E3 Special 2024

It’s that special time of the year, kids! Sony were up first with a State of Play best described as a ‘wet fart’. Like many people, I thought Concord was going to be some kind of solo or co-op sci-fi heist game but after an overly long, pound shop Guardians of the Galaxy style cinematic trailer, we discovered it’s actually another 5v5 hero shooter *blows a raspberry*

God of War: Ragnarok is coming to PC but I’m not sure I care. I wasn’t a big fan of the original and I’m not convinced any of my issues with the original have been addressed by this sequel. That’s what happens when game journalists circle jerk over a game so hard they forget to highlight its flaws. For a more recent example, see Baldur’s Gate 3.

And finally we have Astro Bot which seems to have gotten Sony fans all in a tizzy but then I guess there’s nothing else to get very excited about if you’re a Sony fan these days. Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t look bad, but I can’t help but wear my cynical hat and wonder why people are so excited to pay to play a game that serves as one long advertisement – sorry, ‘celebration’ – for PlayStation branded products and franchises. Strip those away, and what are you left with?

Summer Game Fest opened with Lego: Horizon Adventures and the story online seemed to be all about how it’s not releasing on Xbox even though nobody expected it to. The real story is that it’s also releasing on PC and Switch Day 1 but not, oddly enough, PS4. I mean shit, if it can run on a Switch it can run on the PS4 so why not target that much larger install base?

The phrase ‘boiling the frog’ feels appropriate here in which the frog are hardcore PlayStation fanboys who Sony are slowly acclimatising to the notion of an increased multiplatform output. Even late PC ports of Sony games received a very negative reaction, but that’s become somewhat accepted now.

‘Live service’ releases on Day 1? They’re not happy about it, but it makes sense, eh? A Lego Horizon game on Day 1? Well, it’s not a proper Horizon game, is it? And Lego games sell really well on Switch, so it makes sense, yeah? What’s that, Sony fanboys? Starting to feel a little warm, eh?

Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 is looking good if they can smooth out the rough edges of the first game. And finally we have Night Springs, the first DLC for Alan Wake 2 which I should be playing around the time this post goes live. Oh, and I’d like to say Phantom Blade 0 looked neat, like a more stylish ‘Souls’ game.

Ubisoft only really had two things that somewhat interested me, the first being Star Wars Outlaws. I say ‘somewhat’ because it looks just like I expected it to – like a Star Wars game made by Ubisoft – so I’m sorry, but I can’t muster up too much excitement.

And then we had Assassin’s Creed Shadows. I’ve wanted an AC game with this setting ever since the original but the problem is, the series is now so far removed from the AC games that I actually liked, that I just can’t get very excited for it. The series has evolved into something very different from where it started. But hey, I might still give both of these games a shot.

After so much mediocrity, Microsoft absolutely smashed it for the second year in a row. Black Ops 6 actually made me interested in playing a Call of Duty game again for the first time since Modern Warfare 2. I’ll give the BETA a spin, at least. Doom: The Dark Ages looks fantastic. I skipped State of Decay 2, but I’m curious to see how 3 shapes up.

We got our first look at the new Dragon Age and . . . okay, not as excited for this one, but I’ll keep an eye on it. Shattered Space – the Starfield expansion – focuses on House Va’ruun and I’m excited for this one and the regular updates and improvements they’re making to the base game. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 looks impressively flashy with an interesting premise, so that’s another to keep an eye on.

South of Midnight, Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn, the return of Perfect Dark and another look at Fable. But wait, there’s more! Indiana Jones and The Great Circle is looking great, I’m starting to get a little more interested in Avowed now despite not liking The Outer Worlds much, Atomfall looks like a UK based Fallout game and Stalker 2 is also looking good.

And if that wasn’t exciting enough for you, we also had the reveal of Gears of War: E-Day. I really liked the first Gears of War, enjoyed 2 a lot but never really clicked with 3 which was the last one I played but never actually finished.

And finally we have the Nintendo Direct which I wasn’t expecting much from given the Switch 2 on the horizon, but we did get MIO: Memories in Orbit which looked a lot like Bayonetta Origins visually and Ori style gameplay and I’m totally okay with that. There were new games added to Switch Online including Perfect Dark which is pretty f**king awesome. I could break out my N64 copy if I really wanted to, but this is just more convenient.

Marvel vs. Capcom Fighting Collection! Sign me the f**k up! I’d get it just for Marvel vs. Capcom 2, the rest are a bonus! Now we just need to hope it’s a good port. Will certainly save me the trouble of getting out my Dreamcast and Saturn. The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom was a big surprise. It’s using a similar cutesy style to the Link’s Awakening remake which I wasn’t a big fan of, but for a new game, I think it looks okay. Mechanically, it’s kind of ingenious which is what you’d expect from Nintendo. Not totally sold on it yet, but we’ll see.

Metroid Prime 4 really exists and it looks exactly how I hoped it would. Not out until 2025 but I’ve got plenty of other stuff to keep me busy in the meantime. A Switch 2 launch title maybe? Overall, a really good show from Nintendo. Not quite as good as Microsoft, but much better than Sony who had another pretty dire year.

Gallery: Senua’s Saga (Part 1)

Now Playing: Homeworld 3

Homeworld 3 was one of my most anticipated games this year and for good reason. I’ve been a fan of the series since the original game released way back in 1999 and it’s now been 20 years since Homeworld 2 released. That’s a very long time to wait for a sequel.

Not that we didn’t get any new Homeworld content during that time – the remastered editions of Homeworld 1 and Homeworld 2 released in 2015 were excellent despite some balancing issues and bugs and a few contentious changes that upset the purists.

And in 2016 we had Deserts of Kharak, a satisfying prequel to Homeworld 1 that some claimed wasn’t a ‘proper’ Homeworld game because it wasn’t set in space. But as I said in my review at the time – ‘we’ll ignore those people because they’re dumb.’

So we’re finally here – Homeworld 3. A game 20 years in the waiting. How could it possibly live up to my expectations? Well, it can’t, of course. How could it? But I am pleased to say that Homeworld 3 is a solid entry in the series but, undeniably, also its weakest.

Because no, it’s not as good as Homeworld 1 or 2 but honestly, I never expected it to be. I can’t say I envied the developers who were tasked with putting together the sequel to a couple of cult classics. And certainly not with a fanbase that feels like it’s willing for new Homeworld content to fail rather than succeed – something I’ll touch upon later.

And I must admit, my heart sank when I played the War Games demo back in February. I had a lot of issues with that demo – from the controls, to the UI, to unit pathfinding, to combat pacing, to AI . . . it was a lot, and I wasn’t alone in sharing those concerns. But when Homeworld 3 was then delayed to address those concerns, I regained some hope. But still, I must admit I was wary. But come on – it’s Homeworld 3. How could I not pick it up at release?

And, I’m actually somewhat surprised to say that pretty much every issue I had with the demo has been resolved. The controls feel so much better thanks to the legacy options and the ability to mix and match with the modern settings as I please. The UI now has proper scaling. Unit pathfinding – aside from the odd hiccup – is vastly improved. Ship survivability has been increased, so combat pacing feels better. And the AI, overall, also feels better – although campaign scripting probably plays a large part in that.

The campaign of Homeworld 3 has 13 missions and took me about 8-10 hours to complete on both Medium and Hard difficulties. It is, I suppose, comparable in length to previous games, but it felt oddly short to me. I think this is due to a combination of two things – the campaign begins with a series of very short, simple missions, but ends with a series of longer, larger and more complex ones.

Yes, I suppose that’s also comparable to previous games, but it feels way more pronounced here – one early mission is over in a matter of minutes, for example. So the first half of the game feels very rushed, and it doesn’t feel like the game really gets going until the latter half.

This also isn’t helped by missions ending not when you choose to hyperspace, but simply once your objectives are completed. Hey, Homeworld 3, I like to relax and reorganise my fleet at the end of a mission, not scramble to do so at the start of the next. I get there may occasionally be story reasons for not allowing it, but that doesn’t always apply.

This issue is also compounded by the story and the way that it’s told. I’ve seen people dunk on the story and say it’s terrible because it shifts towards a more personal, character driven story than the originals. Those people are also dumb. I don’t just want to see this series do the same thing or try to tell the same stories. That said, I can’t say the story in Homeworld 3 quite pulls off what it’s trying to do.

There’s just not enough time to tell a story like this within the campaign as it exists. When you’re dealing with a threat that would mean the end of the galaxy as we know it – and when that threat is in the form of an individual, you really need to spend some time exploring who that person is and where they come from so we better understand them.

When you want to present a clash of wills between our protagonist (Imogen) and the antagonist (The Incarnate Queen) we need more than an handful of weak interactions between them. There’s just not enough meat to sink our teeth into here.

And we definitely need more ‘show don’t tell’. The game tells us about this massive threat and that ‘billions have died’ but we never see or experience any of it ourselves. We’re entirely disconnected from what we’re supposed to be fighting against and we’re never quite sure what the stakes are because the game doesn’t adequately explain or explore them. Compare that to the opening of Homeworld 1 where the stakes and our objective are made very clear from the opening mission.

I’m not saying this story can’t work, I just don’t think it’s fleshed out enough within the game. It feels like half the story is missing so as a result, it ends up feeling rushed and weak and not as engaging as it should. But, in terms of missions at least, Homeworld 3 offers a nice variety. The early missions are short, but they’re still fun, and the later missions that offer larger maps and more complex objectives are where the game really shines. I do wish there was more of an evolution to your fleet progression though.

Unlocking new ships in the original games always felt special and was tied to something within the narrative but in Homeworld 3, they’re pretty much just dumped on you without reason. Now you can build a destroyer! Okay . . . but why now? One mission just gives you several minelayers because they’re particularly useful in that mission. And they are, but I didn’t bother with them again the entire campaign. And that’s another weakness of Homeworld 3 – the limited unit roster and how unnecessary some of the units feel.

Recon units become useless as soon as you unlock interceptors. There’s only one corvette class. One! Ion beam frigates are slow to aim and slow to fire. I did use them but they never felt particularly helpful. Destroyers and battle cruisers look cool but are so slow to move that they’d often arrive late to the fight and my frigate / bomber groups would have already done all the work.

Deployable turrets are fun, but they can only be placed on a flat surface which is a little weird. I really wanted to attach them all to the mothership and just fly around using that – seriously, it’s shockingly fast and will leave your other capital ships in its space dust.

Combat engagements are fun, but I’m not sure about the unit specific special abilities. They’re not a bad addition, they’re just not very exciting, I guess? And there’s no unit veterancy, so units feel rather expendable in a way they weren’t in the original games. And that’s even more true given how abundant resources are.

You soon stop caring about combat losses because of how fast and easy it is to replace them. Some of the later missions feel less about tactically outsmarting your enemy, and more about outproducing them. The faster you can churn those units out, the faster you can overwhelm them. It’s also shockingly easy to capture enemy units with resource collectors. I had over 20 enemy destroyers in my fleet by the last mission and it made it all a little too easy.

Carriers also can’t be customised to specialise in producing certain units, so they become just another production bay to churn everything out en mass, rather than a bespoke unit fulfilling a specific role. I can’t say I didn’t have a good time playing the campaign though. The visuals are great. The battles look spectacular. Locking onto a fighter in the middle of a hectic battle and following them throughout the engagement is just as riveting here as it was in the original game.

The music is great, as it should be in a Homeworld game. Oh, and so is all the unit chatter. It gives a nice sense of personality to your combat groups, which is why it’s such a shame the game seems to treat them all as entirely disposable. Performance could certainly be better – during some big fights, I’ve seen the frame rate dip down to the 30s from a locked 120. In a game like this, it’s not very noticeable, but it still needs improving.

Oh, and there are bugs. Nothing serious, thankfully, but the audio bug warning you that you’ve lost a destroyer or a carrier when in fact you just destroyed an enemy one is pretty annoying even if it’s not game breaking.

Overall, the Homeworld 3 campaign – and it’s the campaign that I’m most interested in when it comes to this series – offers a fun and engaging series of missions, with a nice variety of objectives, maps and problems to solve. It is, however, somewhat short, there are balancing and difficulty issues that need to be addressed and the story is pretty weak.

So no, it’s not as good as the campaigns in Homeworld 1 or 2, but that doesn’t make it bad. It’s a solid campaign that just doesn’t stack up to the originals. And that’s okay. Well, it is for me – I’m just glad to be playing a new Homeworld game in 2024. Other fans? Not so much. But yeah . . . we’ll get to that.

Beyond the campaign, Homeworld 3 offers a skirmish mode which is pretty much what you’d expect and not something to get very excited about – it’s pretty limited right now in terms of maps and fleets / units and it’s also where you’ll probably notice most of the AI problems.

But Homeworld 3 also offers War Games which is a solo or co-op experience that sees you attempt to progress through three (somewhat) randomised missions with a preset fleet. You earn experience to level up as you go and that unlocks new fleet types and there’s various difficulty modifiers you can apply to boost your experience gain.

And it’s . . . surprisingly fun. It certainly needs more content though, and it also really needs to let me save and quit if I’m playing solo because when a single match can last around 30-40 minutes I need to try to clear my f**king schedule and hope I don’t get interrupted if I want to play.

Okay, now let’s finally get to the problems with the fanbase I’ve mentioned. I don’t often address other reviews, but at the time of writing, Homeworld 3 has a ‘mixed’ rating on Steam of 40%. That’s pretty damn harsh in my view, but I’m also not entirely surprised. Homeworld 3 is a game fans – like me – have been waiting over 20 years for and there was simply no way it was ever going to live up to our expectations.

But then, that’s been the case with every Homeworld release since the original. Because in the eyes of a hardcore subset of Homeworld fans, no game will ever measure up to Homeworld 1. Even Homeworld 2 was considered a disappointment at release, as was every other subsequent release – the remastered editions, Deserts of Kharak and now Homeworld 3.

I bought Homeworld 1 at release so I’ve seen the pattern repeat for a long time. As much as these fans might say they want more Homeworld games, the reality is that none of them will ever be good enough in their eyes. That’s always been an irritating quirk of the Homeworld fanbase – one that won’t accept anything new.

Now, I’m not saying you can’t not like this game or think it’s bad or whatever. I don’t really care. But looking at these reviews, I don’t see a game that’s being judged fairly on its own merits. I see a game getting dragged for not being as ‘perfect’ as Homeworld 1.

Me? I’m just happy to have a new Homeworld to play, imperfect though it is, and I wish more fans of the series could be too.

6/10

Gallery: Jedi: Survivor

Now Playing: Senua’s Saga

When I played Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice back in 2018 I thought it was excellent, but I described it in my review as a ‘better experience than it is a game’. And whilst Sacrifice ends with Senua saying ‘Follow us, we have another story to tell’, I wasn’t entirely convinced. Sacrifice was such an enthralling and unique experience, and I didn’t really feel like it needed a sequel.

But here we are, and I’m both pleased and more than a little surprised to say that Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2 is the sequel I didn’t know I wanted. It’s the perfect way to follow up Sacrifice. It is, more or less, a refined and superior version of the original, boasting some of the most impressive visuals and seamless animations you’ll ever see.

Once I’d completed it, I decided to replay Sacrifice, just to better compare them for this review. I then played Saga a second time and I’m glad I did, because it made me appreciate far more all the ways Saga improves upon the first game. What really struck me replaying Sacrifice and then Saga, was how better integrated the puzzle and combat elements are in the sequel.

In Sacrifice, there’s a noticeable disconnect between the ‘experience’ and the ‘game’. Combat, whilst fun, is clearly signposted to specific circular arenas, featuring set waves of enemies. It’s fast and flashy but it’s also very simple and very repetitive. Puzzles, meanwhile, are a little too tedious. The ‘rune’ puzzles can be unforgiving unless you line them up perfectly, and there’s a fair amount of tracking back and forth with Senua to get where you need to go.

What Saga does so brilliantly is to take the puzzles and the combat of the original and do the exact opposite of what you might expect. It doesn’t try to make them more complex. Instead, it refines them in such a way that they integrate seamlessly into the overall experience. I’ve seen some people disappointed that Saga didn’t expand upon the combat of the original. Typically, I might agree – but not in this case.

What people are asking for is for Saga to be something it’s not. ‘Expanding’ the combat means taking a path that leads to an even greater disconnect from the experience. It’s a path that inevitably leads to a generic skill tree, unlockable attacks, a health bar, a stamina meter and experience points. F**k that.

Combat in Sacrifice was very limited in terms of enemy variety and animations. Both are significantly improved within Saga. The combat animations in Saga are absolutely incredible. There’s such a perfect transition from direct control to canned animation that it really does feel – dare I say it – like you’re playing a movie.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have significant control over the flow of a fight. You still have light and heavy attacks, and alternating between these and knowing when to strike, dodge or parry is key to your survival. And survival really is the key difference between Saga and Sacrifice. In Sacrifice, fights were so frequent and lengthy that they became almost routine. In Saga, every fight feels like a battle to survive. Every enemy feels like they could be your last.

There’s an unrelenting intensity to Saga that you won’t quite believe unless you experience it yourself. The combination of outstanding visuals, sound and animation combine to create one of the most engaging, brutal and utterly enthralling combat systems you’ll ever experience. And whilst the combat may be simple, Senua’s fate is still very much in your hands.

Even replaying Saga, I encountered new combat animations I’d not seen before because I’d triggered them by finishing enemies using different attacks, or following up a parry or dodge from a different angle. At least, that’s how it felt – and if that’s not the case, the game does a fantastic job of convincing you otherwise. Yes, there are times you’ll see some animations repeat, but they’re relatively infrequent.

You only fight enemies one on one in Saga and I think it’s a smart change. Fighting multiple enemies in Sacrifice didn’t make it more ‘deep’ as I’ve seen some suggest. It just meant you spent more time circling around to line them all up before taking them out one at a time. And no, the ‘kick’ button didn’t make it ‘deeper’ either. It was mostly pointless outside of breaking the block of a shield bearing enemy – being able to press more buttons doesn’t add depth.

I’d argue there’s far more depth to the combat in Saga because of how reactive the game is to your approach and the animations that trigger as a result. Every enemy feels like a threat. Every fight has you on the edge of your seat. As much as I enjoyed Sacrifice, the combat felt like a formality. It was fun, but the difference between Sacrifice and Saga having played them back to back is like night and day.

And the same, I would say, is true of the puzzles. There’s a greater variety of puzzles in Saga and unlike Sacrifice where (like a lot of the combat encounters) it could feel like some puzzles existed purely to pad out the game, everything in Saga feels like it has a specific purpose. Puzzles either exist to teach the player, or to symbolise an aspect of Senua’s growth on her journey.

Learning to (quite literally, at one moment) help and save herself before she can save others. Learning to let go of control, of power, of perceived strength. There’s a lot more themes touched upon in Saga than in Sacrifice. Leadership is a big one – there’s one puzzle that has you literally ‘passing the torch’ which takes on a greater meaning towards the very end of the game.

Whereas Sacrifice was a very focused game about Senua overcoming grief and loss, Saga is the story of what comes next, of learning to live beyond that. It’s a story with a broader scope and one which introduces actual living characters with whom Senua can interact. Which is important because for me, the real heart of Saga is Senua learning to once again form bonds with others. To open herself up to others in a way she hasn’t since she lost her mother and Dillion.

The cover art for Hellblade 2 – if you can call it that given it’s digital only – are hands grasping around Senua’s head. It’s a pretty disturbing image the first time you see it and indeed, when you first see it in the game it’s presented in a way that’s oppressive and terrifying to Senua. And yet, at the very end of the game we come to see it in an entirely different light – and so does she.

With a broader scope there’s bound to be a lot of different interpretations of Saga’s story. There’s also an important theme of not becoming like those who came before you – a significant moment in Senua’s own personal growth relating to her father who was such a pervasive and threatening presence within the first game. Here, it feels like she can finally put that particular demon to rest.

The voices or ‘furies’ Senua experiences also don’t play such an oppressive role in Saga as they did in Sacrifice, in fact growing more peaceful and kind over time. She accepts them as a part of her in a way she didn’t before. Choosing her own path, accepting who she is, her past, and the influence of her mother and father – there’s a lot here to dig into.

I’m sure there will also be a lot of different interpretations regarding the general plot involving the giants plaguing the land. Are the giants actually real? There was a volcanic eruption that caused a famine and forced people to take extreme measures to survive. So are there really giants, or are they merely natural disasters interpreted as ‘giants’ by a superstitious people struggling to comprehend or explain what’s happening?

Does it matter? My take is the same one I had for Sacrifice – if it’s real to Senua, then it’s real for us. This is her journey and we’re seeing things through her unique eyes. So, as far as I’m concerned, if she perceives it as real, then it’s real – the actual ‘reality’ of it doesn’t matter, what matters is how she learns and grows from the experience.

I think Saga also lends itself to more replay value than Sacrifice thanks to a broader scope. There’s a lot more things you can pick up on each play. I also like the addition of alternative narrators you can unlock that offer yet another perspective on events within the game. It is also, overall, less relentlessly bleak and dark than the original. There are more quiet moments, moments of peace and beauty, to better counter-balance the darkness.

There’s something so refreshing about Saga – in a world of endless skill tress, experience gains, damage numbers, overbearing UI and bloated open worlds it’s very nice to play such a refined and visually stunning game that strips all that bullshit away. So yes, like Sacrifice it’s a better ‘experience’ than it is a ‘game’ but that’s exactly what it’s striving for and that’s how it should be judged.

No, it’s not perfect – I thought the opening of the last chapter set within a forest was a little weak on my first run and even more so on my second – it just doesn’t quite live up to what comes before or after. Thematically, it sort of works, but I feel like there’s a lot more they could have done with it. I also kind of wish there had been at least one ‘monster’ type boss fight like we had in the first game. Just one. Just to mix it up a little.

Overall, Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2 is an incredible technical achievement and one of the most immersive and engaging experiences you’ll ever play. It’s a game that deserves to win awards for its visuals, story and performances. The critical reception, however, hasn’t really surprised me – I gave up on games media in general a long time ago and I think it’s even worse now as even mainstream publications take great delight in tearing games down both before and after release, only to cry crocodile tears when said games fail and studios get shut down. I call it the ‘negativity dump’ and those peddling it are always looking for a new target. Even a game as impressive as Hellblade 2 can’t escape unscathed.

But I don’t want to end this review ranting about the hypocritical and unprofessional nature of modern games media. I want to tell you once again how special this game is and how it’s worth giving a spin, even if you’re not sure you’ll like it. You won’t have experienced anything like this before and you might not ever again. Games like Hellblade 2 remind me why I love this medium so much. I f**king love video games and it’s because of games like Hellblade 2 that I do.

9/10