A game derived of questions

So, I just played through Deliver At All Costs and I'm not a fan. But, first, the premise: the game is based in an alternate reality world set in the 50's where the main protagonist is some kind of a genius but is unable to make rent, and so, he becomes a delivery man for We Deliver. Oh, and, the environment is highly destructible.

 

Perhaps not the strangest of premises ... but, I do have a few questions.

 

 

Who is this for?

I would think that the skibidi generation wouldn't be particularly interested in reliving the 50's so this small misstep would probably be enough to swipe left. And then the 50's survivors would all be in their eighties at this stage and I doubt they're still gaming. Especially when they've got important things to do like trying to remember their wives' names.

 

Why is the tone so inconsistent?

Almost everything in this world can be destroyed and demolished - including buildings. This, combined with 'hilarious' ads on the radio gives that aspect of the game a lighthearted tone. Then you have the cutscenes which are played straight. Then you have the UFO's ... and then you have the time travel + macguffin subplot which makes no sense at all. The game starts with almost no fanfare - and plenty of cutscenes. When we finally do get control, it begins with walking around your apartment, getting dressed and reading plans. As introductions go, this is probably the worst. Only my memory of the trailer kept me from quitting right there. Also, whenever you destroy a cash box, the guy shouts out cha-ching! or Dollar Bills! which is jarring, considering the era this is set in.

 

Why does it have no tension?

It's super weird that there was absolutely no penalty for dying, failing a mission, or being arrested by cops. Nothing. Zero. Nada. We didn't lose one peso in any of these exchanges and, outside of a small amount of backtracking, it makes all missions merely a mild inconvenience.

In summary, I think the game did have a kernel of good but far too many strange decisions to actually be deemed good. Now, if I were to design this game, I would

• Change it to a modern setting (for monetary reasons)
• Build the game around showcasing this destruction and keep the filler (i.e. plot) in the background.
• Lose the forced isometric camera and employ a better layout with better navigation markers.
• Make the story (if any) play out in an irreverent tone which could simply be used to facilitate this playground of destruction. To that point, I'd lean on the design choices in Saints Row series as the blueprint. That is, there would be main story missions but plenty of pointless and fun mini games just played out for laughs.
• Focus on delivery as the games' subsystem. It seems strange to say this, but the delivery aspect in this game took kind of a backseat. Yes, you're delivering things but most of those things are ridiculous like e.g. atomic bombs but if you had a more nuanced delivery management system, it would provide greater depth to the game

And that's about it. As it currently stands, this game is heavily flawed and gets lost in the cutscenes. In the end, I was skipping most of them just because they were poorly written, animated and did little for my enjoyment of the game.

The general public is wrong*

So, I recently watched Deadpool and Wolverine ... alongside Spider-man home #3 (AKA No way home) and neither one impressed me. Off topic: I can't be the only one who has to google the 'home name' each time since I can never remember which one Homecoming, No Way Home or Far from Home is in the sequence of the Spider-man movies.

 

But, to get back to the point of this post, the reason that I'm singling out those two movies is because both of them made over a billion (gross) at the cinema and both of them are terrible movies *in my opinion. Both leaned into member berries and cameos and both had a pointless plot and characters I did not care one iota about. Maybe I'm getting too old for this ish but I was bored in both of these movies and the constant quips made any stakes in the plot seem more like a mild inconvenience than any actual threat.

In Deadpool 3 I have more of a bitter taste watching this - especially once you understand the context around one of his (ugh) multiverse Deadpools: Nice Pool. Apparently, the inspiration behind Nice Pool was Justin Baldoni and was due to the ugly goings on in the (never been a particularly good actor) wife's project: It Ends With Us. For context, the director-actor, Justin Baldoni, had been shopping his script around hollywood for many years without much success. And then he had a break, with the ancillary fame of Ryan Reynolds' wife (AKA Blake Lively), he finally got it off the ground. 

But it came with a catch.

Blake had somehow weasled out producer credits on the film and begun by redesigning her characters style (dress design credits), attempting to rewrite the story (writing credits), and attempting to master the final cut (editing credits). Naturally, Baldoni did not like this and pushed back in a number of areas during the production - and only when they had an 'edit off' (i.e. both her and the director submitted a final edited version of the film), which the Director won, did things calm down. But then the real drama came, as the mutton-dressed-as-lamb Blake Lively claimed improper behaviour by Baldoni and played the #metoo card to get her way. This caused problems for Baldoni, with his talent agency dropping him but, fortunately (or possibly intelligently), the Director (and crew) had kept detailed records of all the conversations, emails and videos corroborating his story and also painting old Lively in a much less favourable light. They're currently in the process of a lawsuit which Baldoni will more than likely win ... but even with a victory, I don't think either party will come out of this smelling like roses.

That's all to say that when it came time to create Wolverine, Reynolds was still holding a grudge, so he created a vegan Deadpool which was used to ridicule and insult (albeit indirectly) Baldoni. Perhaps if the writing was funny and tightly edited, I'd give it a pass - but it wasn't. This was just mean spirited (once you understand the context) and even old Canada boy came out of it looking less than the stereotypical picture of niceness. I have a feeling that the general public will very soon turn on Reynolds and Lively and I don't think I'll feel particularly sad when they do. Honestly, I'm surprised in the success of both movies although I'm also not surprised in the success. These movies are the kind of swill that pigs love but, for me, I prefer to have a little nuance, thought, and pacing to what is forced down my throat. 

 

Who am I kidding? You ain't doing it right unless you're sloppin' the joe.