In retrospect, 2016 was a strong year for video games. But last night I had a small epiphany I want to share with you. I'm not sure what I'm trying to get at here, but I know someone more insightful and observant can articulate this much better than me. But here's the gist of it.

This year we saw the releases of games that will mark a new chapter for the lives of their developers. First of all because they worked on them for many more years than it should've taken. And second, because these games prove why they keep making games, despite the constant struggles. But at the end - it's worth it - that's what it come down to.

And let's be honest, it's not like things like this didn't happen last year or that games like these aren't worked on right now. But 2016 just shows me how much developers love this medium.

Doom (2016) -

A game that went through hell and came back to prove that Doom and id Software are not dead and are capable of making the right choices for the franchise, fans and ultimately themselves as creators - going as far as to scrap a project and restart the thinking process behind a game.

Overwatch -

Blizzard's first shooter - a game born from the ashes of Titan - studios' cancelled MMO, which was supposed to succeed WoW - their most successful product. But even according to them the game failed in every aspect. To come back in such a confident manner and make the most influential MP shooter of the year is hard to not make me think how excited they must be to know they've still got it.

Hitman (2016) -

After the rocky reception of Absolution the studio had to prove themselves and fans that the franchise was it's own thing. And even after nobody could understood the episodic format at the beginning, it turned out to be the AAA hidden gem of this year.

The Witness -

Talk about a vision and just sticking to it. That's what The Witness is to me. Jonathan Blow is such a visionary developer, an indie genius in many ways. And no doubt this game is the end of a chapter in his carreer, but it also paves the way of another.

The Last Guardian -

A game that we weren't probably going to get. But Team ICO saw the whole project through and here we have a surprisingly good spiritual successor to some of the most beloved Japanese games ever made.

Final Fantasy 15 -

Basically the Half-Life 3 of the jRPG scene. I can't imagine the relief and proudness of the developers who somehow made this game work, even after such a long dev cycle.

Owlboy -

A game perfected for years and years, equally in art and code to deliver a high-end indie platformer.

The Second Part

But equally this year there were some unfortunate missed opportunities, some of which were so close to being really, really good, but for this or that reason just didn't make it.

Battlefield One -

I'm a huge Battlefield fan and this game was predicatbly dissapointing in many ways. Sure, DICE took a chance, but they never went all the way in in order make this game distinct and give me a reason to buy it like the first 4 games in the franchise. Those were titles which were united by some core values, but still remained nieche for the type of warfare or time period they portrayed.

Mafia 3 -

A game that had too much fluff for the purpose of portraying the same story beat over and over. Which was done to adress criticizm of the old games; that infused with current trends in open world games, the devs didn't find the right balance of meaningful story beats and open ended gameplay.

Street Fighter 5 -

A game that wasn't ready to ship - as simple as that. It had the right systems and mechanics, but whatever they added post launch was just too late for the initial impression people got.

Quantum Break -

A game with potential that was executed in the wrong ways. This could've been a huge mark for Remedy, the devs behind the cult hit Alan Wake.

Mirror's Edge: Catalyst -

Another franchise EA decided to mass market and bet bigger than it should've. To me this game is just too big for what Mirror's Edge should be.

No Man's Sky -

A game that had the right developers and technology, but wasn't delivered correctly, pre and at the launch itself. This game could've been a huge win for the space exploration genre.

As I said before - these types of stories happen every year. Missed marks or long-winded triumphs are a common place in the industry. But I hope my little epiphany helped you realize just how dedicated developers can be - sacrificing years of work and time to make the right game - for us.

As a Battlefield 2 fanatic I used to be super critical of where the BF franchise was heading to, so last year I decided to take a chance and try the military simulator version of Battlefield 2, Project Reality, after seeing Drew trying to play the standalone version (1.3) on UPF. I made this video to celebrate me being part of the PRTA community for 1 year. In that time I made many friends and shared many moments with them. I also recently revealed the fact that I'm a disabled gamer, suffering from SMA.

Enjoy!

1. Orientation.

Everything about and around the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. franchise is weird. It's developed by GSC Game World, based in Ukraine, also responsible for the Cossacks series. Comprised of 3 games (eat your heart out HL) that have horror, survival and RPG elements wrapped in an open world FPS. Its story encapsulates everyday villains and heroes put against each other and sci-fi monsters, anomalies and artifacts, while Soviet era conspiracies about mass brainwashing and the Chernobyl disaster from 1986 serve as a backstage. All of it supported by one of the most advanced AIs in gaming, A-Life, with its simulation of every creature you see in the game - their habits and needs, which makes the Zone a truly living and breathing world.

While its mechanics can be traced to other open world titles like Far Cry and Fallout, its themes are a bit harder to identify. The games are set in Pripyat and its surrounding area – a time capsule of Soviet era communist architecture, which are recreated to a striking degree of accuracy. Which helps a lot to give these games a very strong sense of a real place.

Much of the background history of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games are based on Soviet Russia literature and film. To be precise I'm talking about the Roadside Picnic novel, written by the Strugatsky Brothers, and the movie based on it, simply titled Stalker, from Anderi Tarkovsky; both from which come the artifacts, anomalies and the mysterious Zone that contains them.

There are differences though. Like the alien visitation in the novel, which is nowhere to be found in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. But the franchise' inspirations were created 20-30 years before the development of the first game started, in the early '00, and was finally finished in 2007. Which brings me to another point I've talked about before: For a long time Shadow of Chernobyl (previously known as Oblivion Lost) was in many people's list of vapourware games and software. It went through many revisions to its whole concept and gameplay, like abandoning whole levels and cutting features like vehicles, even abandoning its early futuristic world with Aztec pyramids and all, in favour of Chernobyl and the Zone in it.

The timing of when S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was made is just right. Not too early to cripple its technical ambitions and achievements, but also not too late for when the bigger Eastern European games have become F2P projects these days. In a way everything around S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was never supposed to happen, if you know what I mean. It's kind of a miracle that it happened at the end of the day, the way it did and what it became:

1. Shadow of Chernobyl (2007): the long awaited game that shocked everybody and defied expectations;

2. Clear Sky (2008): first add-on, set up as a prequel to SoC introducing faction warfare, considered the worst of the three games, because it was polished the least;

3. Call of Pripyat (2009): second add-on, continuation of SoC, introducing larger areas, most people prefer it for its gameplay and overall stability.

While these days S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is still fairly popular in the CIS region, not enough people remember and talk about it in the West. It's largely a forgotten franchise over here, mentioned occasionally (which I will talk about later). One thing that's still true about all these games is the active modding scene, which has numerous mods that enhance and change the unique experience S.T.A.L.K.E.R. provides, one goes as far to even recreate Oblivion Lost, which is like a complete game and it's free.

And that would've been everything if the studio that made these games wasn't so suddenly closed-but-not-really in 2012, taking down with itself the sequel to this trilogy, announced two years prior, simply titled S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2. To add more confusion to this mess GSC Game World emerged from the dead in 2014 declaring that they are back in business, to develop more video games. Which simply made things a tad more interesting.

2. 8, D, 4, A, S,

It's funny and tragic at the same time how GSC released three S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games 3 years in a row, but just like their first game in the series, Shadow of Chernobyl, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 is in development hell as well. It's like a curse. But this time it's different, because for the original trilogy GSC didn't have the direction, technology and the money they needed, which they eventually got and developed their powerful X-Ray engine. On the other hand S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 lacks the one thing the original game had - the talent.

There were a lot of people that worked on S.T.A.L.K.E.R. throughout its development, as GSC was the biggest Ukrainian games developer at the time. But those who made the series for what it is are now scattered around in a lot of different places.

It's not a secret that when GSC closed its doors in 2012 most of the developers directly transitioned on to make Survarium (spiritual successor to S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) under Vostok Games. But since then some have left that studio as well, making it harder for the right people to unite together in order to create S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, when GSC decides to get back to it.

Like the technology architects who left GSC even before SoC was completed. They founded 4A Games and made the 4A Engine, which powers their Metro series (which I will also talk about later).

People like Alex Sytianov who wrote much of the story (including Survarium's), but now is the head of 8D Studio making Sketch Tales. Or Ilya Tolmachev who was the art director for SC and CoP, he and few other ex-GSC employees went on to found Flying Cafe for Semianimals and made Cradle. There's also Anton Bolshakov, project leader of every S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game, who is, as far as I can tell, now developing/advising on mobile games.

I also see some mentions of ex-"GSC" or "Stalker" developers at various studios, like Game-Labs, who just released Naval Action on Steam. Or the recent little misunderstanding that there were several former S.T.A.L.K.E.R. developers working at Battlestate Games, who are making Escape From Tarkov. Though it was later confirmed that only 1 such developer exists there, which they could've actually stayed quiet about and capitalize on it, like AnotheR cErtAin deveLoper. And if fans are asking questions that means people care about S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and that's a good thing.

But in my opinion, if the fans of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. really want the game GSC promised us and were making in 2010, it has to be made by that core team again. Some of those people have even suggested that they are ready to go back and work on S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, if GSC decides to finish it.

I strongly believe that video games are made by people and not companies. Seems like an obvious statement to make, but think about it: Do you trust anybody else but Valve to make Half-Life 3, especially with the recent departures of some of its original creators? Hideo Kojima and Metal Gear? Not to mention the countless indie studios that bring charm to their games in a way only they can do.

How about the many license exchanges and lends that have completely changed the purest aspects of countless series? Sometimes it's good, like Wolfenstein, but sometimes it's not, like Hardline. It's a gamble between the potential future or potential permanent demise of your favourite franchise. I guess here's the next obvious question to ask: do you trust anybody else but that old GSC company that closed its doors in 2012 to make that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2?

Because I don't.

Most of the information that has come out since S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 got frozen is in Russian, but thankfully, yours truly knows his Cyrillic and Bulgarian, which helps a lot when you want to know more.

When S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 was announced in April 2010 it was confirmed that the story in it would feature a completely new chapter, staring Strelok, the protagonist of the first game. More survival mechanics, new monsters and factions were also promised. Here's some concept art and renders, courtesy of ExGSC.Com:

Later in 2011 more details like the fact that the playable area would be one seamless, giant Zone, as opposed to the many smaller ones in the previous games, was also confirmed.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 was also going to use a new engine, as opposed to the old and unstable X-Ray 1.6. It was written completely from scratch, fully supporting DX11 too. With it they wanted to eventually debut the series on consoles as well.

From last year, a supposed, partial source code leak of the new engine, X-Ray 2.0, supports that, along with revealing a map of the new Zone, courtesy of GameInator.Com:

There was also a leak of very early design documents from in last year which had a slightly different version of the same map. They are based on a Google Earth satellite image from 2002 (the current version of the area in GE is from 2013):

There is also the theory that some concept art, renders of character and structure models made it into Survarium, which wouldn't be a surprise given how far GSC was in development with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 and its sudden development freeze:

For any old fan all of these details meant that if you liked what was there, more was to come in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, done in a better manner. And for anyone that didn't get into the series because of its many shortcomings, it was the perfect chance to do so.

And while I would like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 to happen more than anything, I just don't see how these promises are supposed to be kept when the people that made and understood them aren't at GSC anymore. It's OK to have hope for the future of an ambiguous game like this, but having adequate expectations is more important.

When GSC Game World reopened in 2014, this is what Valentine Yeltyshev, current spokesperson of the company, said to GamesIndustry.biz:

"We realized that STALKER 2 was different. It was going to take too much time - by the time it was ready, it was definitely going to be out of date."

Which is just soul crushing because to me that means when they get back to it, in a year or so from now, they might need to re-do a lot of its aspects. Which would add additional development time, making the already expensive project even more so. In the same article Valentine Yeltyshev also said:

"We're fine for now, but maybe when we switch to another project we'll expand the team."

There's little information as to the current status of GSC Game World, other than the fact that they are focused on strategy games right now – specifically Cossacks 3, a remake of their more than 15 years old RTS series. But after that? Who knows. But the more I think about S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, the more apparent it becomes to me how impossible it is to give it its due justice.

Don't get me wrong – this game might happen one way or another, but it might take damage to its overall quality if the right people aren't involved. GSC coming back to make more video games is just a step toward making S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, not the whole solution!

3. The Witcher from Faltro.

Many fans just want the game to happen in some way at least. Suggestions range from GSC selling the rights to someone else to merely lending it to capable studios, like 4A Games. That's a reasonable choice, given the fact that there are so many similarities between S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Metro, but also so many fundamental differences too, which is something I've always found very interesting:

As stated previously, 4A Games was founded by ex-GSC Game World employees, but in 2010 GSC accused 4A of copying their X-Ray engine in order to create the 4A Engine (which is ridiculous for many reasons). Which makes me think that this alliance is not going to happen. Maybe it's all old grudges by now and everybody has forgotten about those events. We don't know. But as shown on the table, 4A already have a franchise and talent to work with. Until then, I guess we can look forward to their new "sand-box-style" shooter.

But there's another studio that could take S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and make something unique out of it. Another studio that's mirroring some of the aspects of what made GSC Game World so unique: Beth... I'm just kidding and you know it. I'm of course talking about CD Projekt and their unparalleled progress in making bigger and better games (though to some degree the same could be said about 4A Games as well).

The Witcher has evolved gargantually as a franchise, just like the plans of GSC were for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (with plans to even expand it to a TV series), the only difference is that the latter couldn't continue following its ambitions. The biggest reason I think CD Projekt can make a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game is because I think they get it. They get what it takes to stand out in a sea of developer houses which are lead by nonsensical corporate decisions. Everything they do is against the bigger tide, yet they get away with it. They offer their games in a completely DRM-free form and develop tons of free DLC. And while it's something others do, you don't see it done to this capacity.

A bit of a side note here: I would love to see CDPR turn into one of those studios that can make any kind of a game. The Stanley Kubrick of video gaming. The closest we have to that is currently Blizzard in my opinion.

Basically: I would be happy to see any S.T.A.L.K.E.R. related project developed by CDPR. While the end result will definitely not be S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: I say go tinker with it, change whatever you want, I'm sure the end result is going end up something worth engaging with.

I jokingly mentioned Bethesda before because of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s relation to Fallout (especially the games after 2 (we don't talk about Tactics)) and while we are at it, let's go through this topic as well.

I find it incredible how Shadow of Chernobyl (2007) and Fallout 3 (2008) are so similar in so many ways, yet were developed in complete isolation from each other. I think it's a very apparent fact that GSC didn't pick and choose aspects for its game from what would become "the next Fallout", on the other hand Bethesda never cared what SoC was. Yet, the two games ended up being in the same ballpark.

4. Substitute Scientific Medkit.

If you would believe me, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 won't happen, so looking for alternatives, however different they might be, is something a person like me is likely to start doing. So I did and have been doing so since GSC Game World closed its doors in 2012.

Where to look but closer than the aforementioned Fallout series, right? Well, as it turns out that franchise doesn't really have some of the fundamental ingredients of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. My biggest wish for Fallout 4 was that it would nick some stuff up from S.T.A.L.K.E.R., like the A-Life AI system and have a livelier world with more atmosphere (which I will get to later).

Yet, even though it had the advantages that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 didn't, time and money, it did not deliver those things, to the degree I was hoping it would. Also, the whole deal with Bethesda making an open world RPG game that's inferior to The Witcher 3 still boggles my mind.

What else do we have? Survarium, OK. When that game was announced directly after S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 got frozen, it promised us a gamemode that would give us some of that unique flavour that made its spiritual predecessor so special - Freeplay. We are yet to see it or know more than the few details that Vostok Games shared a year ago.

And while I'm as impatient as everybody else about Freeplay mode, which was teased for Q4'14 in Q4'13 and now we are beyond Q4'15, I would like to remind everyone that Rome wasn't built in one day. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. wasn't either, nor Freeplay in Survarium will be. So let's all chill a bit, eh?

There's also a game called Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason, made by Action Forms, which reminds me more of Metro rather than S.T.A.L.K.E.R. But it's an interesting game in that it's another "one of those weird Eastern European games that look good, have ahead of their time technical prowess, but other aspects hold them back".

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. might be mostly forgotten in the grand scheme, but some developers remember it. Some even take notes from it and make their games better because of it. Most of them are small, but it's still something.

Like Raphael Van Lierop, founder of Hinterland Studios. Which is developing The Long Dark – a wilderness survival game, set in the dark depths of Canada. It has taken inspirations from all sorts of books and games, one of them being S.T.A.L.K.E.R. In their Kickstarter campaign (disclosure: I backed that) they said:

"If you're a fan of atmospheric, exploration-focused games like Fallout 3 or STALKER, you'll love The Long Dark."

When I asked van Lierop what aspects he took from it, he replied:

"Deeply atmospheric environments and the flavour of a specific part of the world. And other stuff..."

Which are things S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did pretty well and they do show up in The Long Dark in large amounts.

Raindrop – another Kickstarter game, developed by a duo – also took some inspiration from S.T.A.L.K.E.R., alongside Half-Life, though the project was halted due to the unsuccessful campaign, but the devs were later picked up by Hinterland to work on TLD.

There's also the little bit better known Sir, You Are Being Hunted, by Big Robot, headed by Jim Rossignol (formerly PRS and a fellow S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fan). It was often described as "a British STALKER", which was a welcome news in my book. And the inspiration is apparent – the devilish AI, inventory management, survival against the odds and traveling between regions – all wrapped up in a procedurally generated hunt to find the parts of your crashed spaceship.

I've been listing one indie game after another here, but there was a AAA game, released as recently as 2015, that reminded me of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as well. So much so that most of the reasons it did are I think unintentional.

Am I the only one who thought Techland's Dying Light was a bit like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? Have I started making stuff up? There are tons of differences in terms of missing aspects in each side - like actual good melee and a zombie outbreak in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., versus blowouts, anomalies and all in Dying Light. But structurally, these games are so alike: the hub area, runners, factions, the quarantined area, the pitch black night with these things in them:

And yes, I know, I know this is a spiritual successor to Dead Island, but I can't shake the thought that it reminded me so much of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Maybe I'm looking to deep into this. Perhaps.

I briefly mentioned Escape From Tarkov before, hardcore MMOFPSRPG, but I really don't think that it is going to be much like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and it doesn't have to be. I think it looks cool, regardless of people's association with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

5. W's da'?

So what's the point of all of this? I talked about what S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is, why we might never one more again, who has taken lessons and remembered it. But why? Why is S.T.A.L.K.E.R. so important and why do I value it so much?

I think it has to offer something very few games posses and many more desperately need – a world that's truly alive, but at the same time one you are not in control of. As real as the real world around us gets. Or at least gives the impression of.

The A-Life AI system in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is just too good to be true, if you ask me. In the "Making of Clear Sky" video GSC Game World talks about how they have a dream game in mind they've wanted to make since S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was known as Oblivion Lost – a game driven completely by AI. CS and its faction wars was just a step toward that. Call of Pripyat was an exercise of how large worlds they could simulate, with their old X-Ray 1.6 engine.

The original implementation of A-Life was so loosely controlled in the game that it was able to solve the mystery of how to reach the center of the Zone and win the game, before the player could. It was that good. Only 10 years ago. It was later nerfed for ShoC, but the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games feel like a real place nonetheless. With dynamic encounters that have nothing with the player's actions it puts the player in different situations every time. That's why, just like in the Stalker movie, people keep coming back to these games, the Zone keeps calling you back.

This is what Anton Bolshakov, project leader of SoC, said in an interview for RPS, conducted by Jim Rossignol, about the development of this feature, in 2007:

"We had a very strong concept to go in line with our robust engine. It was a concept which, in our estimations, would remain relevant and innovative even after a decade."

And they were right, almost 15 years ago now. I wish they weren't, for the sake of this industry. It just breaks my heart thinking how a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game could look like made with current technology.

I also think S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has to offer some of that Eastern European "weirdness" that we are so unfamiliar with. What do you I mean by that? Have you seen the movie Stalker I mentioned before? Well, that sort of thing. Have you seen Solaris, by the director who also made the previous film? Well, you should if you want to know exactly what I mean. They are both completely free to watch on YouTube.

I firmly believe that the different experiences out of our comfort zone are incredibly valuable. It's like when you discover a new favourite song, just because you clicked at a YouTube suggestion. Or when you decide to watch a movie not really in your favourite genre, but it had excellent reception and after seeing it you don't regret your choice.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a very good example of something like that which happened in gaming. As Rossignol said: "it's a video game made by specific people, from a specific place". I think we should have more of that, which we are thankfully starting to see in the grander aspect as well, with companies like CDPR and their incorporation of Slavic mythology into video games.

Too many games rely on overused themes and tropes. And that's not only in their story and narrative designs but also gameplay. I'm not saying make every game like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., because it has many downsides of its own, all related to polishing, but how about take the best it offered? Because the parts of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. that do work, do so better than most other open world games can only wish.

Here's a simple fact: every open world game would be objectively and significantly better if it had the A-Life AI system. The hard part is actually implementing such a complex thing. Imagine the range of possibilities though: from Far Cry 5 to Fallout 5.

Not to mention the many survival games out there right now that can learn soo much from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Many of them have brain dead enemies that could be turned into an actual threat for the player. In a way S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was a proto-survival game in its day and with some mods like MISERY, Call of Pripyat turns into a brutal challenge of actual survival and resource scrounging.

There's so much potential for developers to use A-Life in their products that it's a crime that they don't do. Maybe I'm asking for something impossible, am I really? Like seriously?

We are in the middle of the 8th generation of video games hardware and 2 beyond the time S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was conceived. It's time well due for someone to take hard engrained lessons from this underrated franchise.

6. Wrenched Jellyfish Bubble.

As a long awaited sequel S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 is a weird one. It's one of those that had a chance to happen. It's not like Duke Nukem Forever which was destined to fail after so many hand exchanges or Half-Life 3 which will be nothing like what Valve was making as Episode 3, (now) back in the day. It's also not like Star Wars 1313 which was almost ready to ship. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 was in the middle of its development and the promise was solid.

I want to be wrong about in what I believe when I say S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 won't happen and I hope I'm eventually proven wrong one way or another. But high hopes = high dissapointments.

Now get out of here Stalkers!

Or how I can't accept the fact that Battlefield is just another franchise in the book of EA

Where do I even begin with? I guess I should address the subtitle first. I have a really big problem with Battlefield. I really love it. I probably like it a little bit too much. But that's only half of my issue with the franchise. What else bothers me is that it's really hard to like it anymore. It has become more and more frustrating to try to appreciate it with each iteration. Let me explain.

Looking at and understanding the history of Battlefield can be challenging. But in order to get my point across we need to look back a bit.

Main Canon

Battlefield's origins are murky but the earliest game in the series was released in 1999 and it's called Codename Eagle. It was a WWI themed, proto-Battlefield game developed by Refraction Games, who also developed an engine called Refractor, which was later used in what we now refer to as the early, or classic Battlefield titles.

Shortly thereafter Refraction Games was bought by DICE and the newly expanded studio started working on Battlefield 1942. A publisher was found for the funding too - Electronic Arts.

So Battlefield 1942 was released in 2002 and it amazed everybody with its simplistic, yet addictive and innovative combined warfare gameplay. This was the real beginning of all there is and where we are now is actually a little bit more complicated than you might expect. That's because there are 2 ways to look at Battlefield. The first is the lineage we are all familiar with - starting with BF1942 and going all the way to Hardline.

It includes main games like 2, 3 and 4 but also spin-offs like the Bad Company series or one offs like 1943. One of the many and great things DICE abandoned in recent years is giving any indication with their titles as to which time frame we are working with in these games.

If Codename Eagle was BF1912, then Battlefield 1942 continued onwards in time. The Korean War (supposed BF1952) wasn't covered but then we see BF Vietnam (BF1962). The Gulf War would've been BF1992 and then we come to BF2 (BF2002). Notice the constant 2 at the end of the dates. DICE started it, I can't stop now.

And these titles with numbers don't have to be historically accurate. The most highly rated game in the series (BF2) had a setup that was fictional. Looking at the chart I made will give you a better picture of where the main games stand. Keep in mind that most of these specific years are incorrect with the time frame covered in a given game by few years but the overall series has no interest in being consistent across its span anyway.

Giving Battlefield 4 a sub/working title of "2022", even though it's set in 2020 is just to keep up with the previous logic of 1942->2142. "TBM" (or "to be made") is given to games that don't exist and if made could cover specific wars conflicts in the past.

Alternate Reality

The second viewpoint of where Battlefield is now starts with a divergence from the possible time frame plan DICE was going to follow. Instead of going to the Gulf War after Vietnam, we jump right into modern times with a mod for BF1942 called Desert Combat. It was inspired by the, then current, War in Iraq and consequentially even more so by modern military warfare.

The Desert Combat mod was developed by Trauma Studios. It became pretty successful and the team behind it was eventually hired by DICE and they helped shaping what would become BF2 in 2005.

"Cool story bro but what does BF2s development has to do anything with a supposed second lineage of Battlefield games?" you might say. Well, you see, while BF1942 was all fine and dandy, it was in a market saturated by WWII games. With some inspiration and creativity someone took what was already there and made it way better. And that applies to both BF1942 (which we already talked about) and BF2.

In BF2s case a very particular portion of the moders (not Trauma Studios) weren't completely satisfied with what was already at offer. So they decided to make something that would further continue what BF2 started.

Battlefield has always been put in the middle of the arcade-realism chart for shooters: way more realistic than Quake but nowhere near ArmA. And with BF2 at the time it was in the perfect middle.

So the same people who weren't satisfied with the amount of realism it offered, they decided to make it as realistic as possible. By now I'm sure you are familiar about what I'm talking about - the Project Reality mod. It's the military simulator version of not only BF2 but Battlefield itself.

Most people are unfamiliar with the details so here is a short summary. The mod expands upon every aspect of BF2 the way BF2 expanded upon BF1942. It adds more depth to every mechanic, while introducing countless others. It makes communication way more necessary and rewarding. It has the most realistic gameplay and it offers more content than several modern titles from the series combined, with bigger maps and 100 people in a single server.

And in my opinion the Project Reality mod is the best the Battlefield franchise has to offer as of right now. It's the most fleshed out game, with nearly 10 years of development. Most people avoid it because it's made in an old engine (Refractor 2) or because it's a mil sim. And those are totally justifiable reasons.

But fear not. Modern video game development and distribution is finally allowing someone to make a spiritual sequel to Project Reality. And once again I'm sure you know what I'm talking about - SQUAD, developed by ex-PR devs, now under the name of Offworld Industries.

Made with Unreal Engine 4, they are setting up to make a better and bigger in every aspect PR, without technical limitations. It's going to take them a long time but it's going to be worth it.

So what's the problem? Oh wait, you lied to us!

I guess I did. But did I really? The two directions Battlefield has taken are completely different at this point. On one side we have SQUAD and on the other... Hardline? Like WTF? With this huge contrast created between those who tried to continue the legacy of BF in a particular direction it was heading anyway and the new people who have no idea where they want to take it, it's hard to believe everything started from an unsuccessful WWI game.

What I'm trying to say is this a fucked situation we have here. Just before BF2142 was released EA completed their acquisition of DICE and the games after that in the franchise became so much different. EA made so many, really strange, calls to be honest. Console only BF? Which I'm still not sure how EA got away with. SP story? Totally unexpected. Removing essential features like VOIP, modding, commander mode? This is ridiculous. Focusing on a completely different gamemode? Cool but also what?! Completely unnecessary and dull SP stories (Bad Company doesn't count)? What's the point of them?

The way I see it is EA wanted BF to be big, way bigger than it should've. And they got what they wanted. They gave DICE time to develop its next-gen engine, Frostbite, and then start making Battlefield for consoles only. They did that for a short time and then started making them for every platform that had core gamers in them. That meant more was developed for the same amount of time, which made them cut a lot of corners.

But Battlefield wasn't enough. As a way to keep up with competition EA started releasing Medal of Honor titles in between every Battlefield release, until they completely destroyed it.

And when they decided to return to making core BF games, after half a decade and countless spin-offs, they gave us BF3. A pretty good game but nothing that evolved the core games in the franchise, in fact it was more of reboot if you think about it.

Then we got BF4, which was another disappointment for a different set of reasons, which are mostly fixed now but it's still just more of 3. And wouldn't you know it then Hardline happened, which I talked about 5 paragraphs ago.

It's basically pick your poison at this point: non-iterative (BF3), buggy (BF4), something completely different (HL). The list of things that are done differently in the older BF games vs what's there now is staggering.

So many mechanics are so much more forgiving - movement and health to name a few. But some are brutal, like unlocking everything there can be. Some aspects like stealth are gone. All of these changes led to a way faster than it should've been game. Classes are either overplayed or not played with at all and teamwork is not incentivized.

All of this just leads me to believe that all recent Battlefield games are just bad Battlefields. They don't iterate much upon anything or don't do what Battlefield has always been about: giving us unique gameplay experiences at different time periods.

You can either perceive this as the ramblings of a shell shocked mad man or a pretty balanced opinion on the Battlefield franchise without mentioning Call of Duty for onc... fuck!, it was going to happen anyway, no way of avoiding it at this point.

But the fact stands that Battlefield is not what it used to be. It has turned into just another franchise in the book of EA. They have no interest in evolving or structuring it differently as long as it breaks even. Most of EA's recent games just seem good enough, mediocre, passable for the most part: Need for Speed, SimCity, DS, Crysis and Battlefront. How in the name of everything can something be so cynical of itself? These are all great properties to have but they are arguably underutilized.

To me the good old days of BF are gone. At this point DICE can not do anything to get its good will back. Battlefield 5 won't save them and the amount of rebooting is going on, I won't be surprised if it's presented in that way as well. The audience of people who cared so much are not here anymore. Many of them I imagine got tired and went to play something else.

Perhaps it's just me.

One man's progression vs another's regression are not meant to compliment each other

This article was originally supposed to be about how every favourite franchise of ours eventually gets fundamentally changed until only the name remains. In Battlefield's case Hardline is the closest we will get to that point for some time I think. It's not the end but it's pretty damn close.

A while ago I heard someone say something really distressing (mostly to me I guess) about entertainment in general: no matter the material or by who and when it was created, it will eventually be repackaged and sold to someone, somewhere else. It's unavoidable, especially in today's corporate driven world led by capitalism.

There are countless franchises or brilliant works that have been masqueraded far worse than I make Battlefield to be. If you ever hear me again complain about Battlefield after this article, just remember Silent Hill.

The thing that makes me the most mad about myself is how late I realized what Battlefield had turned into. It hit me really hard when I actually started comparing BF3 to its prequel. I ate all of that $200m marketing budget that was allocated for 3 back in 2011. I bought into the hype and was super excited that Battlefield would return to its roots.

Alas, it was way too late - the influences from outside in Battlefield were far too apparent and the purity of what made it great in the past was long gone. The people Battlefield attracted and those who made it post BF2142 had no interest in slow paced gameplay, nor out of the box game that would engage us for years to come.

And it's not like I didn't enjoy BF3 but as time passed I realized more and more it wasn't for me anymore. Nobody made it for me in particular and it was all a business transaction after all.

It simply wasn't meant to be. I can go on and on and drivel more poetic bullshit about how much I love BF2 and how dislikable Battlefield has become to me but the takeaway message is that it's OK to change and leave some things in the past. Not everything from the past can stay the same in the future or evolve alongside you.

Looking for new and exciting things is way better than lamenting at the past like me. My love towards BF2 is near obsessive at this point and only things like SQUAD can fill the void in my soul(?).

And it's not just me who just can't let go of a favourite video game. Danny O'Dwyer made an excellent episode on this subject on his The Point series where he talked about Assassin's Creed which prompted me to write this in the first place.

What can't YOU let go of off? Final Fantasy? Assassin's Creed? Star Wars? There's plenty to choose from. What you never should forget is what kinds of completely new things are on the horizon.

Video gaming is heading more and more in the direction of niches tailored specifically for you and me. Battlefield used to be one (in some ways ) but now it really isn't. On the other hand SQUAD totally is - the people who are making it have a clear vision of what they want it to be.

In a way I would've hoped those same people from Trauma Studios influenced the future of Battlefield but they are long gone. Few days before BF2 was released they were shutdown and later picked up by the now bankrupt THQ. They made Frontlines: Fuel of War and later Homefront, both of which didn't leave much of a mark.

To me the people working at DICE right now are not necessarily completely unconcerned and DICE LA is apparently doing a splendid job on BF4 but to me Trauma Studios are the people who are responsible for the highest point of brilliance the main series has ever reached (not counting PR and SQUAD).

I'm surprised how rarely we see games like Battlefield around though. The series doesn't really have much of a competition. I've always wondered why and the only answer I can come up with is "It's really difficult to make a game like this", which is admirable for DICE and it's a wonder of its own how Battlefield has survived for this long (though the most obvious reason to me is "Because EA wants it to be around").

I'm sure someone is going to make something along the same lines eventually. I could do with a better Battlefield.

Warning, under the Universal law of common decency and "don't waste my time" rule, I must inform you that this article may contain personnal opinions, basic history and geography lessons and a lot of parentheses (like these, because I like them (a lot)).

I do can speak English - nothing wrong with that, given the fact that this very sentence is written in English.

I can speak Turkish too - now that's not boring. By the power of generalizing 95% of the population of Earth, I can tell what kind of basic facts you may know or associate with Turkey. I hope you are aware that the German video game/tech demo developer Crytek was founded by 3 Turkish brothers. Yeah? The Mount&Blade series is also developed by the Turkish developer TaleWorlds. You may also have heard of those instant diabetes pills, known as Turkish delight.

And now we come to Bulgarian - I do know that language too. But do you even know where Bulgaria is? A quick Bing search would bring (or would it?) information about a tiny country in the Balkans. Hold on now, don't feel bad because you've never heard of these two exotic terms "Bulgaria" and "Balkans", because after reading this whole big mess you will be able to go to the comments section bellow and say in all caps "Now I know that a Bulgarian has created the computer"... uhm - I have to admit, that was a quick pot-shot at your limited knowledge about the unknown wonders Bulgaria is responsible for, but let's trace back and get on the topic of me.

I... something

What all of these facts have to do with me? "A guy on Internet can speak 3 languages, so?" you might say, not being aware how boring your life is with the only language you know - English. After answering few simple questions together, you and I will realize how different we are.

Question 1: Do you ever question what you say?

My answer: I do. I do a lot. Knowing more than 2 languages and having a name "Halid Yusein" does make you wonder about all sorts of stuff (to which we will get later).

Your answer:_______________________________________________________________________.

Question 2: Do you ever find yourself in a situation where you giggle after speaking language A in an enviroment with people who speak language B?

My answer: Often, very often (we will get to the reasons later as well).

Your answer:______________________________________________________________________.

There are some extra security questions, but these should be enough. Different combinations of answers yield different types of boring personalities.

By this point I should explain my background to further cement my future and past arguments.

My name is Halid Yusein (yes, it does) and I'm from Bulgaria. I know, I'm completely aware that the names "Bulgaria" and "Halid" aren't compatible, but what can I say - I didn't chose my name, did I?

Yes, you've guessed it right - Halid Yusein is a Turkish name, "and at the same time you are born in Bulgaria? How is this possible?" The answer is simple - I didn't manage to choose my parents either. I know, this makes me a bit of a noob, but one can't have everything, right?

History is written by the winners

In order to understand why someone with the name of a terrorist would be born in a Christian country like Bulgaria we must know a little bit of history.

Here goes nothing: Back in the medieval times Bulgaria was a major player in the Balkans, but with the fall of the East Roman Empire and the rise of those pesky Turks, it was endangered, attacked and eventually captured by the new Ottoman Empire by the end of the 14th century.

As you can imagine those Turkish sultans weren't going to leave Bulgaria in the hand of some Christians, so some rich guys moved in to own the new and fresh land.

5 centuries later we find ourselves in 1878 and the liberation of Bulgaria. With the help of few centuries long hate between the Russian and Ottoman empire, Bulgaria was freed with the help of Ruskis and the big influence of Russian politics over Bulgaria started.

The next 100 years are marked with the rise of communism in Bulgaria; Russian ideals had a big influence over Bulgarian matters and even then, we somehow ended up siding with The Third Reich... Twice! First time - because why not? Second time - because the "we didn't have choice" bullshit excuse.

After The Second World War we were forgiven by the USSR or something and we joined their side until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Do you see a pattern here?

Fun fact #1: Even when most of Bulgaria's existence has been completely irrelevant to everybody in the world, during the Cold War it was the biggest manufacturer of high-tech electronics and the Pravets computers for the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain.

Extra facts: Today Bulgaria is proud only with two things: that it produces high quality rose oil and that it's one of the few places on Earth where yoghurt can be made the way it's supposed to (traditional Bulgarian yoghurt is waaaay better than any other peasantry BS I've tried).

And then wouldn't you know it, Bulgaria was reminded, somehow, about the horrible things that happened to them few hundred year ago - Ottomans tried to ban Christianity and force Islam into their culture. The new government after the collapse of USSR tried to change the names of everybody to Bulgarian, forcefully - dem good, old tactics!

Because you see, there are some villages that are inhabited only by people who identify themselves as Turkish - they speak Turkish (which I will come to in a bit), they watch Turkish television and even teach the Turkish language in schools, alongside Bulgarian of course.

And then some Turkish people were pissed off of that someone tried to change their names to Bulgarian and eventually Bulgaria did so, but the final result was... well, not so surprising. Massive hordes of Turkish people fled into nearby Turkey, in hope of not being discriminated. Two of those families were my fathers and mothers. My mother's did came back quickly, after that little issue with changing the names ceased, but it took time for my father's family (not to mention the fact that one of his brothers is still enjoying his life there).

Fun fact #2: A great deal of terrorism was involved to change the policy Bulgaria tried to force into it's own population. Later, one of those terrorists became the leader of the Turkish party in Bulgaria. I know - it's funny!

Clarification: The author of this article is not associated with Bulgarian-Turkish or any other terrorist groups in any shape or form.

After a little while I was born and because Bulgaria is a shit hole, we moved in to the not-so-shit-hole called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

A mutant

As stated above, my origins are from the 'ol good Ottoman Empires emigrants to the Balkans.

After this sweet little story I've told you your question "WTF are you then? Bulgarian-Turkish? Turkish? Or just Bulgarian?" is totally justifiable. Over the years a lot of people have proposed to me different theories of what I'm. Some say it's all about the paperwork, others as to whatever I identify myself as. I've given people a lot of different explanations, but today I will be honest with you.

Yes, my gran-gran-gran-grandparents are from the Ottoman Empire; yes, I'm from one of these little villages where they believe they are Turkish; and no - my child isn't half English. In fact I identify myself as someone with Turkish blood in his veins, but with a lot of Bulgarian culture, living in England.

And if after all of this someone still insists that I'm Bulgarian, well - the biggest and most obvious proof that I'm not is that I don't look like one. It's the same as when most people can distinguish English from Americans, some people can do the same with Chinese and Japanese - I can do it with Turkish and Bulgarian people. It's actually pretty easy.

Is this graspable? Or even wrong, in any way? Because enough people seem to be confused by my name; my answer to the question "Where are you from?" and the fact that I can't be bothered to explain all of this to everybody.

Challenge Accepted!

And now it's time for the real educational part of this article. It's time for me to explain to you the mighty Bulgarian language and the lack of wonders it carries with itself.

Let's start with the second to most confusing thing about it - the alphabet. Bulgarian is using the Cyrillic alphabet, which means those of you who use the Latin won't understand even a word of it.

And let's be completely honest here - watching people botch your native language/alphabet is amusing. Let's start with an example: DayZ and the location it's set in - Chernarus. It's a fictional part of Russia and following logic, all of it's signs are in Russian, which also uses the Cyrillic alphabet.

"Черногорск" for example in English is Chernogorsk. It's the funniest thing when people say the first letter "Ч" is 4 and question why anybody would put a number in their alphabet.

If we want to get specific with the whole Bulgarian/Russian/Cyrillic nonsense we have to dabble in in a deeper manner. There are some letters that look and are pronounced the same way as in Latin, but others? Nope, absolutely no!

One last thing to note right now is that Cyrillic is pronounce-what-you-see, NOT pronounce-this-by-some-obscure-reasons-to-outsiders.

Hold on to your temporal lobe:

"A" is simply "A", but

"B" is "Б" - notice the difference? If you write "B" in Bulgarian it's actually "V" - yes, made to totally confuse me, and you! Moving along -

"C" - we don't have "C" per say, because this letter works in weird manners in English - you can use it for "cat" or "sincere" or "delicious chocolate". If you write "C" in Bulgarian it becomes "S";

"D" is "Д", no - I want to correct myself - What the fuck is that? It's like a TV on a table or a spider monster thing-y! It's bizarre! Wait! I know what it looks like - a drone from Space Invaders!

"E" is "E" - easy enough!

"F" is "Ф" - I don't know about you, but it looks like an onion to me...

"G" is "Г" - I know, it's easy to think that it's a broken "T";

"H" is "Х" - no, it's not "X" (eks), the only letter that has less words that start with it than "Q". But if you write "H" in Bulgarian it becomes "N". We don't have "X"(eks);

"I" is "И" - yes, it's a mirrored "N". It's pronounced as "E" (information);

"J" is "ДЖ" - I know, it's 2 letters and cheat-y. But note that it's not part of the alphabet;

"K" is "К" - do you see the beautiful curves it has - take that Latin alphabet!

"L" is "Л" - it's like a skateboard ramp;

"M" is "М" - It's easy, I know!

"N" - we covered this one, check "H";

"O" is "О" - this letters seems like it's written the same way in a lot of languages and alphabets;

"P" is "П" - yeah, it's easy to think that someone has, again, made a mistake and changed "Л" (L). If you write "P" in Bulgarian it's actually "R" as in "rock", no - not "Я", which we will cover later;

"Q" is "we don't have that". More to the point - what were you thinking English? Why couldn't you just say "kyu"? How many words are there with "Q"? Two? "Quebec" and "queen". Shame on you English!

"R" - already covered at "P";

"S" - see "C";

"T" is "Т" - thank God we have another easy letter to remember, ha?

"U" is "У" - I know, I know - it looks like a small "Y" (y), don't need to scream and yell about it - it's another "misunderstanding";

"V" - look for "B";

"W" - we don't have that one, but we use the closest letter that replicates it - "У" (U), we are so clever, aren't we?

"X" - see "H";

"Y" is "Й" - *sigh*, what can I say - we had to have one of these letters with little things above them. The strange thing about it is when we say the alphabet we call this letter "shortened Y", the ultra-mega fact is that there is no "long Y"!!! - [RATED 'R' FOR RETARDED];

"Z" is "З" - no, no and no! - as much as I would like it to be different... it's actually the number 3. All 8 Bulgarians that are reading this - let's be honest guys and gals - it's the number "3" and we've fucked that one up. To all other nations out there - yes, the number "3" is written the same way in Bulgaria and yet, we have to deal with this BS.

But this is not the end! Nope, because while the English alphabet is made from only 26 letters (even with it's unnecessary "Q", "W" and "X") the Bulgarian alphabet has the impressive amount of 30 letters.

Here is the rest of the Bulgarian alphabet, where some of them are useful and others utterly pointless:

"Ж" is "ZH" - no guys, it's not a bug on your screen, it's just the fact that this letter has 6 legs. Bulgarian example: the name "Желязков" (zhelyaskov) (Hi mate!), English example: "treasure" - that ending with "-sure" (not "shur");

"Ц" is "TS" - what are you saying? Another letter that looks like the number 4? Bulgarian example: *laughs inside, because... casual racism* "царевица" (tsarevitsa) (translation: corn);

"Ч" is "CH" - yes, you finally know what the first letter of "chocolate" looks like, oops, it's actually the one below;

"Ш" is "SH" - yes, we, the pesky nation, known as Bulgaria, have changed "chocolate" to "shokolad" (шоколад) - we are evil and are not afraid to show it to others AND the fact that we've chosen "Ш" to look like a comb;

"Щ" is "SHT" - yes you are right - we are that pretentios that adding a little wiggle at end of "Ш" actually adds "T" to "SH" and creates a brand new letter. Example : "ще" (shte) (will) - as in "will delete this article when I realize how bad it is";

"Ъ" is "U" - not "YU" but "U", like "turn". This time we didn't mirror whole a letter (like "N"), but only a part of "Б" (B) - we are so original!

"ь" is "Y" - it's pretty much the same as "Й", but you can't use it at the start of words, because ancient-tribal-rules;

"Ю" is "YU" - pretty much "you". Combined example: English "menU" in Bulgarian is "менЮ" - note that it's pronounced and written the same way, the differences are cosmetic;

"Я" is "YA" - and never, ever "R"! I know it's our fault that we've stolen this letter too, mirrored it and called it something completely different, but can't you forgive us, please?

+3 Communication Skill Points Acquired!

And now we basically come to the source of my hate towards the Bulgarian language. The following is probably the bane of every language, but is Bulgarian's nonetheless - grammar.

It's complicated, it's outdated, it's difficult and it's unnecessarily very complicated. Why? Because it has so many rules and nitty-gritty details attached to it. If someone wanted to learn it, he probably would go mad, depressed and eventually to the kitchen for some ice cream.

All of the complications with adjectives and verbs, with their thousands of forms are what makes this language very hard to learn. You think irregular verbs in English are silly? You've seen nothing. Every single adjective has at least 3 forms and verbs many more. You have to account every single time for their correct form.

Piece of turkey meat

Now that we've reached this point you probably expect of me to make fun out of the Turkish language as well. Much to your surprise (or delight, if you don't hate me already) I was never given any sort of official Turkish education. All of my reading and speaking skills are from watching TV.

Compared to Bulgarian, Turkish is maybe too simple. There is simply no he/she/it. It's based on context and one simple "o" solves all of their problems.

In it's core, Turkish is relatively easy to learn. While it's roots are in Arabic and other languages from central Asia, for some reason, now it uses the Latin alphabet. But it has flaws, like the ridiculous amount of postfixes verbs can have. Shall we get into some examples?

The most simple form of "go" in Turkish is "git". The "i" in it is read as "e". If you can read github.com - the "git" bit is read the same as the "git" (go) from Turkish.

And if we want to say "I will go" it gets the postfix "-eceğim". Which is read as "ejeyim". Then the "git" changes to "gid" and we add "-eceğim" and it becomes "gideceğim". At this point you can actually leave this word as it is and it will mean "I will go", but you can add "ben" (not a name), which means "me" or "I" before "will go" and will mean the same.

If this has been hard for you to grasp, prepare yourself for the next example. Instead of evolving the verb "git" a little bit, I will just mutate it to "gitmeyebilirmiyiz". Indeed - WTF?!? This monstrosity of "git-me-ye-bi-lir-mi-yiz" simply means "Can we not go?"

One positive thing about Turkish I want to mention is that there are some very short and convenient words. Like "ip" (not "intellectual property" or "Internet protocol") = "rope".

There are also some words with 3 meanings at the same time, like "yüz". Now, don't get putt off of that "ü" letter. I'm sure you've seen it in German and more or less, it's pronounced the same way.

"yüz" means "swim", "hundred" (100) and "face" at the same time. That is so neat, isn't it now Stanley?

One last thing I want to show you about Turkish are its 3 (or 2, depending on how you look at things) extra vowels:

"I" is actually not a small "L"(l) or large "I"(i). Notice how it's shorter than small "L" and pretty much the same as Latin "I"(ay). What is missing form the picture is a dot, which would transform it to "İ" - capital "I" (English "ay"). Are you confused yet? It's a sure thing I can't explain myself! It's used as the "U" from "turn";

"Ö" is pretty complicated to explain. Please ask your nearest coworker for its proper pronunciation. If you are alone, sad and don't have relatives nearby, try this neat trick - position your mouth to say "O", but lower the tip of your tongue and there you go, you just said "Ö";

"Ü" is a letter I mentioned few lines above and is present in other European alphabets. One example that would demonstrate the previous and this letter simultaneously is "ölüm" - "death".

Here are few more extra facts about Turkish you might care about after reading them:

Even when Turkey did adopt the Latin alphabet and have brought in many foreign words since then, they use their own words to describe months. But that's probably because Turkey is predominantly occupied by Muslims, and they never cared about what non-Muslim people said;

One thing that has happened in the past few decades (they feel more like centuries) is that Turkish (and Bulgarian) have adopted a lot of foreign words (from German, English, French, etc.). A lot of countries do that, because new technologies and practices that they haven't invented and more importantly, haven't named are brought to them.

And for some reason Turkish has decided to botch foreign words that have multiple consonants next to each other, like "stress". Turkish people don't (or maybe can't) pronounce "str-" like you just did. They add an extra "I" (that "U" from "turn") between "s" and "t". I have no idea why they do that. I have no problems pronouncing it the way it is. I'm happy that Bulgarians aren't such monsters though.

Idioms are always the cherry of these trees

I love idioms. They are the best way to have a laugh and poke at any language known to every lady and gentleman.

Most of them are idiotic and don't even try to follow common logic, but are nonetheless something I want you to see. Here are some phrases, strange sayings and chants too.

One thing I can't explain about English is its obsession with cakes:

"takes the cake", "sells like hot cakes" and "piece of cake" all sound like everybody eats cakes 'round 'ear.

You might say "You are so stupid, that's just a saying". You are wrong and I'm going to rub your nose in by saying that there is a saying in Bulgarian - "sells like warm bread", which is justified by our culture of eating a lot of bread.

One funny and rather violent idiom from Turkish is "crack and explode", which is said in a situation where someone insists on you to give away a secret that you know and you respond by saying the phrase, in hope the subject starts behaving appropriately. The original phrase has a rime to it, which is from where the charm comes from - "çatla da patla". It is a rare phrase and usually people that are difficult to deal with use it (childish individuals).

Here is an English idiom that used to drive me crazy: "under the weather" (being sick). God, it's awful!

Another one that gets me bent out of shape is "break a leg". For someone whose first and second language weren't English, that one really confused me for a long time while watching Dexter. Why would you wish to someone break his leg? And then the other person responds kindly to that!? Thank you English, for confusing the hell out of me and many others.

Not again!

The second to last feature of tonight will be related to the second question I asked you a while ago:

"Do you ever find yourself in a situation where you giggle after speaking language A in an environment with people who speak language B?"

The main aspect of this question is that when your family (and probably you) are too lazy to speak English on the bus, hilarity ensures. There are some really weird parallels between English/Turkish/Bulgarian that have put me on difficult positions.

Like when you travel and a continuous hill comes, it puts the vehicle you are traveling in in a funny position, therefore there comes a moment and you wonder "Why is it taking so long to traverse this hill?". That is something pretty normal to do and say, but not in an environment and situation when you are just too lazy to say it in English, but rather Turkish.

If you say it out loud, you might get in trouble, like me. Because the word "hill" would be replaced by "dik", yeah, not a word you want to say out loud in public. The opposite is possible too. When people speak English and say they are sick, which would transform that to "sik" - "dick" in Turkish.

Exactly, these are dick jokes, but I've never asked for them, nor ever wanted them. They are there, because there are visible parallels between languages, we want them or not.

There are hundreds of words that mean something completely different in some other language. I guarantee you that if you sit down and think about it enough, you will actually see them. It doesn't take much to do so.

Like "bit", which means 2 things in English and 3 things in Turkish:

"8 bits of information make 1 byte" and "I didn't like this bit of the show".

But if we talk about Turkish, it becomes:

"bit" as in "over, be done with it", "empty" and "bit" - "head louse".

I dare you to tell me that this isn't confusing! Or maybe I'm bad at switching between languages and interpreting things as they are. Having fuck ups like this for years and then starting to forget your first and then second language really makes you doubt if you are insane or not.

As much as I may despise western imperialism (hardy-durr), I'm happy that the English language has appeared as a dominant one, as opposed to Bulgarian and we are all trying to learn it. If you think about it though, it doesn't matter which language is dominant or where it's from - having to learn only one and then being able to speak with almost everybody (I say that because of Russians stubbornness) is actually the real benefit to our civilization.

Long live dominant language, whichever you might be!

Whot d' fock haf' y'a dan'?

And you know the worst part about all of this - this article that tries to be funny, my confused (probably damaged) brain and your justified anger? In the grand scheme, this is all meaningless. Ultimately no one, other than me and my sister, who has similar experience, will ever get this article. I wrote it for my sanity - I've wanted to say all of this and much more for as long as I can remember.

What only matters is that I'm happy now and the hope inside me that this article may have putted a smile on your lovely face as well.

Surviving in competitive environments

We are humans (if you are not, that’s cool too). This makes us very fragile organisms – we don’t seem to have God-like powers. There are lot of dangers out in the wild too – big predators, small bacteria and what not. Thanks to evolution and civilization, you are probably reading this from a comfortable place – somewhere safe.

As a result, we all like survival stories – how the human body and mind can endure seemingly impossible obstacles – freezing cold, burning heat, intense stress, unbearable pain and many others. From time to time we all like to hear a good survival story – be it fictional or not.

Media that explores the nature of survival is kind a niche – I wouldn’t say everybody is entranced by survival stories all the time. But the fact remains that sometimes there are made movies like Robinson Crusoe and Cast Away, that capture our imagination. This type of media allows us to remember how easy we are to break and appreciate the vast amount of goods modern society offers.

Games of Survival

Naturally, there are video games that explore surviving as well. No, not horror-survival games, the ones that try to scare us with smart jump scares, but ones that allow us to survive in the middle of nowhere with nothing.

Years ago these games were scarce – the good ones even more so. But now it seems like every quarter a new one pops out of a bush. Why so? Because now there is an audience for them, larger than ever before – group of dedicated people that are ready “to play the shit out of” X game that has survival elements.

It all started with the DayZ mod in 2012 and its emergent gameplay. It combined few gameplay mechanics in a unique manner: permanent death, MMO-like multiplayer, open world and the most important one – a mix of PVE and PVP combat. DayZ became so popular that it made its base game, ARMA 2, a best seller on Steam for months.

At the time it was like nothing else on the market – it created a new sub-genre. And what happens if there is a new cool kid around? Others start to act like it. As a result of this (cliche analogy) other developers started making games like DayZ. Don’t get me wrong – companies being inspired by others isn’t necessarily bad, in fact, that’s what happens all the time, to some degree or not.

Most of these games, that are inspired by DayZ, try to change or add something new to the already successful formula (from above) – like the base building element in Rust. There are of course blatant rip offs like The War Z, which is another topic for another day.

Some live together others die alone

But looking at all of these survival games and how some of them come and go from the mind of the public so fast, made me realize few things about them that are concerning.

First of all, after certain amount of time the only type of encounter people stumble upon is the one where the opposite side will shoot you on sight. Unless you are with friends, you can’t trust anybody else. The gameplay in Rust and many of the versions of the DayZ mod have become series of skirmishes as to which group possesses the best items and vehicles. These games are supposed to encourage social behavior, yet those who get the most satisfaction from them do some extremely anti social actions.

Secondly, the individuals that are into these type of games often migrate from one title to another. Why? Because all of these games are not finished and their incomplete state can do only so much as to satisfy a hungry horde of players which are “ready for some action”.

Some of these games’ popularity lasts more, some less. But the two major factors as to for how long someone would play X survival game are with how many friends can the person play and how populated the game in question is. The rest is pretty predictable – you play a game for some time and then wait for the next major content update. I can’t blame anybody if they experience burn out with these Early Access titles, as it is with most games in this category in Steam.

In between the major updates you can bash the heads of strangers with your friends. But if you are alone, you will often get outnumbered and overpowered by larger groups of people.

My third observation about DayZ and other games of its kind is that given enough time, they all become first person 4X apocalypse simulators:

• Players eXplore the seemingly fresh game and its mechanics;
• eXpand to create settlements, if there is base building;
• eXploit one each other in the form of killing, robbing, trolling, betraying and many other activities. The game is simply designed for that and any type of civilized establishments are being attacked by individual bandits or other, larger hostile groups and eventually destroyed;
• And finally eXterminate the desire to play of those who are new to the game, giving them no hope of succeeding. This is because hostile NPCs (zombies, wild life, etc) are more often than not a minimum threat for the players which makes killing real characters, more enjoyable. This eventually turns every one of these survival games into giant deathmatch arenas.

The sheer horror

Sure, none of these games are actually trying to be first person civilization builders – they are meant to create chaos and unexpected situations with their emergent gameplay.

But I wish at least one of them would actually facilitate mechanics that would allow for more friendlier encounters and be realized to its full potential. Because none of them are. All of them seem to be only good at rewarding players with worthy possessions and putting them in fight-or-flee situations.

The people who have first hand experience from the early stages of the DayZ mod and to some extent Rust, seek more kills in more creative ways. At the end of the day, there is only one type of a player that stands out in these games – the one who kills for loot. And I don’t have problem with them – if anyone is to blame for that, it’s the developers who have established certain rules into their games that allow such behavior.

Don’t get me wrong: developers can make games that support less bandit behaviour – there just isn’t one around. Maybe DayZ will be finished someday and it will work properly, but given the circumstances, I’m not sure if people’s interest in it will last that long.

The beginning life span of every multiplayer game is the best time to play it – everybody is equal, nobody knows what is going on and the skill gap between good and bad players is minimal. To me that time period in this multiplayer survival genre seems to be over.

I just think it’s unfortunate that there is a substantial amount of people who are late to the party and will be punished for trying to get in in this competitive space. It’s like people who jump into games like Tribes: Ascend – the skill gap between veterans and newcomers is enormous.

Games like DayZ are not strictly skill based, but I would say that knowing your whereabouts in Chernarus at all times and tactical movement are some that take time to master.

And that’s the biggest problem for newcomers in every new survival game that appears from nowhere: the horde of experienced players that migrate from one game to another – be it because the other game doesn’t have enough features currently or/and is plagued by technical issues.

In the meantime, if you don’t have friends to play with, your safest bet is playing a singleplayer survival game. These are decent: The Long Dark, Salt, State of Decay and RPGs like the Misery mod for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat. Some of them are more relaxed than others, but you don’t have to worry about bandits trying to force feed you rotten kiwis.

And why?

You might say the following:

“Why do you even give a fuck about newcomers? Are you one of those same noobs you are trying to so much protect from some ‘bandits’? Is this article some kind of redemption, just because you were ‘late’?“

I just think that this multiplayer survival genre is going nowhere – it won’t survive this way for a long time. Developers keep making the same games for one particular group of people that don’t go along together so well. I’m not sure how much long we can keep the illusion that some excellent game is coming out of this.