I mentioned that this had gone on sale, and that it would probably be a decent pick for the solo content. So I picked it up to give it a shot. I don’t have regrets, though some questions.

I don’t get how any game is launched in 2020 with a load time that’s measured in minutes before you start playing. I have a solid rig, it’s installed on NVMe and there’s really little I can do to optimize that. Yet Avengers takes at least 90s from pressing the icon until it loads. And each mission can take 20-60s to load up. How can Monster Hunter World, a 3 year old game, have load times less than 20s yet this thing (and plenty of others, including Anthem) can’t get this fixed. Menus and loading screens are not gameplay, and there’s WAY too much of it here. Optimizations are still required.

On the plus side, the moment to moment gameplay is impressive. Iron Man shoots lasers, Thor shoots lightning, Hulk smashes, and Black Widow… well I still don’t get how she’s an Avenger. The game looks great, the interiors and exteriors have some variety, there’s plenty to do, and there’s enough difference between the characters to give meaning, and enough similarity so that you’re not relearning all the time.

The new addition of Kamala Khan as Ms Marvel is terrific, pulling off the fangirl vibe that feels authentic. The gradual increase of the team works, and the general banter is pretty cool. Gear is, as you would expect, an absolute horror show with no purpose other than seeing a number go up. I’m sure this changes at later levels. The campaign itself is rock solid, hitting the right beats with next to no padding. Color me impressed.

Speaking of which, the core campaign lasts ~10 hours or so. The way it’s delivered splits time across multiple heroes, so that by the end of that 10 hours, your character levels meander between 5 and 10. Of a total of 50. Getting each to 50 means playing a bunch of various missions and really, grinding it out. There’s other content, but not to the depth of the main campaign. Heck, when you do end the campaign, the next quest it gives you requires level 50/140 power. It’s a bit like leaving Westfall in WoW and the next quest is to solo Sargeras. Uh, ok?

The meh is the combat mechanics being quite dependent on active combat, which is a fancy way of saying you need to learn when to parry and when to dodge. The timing here is so much better than Assassin’s Creed it’s not funny. It doesn’t feel at times like a reskin of Lara Croft (loading times and all), with button mashing QTEs. I’m pretty sure at higher levels and expanded gear/skills the mechanics improve. For now, it just sucks to be 1shot because you didn’t dodge someone attacking you from behind. The vertical space is well used, and it doesn’t feel like a huge penalty to take a non-flyer. The plot is pulled straight out of a comic book, and the final couple bits with MODOK are really well done. It feels epic, which is what you’re looking for.

I’ll keep plugging away, getting someone to 50 (likely Thor). Kate Bishop launched today, as a new character. If I had to guess, I’d figure the game stabilization period is somewhat over, now it’s about content and optimization. Clearly I am not going to do 48 floors of combat, where death means restarting from floor 1. I’d expect there are plenty of heat maps as to where people are spending their time, and dev cycles to focus on that. I’m far enough away to be happy with what’s there now. If DCUO can still rake in millions of dollars, you really have to be trying to mess this up.

A special note on Kate Bishop being added this week to the game. Ashly Burch is awesome, and the writers took this to the right spot. The banter between her and Tony is golden! It helps that her bow skill set is fun to use – tons of mobility, great ranged damage, and impressive crowd control options. Her core mission is about 3 hours or so, and I enjoyed every bit of it. If this is the type of content that comes out with each new character, Avengers is going to stay installed for a long time.

And all that for $30. I do think it was a good purchase, with a potential for it being as great one.

From my older D&D days, there was often some disagreement on the size of any given adventure. Not in the overall arc, but in the size of the events. Way back when, my DM loved to throw very long and drawn out battles to test the player’s mettle. For those not familiar, in 3.5e, some battles could take hours to resolve due to the number of rolls required. Larger rooms with tons of enemies, or doors where goblins poured from, then traps and the like… it was a glorious mess! It also meant that after each fight, we had to rest, since all our skills had been depleted. (One of the fun perks from 4e was addressing this issue.)

The point here is that the DM preferred open spaces with multiple vectors of combat. There wasn’t much linear activity, the walls just seemed to ooze bad guys. Combat meant depending on the players staying close to each other, and moving as a group. Let me tell you that organizing 4 players moving in unison is a major pain. And it’s not like you can hide when the room is 20×20 – or worse, in some sort of open cave/field/forest.

I do remember playing with another group where their DM was all about hallways. You’d open a door, things would spawn out of that room and you were better off just hiding in the hallway letting the shield tank everything. It was quite jarring when compared to my normal group.

It’s interesting looking at today’s game design and their approach to encounter design. The player component is relatively the same across all of them, things are locked behind cool downs. Resource management is all but gone, except in the immediate sense of some sort of charge/discharge format. That “standard” means a more even footing when looking at the actual encounter.

There are still games that are target based, either through tab-targeting or turn-based activity. You select a target, move to them (if needed), and then “do the thing”. More and more are action based, meaning that you’re attacking in the vicinity of something, and hoping to hit something. This is more complex, as hit detection is ultra important, “magnetic locking” so that you aim in the right space, and the whole 3D orientation is key. Something like Destiny works because it factors where the player starts an action, and where the target is when the action finishes, with a whole lot of padding for errors. Valhalla has a really generous hit detection, for you and the enemies. Dark Souls is the opposite, where it’s extremely precise. Very different experiences.

Then there’s the actual space used for the encounter. Target-based combat tends to be in tighter locales, because movement is the real resource to manage. Ranged can’t hide, and melee need to get between targets as fast as possible. Divinity 2 excels when the rooms are tiny. When they get too big, it’s a real mess to get to any target. WoW is almost entirely tunnel vision, until you get to a boss room. Dungeons are made for 5 players, raids for many more… so space is designed to allow people to be about the room without too much stacking. It’s interesting going back into something like Ulduar now and see that design compared to pretty much everything that followed. How

Action games though… they hate small rooms. The challenge in most of those games is about throwing as much at you, from as many directions as possible, and seeing what happens. There may be obstructions, sure. But they are tactical, in the sense that they provide defence. Line of sight that bullet barrage, climb the tower to get a better view. They also tend to avoid the concept of AI-targets, where enemies prioritize their targets. It’s a free for all, and generally why this model excels in the pure action/shooter genre. It’s also why defensive options in action games are really quite hard to manage, especially in multi-player games. It’s really hard to replicate something like Dark Souls/Ghost of Tsushima with lag in an online setting – mind you, For Honor figured this out.

There are exceptions to these, certainly. DOOM is all about atmosphere, so the locations tend to be ultra-cramped. Fallout 2/3 are often about open spaces. It’s neat when you play a game and it subverts those expectations, and does so with quality. Now for the day where I play a game, find an open location with a bunch of healing stuff before hand, and it’s NOT a boss.

When video games started, plot was pretty much meaningless. PONG has no plot, and you can invent your own for Space Invaders. There were some text-based games that were plot heavy in the late 70s, but even by the start of the 90s, plots were reserved for RPGs. Halo is one that still resonates with me now, managing to merge amazing gameplay and a narrative that was both consistently and open ended.

Today, all games need some sort of plot. The worst of them use the plot as a sort of glue to keep the various bits together, while the best of them put the plot at the top of the pile. So much so, that I would argue that the best games of the last 5 years were all plot driven. Last of Us, God of War, Horizon, Dark Souls, Hades, Celeste, Obra Din, Edith Finch, Outer Wilds, Read Dead Redemption…

That’s not to say that you can’t have mechanically amazing games with poor plots, Borderlands somehow makes this work. Or Diablo. You sort of let the plot be weak because the part you interact with the most is so good.

But plot today is harder to manage, because games are rarely offered in a linear fashion. Players can, and will, miss important bits of the story along the way, or find a path to skip forward. Divinity 2 is a perfect example of game that is both constrained and freed by it’s approach to plot management. There are options a plenty in each smaller story, yet their larger impacts are less than in other games because of the ripple effects of say, killing a key NPC in hour 1.

And good golly forbid if the game is part of a larger narrative arc, all of a sudden you need a lore keeper to make sure there’s continuity. There’s a certain mad genius aspect to any storyteller, making it both interesting and coherent. There are a lot of people out there who can write fiction, but not many who can write it well, or for long periods of time. People thought Beniof/Weiss are the poster children for this. It’s a tough skill, and the larger the fan base, the more pushback you get from them. I’m sure the WoW writers would be excellent if they weren’t stuck behind 20+ years of lore to maintain – now they are perfecting the art of painting themselves into corners.

No detailed spoilers, but if you want to go into AC: Valhalla “clean”, skip this paragraph. Having completed AC: Valhalla, I’m of a similar opinion that at the micro level the game has ok writing, but at the arc level, it really falls to pieces. In the same vein as JK Rowling likes to retroactively make things important – Deathly Hallows reads like a retcon, and you know, everything past that. Valhalla pulls some Matrix/Inception level subterfuge, and everyone just goes along with it, completely against hours of their own character development arcs. I get it, I’m not expecting Proust here, and AC has a habit of the multi-level storylines. Still, the 2 largest plot points made me question why I bothered playing at all. The mechanics work, so there’s that. It’s still a better $/hr/fun deal than nearly every other single player game on the market.

I must be saturated. I’ve been gaming over 35 years, I’ve read hundreds if not thousands of books. I’ve seen/read so much that my palate rejects more and more every year. Though conversely, when I do find something solid, I relish it to a degree I never did prior. I can still enjoy games with middling plots – Frostpunk is amazing – as long as the plot isn’t the driver. To the others pushing plot > gameplay… I dunno, take some writing classes or something. That $200 investment in skill development is going to go a lot farther than a new stick of RAM.

With Casey Hudson and Mark Darrah leaving at the same time, that leaves a massive gap in leadership in an organization sorely in need of it. The Golden Age of BioWare is long behind, but there’s always that sliver of hope that something will save it.

My limited understanding of both these individuals over the years is nothing but positive. Hudson is the reason we have Mass Effect at all, and Darrah is why we have Dragon Age. Darrah was also appointed the saving grace for Anthem’s final months of development. Jason Schrier‘s write-up on that drama is one of the better game journalism pieces out there. From the outside at least, it would appear that these two were “the” leaders. And now they are not.

From what we know outside, there were 4 main streams of work underway. SWTOR is still chugging along, which is great. There’s a remaster of the 3 Mass Effect games, which logically would precede a reboot. Dragon Age 4 is in the works. And Anthem 2.0 was an idea, who’s leader is now taking over Darrah’s spot on DA4.

If I was a betting man, I’d put dollars that they find a way to link Anthem and Mass Effect. Andromeda wasn’t all that far off mechanically. There’s nothing on Dragon Age 4 aside from some art. Whatever does come out next, it would seem fair to assume that it’s a make/break deal for BioWare to be able to do anything but SWTOR.

I’ve seen my fair share of large re-orgs. When one leader leaves, that is a tough slog to adjust to the new one. When 2 links in that chain leave, stuff goes sideways for a long time. If ever you see 3… well then expect that chain to just be dumped in the back of the building.

There are a pile of reasons for an executive to call it quits. Family/health is a big one. Finishing a large deliverable is another (the message will reflect the accomplishment). Finding a better job is the last one that would be considered “ok”, at least in the sense of employee empathy. Pretty much every other exit is due to a change in direction or conflict. It’s unlikely we’ll ever see what triggered this event, and in the vacuum of a lack of information, rumours will certainly fill that space. I’m just crossing my fingers that this isn’t the first part of a larger sad story just before the holidays. I wish all of them the best of luck.

I really liked Wildstar. The setting, the mechanics, the storyline, the humour. Sure, it was in “in your face” but it was consistent. And had the best Hallowe’en event in any MMO, hands down.

Yet it had the wrong audience, or rather, it focused on an audience that didn’t exist. It was meant for the hardest of the hardcore. In the MMO space, those people are already playing 1 or 2 games – likely WoW and FF14. They are seriously invested there, as it’s days/months of effort to be considered top tier. Any new MMO means people drop what they are doing, and do it all over for this new game. That front-line investment is a huge barrier. And Wildstar tripled down on every barrier possible, creating an effective quit-wall.

Raids were insanely complex, punishing, and founded on a flawed combat model of one-hit-kills. Either you were perfect or you were dead. Skill drops were essential for effective raids, yet limited to RNG on acquiring them. Gear increases were gated behind timed dungeons, where a single wipe meant the entire team just vanished – again, perfect or dead.

Which is an entirely acceptable game mode for those that choose it. The problem with Wildstar is that this was the only game mode. Guild/social tools didn’t exist for nearly a year (which was amazing, considering SWTOR made that lesson super clear). Group content had a skill floor that absolutely punished anyone trying to learn the system. There was no difficulty ramp – it was leveling then this giant wall of pain.

And this to me is the larger lesson in the MMO space, you need group content to get people together than allows for mistakes. Housing runs in private dungeons was a great example of this in Wildstar, but so, so late. Tying your progress system entirely to success/fail mechanics in a group setting is not going to work, people become selfish.

LFG in WoW came about in WoTLK, to my recollection, because of the the issues from the Violet Hold. Way back then, you made groups organically. You ran to the dungeon, did the content, and flew away. Violet Hold was different, the dungeon was right in the main city. And the bosses were randomly selected. People needing a specific drop (again, before tokens) would get into the dungeon, see what boss popped, then quit if it wasn’t what they wanted. It was beyond painful replacing someone for that dungeon, since people joining wanted a clean run. LFG automated all that pain (and tokens to a very large extent).

One of the key tenets of gaming is that people are like water, they will take the path of least resistance to their goal. If it means grinding the Maw 1,000 times for AP, they will do that. If it’s 100% token based drops, people will find the most efficient route and just do that, making some dungeons never run. If there are world drops, then people don’t run dungeons (BfA much!). If you need 1 specific drop, say a legendary recipe, then you’re going to farm that thing til your eyes bleed, other people be darned. And it’s a better use of time to eat 10m deserter buff than finish a dungeon. And where expansions come with a stat reset, all of a sudden the 10+ years of go-go-go runs have to slow down.

I still think FF14 has this on lock. Drops + tokens, making practically all group content relevant. With a couple exceptions, people will run any dungeons/raid cause seeing it to the end is still a boon. I’m still amazed that the group award system here hasn’t been put elsewhere.

Wildstar paid a high price for their design choices – it tried to attract a group that didn’t want to play, and pushed aside those that did. WoW has been paying a smaller price for their design choices, and I am exceedingly curious as to how they manage to apply lessons learned from their failures and others moving forward. We’re in the “good expansion” cycle, so hopefully that bears fruit.

The last post was more of a negative light on AC: Valhalla, which I realize may be too large a brush to pain on the game. Taking a small step back, Ubisoft games (or any icon-map-palooza game) are effectively gaming buffets.

I am not enamoured with buffets. The health issues are reasons #1 through #5, with “other people” in that mix too. The next time you do go to a buffet, take some time just look at how people behave. It’s atrocious.

And yet, buffets do has some perks. Clients pay a base fee, with the promise that there’s something available to suit their needs. Maybe they family like Asian and Italian cuisine. A buffet offers both would likely please both, rather than compromises. The top quality of a bufferTwill never be at the same level as a dedicated restaurant. Buffet sushi is a WHOLE lot different than an authentic restaurant.

If I look at AC as a whole, there’s a very wide slot of activities. Most of the items are found a dozen times or more in game, hence the “too much game” from before.

• Main story – This starts well for the first couple zones (as long as Ivarr and Sigurd are involved), then just goes nowhere for quite a few hours, before quickly tying loose ends that you’ve completely forgotten about.
• Side quests – By and large, these are less than 2 minutes to complete, and add some neat backstory. This isn’t killing 5 boars, which is great!
• Settlement – all the important bits are resolved within the first couple zones. Valka is cool, and opens up some interesting storylines.
• Asgard/Jotunheim – These are cool zones if you completely avoid treasure hunting. The Jotunheim arc in particular is very enjoyable.
• Vinland – This place looks amazing and the native population is
• Cursed Idols – useless
• Roman Artefact – useless
• Stone stacking – this is a neat mini game that’s quite calming. Stack stones to a specific level. Very zen.
• Standing stones – move around until stones are lined up to present a design. There aren’t a lot, so it’s not too bad. The voice overs while doing it are cool
• Layla – These platforming puzzles are quite poorly built, where the poor controls are more limiting than the actual puzzles. You know what to do, the game won’t let you. It does provide some alternate storyline though, and there’s only 10 of them.
• Tattoos – sort of like chasing shanties in AC4, but requires you to not show any armor to actually see the tattoos. I miss shanties.
• Boat / settlement cosmetics – You spend less than 1% of your gameplay using these, even less actually LOOKING at them.
• Flyting – Rhyme combat. They say something, you retort with a rhyme that’s insulting. It’s a neat idea, and the execution isn’t too shabby. Higher levels increases dialogue options.
• Drinking games – pure mini-game, and I find it hilarious. Good way to make some money too.
• Dice games – this is a cool game with some minor strategy elements. Not much depth, but it’s a solid bit of fun.
• Fishing – The concept here is cool, but the act of reeling in is not fun. Used in a couple quests, and should be ignored otherwise.
• Hunting – Please, avoid this completely. It’s a mind boggling grind with no purpose.
• Elite hunts – if you want the challenge, then that’s neat. There are no real rewards, except settlement cosmetics that you can barely see.
• Treasure hunts – You only need a few ingots for the totality of the game. Armor…some of it is worth it, if you find a perk you like. The armor looks like you would imagine a Viking to look. Helmets are horrible (few games have nice helmets).
• Treasure caves – I’d like to say these are neat puzzles, and there is one. Otherwise, just consider it a chest that’s 5 minutes into a cave. A chest with no use.
• Ragnar’s rangers – 6 tough opponents that drop some unique weapons. These were really a lot of fun.
• Raids – Since then rewards are all tied to the settlement, and they are pretty much the same thing as entering any other large scale combat, it gets old quick.
• Assaults – every zone has at least one. Long battles with a bunch of mini-objectives. I think this does a great job of reflecting the concept of viking battles. Really well done.
• Zealots – Unless you’re overpowered, these are walking murder machines.
• Order of Ancients – You wouldn’t notice if this system didn’t exist. It serves as much purpose as your appendix.

I mean, just look at the size of that list. How in the world can all of it be good, let alone great? And that’s the kicker, half of it I would consider “good”, and the rest I would just consider padding. Cut half of that stuff out and the game would both be more focused, and the devs would be able to spend more quality on less, and most likely deliver a better end product. Like take out animal hunts completely… and have them instead put more resources into combat being responsive.

So like a real buffet, it’s important to be selective. If you do play AC, I would recommend sticking entirely to the main quests, and the side quests that are on your route between the main quest steps. If you focus solely on the immediate proximity of tasks, you’re going to have an amazing time.

I’ve played Monster Hunter World and Dauntless. Both are based on the same model of killing big monsters and upgrading your gear to take on tougher monsters. Dauntless is more akin to arena combat, it’s always in a 4 player group, and most battles are over in less than 10 minutes. MHW is much larger, where you enter a biome to hunt a target. Biomes that have multiple monsters, quests, traps and of course – fishing. You can play alone or in a group. Larger fights can take 50 minutes, and short ones really require you to be OP, or in a supremely efficient group.

Both games have tremendous longevity, based on the repeatable tasks and increased difficulty spikes. There’s always a larger challenge across the horizon, and nearly every activity you take provides some measure of progress.

MMOs have this model, where there’s plenty of repeatable activities that increase your power – though they are confined to seasons/expansions. There is purpose, and often a larger goal. A goal that is both defined by the player, and offered as a choice by the developer. You can have the best gear score, or the most pets collected, or the highest PvP rank. Where games focus on the storyline rather than the player… well there’s a point where that story ends.

Which brings me to single player games. Those that focus on stories often put in some tough end-game challenges/grinds for show. Spider-Man and God of War have these, to varying levels of success. Maybe they add a new game+. Yet, there’s a level of balance between these side activities and the core game goal. It’s rare to find a “good game” that has more side activities than main ones.

One notable exception is Assassin‘s Creed. Or more specifically, the latter games. Ubisoft has a problem with maps and icons, and putting in absolutely meaningless content. Valhalla has this in spades. The settlement, aside from 3 buildings (blacksmith, assassin’s quarters, Valka) has no impact. You have some minor decoration options, but it would be hard to tell another player’s settlement from yours. The map has hundreds of icons (dots in this game) for things that provide minimal value to the game’s goals. Roman masks give you 1 settlement decoration per ~10 that you find. Cursed idols do nothing. Altars have you give items for 1 skill point (which only matter for about 50% of the entire tree of points). Hunting rare/tough beasts gives you settlement decorations. I won’t go into normal animal hunts. Chests give you things with which to upgrade your gear, but only your weapons matter. I’ve never been in a situation where I didn’t have the materials on hand.

There are some good, if not great bits though! The side quests here are mostly amazing. Flyting increases your charisma, allowing for more dialogue options. The main quest is well done as well, though it’s about 30% too long. The limited items mean that you’re never really looking for drops…a bearded axe is is a bearded axe. That one increases damage by 1% after a dodge, or another increases critical damage by 1 – that doesn’t matter.

The skill points are a way of putting stats outside of gear drops and a reward for completing game activities. There’s about 350 total points to get. By the time you have 200, you’ll have received every thing that provides a key benefit – increased damage or increased health. I mean ALL of it. You’re essentially a walking god for the rest of the game.

I do want to state that Valhalla is objectively a better game than Odyssey, and that was miles better than Origins. Ubisoft seems hell bent on stuffing as much as humanly possible into their games. By trying to do more rather than less and doing it extremely well, the AC series is losing a lot of focus. Had they simply cut the overall game size by 30%, heck maybe even 50%, it would be a much more focused and enjoyable experience. As it is now, if you only play the main quest and nothing else, it’s quite good. Weird to actively ignore the other 75% of the game.

Side note: this is the 3rd open-world game from Ubisoft in 2 months. Legion, AC: Valhalla, and now Fenyx Rising. ALL of them have this issue.

There’s an adage in visual media where it’s better to show than to tell. It’s more so related to overexposure, where the audience is treated as incapable of putting A and B together to come to a conclusion. As much as I like Sherlock Holmes as books, they suffered from this greatly as key plot points are never shared with the reader. Whereas you can watch the movies (Murder on the Orient Express is great), or something similar like Knives Out and you have all the clues along the way. Nolan does a great job in this with The Prestige (another awesome film).

Things that go off the rails are more like Lost or Game of Thrones (TV). Creators have painted themselves into corners, and lacked a larger vision, so we end up with some duct tape and bubble gum to try to patch all the loose threads together. Or, in some cases, the author think they are being quick witted, but the reveal stretches the imagination so far that it just doesn’t jive. JK Rowling is a GREAT example of this, wow.

Video games are a tough spot, mostly because they are interactive. That challenge means that the plot points and beats are not experienced in the same order for all players. Throw in player agency, and the plot threads get much more complicated. RPGs and open-world games really struggle here, as side quests can take you all over the place. Final Fantasy is chocked full of monologues to get the plot points across, often meant as milestones so players remember what’s at stake.

I look at something like Horizon: Zero Dawn. The majority of the lore in that game is through text, notes you can read about what happened before. It’s incredibly in depth. Exploring the old labs, you get a better appreciation of what happened before. There are however, some quite ham-fisted points where characters go into pure monologues to explain themselves and why the world is it is. WoW (MMOs in general) is pure exposition now, which if I take a step back, is pretty much required as the writing is atrocious (plot vs character).

Then we get to something like God of War. While you only really deal with Freya and Baldr, Mimir spends a significant amount of time telling stories about the other gods while you’re paddling your boat. They fill in the (literal) blank spaces in the game and provide the context for the larger storyline. With few exceptions, there’s nothing Mimir says that relates directly to the game itself. Learning that Odin will go to any lengths to learn doesn’t change the main gameplay – you never actually meet Odin.

Hades is another great example of context delivery without overly exposing. It helps that the writing is awesome, and not something that prevents gameplay.

And now that I’m in AC: Valhalla, and the foundational context is also the Nordic gods, it makes for a very different shift. AC games have always struggled with managing plot lines, the “real world” never really intersected with the game world in a meaningful sense. The in-game Templar vs Assassin line has become much less relevant too, almost an afterthought in this game. AC is instead moving into the ancient lore, what with Atlantis in Odyssey, and now Asgard/Jotunheim in this one. I won’t spoil much here, but AC is making as solid case that none of their main plot lines actually matter. Eivor’s settlement has nothing to do with the Nordic gods, nothing to do with the “real world”. Just a (very, very long) story about survival.

I can’t imagine the mental gymnastics a game director or creative director has to go through to ensure a game delivers on all fronts for the story. Probably why there are so few good examples over the years, and why the ones that are great really stick with me.

A rather significant patch arrives today for AC: Valhalla. Hilarious timing of my prior post. I can identify quite a few items in that list that I’ve experienced. Fishing (which I think needs to be in every game) was always a weird one. Fish would haul into me, then swim all the way to the farm end of the water. And when I say far end, I mean out of draw distance. So when I cancelled the fishing action, it would take a solid 5-10s for me to reel in the line.

So fingers crossed here, but with this patch AND AC going on sale in a few places, heck of a time to pick it up.

In-game, I’ve been trying a few different bits out. Similar to Ghost of Tsushima, there comes a time where there’s little need for stealth. In AC, that’s focused on 2 skills from the tree, ironically both in assassination. One where you can parry arrows and launch them back, the other is where a last minute dodge causes time to slow down for everyone but you.

The former makes every ranged attack except crossbows a weapon for you to use. No need to climb to find an archer. Stand there, take the shot, and send it back. Often 1 hit kill.

The latter is pure gold in melee. A late dodge on a “red” attack slows down time for them, but not you. Slow swinging weapons can do some decent damage here. But.

AC’s combat is not balanced against speed. All heavy weapons deal similar damage, regardless of speed. And that’s minor increase on light weapons. In a “balanced” game, the ratio should be similar, so that the DPS is similar. Maybe a bit higher for slow weapons given the risk/reward factor. Not in AC!

Dual Daggers act as a chainsaw. You get the first one in Norway, the 2nd in the first city you visit in England. I had tried it, but had some issues as I was trying to figure out other bits. And really, to start a shield is much more useful to learn the Parry mechanics. When you do get that timing down… nothing and I mean nothing stands in your way. Add in poison/fire on the main hand, speed boosts/runes, and high crit chance (I’m ~80% now), it feels broken. In group combat, where the time to kill is already low, it’s not too crazy. Against named enemies, like Zealots, it’s effectively an “I Win” button. I don’t see anything in the patch notes about this.

So run in, hit a couple times to trigger a counter attack. Dodge to slow down time, get back in, pull a full-on shredder, then repeat.

I dunno how I feel about it really. It’s not like AC has strategic combat to start, or the refinement for twitch combat. This speeds up something that otherwise feels like padding. It does make clearing large camps pleasant, as you just run in and everyone comes to you. It’s a weird shift from AC: Odyssey, where 10v1 usually ended up with you dead.

Still a fun game in the larger context.

I don’t think it’s surprising that the Avengers game didn’t make bank. What I think is surprising is the actual margins. Something around 60% of units sold is some rough business.

For a minute here, let’s just go over the things going for this game.

• The largest IP in the last 10 years, with a multi-billion profit
• A producer (Squeenix) that understands 2nd chances
• A developer with a solid single player pedigree (Tomb Raider)
• A business model that’s been been clearly demonstrated across dozens of games, including how not do do it (BF2)
• A game design that has both great models (Destiny) and horrible models (Anthem) from which to base upon

There’s no denying that the IP itself is both a boon and a hindrance. People identify Captain America with Chris Evans. Anything that doesn’t look/sound like him is going to be weird.

The rather consistent news in this space is that Avengers as a single player game appears to be universally well taken. This seems reasonable given Crystal Dynamics’ work with Tomb Raider.

Where it doesn’t work is in the risk/reward structure of it’s online component. First was the rather impressive amount of bugs and lack of polish. Launching any game in that state, when there are quite literally dozens of viable alternatives, is a recipe to lose most of your player base. Avengers certainly has. It went from 25k users at launch, to 2.5k users after a month (these are relative numbers). That’s a 90% drop. Recent numbers put it ~500 concurrent, though this weekend’s sale (50% off) brought it up to 1,800. That is far from viable.

The question then becomes, what’s next? If Anthem, dumpster fire that it is, can still be operational nearly 2 years later, Avengers certainly has shelf life. But does it deserve a re-tooling? Does it need an overhaul, or just tweaking? Its lack of content is a challenge, no doubt. But its certainly better to stabilize before adding more stuff. The core mechanics appear sound, just that the reward spigot needs to be changed. Playing 49 floors of a game for no useful rewards, and no checkpoints, is not smart design. There’s a reason it doesn’t exist anywhere else.

Still, $30 for a decent single player superhero game is a good deal. And with the potential for a somewhat rewarding end game, that’s cool too. I’d be game to have something to replace Marvel Heroes. And there are enough success stories of games coming back from the brink (For Honor!!) that there’s some life in here yet.