty boring and looked terrible (including Eververse’s items as well, at least when compared to the best of Destiny 1).

When you consider that Monster Hunter World streamlined a lot of what its predecessors offered but maintained the essence of its gameplay, the various facets that made hunts thrilling and expanding on the overall premise thanks to the power of current gen platforms, Destiny 2 becomes an anomaly in so many ways.

However, the biggest issue wasn’t that Destiny 2 didn’t have Record Books or full-fledged raids with each expansion or random rolls on weapons or nice looking armour or good rewards for end-game activities. It was that the game was mostly felt like the most boring, tedious aspects of Destiny 1. You could argue that the core shooting felt great as always but there was little to no difference (and in fact, it became worse thanks to nerfs for in-air accuracy). Even as Bungie releases update after update, the overall gameplay for Destiny 2 is something that even the hardest of the hardcore have second thoughts about coming back to.

Yet despite so much going wrong, fans saw the warning signs from the first reveal event itself. They were further reinforced in the closed beta. Yet, as they criticized Bungie over and over again, right up to launch, the developer took a long time to react. Changing so many fundamental aspects while expanding on the core premise of Destiny 2 is still a work in progress. It’s hard to believe that it will even be complete by the time the coveted Fall expansion, now being called “Forsaken”, arrives.

"Destiny 2 is an example of a game that had to release. However it may work behind the scenes, Activision needed it to release in September 2017, especially after it had already been delayed a year."

Behind the scenes, Destiny 2 was a result of consequences. Reports from anonymous sources speaking to Kotaku’s Jason Schreier pretty much indicated that Destiny 2 was rebooted and the former director removed as Luke Smith took his place. From there, the game was reimagined as a loot box-grinding fest for cosmetics, an antithesis to the looter shooter that it had become. Bungie was locked on course though. It couldn’t veer away, even it wanted to, thanks to contractual obligations with Activision. Bungie probably doesn’t know what it’s doing and is making things up as it goes. The sad truth is that it’s probably devoting the most resources to Destiny 3, while ensuring the Fall expansion is wrapped up and undergoes Q&A testing in the next few months. Meanwhile, the skeleton live team can go back to making its changes on Exotic armour and whatnot.

Destiny 2 is an example of a game that had to release. However it may work behind the scenes, Activision needed it to release in September 2017, especially after it had already been delayed a year. As such, there was a ton of marketing around it. What about a game like No Man’s Sky that didn’t have a ton of marketing?

Hello Games’ space exploration title made waves after its first reveal at VGX 2013 (became known as The Game Awards). Talked up as this epic saga of interplanetary discovery, No Man’s Sky would seemingly offer limitless journeys with unique circumstances. Each player’s experience would be different thanks to the game’s procedural generation but everyone would be united by their pilgrimage to the universe’s centre. Unfortunately, things didn’t go quite as well as planned. Which is a nice way of saying it became one of the biggest dumpster fires in history in terms of fan reaction.

No Man’s Sky had a resource grind, one that was extremely heavy and while it fed into the feedback loop of exploration – gather more materials to explore further planets – that aspect of the game felt extremely shallow. Planets were uniquely generated but didn’t have anything outright defining to them. Though a few epic sights could be found, not everyone got to see them. For most people, having to consistently mine for resources bogged down the exploration (having no good reason to fight Sentinels didn’t help the action aspect). If the game had a multiplayer mode for exploring this unique universe with friends, it could offer some incentive to logging in every day. As such, it just felt like a shallow exercise in exploration with no real pay-off.

"Those large-scale space battles seen in trailers actually happen. Hardcore survival runs for some impetus of danger are as possible as sandbox runs where one can simply chill."

Thankfully, not every game that has issues in the early going is further ruined later. Hello Games worked – and continues to work – non-stop on improving No Man’s Sky. Along with the addition of land vehicles to more appropriately navigate planets, free updates added tons of new story quests and activities worth grinding for.

Building a base, constructing your own community of merchants and sellers, purchasing a freighter, creating portals – No Man’s Sky will further be shaping up with the NEXT expansion that seemingly introduces true multiplayer. Even without it, the game looks and feels better since launch. Those large-scale space battles seen in trailers actually happen. Hardcore survival runs for some impetus of danger are as possible as sandbox runs where one can simply chill. It’s still not perfect but it’s a positive direction for a game that left many fans angry enough to stalk and follow studio employees to their homes.

The “One Year Later” genre isn’t simply limited to games that started out fairly awful and then receive major improvements down the line though. Some games release as fun, fulfilling experiences and only get better over time. Take a look at Team Ninja’s Nioh. The hack-and-slash, Ninja Gaiden meets Soulslike meets looter title had an extremely robust campaign at launch. Completing all the side missions and story missions could easily take over 60 hours. The crazy part is that even after finishing the campaign, there’s an entire New Game Plus type mode to breeze through with a higher category of gear and weapons to grind for. It’s essentially like Diablo 3’s end-game where gear and weapons levels, build optimization and grinding for further upgrades become the impetus as opposed to one’s individual level. Keep in mind that this doesn’t include the three DLC packs which could add a good 30 hours or so of more unique missions to run through.

However, Team Ninja didn’t release the base game, work on the expansions and then call it a day. The first “New Game Plus” setting is dubbed Way of the Strong – the first three regions and their side missions are unlocked with tougher enemies, more XP rewards and Divine loot to grind for. Drop rates for the latter can be grindy but there are items to collect that increase that. Guardian Spirits can also be leveled up to 30 and your individual stat levels go much higher.

"Some games release as fun, fulfilling experiences and only get better over time. Take a look at Team Ninja’s Nioh."

After finishing the first three regions, the remaining game is unlocked. You have Way of the Demon next which further increases one’s levels and rewards. Equipment starts dropping past level 150, Guardian Spirits can be leveled up to 40, and enemies become that much tougher. Divine gear becomes all the more essential as, like Diablo with its higher Greater Rift levels, you further optimize your build. Way of the Wise repeats this process again but adds Ethereal Weapons and ways to upgrade Divine weapons into them while raising Guardian Spirit levels up to 50. Somewhere in this process, a second tertiary Guardian Spirit can be equipped for additional benefits. Finally, Way of the Nioh adds one more New Game Plus run, letting you raise stats to level 200 and Guardian Spirits up to level 60. Once again, this is not factoring all the DLC content that players have to go through or the PvP aspect.

Again though, there are countless examples of games that have to be released to satisfy market expectations, investors and publishers. Battlefield 4 is infamous for launching in a buggy mess before DICE introduced a number of patches, delayed DLC to get more team members involved and eventually introduced a Community Test Environment server to try out changes before they went live. This isn’t including free DLC that the game would receive for years after its launch. Perhaps more famous is Star Wars Battlefront 1, which released to coincide with the launch of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. From there, DICE devoted numerous resources to expanding its modes, quality of life features, maps and much more (even if you didn’t purchase the DLC).

One could argue that it isn’t strange for many of these franchises to support their games so much after launch. After all, if it sold extremely well and could potentially make for a great franchise, why not try to garner good publicity by fixing things? Of course, there’s a fine line between “fixing the game” and “realizing its vision”.

Once again, look at Destiny 2 – a majority of the features being added in were already present in Destiny 1. A lot of the new features like Escalation Protocol, Heroic Strike modifiers, the “new” Power level grind and so on have faced tons of criticism with fixes either introduced or pending. Even after all of those fixes though, Destiny 2 still won’t much of an evolution to the standard Destiny design. There’s no player housing, spaceship battles, strong end-game and build diversity, et al. Fundamentally, it’s the same repetitive gameplay just with annoying changes to further dumb it down.

"Even as players are somewhat wary of The Division 2 repeating the mistakes of Destiny 2, there’s some more optimism because Ubisoft Massive is more or less in touch with what the community wants."

However, Tom Clancy’s The Division truly realized its vision after launch. Sure, it wasn’t the open world survival sandbox where PvP could happen at any place and time that the very first trailer promised. However, when the game launched, it was clearly meant to be a looter shooter. Ubisoft Massive wasn’t exactly recognizing those fundamentals though. It gave obscenely tough challenges that only very specific play-styles could properly complete. As a result, both in PvP and PvE, build diversity was horribly limited (which is saying something considering how the amount of customization wasn’t all that high to begin with). Rewards were pitiful, RNG played too much of a factor and the overall game didn’t have all that much to do.

Over time, Ubisoft Massive heavily revamped the game, introducing World Tiers, new modes like Survival (providing an experience akin to the first reveal trailer) and Last Stand (its first PvP mode), made areas like Underground worth playing and so on. Not all of its changes were great – Gear Sets continue to be balanced and rebalanced, changes to armour made many angry and whatnot.

However, more features were brought in like World Events (weekly events with modifiers), new Classified Gear Sets, the wave-based PvE mode Resistance, new areas in the Light Zone and Dark Zone, and even the addition of dozens of quality of life changes. Even as players are somewhat wary of The Division 2 repeating the mistakes of Destiny 2, there’s some more optimism because Ubisoft Massive is more or less in touch with what the community wants. In Destiny 2’s case, you’d be hard-pressed to find many people willing to pick up Destiny 3, much less Destiny 2’s Forsaken DLC.

One would be remiss to not also mention Blizzard Entertainment’s Diablo 3. Think about it – this is a game that was in development for ten years. It was under a development team that felt in tune with everything that fans could possibly want. Of course, when the game released, “Error 37” wasn’t the only stumbling block that it faced. Diablo 3 was riddled with issues ranging from confusing stats and systems, a large quantity of loot that was disproportionate to its quality, a tough difficulty that needed high level loot to finish it but had to be grinded for said loot and so on. Did we also mention that players wanted more out of Diablo’s end-game in 2012 then just replaying the entire game at a higher difficulty?

"Despite Blizzard’s treatment of Diablo 3 currently, ignoring it in favour of other franchises like Overwatch and World of Warcraft, there’s no denying the care provided throughout all these years."

Blizzard’s approach has always been about what the fans want. Sometimes that may not always shine through but in Diablo 3’s case, newly appointed director Josh Mosqueira and his team went to extraordinary lengths to satisfy the community. It went against much of the Blizzard grain that believed Diablo 3 should be in the same vein as Diablo 2, introducing an Adventure Mode with Bounties and randomly arranged Rifts and Greater Rifts to grind. The Paragon system had already provided players with that additional bump of statistical power but stats as a whole were incredibly streamlined. Gear, especially Gear Sets, became incredibly broken to make players feel even more badass. It all culminated in Reaper of Souls, Diablo 3’s first major expansion that contained a new storyline, new class, tons of new items and much more.

Suffice to say, the rest is history. Despite Blizzard’s treatment of Diablo 3 currently, ignoring it in favour of other franchises like Overwatch and World of Warcraft, there’s no denying the care provided throughout all these years. New items were brought in. Extensive balance changes were made, shaking up the meta and making numerous classes and builds viable (though it took quite a while). New regions and areas, new activities like Challenge Rifts and Set Dungeons and so much more insured that Diablo 3 wouldn’t go gentle into that good night. In fact, it still serves as an excellent example of an action looter RPG done right, even if Area Damage as a stat is inherently busted.

The practice of “fixing” games one year later is still very much in progress but to see more and more games being sent out the door for the sake of hype is interesting. One could say it’s alarming but the overall business being done by the industry says otherwise. If anything, it points to the greater trend of building brand loyalty and retaining consumers, if only so they’ll further invest in the franchise (whether through microtransactions, expansions or sequels). Time will tell just how sustainable the practice is, especially with games like The Division 2, Anthem, the rumoured Dying Light 2 and so on coming. However, if today’s modern consumer has proven anything, it’s that they’ll stick with a franchise through thick and thin as long as they love the gameplay and the developer makes them feel appreciated.

As a final example, let’s look at Final Fantasy 14. Everyone knows the story (thanks to the wonderful documentary series by NoClip): Square-Enix did pretty well with Final Fantasy 11. The designs for Final Fantasy 14 surged on even with competitors like World of Warcraft doing so much more in the space. The development team at Square-Enix was convinced of the quality of its enterprise. If nothing else, every department believed it was doing its job in the best way possible. When it finally released, the sheer lack of quality was readily apparent. If the servers weren’t messing up fans’ enjoyment of the game, then the unoptimized performance, terrible UI, bland combat and overall game design was hindering any possible worth it had to offer.

"Final Fantasy 14 is now considered one of the best MMORPGs currently available and one of the top paid MMOs in terms of subscriber count. That’s a pretty big shift from a company many thought was doomed…"

When Square Enix realized just how badly it messed up, it didn’t immediately pull the plug or attempt to cut its losses. Instead, it brought Naoki Yoshida on to investigate where things went wrong. Yoshida ultimately proposed the daring plan to not only continue supporting the current version of Final Fantasy 14 but to develop a brand new version behind the scenes called A Realm Reborn. So while the base game would see new quests (at no subscription cost to players), A Realm Reborn would bring new and excting features while essentially “fixing” everything that was wrong about the game.

Once it all came to a head, culminating in an enormous event where the old world was “destroyed”, now director/producer Yoshida and his team celebrated. Reviews were positive, fans were enjoying the game and the Square-Enix that seemingly had its reputation destroyed was on the up-turn. The amazing part in all of this is that Yoshida acknowledged some fans being gone for good and that the next steps were to continue development, supporting the now stellar game they had. Who knows? Some day those same fans would see the current state and return.

Square Enix hasn’t disappointed with its two excellent expansions – Heavensward and Stormblood – along with numerous substantial content updates every few months. Final Fantasy 14 is now considered one of the best MMORPGs currently available and one of the top paid MMOs in terms of subscriber count. That’s a pretty big shift from a company many thought was doomed but it also reflects how, with a dedicated group of fans, anything is possible. Even if a game has burned a player and they promise never to return, it’s never truly dead as long as a developer is in tune with and respects the community’s passion.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

Tom Clancy’s The Division

Though the essence of Tom Clancy’s The Division is tactical gameplay through the use of cover and abilities, having a first-person perspective would offer some interesting options. The cover system could be implemented in a more nuanced manner, depending on how exposed a player’s POV is (so the longer you have a clear shot, the more accurately enemies could hit you). It would require changes to enemy accuracy, bullet spread, recoil and whatnot but regardless, we could see a first-person loot grinder with more emphasis on cover being interesting. Speaking of which…