Hi all, I'm doing an article for my blog running down my particular favourite over-reactions from the community this year. You know that we can be a volatile bunch, quick to throw our toys out the pram if things don't go our way, and I like to document these things and de-construct the arguments.
If you've nothing better to do this afternoon, you might like to read over my three choices to critique my writing and, if you are feeling particularly kind, provide links for the interviews and stuff I've referred to, because I wrote most of this from memory and I'm also kind of an idiot that forgets what he actually read and what he made up.
Cheers, guys.
If you've nothing better to do this afternoon, you might like to read over my three choices to critique my writing and, if you are feeling particularly kind, provide links for the interviews and stuff I've referred to, because I wrote most of this from memory and I'm also kind of an idiot that forgets what he actually read and what he made up.
Cheers, guys.
As 2012 draws to a close, it?s nice to look back on the year and see the times when we, the gaming community, collectively lost our shit over the most insignificant things. I?ve only picked my three favourite stories because, if I?d wanted to include them all, I would?ve needed to start writing this article in January.2005.
In what is becoming something of an industry standard, Capcom this year revealed they?d be fobbing off one of their much-beloved franchises on another developer; namely Ninja Theory of Heavenly Sword and Enslaved: Odyssey to the West fame, (a parade of mercifully brief mediocrity and a surprisingly overlooked gem, respectively.)
To be fair, it wasn?t without reason that fans of the series were worried. In 2010, Nintendo released the Metroid IP into the arms of a grossly sexist gaggle of man-children who predictably shat all over it. Ninja Theory arguably have a more solid track record behind them, though, so even in the worst case scenario this wasn?t going to be as much of a trainwreck, as when Team Ninja turned Nintendo?s strongest female mascot into a whimpering pile of tits and daddy issues.
And then, in a twist no one saw coming, the internet completely over-reacted.
One of the main concerns was that the new DmC would no longer be running at the 65 frames per second which lent the previous instalment it?s frenetically paced fluid combat, but since that?s the only valid complaint anyone actually has I?m going to address it last.
Probably the other biggest complaint people had was that the new developers had changed series stalwart, Dante, from a keg-chugging alpha male into a whiny little *****. All of this was based on a couple of trailers, by the by, but this was enough to get many fan?s knickers well and truly in a twist and I could totally sympathise with their plight?if this wasn?t a Capcom game. Cards on the table, Capcom have made some of the best and most iconic games of all time, with instantly recognisable characters like Megaman and pretty much anyone from the Street Fighter series, but they have never been good at writing.
And that?s fine, because if I want a story or characters that affect me I?ll play Deus Ex. When I want to drive over zombies in a golf cart, I turn to Capcom, and this is why all complaints about Dante?s new appearance are null and void: he?s nothing more than a shallow stock-character, completely interchangeable with any other smartass with a cache of snarky one-liners, and since we?ve already established that Capcom can?t write stories for toffee anyway, there?s no loss in completely changing his character; which we still don?t really know they?ve done because the game isn?t finished yet.
Now, we can move onto the (partially) legitimate complaint about the change in framerate affecting the combat. It is true that the change from 65FPS to 30FPS will mean that the new game won?t play like the last one, but since Devil May Cry 4 already exists, how is that a problem? I?ve talked about this before, but what logic is there in paying money to play a new instalment of the exact same thing every couple of years from now until forever? We?ve already had four instalments of essentially the exact same game so why not take the series in a different direction and try something new?
Granted it could fail, but I?d rather see a game fail for trying something new than simply continue to please the same fanbase by appealing to their specific desires. Not to say that the old fanbase won?t enjoy the new game --because we all know you?re still going to buy it-- since we don?t know how good the new game will be because, and pay attention here, it?s not fucking finished yet.
Oh, and I know that anyone reading this who cares is already jumping to point this out because they think I?ve missed it, but many people have also been displeased with how the new head of development has been treating the fans in interviews. The most commonly parroted line is that, in response to fans concerns of the series? new direction, he stated, ?I don?t care?.
Wow, that guy really is a dick, or at least he would be if that?s what had actually happened. Anyone who took the time to actually look up the interview would have discovered that the actual question he was responding to was: ?What do you think of fans who hate the new game already?? Now it becomes a little clearer. Yes, his attitude could be construed as flippant or even arrogant, but I personally find it refreshing to see a developer not bending over to appease the very small --but bloody vocal-- portion of the gaming community whom, after seeing the Mass Effect 3 crowd win a victory, now think they should have a say in every facet of a new game?s development; seemingly blind to the fact that, if you took in the opinions of everyone who had something to say, you still wouldn?t please half of them because everyone?s vision of the perfect game is different.
It?s sort of why we have these teams of professional developers in the first place.
To be fair, it wasn?t without reason that fans of the series were worried. In 2010, Nintendo released the Metroid IP into the arms of a grossly sexist gaggle of man-children who predictably shat all over it. Ninja Theory arguably have a more solid track record behind them, though, so even in the worst case scenario this wasn?t going to be as much of a trainwreck, as when Team Ninja turned Nintendo?s strongest female mascot into a whimpering pile of tits and daddy issues.
And then, in a twist no one saw coming, the internet completely over-reacted.
One of the main concerns was that the new DmC would no longer be running at the 65 frames per second which lent the previous instalment it?s frenetically paced fluid combat, but since that?s the only valid complaint anyone actually has I?m going to address it last.
Probably the other biggest complaint people had was that the new developers had changed series stalwart, Dante, from a keg-chugging alpha male into a whiny little *****. All of this was based on a couple of trailers, by the by, but this was enough to get many fan?s knickers well and truly in a twist and I could totally sympathise with their plight?if this wasn?t a Capcom game. Cards on the table, Capcom have made some of the best and most iconic games of all time, with instantly recognisable characters like Megaman and pretty much anyone from the Street Fighter series, but they have never been good at writing.
And that?s fine, because if I want a story or characters that affect me I?ll play Deus Ex. When I want to drive over zombies in a golf cart, I turn to Capcom, and this is why all complaints about Dante?s new appearance are null and void: he?s nothing more than a shallow stock-character, completely interchangeable with any other smartass with a cache of snarky one-liners, and since we?ve already established that Capcom can?t write stories for toffee anyway, there?s no loss in completely changing his character; which we still don?t really know they?ve done because the game isn?t finished yet.
Now, we can move onto the (partially) legitimate complaint about the change in framerate affecting the combat. It is true that the change from 65FPS to 30FPS will mean that the new game won?t play like the last one, but since Devil May Cry 4 already exists, how is that a problem? I?ve talked about this before, but what logic is there in paying money to play a new instalment of the exact same thing every couple of years from now until forever? We?ve already had four instalments of essentially the exact same game so why not take the series in a different direction and try something new?
Granted it could fail, but I?d rather see a game fail for trying something new than simply continue to please the same fanbase by appealing to their specific desires. Not to say that the old fanbase won?t enjoy the new game --because we all know you?re still going to buy it-- since we don?t know how good the new game will be because, and pay attention here, it?s not fucking finished yet.
Oh, and I know that anyone reading this who cares is already jumping to point this out because they think I?ve missed it, but many people have also been displeased with how the new head of development has been treating the fans in interviews. The most commonly parroted line is that, in response to fans concerns of the series? new direction, he stated, ?I don?t care?.
Wow, that guy really is a dick, or at least he would be if that?s what had actually happened. Anyone who took the time to actually look up the interview would have discovered that the actual question he was responding to was: ?What do you think of fans who hate the new game already?? Now it becomes a little clearer. Yes, his attitude could be construed as flippant or even arrogant, but I personally find it refreshing to see a developer not bending over to appease the very small --but bloody vocal-- portion of the gaming community whom, after seeing the Mass Effect 3 crowd win a victory, now think they should have a say in every facet of a new game?s development; seemingly blind to the fact that, if you took in the opinions of everyone who had something to say, you still wouldn?t please half of them because everyone?s vision of the perfect game is different.
It?s sort of why we have these teams of professional developers in the first place.
I?m now going to look like a complete hypocrite by stating that EA?s decision to change the formula of Dead Space 3 into a team-based action game is god-damn retarded. While I?m always one to champion change, I do think that any alterations should at least remain cohesive to the overall feel of the series. While Devil may Cry?s framerate change will render the kind of combat in the previous games impossible, Enslaved proved that Ninja Theory are more than capable of creating intense and satisfying combat as well as some sack-tighteningly gigantic set-pieces, and at the end of the day the DmC series is all about over-the-top action; regardless of how fast it goes.
Dead Space on the other hand is about isolation; the fear of being trapped in a space with the barest of resources (in this case a super sweet saw-gun) and a cavalcade of horrors hiding around every turn. Adding a second player into the mix instantly kills that atmosphere because scary situations aren?t scary anymore when you know someone?s got your back. So, while they?ve most likely destroyed the general feel of the original games, that?s not to say the finished product won?t still be an enjoyable experience?for anyone who enjoys multiplayer.
This is why I have a problem with the changes to Dead Space 3 but not Devil may Cry: It wouldn?t matter if they turned Dante into a lion-tamer, as long as the whip physics were tight and the game mechanics well-crafted I could still enjoy the game. But I play games alone, I always have because I consider it time to myself and I don?t want to share it with other people. I know that doesn?t reflect the gaming community as a whole, but here?s the thing: gamers who like multiplayer already have plenty of team-based shooters to play; they don?t need another one, and any one of them who wanted to play Dead Space 1 or 2 could do it by themselves and then get back to Battlefield or Warcraft or Big Bass Fishing Tournament Online or whatever it is you socialites play.
If I want to play Dead Space 3 properly --because everyone knows that no matter how good an AI partner is, you?re still going to have problems with them getting caught on walls, or focusing fire on the smaller enemies while the boss is pounding your head into a wall-- I?m shit out of luck, unless I can split-form and grow another me to play the game with, and even then it still wouldn?t be a fun experience because I?d be relying on Rob-2 to do what I want when I want him to.
Instead of being unable to play a sequel because I don?t like the protagonist?s new haircut, I can?t play it because a new mechanic the game is built around erects a ten-foot barrier to play in front of me. This happened with Resident Evil 5, Lost Planet 2 and Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One and now it?s set to happen with another series I?ve previously enjoyed, and that?s not okay to me.
By all means, experiment with your new games, developers, but don?t implement things that have never been an integral part of the series before, are completely unnecessary and, worst of all, have a genuine chance of shutting out the people who have supported you up until this point.
I just remembered that this is supposed to be a list of other peoples? over-reactions and not my own, so here?s the point I meant to make about Dead Space 3: EA have went on record stating that unless the new game shifts 5 million units then the series is going to be shelved; a feat that is incredibly unlikely as the previous two games didn?t sell that many units, combined. This has led many people, no doubt bolstered by the fact that it?s EA at the helm, to claim that these unnecessary changes have killed the series.
Again, there?s truth to these accusations, but at the end of the day Dead Space is a video game series; not a pet dog. If it?s shelved because the last instalment wasn?t popular enough, that doesn?t mean it?s never going to see another sequel. People seem to attach a strange sort of permanence to cancellations nowadays without stopping to realise, especially with the prominence of sites like Kickstarter, no series is ever truly dead forever. Even if, in the case of companies like Nintendo --who at this point only need a new Ice Climbers game to complete their ?Cash-Grabbing IP Reboot? bingo card-- they really should be.
Dead Space on the other hand is about isolation; the fear of being trapped in a space with the barest of resources (in this case a super sweet saw-gun) and a cavalcade of horrors hiding around every turn. Adding a second player into the mix instantly kills that atmosphere because scary situations aren?t scary anymore when you know someone?s got your back. So, while they?ve most likely destroyed the general feel of the original games, that?s not to say the finished product won?t still be an enjoyable experience?for anyone who enjoys multiplayer.
This is why I have a problem with the changes to Dead Space 3 but not Devil may Cry: It wouldn?t matter if they turned Dante into a lion-tamer, as long as the whip physics were tight and the game mechanics well-crafted I could still enjoy the game. But I play games alone, I always have because I consider it time to myself and I don?t want to share it with other people. I know that doesn?t reflect the gaming community as a whole, but here?s the thing: gamers who like multiplayer already have plenty of team-based shooters to play; they don?t need another one, and any one of them who wanted to play Dead Space 1 or 2 could do it by themselves and then get back to Battlefield or Warcraft or Big Bass Fishing Tournament Online or whatever it is you socialites play.
If I want to play Dead Space 3 properly --because everyone knows that no matter how good an AI partner is, you?re still going to have problems with them getting caught on walls, or focusing fire on the smaller enemies while the boss is pounding your head into a wall-- I?m shit out of luck, unless I can split-form and grow another me to play the game with, and even then it still wouldn?t be a fun experience because I?d be relying on Rob-2 to do what I want when I want him to.
Instead of being unable to play a sequel because I don?t like the protagonist?s new haircut, I can?t play it because a new mechanic the game is built around erects a ten-foot barrier to play in front of me. This happened with Resident Evil 5, Lost Planet 2 and Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One and now it?s set to happen with another series I?ve previously enjoyed, and that?s not okay to me.
By all means, experiment with your new games, developers, but don?t implement things that have never been an integral part of the series before, are completely unnecessary and, worst of all, have a genuine chance of shutting out the people who have supported you up until this point.
I just remembered that this is supposed to be a list of other peoples? over-reactions and not my own, so here?s the point I meant to make about Dead Space 3: EA have went on record stating that unless the new game shifts 5 million units then the series is going to be shelved; a feat that is incredibly unlikely as the previous two games didn?t sell that many units, combined. This has led many people, no doubt bolstered by the fact that it?s EA at the helm, to claim that these unnecessary changes have killed the series.
Again, there?s truth to these accusations, but at the end of the day Dead Space is a video game series; not a pet dog. If it?s shelved because the last instalment wasn?t popular enough, that doesn?t mean it?s never going to see another sequel. People seem to attach a strange sort of permanence to cancellations nowadays without stopping to realise, especially with the prominence of sites like Kickstarter, no series is ever truly dead forever. Even if, in the case of companies like Nintendo --who at this point only need a new Ice Climbers game to complete their ?Cash-Grabbing IP Reboot? bingo card-- they really should be.
Goodness me, this has been a good year to be a White Knight. From Lara Croft getting raped to Hitman?s PVC Christian deathsquad, there?s been no shortage of things for alarmists to cry ?discrimination? about.
Ignoring the two above examples, because one was admittedly retarded and the other just seemed to make people act that way, I want to focus on the most desperately stupid over-reaction to perceived slights against womankind: Borderlands 2?s ?Girlfriend Mode?.
Shortly before the game dropped this year, the head developer gave an interview revealing the skill trees for the first DLC character, the Nechromancer, wherein he described her as being designed for people who weren?t used to playing games. So far so good, but then he made an off-the-cuff remark and referred to it as ?Girlfriend Mode?. This sent the internet into hysterics, because it was apparently such an unthinkably chauvinistic implication to make that, in this enlightened world, a man?s girlfriend can?t play videogames like anyone else.
Let?s be more specific though, we?re not talking about anyone?s girlfriend, we?re talking about the developer-in-question?s girlfriend, because that?s who he was using as an example for how the new character worked. He explained that his girlfriend didn?t play a lot of videogames so this character class had all sorts of perks designed around making things easier for people who aren?t used to circle-strafing around enemies and arcing a grenade just right; instead allowing them to hide behind walls and bounce bullets all over the place, meaning they never have to put themselves in the line of fire.
The developer, in an informal interview setting, went for the first example of a non-gamer in his head and that just so happened to be his girlfriend who just so happened to be a woman. Ignoring the fact that I could call it girlfriend mode too because mine is equally hopeless at video games, (just like I?d be hopeless at playing her saxophone because I have no experience of them,) ask yourself this: do you think there would have been nearly as much furore if he had referred to it as ?Boyfriend Mode?? Or ?My Drunken Uncle with the One Eye and a Bad Attitude Mode?? Probably not, although his implication wouldn?t have been quite as clear cut, but here?s the thing: when I read the headline about Girlfriend Mode causing offense, I immediately assumed he had implied that all gamers are lonely virgins and that this game?s female characters would fill that void in their lives.
So, going into the article, I was ready to side with the torch-wielding mob, but once I actually read the dev?s explanation for Girlfriend Mode, I said, ?that makes perfect sense to me?. To everyone else, this was the perfect example of the rampant sexism that does exist within the industry, but all I took away from reading the interview is that his girlfriend fucking sucks at video games.
Similar to the Mass Effect 3 point I touched upon earlier, gamers really need to drop this mob mentality and learn to pick their battles. Yes the industry, in general, still acts as if the gaming demographic is populated entirely by sixteen year old boys, and many attempts to display equality often fall flat on their face, (like the aforementioned effort to make Lara Croft more human by having her act like a hysterical woman from a 1950?s PSA called ?Every Woman has a Place and that Place is in the Home?) but crying ?sexist!? at every little slip of the tongue isn?t going to suddenly make the community seem more mature and enlightened.
Yes, women are woefully under-represented in gaming, just like gays were in film and television twenty years ago. But just like we can now have openly gay relationships in shows like Six Feet Under and Modern Family, gaming is now coming around to the idea that a woman can be more than a sit of tits you strap into a tactically and anatomically impractical set of armour and force to do yoga poses instead of any actual fighting moves, (Tripitaka from what rapidly appears to becoming my favourite game, Enslaved, is a great example of a step in the right direction.)
It?s also worth remembering that men are just as improperly represented in gaming, because --my dashing good looks aside-- very few of us are the Adonis-like imbalances of hormones that fill the stable of mainstream gaming, today. What I?m driving at is that the industry?s problem isn?t catching up to gender equality, it?s that, like I said before, a good portion of the people in charge still assume we?re all sixteen and think the coolest things in the world are guns and tits.
And I?m not saying they aren?t, I?m just saying that a little variety is nice, and that sometimes it?s nice to take the role of a mute physicist over three hundred pounds of anger issues with an assault rifle and the word, ?fuck,? on the tip of their tongue, ready to go at any opportunity.
Ignoring the two above examples, because one was admittedly retarded and the other just seemed to make people act that way, I want to focus on the most desperately stupid over-reaction to perceived slights against womankind: Borderlands 2?s ?Girlfriend Mode?.
Shortly before the game dropped this year, the head developer gave an interview revealing the skill trees for the first DLC character, the Nechromancer, wherein he described her as being designed for people who weren?t used to playing games. So far so good, but then he made an off-the-cuff remark and referred to it as ?Girlfriend Mode?. This sent the internet into hysterics, because it was apparently such an unthinkably chauvinistic implication to make that, in this enlightened world, a man?s girlfriend can?t play videogames like anyone else.
Let?s be more specific though, we?re not talking about anyone?s girlfriend, we?re talking about the developer-in-question?s girlfriend, because that?s who he was using as an example for how the new character worked. He explained that his girlfriend didn?t play a lot of videogames so this character class had all sorts of perks designed around making things easier for people who aren?t used to circle-strafing around enemies and arcing a grenade just right; instead allowing them to hide behind walls and bounce bullets all over the place, meaning they never have to put themselves in the line of fire.
The developer, in an informal interview setting, went for the first example of a non-gamer in his head and that just so happened to be his girlfriend who just so happened to be a woman. Ignoring the fact that I could call it girlfriend mode too because mine is equally hopeless at video games, (just like I?d be hopeless at playing her saxophone because I have no experience of them,) ask yourself this: do you think there would have been nearly as much furore if he had referred to it as ?Boyfriend Mode?? Or ?My Drunken Uncle with the One Eye and a Bad Attitude Mode?? Probably not, although his implication wouldn?t have been quite as clear cut, but here?s the thing: when I read the headline about Girlfriend Mode causing offense, I immediately assumed he had implied that all gamers are lonely virgins and that this game?s female characters would fill that void in their lives.
So, going into the article, I was ready to side with the torch-wielding mob, but once I actually read the dev?s explanation for Girlfriend Mode, I said, ?that makes perfect sense to me?. To everyone else, this was the perfect example of the rampant sexism that does exist within the industry, but all I took away from reading the interview is that his girlfriend fucking sucks at video games.
Similar to the Mass Effect 3 point I touched upon earlier, gamers really need to drop this mob mentality and learn to pick their battles. Yes the industry, in general, still acts as if the gaming demographic is populated entirely by sixteen year old boys, and many attempts to display equality often fall flat on their face, (like the aforementioned effort to make Lara Croft more human by having her act like a hysterical woman from a 1950?s PSA called ?Every Woman has a Place and that Place is in the Home?) but crying ?sexist!? at every little slip of the tongue isn?t going to suddenly make the community seem more mature and enlightened.
Yes, women are woefully under-represented in gaming, just like gays were in film and television twenty years ago. But just like we can now have openly gay relationships in shows like Six Feet Under and Modern Family, gaming is now coming around to the idea that a woman can be more than a sit of tits you strap into a tactically and anatomically impractical set of armour and force to do yoga poses instead of any actual fighting moves, (Tripitaka from what rapidly appears to becoming my favourite game, Enslaved, is a great example of a step in the right direction.)
It?s also worth remembering that men are just as improperly represented in gaming, because --my dashing good looks aside-- very few of us are the Adonis-like imbalances of hormones that fill the stable of mainstream gaming, today. What I?m driving at is that the industry?s problem isn?t catching up to gender equality, it?s that, like I said before, a good portion of the people in charge still assume we?re all sixteen and think the coolest things in the world are guns and tits.
And I?m not saying they aren?t, I?m just saying that a little variety is nice, and that sometimes it?s nice to take the role of a mute physicist over three hundred pounds of anger issues with an assault rifle and the word, ?fuck,? on the tip of their tongue, ready to go at any opportunity.
