This year has not been our year.

It has become the norm for major AAA developers and indie designers alike to flood the market with new games at least a few times a year. While we have been swimming in new content over the last several years, our community has felt a common sense of dread and dissatisfaction. We built the empire that the industry stands on today, and instead of joy, we feel left behind.

Let’s take on the biggest controversy in gaming this year. PlayStation is announcing that it will stop making physical copies of games by January of 2028. I have seen zero public comments, statements, or articles from any media outlet or individual in favor of this decision. While I haven’t purchased a physical copy of a game since the original release of Batman: Arkham Knight on PS4 in 2015, I can still understand the outrage. I get that, with new technology, everything in our lives has moved to a digital platform. Everything from video games, movies, television, and music to work documents and photographs has moved to cloud infrastructure. Today, children don’t look at photographs; they scroll through Instagram. People don’t read books; they listen to audio. Money isn’t kept in your wallet as cash; it’s transferred online. All things, I think, on the surface, have improved our quality of living, but at what cost?

The PlayStation disc controversy woke people up to a very serious question. Will we own anything? Since its online inception, PlayStation has made this very clear in its terms of service. When “purchasing” a digital version of a game, you purchase a license to play the game as opposed to owning it. Over the years, not only PlayStation but also Microsoft and Steam have made the same legal choices in their terms of service. Since it’s pretty clear that ownership is going away, it’s also become apparent that things like service subscriptions and internet connections are going to become necessary for all games, even exclusively single-player titles. Your “license” will need refreshing via an internet connection, and games accessed through PlayStation Plus or Xbox Game Pass will need internet even if they are single-player only. Steam, at least at this point, says that an internet connection should not be needed to play “most” single-player games. The question is, for how long? (Editor’s Note: Gabe, if you’re listening, start taking more vitamins.)

With ownership being taken away, we still see increased costs across the board. PC parts are being priced out because of demand for AI facilities, games cost more to produce in general, and console developers have teased that the next generation of platforms will have an over-$1,000 price tag. Have we, as gamers, forfeited our rights as consumers for the sake of ease? We at least own the PC’s and consoles that we purchased, but what good are they if everything within them cannot be touched without a corporation’s constant say-so? Beyond that, in my hunt for PC parts, I spent a lot of time investigating the cost difference between parts alone and prebuilt towers. I found the cost difference negligible, but the prebuilt PCs themselves may not actually be ownable. They are leased. Platforms such as Katapult and Acima partner with major prebuilt companies, such as CyberPowerPC, IBuyPower, and Skytech Gaming. The very idea of not only games, but also the systems we use to play them on, may not actually be owned by a consumer, is a symptom of the immediate gratification culture we have built. All these problems I have mentioned are not just exclusive but the overall market place.

Per the recommendation of one of our podcast hosts, I should close this article with a bright side. I am naturally pessimistic, but I will do my best.

Where do we go from here?

Emulators and DRM (digital rights management)-Free games have their pros with respect to the ownership issue. Emulators are free; the barrier to entry is that you need a PC or compatible handheld, and there is the time it takes to download the software and games to run them. DRM-free games are a great concept, but the reality is that next to zero AAA properties choose to sacrifice their own digital rights.

By happenstance, there was a video dropped by BULKHEAD Games on their YouTube channel the night before finishing this article. The video is about the upcoming release of their FPS called WARDOGS. BULKHEAD has a lot of hype behind this game. They are attempting to make a competitor to the large-scale FPS games like Battlefield, Armored Warfare, Hell Let Loose, etc. The concept is 100 players, divided into three teams, fighting for control of a designated zone. At the same time, there is a monetary bank account that is based on the players’ performance, which dictates the gear and tools a player can purchase at the start of each spawn. The video is titled “WARDOGS: 10 Reasons NOT to Buy.” I encourage everyone reading to watch the video for yourself, but I will summarize.

This is the first time I’ve ever seen a developer make a clickbait title and actually deliver on it. They produced ten legitimate reasons not to buy their game. The 10 reasons fall into 3 categories: the studio’s past problems, monetization, and gameplay performance.

Starting with BULKHEAD’s past, they produced Battalion 1944, a competitive WWII FPS similar to Counter-Strike. This game was a failure, to say the least, but they noted that, despite its failure within the studio, it made enough money to pay back original supporters. The gist is that BULKHEAD is aware of its past failures and has done all it can to make amends; if that is an issue for you, don’t buy WARDOGS.

Next is monetization. The game is being sold at a discount at launch. The reason is that the game is launching as an Early Access game; they know it won’t be 100% finished until their initial 1.0 launch. Depending on which phase you buy the game in, the price will differ. The early access launch will have limited content and can only be played on PC. They want a dedicated player base to be part of the quality assurance process. The game will change during this stage, but regular content additions won’t start until the official 1.0 launch, at full price. They have also made it clear there will be no performance- or cosmetic-based microtransactions, except for a “Supporters Starter Pack” available for purchase in early access for a few cosmetic exclusives. This starter pack is advertised as a way individuals can directly support the finances needed for the game’s development.

When it comes to gameplay, BULKHEAD has made one thing abundantly clear: consistent performance is their priority. A big reason for this early access phase, which is exclusively on PC, is not only to fix issues but also to get a realistic expectation of server player counts at launch. They even say they don’t expect a groundbreaking player base to be maintained during early access. They want people to be part of the development process—not influencers looking for the next content click, but players who play and stay because they like the game. PC players are also the clear priority. In reality, PCs offer better support for high frame rates and performance, which is why graphics aren’t their top concern. The game will also offer controller support for PC players and consoles alike at launch 1.0, but the developers stress that this game is made for PC. Lastly, they are making a game that has consequences. They specifically say, if you are expecting to play the game jumping around like it’s Call of Duty, you are going to have a hard time building a bank account at respawn. They have a vision for this game, and it’s a vision to make something genuinely new.

I think BULKHEAD is saying all the right things, and they are being transparent about it. They are not trying to make the most money or please every conceivable audience. They are trying to make a great game that will earn consistent and loyal fans. So unorthodox, but it’s what the gaming community has been screaming for from AAA developers. Quit with microtransactions, the remasters, and skill-based matchmaking to make certain players feel better; make a new game. For all the negativity I see in the community right now, the fix is to collectively support developers and games willing to take the risk. Does this fix the ownership crisis? No, but a game like this becoming a major success shows big companies they don’t hold all the cards, and that the power is in our hands.

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Overcast | Pocket Casts

We have had no shortage of Batman. There are currently 10 solo theatrical movies, plus 4 more where he appears in a larger cast, such as Batman v. Superman and Justice League. Over the decades, there are God knows how many video games and animated shows and movies that star or feature the beloved character. Batman appeals across every demographic in Western culture for good reason. He is the superhero version of David, as opposed to the Goliaths like Superman. He is just a man amongst gods, and he can stand toe-to-toe with any of them. He’s dark, mysterious, selfless, and courageous, all the things we admire in our heroes. All this to say it pains me that the best adaptations of the beloved character are in video games and animated properties.

The best Batman movie is The Dark Knight, according to the masses. It is my favorite of Nolan’s movies altogether. However, it’s a great movie that has Batman. I stand by the opinion that Nolan’s trilogy was not Batman-focused. While the trilogy is shot great and is entertaining, it actually changes a lot of what is loved about the character. Batman Begins: great origin, but it creates a shell of Ra’s Al Ghul by removing his supernatural abilities. The Dark Knight is great because of Heath Ledger's performance. Lastly, The Dark Knight Rises is garbage, and I don’t have the energy, at least in this piece, to go down the list of what’s wrong with that movie. There are a lot of things I don’t like about this trilogy, but if I had to pick the biggest problem, it’s the fact that Nolan tries to turn Batman into Spider-Man. Through these 3 films, Batman is always protecting some sort of love interest. Not to say he doesn’t in the comics or other properties, but he does not sacrifice the mission of being Batman to accommodate this desire. From the first film of Nolan’s trilogy, Batman is trying, in the end, not to be Batman anymore. He is never trying to balance the personal/vigilante life like Spider-Man.

Then there is the Snyderverse and Matt Reeves’ separate universe from the current DCU. I think the writing of the Snyderverse and Ben Affleck’s performance is really good, but we never got a Batman-focused property. The same can be said of Robert Pattinson’s movie. They both did two things specifically Nolan got wrong. The first is the action. Batman is a master martial artist, and in all three of Nolan’s movies we rarely see Batman actually fight. The action is filled with shaky cam and quick cuts, which is where Affleck and Pattinson’s properties shine. We get to see the energy, brutality, and combat IQ from these two, and it’s very satisfying. The second is the atmosphere. Snyder focused more on the world of DC, whereas Reeves focused only on Gotham City. These places felt like their own, and not just a wide shot of New York and Chicago. Nolan neglected that Gotham City in itself is a character that elevates where the rest of the characters come from. Lastly, Pattinson's movie is the only one to focus on the actual detective work from the world’s greatest detective. We have gotten a lot of details right about the character but have not had these done right in one specific property.

My favorite Batman movie is The Batman from 2022. Gotham is its own; Pattinson puts in the work for fighting; he actually solves a crime and shows a more practical adaptation to a man who fights crime. The biggest flaw in this movie is the fact that Bruce Wayne is nonexistent. This flaw can be logically corrected in the next film. The Batman ends with the character realizing that he is more than just vengeance and can allow the emergence of the billionaire Bruce Wayne to play a role in Gotham City. This is a tough thing to execute correctly, however—if Matt Reeves decides to focus on the fact that Bruce and Batman are the same character, this will destroy what is done so well in the comics. The reality is Bruce Wayne is the mask that contributes to the Mission of Batman.

In the animated show Batman Beyond, there is a scene that encompasses this idea perfectly. In the episode entitled “Shriek”, Bruce Wayne is institutionalized by the episode’s titular villain. He keeps hearing voices from Shriek that are compelling him to convince himself that he is crazy. After Terry McGinnis defeats the villain Shriek and gets Bruce back his freedom, Terry asks him how he knew he wasn’t crazy. Bruce responds by saying, "First, I know I'm not psychotic. And second, the voice kept calling me Bruce. In my mind, that's not what I call myself." Bruce Wayne is The Batman, and we have yet to receive a live-action representation that shows that idea to its fullest potential.

The best properties of the character have historically been literature, shows, and video games. I think the Arkham Games are the peak of what we have that is Batman. The struggle with adapting this character is that there is so much source material to use. Everyone has their favorite story and version they want to see this character in, which is why I don’t think 3-hour movies are the best or optimal use of him. Matt Reeves and DC do have an opportunity to flip the script down the road if they wish to do so, and that is the use of HBO.

DC has had great success with the limited series The Penguin and the Snyder Cut of the Justice League released on the aforementioned platform. Television is optimal for the character due to the removal of time constraints. There is no need to fill or complete a story in a single three-hour movie or a trilogy of movies. You can spend a dozen hours in a show’s season to do what is needed to develop characters and story, and HBO is the very place to do it. There is no shortage of material; it's grounded, dark, and above all needs a space to cater to an exclusively adult audience. I have had this dream for years that Batman is the perfect character for a platform that has always taken risks.

Recently, the release of the Black Ops and Black Ops 2 ports shows there is definitely a hunger for the franchise to return to its former glory. This past week, the combined ports dethroned Fortnite as the number 1 played game on the PlayStation Network; this is the first time this has happened in the last 6 years. As someone who has mixed views on the ports, I still enjoy them. I have said in previous writings that my dream is for these two games to receive full remasters, similar to the treatment that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare received. Every attempt the franchise has made to bring back the old has been objectively a monetary and P.R. success.

Obviously, bringing back the past can only last so long, regardless of their success. So what needs to change? For starters, I think Call of Duty has lost its identity. Today, the “Road to Success” is said to be about bringing in new players while keeping the old. While I don’t completely disagree, I think they have executed poorly. It’s not about expanding the player base to include every type of gamer; it’s about making a well-playing game. To put it more simply, I think Call of Duty has literally lost the plot.

It goes unmentioned, but the lackluster campaign has really stifled interest, in my opinion. World at War was a gritty, controversial depiction of the Second World War. The Japanese soldiers were aggressive. Swastikas were plastered on nearly every soldier and set piece during the Berlin invasion. As a player, for better or worse, you chose to execute captured soldiers or keep them prisoner. Modern Warfare 2 literally has you commit a mass terror event in a Russian airport as a CIA false flag. Black Ops and Black Ops 2 were thrillers centered on MK Ultra and Cold War events. While all of these examples show graphic depictions of violence, my argument is not to make the game brutal for brutality’s sake—from realistic depictions of historical tragedy to fictional revisionist history based on real events, the plots were bold, taboo, and really hooked you with the story. Black Ops dropped one of the most amazing plot points, suggesting that the main protagonist was the actual assassin of JFK. It used one of, if not the most, popular conspiracy theories to elevate the story. Even the zombies mode storyline uses conspiracy theories to elevate its backstory. There was a time when the writers focused on just writing and didn’t worry about which country or group of people would be offended. They took risks, and it paid off in a big way back then.

The Zombies storyline is underrated as well. Plot and story aside, the ports also showed that the legendary mode isn’t what it is today. Black Ops 3 was arguably the best zombie experience. It elevated the gameplay and concluded the main story spectacularly. However, revisiting the classics via the PS5 ports has shown, at least to me, that the classic goal of survival is what made it great. I forgot that the mystery box was actually a gamble and not a way to just get the next gun. You are only allowed two hits before you die; guns reload slowly and lose damage quickly, which makes perks and pack-a-punch crucial. The mode is just about making it to the next round, and while that sounds elementary, it does not hurt its replayability. It’s rugged and challenging. It’s lost today that making a third mode just for the sake of playing, not going after an objective, is still a success.

Which leads me to the main point of Call of Duty: its multiplayer experience. To which I say, less is more. Updated movement mechanics over the years have definitely made the games feel really smooth, and that, to me, isn’t part of the problem. The problems are map design and gunplay. I am not a map designer, so I won’t judge this too harshly. I can’t imagine how hard it is to make a map that is loved by all; however, I think other aspects of game development take effort away from this crucial point of replayability. That effort, I think, has been too focused on gunplay. It used to be that there were good guns and bad guns, but today, with new updates all the time, there is always a new meta. Developers confuse this constant change, keeping people coming back to build up new guns to stay competitive. This couldn’t be more wrong. It’s frustrating. To go from dominating the leaderboard to struggling just because you didn’t watch the “NEW META LOADOUT” video on YouTube is a catastrophe. My main point of proof for this is simple. When things were stable, and it was about getting better as a player, that’s when Call of Duty was at its player peaks. Do less of what you think needs to be done to keep things fresh and new, and keep the foundation perfect.

Unfortunately, I can’t put all the blame on the developers. As I stated in previous articles, the blame is on us, too. A big reason studios feel the need to change things like guns and gameplay is negative online posts. I’m gonna say this next part bluntly. Developers really need to try their best to ignore a lot of this negativity, because it’s usually coming from people who are just really bad at the game. They whine about not having things a certain way, and it’s usually because they don’t feel they are playing as well as they should. Some people are not strong runners, which is why they prefer to play hide-and-seek instead of tag. Today is about making a game everyone can play, and this is incorrect. Make the game you know will be played and let the whiners sit alone at home. We know this idea works because it has for over a decade, and if we go back to strong fundamentals, we can have a beloved franchise back on top of its game.

Developer: Square Enix, Claytechworks
Publisher: Square Enix
Release Date: June 18, 2026
Reviewed On: PC
Steam →

Review

A full review is available in episode 237 (1:14:46) of the Couch Company Podcast:

Pros

• Excellent music and visuals.

• Weapon selection and upgrades make meaningful changes to combat.

• Quick traversal is a welcome quality-of-life improvement to the genre.

Cons

• Forgettable, one-note characters and story.

• The time-travel hook isn't used to great effect.

• Can start to feel repetitive.

• The “ending” doesn’t inspire further exploration.

Final Score: 79 (Silver)

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Overcast | Pocket Casts

Being a good man requires daily quiet choices, while a great man is often forged by the loud demands of history and crisis.

I have tried to Google this quote about 10 different times, without any luck. I won’t be so foolish as to claim responsibility for this poetic wisdom; however, I will highlight its truth.

When the conversation comes up of “What makes a game good?” more often than not, the easy answer is that beauty is in the eyes of its beholder, art is subjective, or something along those lines. While I don’t fully disagree, the question of good is not just a matter of taste; it is a matter of some sort of objectivity. The reason for my belief is that if everything were purely subjective, then we could come to no moral absolutes. The idea of murder, for example. If everything was simply based on subjective belief, there would be no logical conclusion for penalizing someone for committing such a heinous act. However, as human beings, there is something that breaks cultural, ethical, and historical boundaries that shows that literally every society since the dawn of time has recognized that the taking of an innocent life is something that cannot go unpunished. It does not matter whether we are talking about Americans in the year 2026 or tribal groups in Australia in the year 3000 B.C.; there is something that objectively makes human beings frown upon this action cross-culturally and across time. With that in-depth philosophical dilemma out of the way, can the same objectivity be said about something as mundane as “What makes a good video game?”

I could go on for hours about a game's look, feel, and story to back up this hypothesis, but for individuals like myself, I would be left so unsatisfied. For starters, using the criteria of graphics (look), gameplay mechanics (feel), and thematic plot (story), then games like Grand Theft Auto would surely be disqualified. Yes, that game looks and feels great, but pretty much no one is saying “The plot to GTA V is one of the best examples of storytelling I’ve ever seen.” With one of the three main measurable criteria lacking, it can’t, by definition, be considered a good game. Obviously no one believes this. Grand Theft Auto V is the second best-selling video game of all time, with 225+ million copies sold. The first is Minecraft, which has no plot and has some of the most primitive mechanics and graphics in the modern age of gaming.

If we can’t measure “good” using the individual qualities represented across all games, then surely we can use something like monetary value or the number of copies sold. That would represent how many people spent their hard-earned dollars to play a game or, at the very least, show how many people own it. That would have to make a good game, right? Peeling back even more layers of the onion, I don’t find this credible either. There is one game in particular that I know every human I’ve ever met has played, and no one has bought it. The “snake” game. The game where you simply try not to have colorful lines bump into each other. That “snake” game. Before the age of the smartphone, Snake was preinstalled in over 400 million Nokia phones, by default making it one of the most owned games ever made. Yes, we all have used that game to kill some time. In school, on the bus, in a work meeting, but no one, and I mean literally no one, today is wishing to get done with work so they can go play Snake for hours on end, by themselves or with friends.

Since I have exhausted myself trying to find the objective reality that makes a game good, I hate to revert back to the arguments that I mentioned earlier, which make my head hurt. Good, to a certain extent, is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder. God Himself created all things and saw that it was “Good”. Even though I personally agree with God, obviously there are people that disagree with that statement. For me, the biggest thing that separates this conversation is multiplayer and single player games.

Single player games are perfectly critiqued by the three categories I mentioned earlier. Look, feel, and story. To spend my time gaming alone, I need to be truly captured by those three categories. The Arkham games, Spider-Man, God of War, Legend of Zelda—all of these titles are examples that gamers unanimously agree carry those qualities and keep people in their game. Sure, those games might not be your cup of tea, but everyone appreciates and understands where the love of those games and others like them comes from. I personally spend most of my time on multiplayer games for one reason and one reason alone. My friends. The ability to play and communicate with your community over the most simple objectives that games have to offer is why so many indie games hold so much weight. It’s not about their production budget, studio, or abundance of content they offer; it’s the fact that you create memories with other people that you would also go to the bar with.

As Lex Luthor and Ready Player One (my favorite Spielberg movie) once said: “Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story; others can read the ingredients on the back of a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.” A good game is simply decided by whether you play, and keep playing.

Just like morality, we can have games that share no similarities, but as people, we can know what makes a good game when we simply play.

The Adventures of Elliot: The Millennium Tales

Elliot is a perfect example of “a good one of these.” In some ways, it should be even more so, since I enjoyed my time with it, whereas similar games—sorry, Link—never held my interest for more than a couple of hours. I’m not saying this experience is going to stay with me for all time [hah, pun], but the visuals, music, and movement were enjoyable enough that I hope Square Enix expands on this type of action-adventure game in the future [Another pun! Guys, it’s a time-traveling game.].

DOOM: The Dark Ages | Revelations

Okay, I admit that at the beginning, let’s say in the first hour, I wasn’t convinced. These nutty devs took what made The Dark Ages special and stripped it away. My brain couldn’t process it, and my fingers couldn’t keep up. Despite loving DOOM: Eternal, I had been converted to slower, more grounded combat. Now I’ve been… unconverted? The spear is dope. The dash is dope. The story is… well, let’s not get carried away. Seriously, though, they swung for the fences on this one, effectively merging everything awesome about this rebooted trilogy into one hell [hah, I’m on fire—DOUBLE HAH—today] of a last hurrah.

Oh, and there’s a big ol’ endgame to boot! Sheesh. DOOM IS BACK, BABY! 

DAVE THE DIVER - In the Jungle Content Pack

Fun fact: While deciding which screenshot to include here, I realized that just about every screenshot I took was a spoiler in some form or fashion. Just like the main game, this DLC surprises and delights the whole way through. New characters, game mechanics, food, and restaurant staff; everything you love is here, just in a jungle this time. While the story is on par with the original narrative, it’s charming and a great vehicle for constantly unlocking new content. Some of the same-y mechanics felt a little trivial this time around since all my upgrades carried over, but that’s just a testament to how much time I put up front. As long as they’re going in expecting DLC and not a full-fledged sequel, anyone who loved Dave’s first go-round will not be disappointed here.

Bonus Games

It’s time to get a little personal. For whatever reason, this month really tested me, especially with a rambunctious 2-year-old and three cats. In particular, I realized I now live in never-ending clutter and mess. Maybe that’s why I found some solace in the following two games.

Cozy Cleaner

This game is literally about cats making huge messes and you cleaning them up. I chose to see it as a “could always be worse” kind of thing. Full disclosure, if my cats did an eighth of this damage, they’d be someone else’s cats. Or I’d be divorced.

Librarian: Tidy Up the Arcane Library!

Some jerk of a fairy absolutely destroyed this library, and it was up to me to make sure all 3,072 were put back correctly. It took me about 8 hours. Yes, I could’ve been cleaning my own house. I’m not proud of this one.

If you had a magic wand, what would the gaming industry look like?

Since I don’t believe in magic, I prefer to imagine (for the sake of the question) that I’ve been granted divine authority to shape what I see as a just and competitive world for gamers. Without further delay, here are my decrees. 

1. History Shall Be Preserved

As anyone knows from my previous writings, I have a long list of games I wish would be brought back. Remastered titles are, by and large, good. They allow you to revisit great pieces while keeping them fresh and up to date with new technology. If you are tired of the remaster market, my solution is simple. Don’t indulge. But the idea that no one wants old games and we should only focus on the new is an ignorant position.

2. Free Markets, Unconditionally

There is no shortage of mega corporations that have engaged in price gouging, price fixing, and resource manipulation, all of which have driven up costs for gamers today. That is not right, and I would never support it. However, if we want innovation, new stories, and cheaper platforms, we need people willing to compete. I am rooting for Xbox and, as a lifelong PlayStation defender, hope Project HELIX changes the game. If Xbox can deliver better gaming and more choices by morphing the console into a PC, that will be a game-changer for the industry. Will it be expensive for the industry and consumers? Most likely, yes. But if it is successful, it will eventually become the norm, and costs will come down. God willing, we can have a “Ready Player One” gaming experience within our lifetimes with new innovations. Innovation will only occur when there is an incentive to take the risk.

3. Unify The Marketplace

Microsoft, PlayStation, Steam, and Nintendo have failed to recognize what I think truly separates them. It’s not the exclusive titles that keep players coming back; it’s how they create the best gaming experience. Consoles have been losing this battle to PC. The reality is that PC gaming allows you not only to play more titles but also to be more competitive. Cross-platform should be on every game made from here on out, and a majority of AAA games already include cross-play, which is a major step in the right direction. Games should not be limited by platform, and companies should focus on the next steps to make games play better on their platforms.

4. No More ‘Master Race’

As stated previously, PC gaming has a major competitive advantage. This is primarily due to the major hardware differences between PC and consoles. Yes, some accessories make PCs really shine, such as monitors instead of TVs, but consoles still struggle to deliver even 1440p resolution at a smooth 60 FPS, while PCs can reach 300+ FPS at 4K resolution if the game allows. Closing this gap will justify unifying marketplaces and eliminate the static pricing we see on separate closed markets. The ‘PC master race’ shall and should be no more!

5. Gamers Shall Practice What They Preach

Today, gamers complain about droughts between seasons for new games to play. However, when companies take risks and make something new, they immediately grab their megaphones to ensure a game fails publicly. Even if the game is successful, they still complain about the higher price tag, which is necessary in a world with rising costs to make things new. Gamers need to support AAA and indie successes while justifiably abandoning lackluster creations.

6. No More Censorship

We see censorship today in two forms, in the content we purchase freely and in how that content is used. Companies should be bold and take risks by creating taboo stories that may offend. They should also be required to remove their ability to censor our own speech when engaging in competitive play. Just as in the United States, you cannot threaten or incite direct violence. However, the names and sarcastic threats we make toward each other in a Call of Duty game chat should be permissible without risk of penalty. If you do not like what takes place in a game, you shouldn’t be playing that game.

These are your King’s first decrees. I strive to rule justly and to create a world where casuals and sweats can join forces, so that we can have better gaming not just for our own sake, but for children’s sake and their children’s sake. We can only achieve our goals if we all work to make things better. Games were designed to offer an escape from the sorrows of our world, and we should be able to do so as freely as possible.

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Overcast | Pocket Casts

Bonus: SchoolBoy Runaway

“Okay. Okay… I’m thinking email INTO alcohol cabinet INTO laptop INTO key INTO closet???”

“Wait. What if.. hear me out, doorbell INTO meat INTO doghouse INTO hose???”

“Yessss. YES! INTO text message INTO sleeping pills INTO doorbell INTO car INTO pantry INTO light on INTO bathroom INTO side table!!! YESSS!!!”

If you are lucky enough to have a handful of friends that you may or may not bond over the Instagram hotdog algorithm with, then this game and its absurdity is for your group. Friendslop is now a household genre but Schoolboy Runaway can’t be defined by such simplicity. Open your mind and let it flow through you. Go in blind, you cowards.

Death Stranding 2: On the Beach

We spend a lot of time discussing mechanics, gameplay, characters, narrative, graphics, blah- blah-blah; but rarely do we have the opportunity to dive into the fusion of mediums. DS2 takes you places outside video games. It shows you the real world but twists it and shapes it. You may see your favorite actor drinking your favorite soda singing your favorite song, but he’s 3 inches tall, hangs from your belt loop and is a ventriloquist dummy. Having a cast of Norman Reedus, George Miller, Elle Fanning and so many more who not only voice their characters but, once again, are facial scanned and placed into the game feels weird at first, but then you start to see the differences these performances make. The back and forth between characters feels more real than ever before. You buy into the Kool-aide. You drink the sauce. I hope Kojima will always strive to daze and confuse, and I will patiently wait for my Mads Mikkelson Polar game.

Dispatch

Man am I tired of superheroes… Marvel, The Boys, My Hero Acedemia, Invincible, whatever the fuck Sandman is. I just don’t care anymore. It all feels like a chore to choke down just to stay in the loop. So how the hell did Dispatch, a game about misfit villains forced to be superheroes while meeting for coffee and donuts in the break room, make my list? Turns out I’m pretty basic. Give me Aaron Paul, a handful of dick jokes and two romantic options featuring a blond bombshell and a brooding brunette, and I’m a happy little cuck. Just don’t tell anyone I cried BITCH!

The First Berserker: Khazan

FromSoftware might have to put the fries in the bag. Did I say that right? I promise that phrase was relevant when I started writing this 7 months ago. Okay, let me try again. Developer Neople knows ball? These South Korean devs are reaching new heights, evolving FromSoft’s tried and true dodge and attack formula into a beautiful ballet of connecting combos, active defending, environmental strategy and optimal fight theorycrafting. It actually fucks with my head that more Souls-like fans aren’t acknowledging this game or, at the very least, its gameplay. Khazan asks its players to keep a blistering pace in its boss fights and then rewards you with combo openings that would make Final Fantasy 16 blush with envy. No other game in 2025 had me lock in harder than Khazan. Well, maybe I shouldn’t speak too soon. We’re still at number 8.

Hollow Knight: Silksong

I misunderstood what Hollow Knight and the subsequent Hollow Knight: Silksong were. I thought they were Metroidvanias whose obnoxious and overly complicated maps just weren't for me. Oh look, a wall, better smack it! Oh another wall, let me hit this one too! OHH NOW I’LL HIT THE CEILING! Little did I know a cool 90 hours later, Silksong’s true identity would penetrate my thick skull. This is not a game that is meant to be beaten and put down. This is a game that beats YOU… and beats you and beats you and beats you.. Until you finally realize it’s okay. It’s okay to slow down. Maybe stop even. Look around. Be proud of how far you’ve made it. Remember why you play games. Collect a few things, hell maybe even talk to some NPCs. There will always be a challenge, an achievement or a goal to come back to. Cherish the experience and slow burn this one. “Eira!”

Ghost of Yotei

Ahh yes, the open world samurai revenge plot comfy completionist game. While Yotei’s gameplay and setting didn’t reach my expectations, its style, narrative and map loop kept me chasing its platinum. It’s almost an insult to have this so high on my list when I truly can’t think of a single friend to recommend Yotei to. This was my cooldown game. I could kick my feet up, pretend to be the badass girl boss from Killbill, realize I’m a pussy, and promptly continue to the next map marker. Throw in a lo-fi hip-hop soundtrack that lets me slo-mo slaughter my enemies, a handful of surprisingly deep side quests and a superb armor transmog system, and you somehow slip into my top 10.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance II

Have to submit your expense report by midnight? Doesn’t care. In the honeymoon phase of a new relationship? Still doesn’t care. 7 months late on an article and worried your friends will never look at you the same ever again? No care given, get fucked! KCD2 will squeeze every waking minute it can from your life, immersing you in its gambling, alchemy, archery, thieving and whatever you do when you play dress up as a noble… and I absolutely love it for that. This is a Bohemian buddy cop fantasy game and somehow, one day, I will purchase all of Kuttenberg.

Doom: The Dark Ages

I have never, in my roughly 32 years of gaming, experienced an adrenaline rush like Doom: The Dark Ages. When I say adrenaline rush, I don’t mean “Wowee, that sure was excitin’ Pa!” or “Jinkees, that ghost really got me spooked!”. I mean HEAVY HELLSPAWN METAL PUMPED INTO MY SYNAPSES PROPELLING MY CHAIN SHIELD INTO THE FAT TITTIES OF MY NEXT VICTIM BATHING IN ITS SHOTGUN GARNISHED VISCERA IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET ME HARD ANY MORE kind of adrenaline rush. I left play sessions exhausted, physically taxed. emotionally numbed. Ears ringing. Veins vascular… You get the point. Thank you I.D Software, and kiss my ass Microsoft.

Hades II

I think at some point in most folks’ elementary schooling they researched the Greek gods. You learn plenty of cool things like power over the elements and fights among family members. The one thing I don’t remember any of the history books mentioning is a leopard print banana hammock slingin a small chipmunk. Hades II’s interpretation of the pantheon’s personalities and their relationships had me questioning why my own love life isn’t this easy… and well… sexy. Maybe I should invest in that hot tub and some bath salts. Aside from undressing my favorite love interests (yes plural), I GUESS I should mention the 6 wholly unique weapons Hades II lets you enjoy. These damn things and the builds they birth completely flip the script on what you think the traditional fantasy staff/axe/dagger archetypes can be and it is wildly addictive. Play sessions quickly evolved from “I’ll play a couple runs” to “Well, I guess I’ll just play until my Switch dies”; and then quietly prayed for it to charge faster in its dock. I am not quite one of those people that claim Hades II is a perfect game; but I tip my cap to those that do.

Arc Raiders

Okay, I need you guys to stay with me here. This might be a stretch. Arc Raiders is my Breath of the Wild. No, nooo, no, come back, come back, chill, chill! Still here? Good. The sense of discovery, adventure and community shocked me when Arc Raiders launched in late 2025. I was expecting to get a sweaty 3v3 third-person shooter; instead I got a choose your own adventure RPG. Looking to load into an unfamiliar map to progress through the main story quest or push leaderboard trials? Dive into solo queue and maybe make some friends along the way. Want to take down a Bastion to upgrade your crafting table or go Wolfpack blueprint hunting? Grab your trigger shy friend and queue duos. Want to get into the previously mentioned PvP sweatfest? You got Stella Montis in any format. The Arc Raiders community had an unfathomable way of self-regulating itself that no matter what you were looking to do, you had a chance to achieve it while keeping you on your toes and checking your six. Not to mention NPC enemy behavior that was so good that it actually had me defending the use of AI in video game development. While its time in the spotlight may have been brief, it shined hella bright.

Clair Obscur: Expedition 33

This paragraph has stayed blank the longest. How can I convince readers of Expedition 33’s brilliance? How can I praise a game that has seemed to have outgrown its praise? A tough, maybe impossible task. E33 is probably the only game in recent memory that has profoundly impacted my life. It changed the way that I view mourning and loss. It gave me a new perspective on my own role in relation to family and friends. When I think about the “bad ending” that I chose as my cannon ending, I cry. Like actually cry. Not me writing this article and trying to describe or exaggerate how sad something made me.. Real crying.. Tears. Hell, I'm crying right now.. About 5 years ago, I went through an event that left me grieving for a very long time. I think people around me, to this day, probably contribute some of my professional and social decisions to "he's still not over it”. E33’s ending hit so incredibly close to that experience that it felt like Sandfall Interactive was reaching out a hand specifically to me and telling me it's okay Jeff, but it's time to come back. Please come back to us.

Emotions aside, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 reminds me there are always limits to push, stories to tell, and people to help. Some things aren’t done for personal gain, pleasure or fame. They’re done for those who come after.

Cheers,

Jeff

Nothing leaves gamers more embittered than an anticipated game that turns out to be an incredible disappointment. As social media and the internet age have shown, people are far more entertained by disaster than by actual uplifting success, yet Spider-Man: Web of Shadows is an underappreciated, albeit imperfect, success. This was one of the first games I remember the marketing hype surrounding. I can picture 9-year-old Ethan excited by the launch trailer and even more so by the demo. Loving its fan-favorite predecessors (Spider-Man 2 and Ultimate Spider-Man on PlayStation 2), I remember being overjoyed at the release of another open-world Spider-Man game on the next-generation console, the PlayStation 3. I shared the same hype when Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 was announced by Insomniac. 

Marvel’s Spider-Man on the PlayStation 4 is a rare, perfect game. Insomniac exceeded expectations in every way with their first release: stunning graphics, a sleek combat and gadget system, the best web-swinging in a video game to date, and a fantastic, well-paced story. In fact, Marvel’s Spider-Man has a back-and-forth battle for best superhero video game of all time against Batman: Arkham City (Editor’s Note: This is strike one, Ethan). All that to say, when a sequel was officially announced, and the main villain was going to be Venom, I was the most excited I’ve been for a game in a long time.

This game crushed my spirits.

Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 is not a bad game; do not get me wrong. However, it did not live up to the strengths of its predecessor. The story was mediocre; at no point did I feel the same weight that was so well crafted in the first game. Combat leaned heavily on button-mashing after the removal of the established gadget system, and web-swinging was replaced with web wings, making it feel like a knock-off Superman simulator rather than an actual Spider-Man game. Again, this game looks and feels really good, but the biggest reason it let me down was not the highs of the immediate predecessor; it was the highs of a cult classic made 15 years earlier.

Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows share a few concepts right from the start, including Venom as the main villain, an expanded universe, and the use of the black suit.

The plot for Venom in Spider-Man 2 was a plain miss. Having Harry Osborn as the host for the infamous alien didn’t deliver. Keeping Eddie Brock as the host in Web of Shadows was the smarter choice, especially since Venom is more of a monster in that game than a poor host who needs to be saved. Insomniac dipped their toes in, using Easter eggs to reference other characters like Daredevil, Doctor Strange, and The Avengers. Marvel’s Wolverine is slated to release later this year, marking Insomniac’s step into the larger Marvel universe. Web of Shadows, on the other hand (still a standalone game), incorporated Luke Cage, Moon Knight, Black Widow, SHIELD, and Wolverine—all of them playing integral roles in the main plot.

Why Insomniac didn’t use Web of Shadows to influence their decisions about the black suit is beyond me. Web of Shadows made the black suit feel alien. With a single press of a button, you could go from the classic red-and-blue threads to the iconic black suit that would engulf your body seamlessly, each with its own combat mechanics and upgrade trees. The classic suit focuses on close-quarters, quick flurries of attacks, while the black suit focuses on heavy-hitting, ranged power. In Marvel’s Spider-Man 2, this suit remains on unless you go into the costumes menu to change it. Even if you do, Spider-Man’s behavior still suggests he is being influenced by the alien symbiote throughout the story. Despite some cool-looking single-button heavy attacks that can incapacitate enemies, the overall combat combos are largely unchanged, and there are only a few of them, which get repetitive.

The biggest flex Web of Shadows had was its execution of Spider-Man’s home city, New York. While both games featured the alien symbiote infecting and occupying parts of The Big Apple, Web of Shadows uses SHIELD to engulf you in a beautiful, zombie-like warzone. The city grows dark, symbiote structures morph the buildings into something out of an Alien movie, and the symbiote takes over characters like Wolverine, leading to one of the coolest boss battles in a video game. By comparison, Marvel’s Spider-Man 2’s environment feels lifeless and cookie-cutter.

Spider-Man: Web of Shadows is not a perfect game, but it definitely did several things right. Sadly, this game can only be played on emulators, as there is no active license for it, even on Steam. Used copies on eBay can be found for over $100. For me, it was the feel and atmosphere that made me love this game, something I wished Insomniac could’ve captured for the next generation.

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Overcast | Pocket Casts

That’s me; I’m the convection oven.

Regardless, like ketchup and baked goods, the titles I decided to play this month didn’t necessarily go together. However, they still fit perfectly into the ongoing rejuvenation of my enjoyment of gaming.

Mina the Hollower

My fondness for Zelda games is… [checks notes] “nonexistent.” Oh. Weird. Anywho, this game is kinda great. Coming from the Shovel Knight devs, Mina the Hollower is an expertly crafted adventure that clearly draws inspiration from lesser-known titles like Link’s Awakening, but with polished movement, combat, and traversal. After spending 24 hours in this world and seeing the credits roll, I was impressed by how big this game really was; for every collectible I found, there seemed to be three still hidden away. While the story itself is a little predictable, I really enjoyed my journey from start to finish.

007 First Light

I knew IOI could develop a great sandbox and interesting environmental interactions in the Hitman games. But I wasn’t expecting how good they could be with characters, story, and combat (both hand-to-hand and gunfights). James Bond has enough heart and personality for both him and Agent 47. While I might’ve been slightly hasty in calling this game perfect, I honestly struggle to find anything I would change. When my cousin asked for a good single-player game recommendation, this was at the top of my list.

If you want to hear Jon and me gush all about it, you can find our review here:

REPLACED

I’ll be honest, I originally had a completely different game slated for this spot. But in true Tyler fashion, I dipped into a couple of titles at once, and REPLACED was the one that grabbed me and wouldn’t let go. The visual style, animation, and narrative were so compelling that I had to see it through to the end. While the combat and platforming felt repetitive at times, I was always excited to jump into a fight. I was repeatedly impressed by the sheer variety of environments and the storytelling throughout its roughly 12 hours.

Within the last few weeks, we have seen three major titles re-released on current-gen platforms. Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resynced, a complete remaster and rework of the original 2013 release, and ported versions of Call of Duty: Black Ops and Black Ops II for PlayStation 4 and 5. While I’m not against the idea of classic favorites being reintroduced, I believe there are both right and wrong ways to do it, and allowing major developers to resell older titles today is a slippery slope.

As an observer who has yet to play the remake, I can say that Ubisoft has seemingly delivered with Assassin’s Creed: Black Flag Resynced. They reworked everything from graphics and in-game mechanics to combat, parkour, additional content, and the removal of irrelevant aspects of the game and story. Most importantly, all the performance reports I have found indicate the game works.

Similarly, the shadow release of the Call of Duty: Black Ops and Black Ops II generated much excitement. [Editor’s Note: As of this posting, these PlayStation ports have a higher player count than Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 across all platforms combined.] However, despite my love for the series, I cannot understate my disappointment.

For starters, there is the price. I’m not one to complain about cost if something is really good, and had these releases been done properly, I wouldn’t even be bringing it up. For PlayStation Plus subscribers, each game costs $20, and all DLC for each game costs $10. So, for two complete games with all their content, you would pay $60. On paper, getting two complete games for $60, with the average release price today for a single game at $70, doesn’t sound bad at all. However, once the PS Plus discount closes, this $60 price tag jumps to $80. Once again, these are two fantastic games for $80. This is costly, but the crime isn’t the price; it’s that these games are no longer great. Allow me to elaborate.

There has been zero effort put into these re-releases. The games themselves feel like the way we played them back in the early 2010s. The graphics haven't improved, the sensitivity settings don't do anything, and the games feel… okay. I understand these were advertised as ports, not remasters, but I foolishly thought they would do more than just give us new servers for multiplayer. My main frustration is the very well-known fact that Activision has had two really well-done and successful re-releases. We got Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Remastered back in 2016, as well as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Campaign in 2020. These games were brought back perfectly. Even though one was just a remastered campaign, they played flawlessly; the games felt smooth; the content was overhauled; and they were the true meaning of what a remaster should be. The release of the Black Ops and Black Ops II ports is nothing more than a major step backward at the cost of our own wallets.

I believe that if major developers really wanted to make money, they would spend their own money to bring back dozens of old titles. Activision has already proved they can do it, which is the main part that irritates me so much. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Remastered was originally locked within special editions of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. This bundle was released on November 6, 2016, and remained together until July 27, 2017, when it could be purchased separately. For over 8 months, the cheapest way to play the beloved classic was to pay $80 for the one game most players actually wanted to play. Yes, this is a perfect example of a big corporation bleeding our wallets dry, but at the time, it was a win-win for everyone. Activision made a butt load of money, the prepubescent children got their space jetpacking game, and the real men got a classic Call of Duty that was perfect. Activision also showed they actually care a little, too. The remaster was serviced for several years, and they even made new content rather than giving us only what had already been done a decade earlier.

My proposal to Activision, as well as to any other developer, is to remake your old stuff and really mean it. At least we could finally get the games we really enjoyed. This idea doesn't have to be limited to massive multiplayer games, as Ubisoft just proved. Give me all the remastered games, including Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Infamous, and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows (which should have been Spider-Man 2 2023). At this point, I’m going off my own personal wishlist, but I can guarantee that each of us has a list over a mile long of games we know deserve to be brought back with the respect and love they deserve.

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Overcast | Pocket Casts

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Overcast | Pocket Casts

Once upon a time. A phrase that indicates the beginning of a narrative adventure, and is believed by many to be a requirement in all forms of entertainment. This is not only untrue when it pertains to video games, but also an element that detracts from the overall quality and polish a game can achieve. Video games, unlike movies, TV shows, or books, are interactive systems, not passive narratives. This is what truly separates video games from the other mediums in the entertainment space. The fact that you are in complete control of the actions that are happening defines the genre itself. It is for that reason that stories are not only a waste of time but can actually detract from the elements that matter: player agency, gameplay systems, and ultimately the expression one has through the freedom video games offer.

People play video games to have agency. It is the one space where you have the freedom to control the main character. Sometimes it’s a soldier in an intergalactic war, a purple dragon running around a fantasy land, or a remote-control car redefining one of the oldest sports known to man. Despite who you are controlling you get to do exactly that, control. You want to jump off a cliff just to see if you can? Go for it. Want to challenge yourself by trying to beat the game with one weapon? Knock yourself out. Would you like to devote countless hours to reach the highest rank possible? Good luck. The point is, there is almost no limit to how you can approach most video games, and that is one of the best parts of the experience. Contrast that with a narrative. In traditional storytelling, it depends on control and structure. Each piece is thought out, predetermined, and controlled to ensure you reach the intended vision of the creator. This is in direct conflict with the freedom one should have while playing a game. You can’t have ultimate agency while also getting to a predetermined narrative destination. Therefore, the more story elements and cutscenes, the less freedom and agency a player has. One might ask, “What about choice-based games?” It is a fair question, but play a game that has “choices” enough, and you easily see that in many cases it is simply an illusion.

Let’s take the Mass Effect series as an example. This is a very popular series, with many praising the dialogue options as one of their favorite mechanics of the game. If we are honest with ourselves, do the choices actually matter? Let’s take a look at the first game (Spoiler warning). Two of the most seemingly difficult choices come at the Krogan cloning facility on Virmire. The first one really isn’t that much a choice more so a check to see if your charisma is high enough to save him. Let’s say that you don’t want to or it isn’t high enough. Someone might think, wow, consequences for your actions, but what you end up with is losing one character just to be replaced later. Fast-forward to Mass Effect 2, and instead of anything meaningful changing on Tuchanka, you have some random Krogan as the leader of the tribe instead of Wrex. The story plays out exactly the same: you find out what’s happening to Grunt, whether Wrex is there or not. If the choice mattered, you would be punished for not saving him in the first game. Back to Mass Effect 1, the second choice is saving Ashley or Kaidan. Think about this: whoever you save, the same exact scenario plays out in the next two games. They don’t join you in the second game, and they rejoin your squad in the final game. On top of that, despite those choices, you still beat Saren and “choose” who you want to be the first human counselor, Anderson or Udina. Guess what, in the third game, if you choose Anderson, they completely retcon it to ensure that the story has Anderson leading the resistance on Earth. What if we eliminated all the fake choices in those games and made the shooting and ability mechanics feel good? I believe many would agree that they are the weakest part of those games. What I am attempting to illustrate in that extensive example is that the structures’ stories impose limits on player expression even if there is an illusion of choice involved. Instead, take the original Minecraft. What was that game about? Who cares, you could seemingly build anything and go anywhere. That is the spirit of a video game, and it is no coincidence that it is the best-selling video game of all time. Player agency is what makes gamers feel special.

Much like the previous point, the story directly interferes with gameplay systems. While video games allow freedom, there are established rules put in place for the player to learn and master. The story completely throws these rules and structures out the window. For example, The Last of Us parts one and two have many non-interactive cutscenes. In the game itself, you must learn how to use the various weapons offered to you to take out enemies, utilize the stealth mechanics in the game to sneak past guards, and traverse the environment to get to the next area. These mechanics cease to exist when you are in a cutscene. Instead of using the skills you have been honing, you are reduced to quick time events, simply pressing random buttons that pop up, mashing a single button, or sometimes doing nothing at all, and just watching completely passively. This drastic shift completely changes the dynamic for the player. Cinematic cutscenes strip what the player has been learning throughout the game and either completely simplify it or nullify it altogether. More so, it would be much more meaningful if the player were able to utilize their mechanics to interact with these climactic moments. Look at the Dark Souls series, beloved by many players. In these games, you are always able to directly interact with the enemy using the mechanics, abilities, and equipment you have gained throughout the game. Boss fights are a culmination of all the work you have put in throughout the game. During the highest moments, these games leave the controller in the players' hands as a final test, not an uninteractive movie.

There is another piece of this idea that directly conflicts with it. Ludonarrative dissonance is the idea that a video game’s gameplay mechanics directly contradict the narrative. The best example of ludonarrative dissonance is the Uncharted Series. You have the main character, Nathan Drake, who is supposed to be a charming and good-natured explorer, gunning down hundreds of people without a second thought. This completely shatters any immersion the narrative might be trying to create for the player. Instead, a game like Grand Theft Auto does it correctly. The mechanics in those games are not contradicted by some elaborate story; instead, they are simple, ridiculous, and focus on what truly matters, which is the gameplay. All in all, stories weaken the structure and logic of game systems by forcing events that are outside of the rules. Furthermore, it can completely shatter the narrative it is trying to tell since it does not take into consideration the game mechanics that are already present in the game.

Stories cannot account for emergent play. Take a moment and think about why so many people love sports. Sure, there is an element of incredible skill on display, but I would argue the core reason comes down to the unpredictability. You never know who will ultimately win at the end of the day. That is why comebacks and upsets are so exciting. This concept perfectly applies to video games as well. The greatest moments in video games are unscripted and spontaneous. Stories cannot adapt to the purity of a truly emergent experience. Think about your favorite moment ever in League of Legends. Was it reading the backstories of all the characters? No, it was saving your Nexus 1v5 in a 50-minute game to run down and destroy the other base. No script could accurately capture the chaos, tactics, and skill on display. This applies to any competitive game of your choice. Faker’s 1v1 Zed outplay, S1mple's mid-air no-scope double kill, jstn’s full-field aerial to tie game 7, Daigo perfectly parrying Chun Li’s super art with a pixel of health, or Squirtle’s perfect Archon Toilet to come back from an impossible situation. These aren’t stories. They are legends. They could only be born through the skill, expression, and freedom that games allow. The best writer in the world could never create moments like these because the magic comes from the unpredictability, creativity, and pure mastery of the game itself. It also just means more because there is no predetermined destination; anything can happen. This extends past just competitive games. Think about the best game of Among Us you’ve ever played. When you were able to somehow convince all of your friends that you were innocent, gaslighting them and using how you know they think and their reputations against them. Or embarking on a quest in Sea of Thieves with your friend and inventing new anchor strategies on the spot. Some of the best examples come from MMOs. In World of Warcraft, a contagious debuff from the Zul’Gurub raid caused a massive in-game pandemic resulting in widespread panic and even quarantines. Or in EVE Online, a group of ten players spent ten months infiltrating a rival guild, earning the trust of the CEO. Only to assassinate the CEO, raid the guild’s vaults, and destroy the entire fleet.

In EverQuest, there was a sleeping dragon that was put into the game on each server. The intended purpose was that after specific actions were done, it would wake and rampage through the land, being unkillable. It was a story-based event to reshape the map. However, on the Rallos Zek server (which was a hardcore PVP server), the players banded together and fought the dragon. After 3 hours, the players got the dragon down to almost 25% HP when the Developers stepped in and made it truly unkillable. This perfectly outlines how the vision for a narrative completely ruins this incredible emergent experience. After much protest, they gave the server another chance, reverting the immortal status. After a 4-hour battle, the PVP server that came together defeated the beast. These are some of the greatest and most well-known examples, but for many, the small moments are even more meaningful. Creating unforgettable memories with your friends or even having wild experiences in single-player games are moments that are much more impactful than any story could be.

This argument of Story detracting from the overall experience and potential of video games works both ways. The focus on a narrative in a video game can weaken the impact of the story the creator is trying to tell through the interruption in gameplay. For example, let’s say there is an extremely difficult final boss at the climax of the narrative arc. This boss could take the player many attempts to overcome. At this point, instead of feeling the emotional impact of the conclusion of the story, the player is now solely focused on playing well enough to beat the boss. Their attention and focus are primarily on the gameplay elements. It is a requirement in order to progress the game itself. A recent example of this is the extremely popular Clair Obscur Expedition 33. The story of this game was highly praised for its creativity and emotional impact. I argue, however, that it could not reach its full potential by having the player split their focus on creating their build and improving at the combat mechanics, ensuring they are able to dodge or parry enemy attacks, as this is crucial to being victorious. My podcast host even went on record to say that he wishes this game were a novel instead. He loved the world, characters, and story, but could not focus on these factors as the other elements of the game demanded his attention. To him, those game elements were not as interesting as the story itself. I can’t help but wonder if this game would have reached its full potential and impact if it were in a different medium. This extends to other games as well. The Last of Us fits into this category. The TV show adaptation’s massive success highlights that this property was able to reach new heights when allowed to focus on the storytelling instead of being interrupted by gameplay. The TV show had much greater reach than the video game because it took the best elements of the original idea and put them in the correct medium, allowing it to flourish. Let’s take a look at the other side of this coin. Resident Evil has attempted to adapt to the big screen for years, but has never been successful. This demonstrates that Resident Evil’s focus on gameplay makes it a perfect fit to be a video game. The story and characters are often cheesy and nonsensical, but people love them because the game itself is so much fun to play. Creators who want to tell a story should use a medium where the narrative is the focus. When games try to prioritize the story, they become less effective versions of non-interactive media.

There are many who would argue against the idea that story is a waste of time in video games. They would go even further to say that in some cases, stories are crucial to the overall experience a video game can offer. Even in the examples I have highlighted, one might point out that these games were able to marry gameplay and narrative elements. While it is certainly the case that some games are able to integrate these elements successfully, it will always require sacrifice on one end or the other. There is a compromise that must be made between freedom and story coherence. Look at the most recent God of War games. Many would say this is an example of a game that blends narrative and gameplay very well. If you take a more critical look, however, you will find that in order to make the story work, Kratos must be extremely limited. Plot points need to develop at specific times in order for the story to make sense. This requires a more linear approach, despite Kratos being a God and, in theory, should be able to do almost anything. If you look at the first game, Kratos elects to journey on foot to the tallest peak in order to spread his wife’s ashes. While this makes for a powerful narrative, it comes at the cost of restricting the freedom a player would have. Imagine a player who wants to see the original Kratos tear across the realm in an enraged frenzy. Because there is a clear vision for the narrative and character development, the player does not get this choice. That is not to say the story choices are bad; it is simply to point out that there is a cost associated with this decision.

In a similar vein, those who enjoy narrative-focused games would argue that story gives meaning and emotional impact. People say that stories help connect the player to the characters, worlds, and events that transpire. They may also say that a well-crafted story could provide context and motivation for a player to want to participate in the game’s world. I agree that a good narrative can provide meaning for a piece of media; however, video games are uniquely positioned to create meaning through specific elements only found in this medium. As I have mentioned previously, skill expression in games is one of the most crucial factors in creating an incredibly meaningful experience for the player. You can’t get much better at watching a movie or TV show or reading a book. You may deepen your understanding or enjoyment of them, but it is a passive experience. Contrast that with a video game that has a very high skill ceiling. FPS’s, MOBAs, RTSs, Soulslikes, and platformers these are just some examples of genres that allow players to devote countless hours to improve at the intricate aspects of the game. The beauty is that there is no end point. People will always get better and find new ways to improve. Spyro the Dragon recently had a new World Record. Jordy_925 completed the game 120% in 1 hour, 19 minutes, and 43 seconds. There was a time when people thought it was impossible to get under 1 hour and 30 minutes. Heck, as a kid, I would think it would be impossible to beat it in under 6 hours. Those records have been smashed through the discovery of new shortcuts and the optimization of the movement of the small purple dragon. Imagine if Insomniac tried to make a huge narrative diving into the world and lore of Spyro. There is no chance that the narrative would have been more compelling than the 27-year history of speedrunning the game due to its incredible platforming mechanics. Even with more casual games, meaning is created by player choice, creativity, and skill. Hitman is a great example of this, as you are able to complete a mission in a nearly endless number of ways. These games are not known for any type of impactful narrative; instead, the meaning is created naturally by the player interacting with the great mechanics, options, and freedom the game provides. Ultimately, meaning in games comes from what players do, not what they are told.

At the end of day, if we are being honest, traditional story telling directly conflicts with the core nature of videogames. It detracts from what makes video games fun, memorable, and special. I have outlined how it does this in a variety of ways. First, it limits the players’ agency. As mentioned previously, what truly separates the video game medium from movies, TV shows, and books is that the player is in control. Adding narrative elements to this removes some of that control in order to ensure the plot makes sense and flows as intended. Thus weakening one of the strongest elements video games have to offer. Second, stories disrupt gameplay elements. You spend many hours honing your skills with the gameplay mechanics offered in the game, just to have control ripped away through a cinematic cutscene. Oftentimes, at the most climactic moments, the gameplay can be reduced to simple timed button presses through quick-time events or even a non-interactive cutscene. Not only that, a game’s tone can be at war with itself due to conflicting styles between the gameplay and story. A good-hearted character who has a moral compass, according to the game’s story, can simultaneously kill many people throughout the game, removing the player’s immersion. Last, traditional storytelling cannot adapt or compete with emergent play. I listed many examples of naturally occurring moments that happened due to the player's direct skill or creativity. These moments can’t be scripted; they are so meaningful because they belong to the players and are completely authentic experiences. I will leave you with one final example to illustrate my point. 2024’s game of the year, Astro Bot, perfectly outlines my claims in this essay. You could describe the story in a single sentence. A robot loses its friends and needs to get them back. The focus is on ensuring that the gameplay is fun, responsive, and intuitive. The style and visuals are excellent. The music is incredible. It is a perfect example that if you focus on what truly matters in a video game, you will create an unforgettable experience. When games abandon traditional storytelling, they gain greater player freedom, stronger systemic coherence, and more original forms of meaning and expression. Story is a waste of time in video games.

Over the past two months, I have been nerding out over every detail and spec to purchase a gaming PC that performs exceptionally at 1440p resolution. On this journey, a big question that has arisen is whether it is cheaper to buy all the parts myself or to buy a prebuilt system. Thanks to the current state of the United States economy and the overall behavior of big corporations, 32 gigabytes of DDR5 RAM (Random Access Memory) combined with a 2 terabyte SSD (Solid State Drive) can cost 67% of the cost of a top-of-the-line CPU (Central Processing Unit) and GPU (Graphics Processing Unit). Now, this information is anecdotal, of course, but for this article's overall topic, I am using the prices of my current build-in-progress to make the point. My selected Samsung SSD and Corsair RAM are sold on Amazon for a total of $800.59, while AMD’s RYZEN 9800X3D CPU combined with its 9070 XT GPU has an Amazon total of $1,188.99. I understand that I’m new to the PC marketplace, but after consulting a few people for recommendations on parts for this process, they all tell me the same thing: Memory pricing is out of control.

Since I have not been in this shopping environment in any capacity in the past, I think nothing of it. However, as someone in finance, a certain class action lawsuit regarding this problem has seriously caught my eye. Not just for the sake of my job, but also as someone who can’t resist tumbling down an interesting rabbit hole. As I have leaped into this topic headfirst, what I have found is intriguing.Before I take you down the rabbit hole with me, I must disclose that I am not a professional journalist in any way, shape, or form. I am just a guy who enjoys writing articles for our favorite gaming podcast. My closest mentor has taught me to simply care about the truth. I shouldn’t care what the truth is or where it comes from, as long as it’s the truth. This is the standard I hold myself to, and the standard that your trusted hosts hold me to as well.

“Garciaguirre v. Samsung Electronics” is an antitrust class action lawsuit that was filed in Northern California on June 25, 2026. The plaintiffs (those who filed the lawsuit) consist of 14 individual consumers and 3 small computer businesses. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants (the parties being sued) not only fixed DDR RAM prices to offset losses over the last several years but also conspired in unfair business practices to collectively dictate the market’s overall price point for their own gain. The defendants in this case comprise 3 major corporations and account for over 90% of all DDR RAM production.

• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.

• SK Hynix Inc. and SK Hynix America Inc.

• Micron Technology, Inc.

Over the last 10 years, DDR RAM markets have gone through three major phases. The first took place from 2016 to 2021, when the transition from DDR4 to DDR5 was underway. During this period, markets were booming, consumer spending was high, and the three major corporations were operating at maximum output. Entering the pandemic period in late 2021, consumer spending began to decline dramatically, while these same corporations were operating at normal levels. By the end of 2024, consumer spending hit a steep low, leading to an oversaturated supply, not to mention the unprecedented supply chain and market issues that occurred during the pandemic. During this time, historical numbers show the cost of 32 gigabytes of DDR5 RAM could be as low as $80-$90, compared to over $400 on sites like Amazon today. This leads us from 2025 to the present.

The COVID economy is buttoned up, and the AI race is in full swing. As a result of this technological innovation, the companies have shifted their production priorities to the new HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) design rather than DDR RAM. This shift is solely due to the AI race we’re currently in. HBM meets the performance requirements for proposed AI data centers and offers a significant increase in resources compared to its DDR RAM predecessor. Each gigabyte of HBM requires up to three times the wafer capacity of standard DDR5 memory. Because new fabrication facilities take 2-3 years to build, consumer RAM supply has fallen well short of demand. The last detail I believe is relevant to the change in market pricing is that the Trump administration has threatened a 100% tariff specifically on Samsung and SK Hynix to incentivize them to produce chips in the United States. Both Samsung and SK Hynix are South Korea-based corporations, while Micron Technology avoids this threat, as it is already a U.S.-based company.

Given the current landscape and changes in the tech industry, it is no surprise that these market fluctuations have occurred; nor would it be a real shock if the corporations being sued have used this shortage and new pricing to subsidize the costs of developing new manufacturing methods to satisfy an industry need, at the expense of the average consumer. This theory is not a matter of fact, but will most likely be a point of contention in the lawsuit. The interesting claim the defendants made, which really caught my attention, is that the three corporations conspired to create this price problem to offset losses from previous years.

In my research, I immediately examined company ownership to identify any potential overlap among the three corporations. Samsung Electronics Co. is the parent company of all things Samsung, with the majority of ownership held by the prominent Lee Family. The Lee Family is the most prominent South Korean business dynasty, having controlled Samsung since 1938. SK Hynix Inc is a mess. They are a publicly traded company on the Korea Exchange, with SK Square controlling 20.5% of its outstanding stock. SK Square’s largest shareholder is SK Inc., which owns 32.17% of the company. Finally, SK Inc. is owned by the SK Group, which Chey Tae-won, a South Korean billionaire, wholly owns. Lastly, Micron Technology, Inc. is a publicly traded company on the U.S. exchange, with majority control held by a bevy of large institutional investors and individual executives. The largest pieces of the pie belong to Vanguard Group, BlackRock, and Capital World Investors, with ownership of 9.45%, 8.93%, and 5.17% of the company, respectively. So, with a mess of ownerships spanning different entities, individuals, and time spans, it puzzled me. To think there was a legitimate case to be made, that all these corporations were able to find a common interest and conspire together to set up complete control over an entire industry marketplace. That was until I stumbled upon the following lawsuit, which the United States Department of Justice prosecuted.

The DOJ discovered that between 1999 and 2002, several global DRAM manufacturers engaged in a worldwide price-fixing and market-allocation conspiracy. The companies involved colluded to squeeze DRAM supply and artificially drive up prices for major manufacturers and consumers like Dell, IBM, and Apple. The companies prosecuted were Samsung, Hynix (now SK Hynix), Infineon Technologies, and Elpida Memory. Two of the companies being sued today, Samsung and SK Hynix, were found guilty and ordered to pay hundreds of millions in fines as a result of this investigation. The funniest part to me is that Micron Technology Inc, was also involved and brought up charges from this investigation; however, their charges were dismissed because they “blew the whistle” (the DOJ’s words) on the organized corruption. Make no mistake, Micron Technology was involved in the crime. To recap, you have three companies currently being sued for conspiring to fix prices on DDR RAM, and they have previously been found guilty of such conduct.

Given all this information, it’s fair to say there is reason to be suspicious of the market changes and corporate behavior over the last decade. Currently, the lawsuit is underway, and it will be a matter of time before the details are released. I would be surprised if the accused parties engaged in honest, good-faith business practices, but that’s because I’m too pessimistic. Taking the time to compile all the information I found reinforced strong-held beliefs that are unchanging. Question everything. The unfortunate truth is, when you read anything online or listen to any news story, there is always more than meets the eye. I hope that by the end of reading this article, more of you will seek the truth, no matter what it is or where it comes from.

Developer: IO Interactive
Publisher: IO Interactive
Release Date: May 26, 2026
Reviewed On: PC
Steam →

Review

A full review is available in episode 231 (1:47:08) of the Couch Company Podcast:

Pros

• Combat and stealth blend seamlessly throughout the game.

• The story feels like an authentic, well-told Bond movie.

• Characters are memorable and surprisingly easy to get attached to.

• Environmental detail and world-building are excellent.

• Level design offers real replayability with multiple approaches.

Cons

• Combat gadgets feel underused and rarely necessary.

• Challenge mode is a separate menu instead of being seamlessly integrated.

• Visuals are strong but fall short next to games like Forza or Resident Evil.

Final Score: 90 (Gold)