So. Let’s talk about E3…again.
I guess I’ll start with
my observations -- not on the expo itself, but hearsay around the
internet. From what I can gather, this
E3 has been average at best, disappointing in general, and a spiraling nexus of
universe-ending badness at worst. And
even though I think of myself as the Eternal Optimist, even I have to agree
with the detractors. This E3 wasn’t
amazing. It had high points, and even
the stuff I didn’t like had merit to some people, but overall I walked away
from my TV wishing that I had just seen…well, SOMETHING more.
I’ve gone into detail
about my thoughts on this year’s showing several times already, but I’ll save
you some legwork (or finger-work) and say this: in a nutshell, it was a very
“safe” showing on all accounts. A safe
showing of games we already knew about.
A safe amount of new properties.
A safe number of attempts to try and convince us that System Z will
become the entertainment hub of the future.
A safe period to appeal to casual gamers -- and give time for
bathroom/food breaks. The stuff that the
core gamers didn’t care about could be ignored; the stuff that did, I assume,
managed to codify consumer loyalty, at least until the next E3. Say what you will about things like the
Nike/Kinect partnership or Wonderbook, but more or less, each company showed us
the things that we want. Or perhaps,
what they think we want.
And that’s what brings
me here today: is this what gamers really want?
Yeah, yeah, you
probably know what I’m getting at.
“Every game nowadays is a Call of
Duty clone!” “Oh great, ANOTHER
shooter!” “The industry is doomed! Time to take up stamp collecting!” And I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t part
of my beef with the expo, and games as a whole these days. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m biased
against shooters, but more so against anything that’s excessively gritty. I find it hard to get excited about a world
where everything is dirty and dilapidated, and war-torn and hollowed-out; I
find it hard to connect with characters who are either faceless mutes, or so
cynical and snarky that I WISH they were faceless mutes (why so glum, Marcus
Fenix?). Games that try to be dark and
serious and brutal just leave me tired and uninterested. I think -- and I stress that this is my opinion
only -- too many games this generation evoke the same feeling and aesthetic;
why is it that with more graphical power and technical mastery, we’re moving backwards in terms of the worlds we
create?
Alternate title: How to Turn Your Franchise into a Caricature.
But my bigger issue
lies with just how everything has to be so violent
nowadays -- as if the only determinant of a hardcore game is the simple
equation “blood = sales.” Think back to
the demos shown at this year’s E3. Tomb Raider had Lara shoot guys with her
bow (sometimes setting them ablaze), and in one instance after nailing a guy
with a few shots she decides to stab the hell out of him. Splinter
Cell: Blacklist had Sam engage in slow-motion kills as he galloped about,
with no shortage of knife kills. Far Cry 3 had its leading man get about
half a dozen knife kills. God of War: Ascension -- as you’d expect
-- stars a man with giant knives chained
to his arms. Assassin’s
Creed, as usual, had a hero with no small number of stabbing
maneuvers. Even the people’s darling, The Last of Us, had a little girl
managing to stab an attacker in the back.
I’d wager that if there were any cutlery enthusiasts in the audience,
they were the ones cheering loudest.
My “Best in Show” award
would probably go to Pikmin 3 (though
Watch Dogs is a VERY close
second). You know why? Because it’s colorful. It’s not so much about turning your enemies
into punctured sacks of flesh as it is about exploring a strange, massive world
and finding treasure -- finding discoveris that are alien to the pilots of
Hocotate, but by that same virtue make our mundane items into something
fantastic and worth appreciating. I
won’t say that Pikmin isn’t violent
-- you DO command a loyal army of expendable ant-like soldiers to headbang your
enemies to death and harvest their corpses -- but it does so with a different
sort of veneer, and the game isn’t so much about the combat as it is the spirit
of wonder and exploration of a new world.
Well, that and the joys of nature.
And you know what? You know why I think Watch Dogs is so popular amongst us? Because it’s spewing promise in every
direction like a busted fire hydrant. Using
technology to affect the world around you, from gathering data to inciting car
crashes, sounds like an AWESOME idea that I’m honestly excited to hear more
about. It has the potential to offer a
deep, meaningful story, one with a context that ties in perfectly with our
modern society. In my opinion, the best
parts of that demo were when the main character walked around and used his
phone to screw with his surroundings; the worst
parts were when he ultimately had to resort to gunning down his opponents to
succeed. We’ve had enough shooting this
generation; just let us hack our way to victory -- let us use strategy,
stealth, and subterfuge -- and I would gladly accept Ubisoft as the best
western developer.
You are absolved, Ubisoft.
But until then, we have
to deal with more shooting. More grit
and grime. More murder. More, more, more, more
stabbing. Given that, I want to ask you,
whoever happens to be reading this blog, a question: is this what you
want? Are you happy with all this? Or more importantly, is this what gamers --
you, or people you know -- would be satisfied with?
Let me be frank. I’m the youngest in my family, and I’m just
about in my mid-twenties. Most of my
friends have, or are about to, graduate from college. I’ve got family members and friends of the
family that play games, but they’re similarly-aged (and even then out of my
sphere of interaction). So when it comes
to knowing what gamers want nowadays, I only have a few minor channels in real
life to go by. I’ve known guys that have
been excited about Halo: Reach and Call of Duty, and I don’t hold any ill
will against them, or the games, or the developers. But what confuses the hell out of me is how I
consistently see comments online taking shots at shooters and ridiculing
reboots, but sales numbers continue to astound.
Just days ago, I read through some one
hundred pages of E3 discussion on one site that collectively rolled their
eyes at the sight of a game featuring excessive gunplay or violence in general. Or, again, gritty modern warfare shooters.
No face. Just the way I like it.
While it's nice to know that I'm not the only one that feels this way, here we are in 2012
with all those unsavory qualities manifested once more -- and more than ever. More grit.
More stabbing. More blood. Somebody out there loves this shit, and I’m
genuinely curious about who likes it and why.
I don’t want to be “that guy” and just blame dudebros and casual players
that don’t know any better; I CERTAINLY don’t want to assume that it’s just the
kiddies buying this stuff, because that opens up a whole new realm of fears and
concerns.
A few years ago, I
headed to GameStop to grab a DS title to celebrate having conquered another
test. While I was looking around, a mom
and a couple of her kids -- not even ten, I guess -- came in and perused a bit
as well. The lady at the cashier took notice
and made nice with them, asking what kind of games they were looking for. “Do you like Mario?” she asked. The kids responded with a tame “Not really.” And then they went bonkers over the sight of Wii Sports, Wii Play, and even Wii Music (and Dora the Explorer for good measure). At the time, I didn’t want to think about a
new generation of gamers that passed up Mario for minigames, but now I’ve come
to accept that a new era may soon be upon us.
The most complex villain of this or any generation.
What frightens me,
however, is if that new era is built upon murdering your enemies as
fantastically as possible in a world as unsavory as possible. I’ve heard stories about kids as young -- or
younger -- than those two at GameStop getting into Call of Duty. And since it’s
been a few years, those two might have moved on from the Wii to something with
a bit more…well, let’s call it “bite.”
But is that because they genuinely want to engage in virtual
slaughter? Is it because everyone else
is playing them, and they want to be cool?
Or is it because their options are growing increasingly slimmer?
This was a safe E3 --
an E3 that showed just how polarized games have started to become. On one hand, you’ve got games that are as
cartoonishly violent as an Itchy and
Scratchy short. On the other, you’ve
got casual games that are so sugary sweet that they’re practically poisonous
(and the fact that Nintendo ended its conference with Nintendo Land, of all things, doesn’t inspire confidence for their
reputation or for hardcore gamers). The
middle ground is starting to dwindle.
The myriad styles of generations past seem to be slipping into the
ether, one by one. Sure, you’ll get a
few divergences here and there -- the spectacular Rayman Origins and upcoming Legends
chief among them -- but it’s a worrisome trend.
Is there anything inherently wrong with violent games? Well, not necessarily; you could argue that
the violence is an expression of art, or message, or just trying to create a
thorough experience. And my complaints
aside, seeing Virtua Fighter 5’s Goh
use his judo to utterly dismantle an opponent puts a smile on my
face.
The problem I have is
that when EVERYONE decides to use violence as an expression of art, or message,
or trying to create a thorough experience, it loses its impact. Sure, those things might sell, but at what
cost? How do developers, who may have
gone into the industry hoping to make their dream game about flying through the
sky, sleep at night knowing their teams are coding high-definition blood
splatters? What do companies do when a
gamer can see a whirling maelstrom of death in human form stab an
elephant-man’s brain into a fine jam, yet feel NOTHING from it?
"You know, I always wanted to be a doctor..."
And are developers to
blame for all this, or does the fault lie partly -- or even mostly -- to
gamers? We buy the games. We play them.
We go online and compete. We buy
the DLC, and we buy the sequels. But why
do we buy them? Is it because they’re
fun? Because there’s nothing else better
to buy? Because of hype and peer
pressure? Or in the worst-case scenario,
is it because we’re living out our darkest fantasies?
Obviously, there’s no
right answer; nor is there a clear, be-all and end-all formula that’ll solve
the mystery. But from what I can gather,
and from what I’ve seen, this is the world we live in. Company spokesmen will take the stage and
trot out their game demos, showcasing brutality in all its myriad forms and
earning applause -- genuine applause
-- from an audience. They give us what
they think we want. They give us what we
think we want. We ask, and we
receive. We beg them with our dollars,
and they respond with their dollars.
It’s the circle of death.
What happens next? I don’t know.
Nobody knows. I highly doubt the
industry is in any danger, and I doubt there’s enough of an outcry from any
side to make a change. All we can do is
live in the present, and play the games that we enjoy. We can try to understand one another, and
embrace whatever suits our fancies, and talk about our dream games in hushed
yet energized whispers.
As for me? Well…I think I’m going to play some Dragon Quest VIII. It’s been good to me recently.
See you guys around. Don’t go stabbing
anyone while I’m out.
No comments:
Post a Comment