So have you ever played
that game Tokyo Jungle? I have recently, and the best way I can
describe it is by saying…yikesy mikesy. It’s been a while since I’ve played a game so
amazing. I’m even considering putting it
in my personal Top 10. It goes without
saying, then, that it’s going to get a post somewhere down the line -- because it
does everything The Last of Us did,
but better. Much better.
Speaking of coming
attractions, I tried my first imported game -- and thus, I’ve gained one more
level in nerdiness. Can you guess what
it is? I’ll give you a hint: you can
press buttons to do stuff. Seriously
though, I haven’t gotten into it as much as I want to, but it looks like there
are plenty of systems to dive into.
Thing is, playing it kind of requires me to change my mindset; you kind
of have to think like a pilot (hint hint) to survive, let alone win.
And in non-gaming news,
I’ve been pecking away at certain files.
And I’ve made some real progress!
I’m hoping that I can reach a point where I can talk about it in
earnest, because there are some pretty cool things I can say. Exciting stuff, without a doubt…for me, at
least. It’s not that often where I hype myself up with something I do, after
all.
If you’re wondering
what those points have to do with Destiny,
then consider them little more than delay tactics. From this point on, the post is set to take a
nasty turn -- because I can’t think
of time when a
single piece of news made me this
angry.
Excluding the
announcement of a nostalgia-bait Power
Rangers movie. Man. That was not a good week for entertainment.
Anyway. Let me see if I’ve got this right.
Arctivision, the
company famous for franchises like Call
of Duty, other stuff, and other stuff, is going to push their latest
product, Destiny, with full
force. It goes beyond just bringing in
Bungie to make the next big multiplatform franchise. And it goes beyond just making (from what I
can gather) a cross between Halo,
Borderlands, and World of Warcraft. No, Activision wants Destiny to be the next big thing.
So much so that they’re willing to put in five hundred million dollars
to make their goals a reality.
Yes, you read that
right. Five hundred million
dollars.
Now, let’s be fair
here. From what I’ve heard and what
others are saying, this isn’t technically half a billion dollars on a single
game (though
some imply that the money IS going all into one game, but let’s set that
aside). It’s half a billion on what’s
effectively a promise -- servers, and infrastructure, and sequels, and all that
jazz…marketing well among them. The
strategy here, it seems, is to make Destiny
into an entertainment juggernaut, much like Call of Duty. There’s a lot
to be proven, and a lot of risk involved.
But if it works, then it could be the next big step -- the one move
that’s guaranteed to take games to the next
I’m sorry, I can’t
finish that sentence. I just can’t --
and not just because IF Destiny pulls
this off, it’ll set one hell of a nightmarish precedent. Again.
I just love how this news came out a day after a
filibuster I wrote on next-gen woes went up. And even if it didn’t, then Activision’s move
-- or at least the reveal of that move, given that this probably wasn’t a snap decision made a week ago -- still flies in
the face of every logical argument and opinion that people have been making for
years. Jim Sterling has to dip into the
“triple-A developers are being dumb” well pretty much every other week. Yahtzee’s videos have grown increasingly
caustic, and with good reason (I suspect that the new Thief was his personal last straw).
Pretty much anyone who has ever made a comment on a gaming site -- or
even knows the name of a gaming site -- has had their fill of triple-A
shenanigans. Everyone knows something is
wrong at this point. Everyone.
And yet they keep. On.
Doing. The same. Stupid.
Bullshit.
They’re making a
product -- one game, or two, or whatever -- that has a half-billion dollar
price tag. And apparently, in order to
break even -- I repeat, break even
-- they have to sell 15 to 16 million units.
Of this one game. As others have
said, that’s a staggering number, especially for a new, untested, and
currently-short-on-details franchise.
Okay, sure, Grand Theft Auto V is
supposed to reach 32.5 million sold, and thus justify its quarter-of-a-billion
dollar price tag. And BioShock Infinite supposedly (though no
one can/will confirm it) cost $200 million, but walked away with plenty of
accolades. So these big gambles and
bigger ventures can pay off. But those
are exceptions to the rule. Not
justifications of them.
So here’s the question
I have to ask: why gamble in the first place?
I would have thought
that executives would want to spend as little money as possible while making
maximum profit -- not maximizing costs and just trying to use their product to
cover both the bill and their collective asses.
I mean…am I being unreasonable here?
I don’t know a lot about economics, but I’m not that far off, am I? What is the justification for Destiny?
Is it really a game worth banking so heavily on? Is it really?
Because the way things are looking so far, the answer is a resounding hell no.
If this is the game
that’s supposed to be a revolution in gaming, then people shouldn’t be able to
compare it to some of the biggest and most notable franchises out there -- and certainly not compare it to franchises
that aren’t all that remarkable in their own right. I’m no expert, but to me it seems like the
only major differences between Halo 3,
Halo: Reach, and Halo 4 are the
graphics. The “Combat Evolved” moniker
hardly applies, and the combat in question is routine at best. And since it’s a game that revolves around
guns -- which, as
discussed, is quickly turning into a dead end for games -- Borderlands doesn’t fare much better
even with its “addictive” RPG trappings.
And given that people are already calling Destiny “Borderlands without
the humor”, then what the hell hope is there for Destiny when it’s built on two decidedly-mediocre templates? Only they can’t even get that right, because
now you’ve got the choice to play as “gunner in mask”, “gunner in mask”, or “gunner
in mask”?
Okay, setting aside my
biases (i.e., that I think Halo is a
multimillion dollar game of Cops and Robbers pulling double-duty as dead
serious Master Chief proselytizing, and Borderlands
is a tedious slog relying more on loot addiction and stat obsession than
being worth a damn while hiding behind its hole-filled wall of “comedy”)…I
forgot where I was going with this thought.
So let’s start a different paragraph.
The only element of Destiny that’s different by design -- no
matter how many bells and whistles are added vis a vis tweaks on the typical
shooter arsenal -- is the MMO piece of the equation. And isn’t that just a recipe for
success? I mean, refresh my memory --
isn’t World of Warcraft, the property
(and woes) inherited in the Activision/Blizzard fusion, on the wane? Haven’t plenty of MMOs failed before, like Age of Conan? Didn’t Squeenix recently prove just how easy
it is to screw up an MMO, so much so that they had to start over? Didn’t EA show us with SimCity that trying to build a game around an online groundwork can
backfire spectacularly?
Even if this isn’t a
straight-up MMO, didn’t games like Defiance
and Dust 514 try to create a
bigger, more interconnected experience?
And didn’t it go poorly in both cases?
Assuming that they both made enough money to cover their costs (the
former apparently costing at least $70 million), don’t you think that in order
for them to be the revelations they wanted to be, people would hold them in
much higher esteem and be talking about them at this very moment in a positive
light? Do people even remember Defiance?
Watch your backs,
Activision. Looks like you’ve got some
steep competition.
It’s actually a point
I’ve been mulling over for a while. It
seems to me like there’s a fine line between good innovation and bad innovation
-- or rather, the mindset behind it.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for innovation, and games need it now more
than ever. But setting aside the fact
that we need the right innovation
(deployable shields. Pop quiz: am I
talking about Halo or Borderlands?), that innovation has to
come from a genuine desire to do something good. It has to come from the hope to put out the
best product possible -- and even then, there is absolutely no one forcing
innovation. No one forcing change.
That sounds like a
paradox, I know. But hear me out on
this. It’s important to innovate, but
that innovation has to be worth it in the end, and contribute to the overall
execution, and therefore quality. You
can get that high execution in any number of ways; for example, I hold Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction in
EXTREMELY high esteem, because even if it’s not the most original game by any
means (it’s another installment in an established franchise), it fires on all
cylinders from start to finish. It
wasn’t broken, and didn’t act like it needed to “fix” anything. It just wanted to be, and WAS, good.
Now. Compare that to the mindset behind DmC.
Outright hostility and
antagonism by its creators. A belief
that Devil May Cry and leading man
Dante “weren’t cool anymore”, in spite of the demon slayer busting out a
rocking solo on an electric guitar made from a sultry vampire he just shot in
the gut. Disrespect for fans’ wishes,
coupled with an earnest belief -- and offering constant, unfounded reassurances
-- that the movie game would reinvent the narrative as we knew it, and
everyone should just shut up and accept it.
The developers swaggered our way, and arrogantly presented DmC on a silver platter. And because of that, they fucked it harder
than a rhino in heat.
I’m concerned that that
same level of arrogance is what’s fueling Activision and Destiny. Okay, sure, they
don’t have an earlier and beloved franchise to call retroactively terrible, but
being willing to dump half a billion dollars smacks of suicidal overconfidence. There are many questions that needed to be
answered before the devs (or the execs, I’d wager) signed off on this, and I
suspect that very few of them were.
One of those questions,
obviously, was “Is this a good idea?”
That’s a question that’ll best be answered when the game’s in player
hands, and can be digested without the filter of blinding TENOUTTATENS. Another question would be “Is this going to
work?” But given that the company’s
chosen to kick logic to the curb, I’d say they’re trying to make it work in the
stupidest way possible. They’re doing
something that could have been done easily if they focused on the right
things…or rather, the right question.
The one question that matters most.
Is this game going to be good?
And right now, I’m leaning toward...
There was a
preview on Destructoid that, while showing interest, was more than willing
to point out the problems (inherent and unexpected). And for the record? Usually when there are previews for a game,
it tends to be mostly if not all praise. But based on that preview, setting aside the
complaints? It’s pretty much just Halo X Borderlands. It’s an FPS.
It’s got multiple gun types. It’s
got classes. It’s got class-based
powers. It’s got aliens you shoot, I
guess. It’s got double-jumps, which
is…revolutionary? Oh, but it’s got nice
graphics, so there you go. That’s all we
really need, right?
I’m not seeing the
strategy here. Is the intent to play it
safe? If so, then how do they expect to
innovate or revolutionize when they’re counting on mechanics we’ve seen in excess
for the past half-decade, at least? And
those mechanics aren’t really all that exciting in the first place? Or is their intent to make some wrinkle in
the standard systems and mechanics -- or better yet, create some new system or
mechanic that they’ve kept close to the chest this whole time? If that’s the case, then why would they
bootstrap the new stuff to the old stuff?
And if they DO want to innovate, and branch out, and make something new,
then why would this company be
willing to bet everything on an untested product? And just in case they haven’t chomped on
their tails enough, how will they innovate when they’re relying on guns? Just
like everyone else in this industry, INCLUDING
ACTIVISION?
But it goes back to
what I said earlier: the biggest wrinkle Destiny
has, as it stands, that we know of, for us outsiders looking in, is the MMO
aspect. (Or Diet MMO, so to speak.) And right now, I’m not seeing how that’s
supposed to work out…except in the
most cynical, depressing, exploitative methods.
As soon as it was revealed that the game would have a budget that would
make Rhode Island sweat, people immediately -- and probably rightfully --
jumped to the assumption that in addition to always-on DRM, there would be
microtransactions, DLC, and season passes to try and recoup losses. Probably some campaign to dupe people into
pre-ordering, and offering up such pleasant “incentives”. People have prepared for the worst, and I
don’t blame them. I wouldn’t be
surprised if something worse is on the horizon.
I don’t want to invoke
the specter of the “games as service” mantra, but damn does it feel like Destiny’s on the cusp of that. I’m having a hard time thinking of Destiny as just a one-and-done game set
to win favor just by being a well-executed and complete title, because the devs
have made it so that they have to (or think they have to) make “a ten-year
plan” out of it. So setting aside the
fact that they’re preemptively making one game into a franchise, they’re
probably looking to put gamers in droves on the hamster wheel to restock the
war chest…and then do it all over again.
Buy the game, then buy this, then buy that, then buy this expansion,
then buy this sequel, then buy one more thing for the road! Because that’s how you build loyalty -- the
promise of bills to pay.
Remember when games
used to win consumer loyalty by being good without relying on pandering hype-mongering,
psychological gimmicks, or locking players out of content unless they play fast
and loose with their wallets? I miss that.
I don’t know what to be
angrier about -- the fact that Activision would do something like this, or the
fact that it’s probably going to work.
People like me might complain and shake our heads, but Activision
doesn’t need our precious input.
Countless gamers -- customers will
gladly buy in, because Halo. Or because Borderlands. Or because
guns. Or because next-gen. Or because Call of Duty, as
has been consistently proven for years.
If they want Destiny to be the
next big thing, then it’s probably going to be the next big thing because they
won’t let it be anything else BUT the next big thing. And indeed, what Destiny is offering is going to be more than enough for
plenty. Some who are well-informed;
others who just go with the flow. Either
way, Activision and crew can count on them to help stitch their pockets back
together.
But like I said, this
is setting up a bad precedent in an industry that’s full of bad
precedents. The entire point of the
switch to next-gen hardware and engines, I was told, was to make things easier
on developers and thus cheaper. But in
almost the same breath, it’s been revealed that development is likely going to
get even more expensive, because more work has to be done and more talent has
to be hired. Devs across the board have
been crippled from the strain, especially those that get caught in the triple-A
trap.
Remember how Squeenix
declared Tomb Raider a failure
despite it selling a good three million copies?
And how it took them a year to even begin to make a profit? And how that all came at the expense of
taking the tomb raiding out of a game called Tomb Raider? And now the message Activision is sending is
“spend even more money”? “Make even bigger games”? “Be even blander”? Does the House of CoD know just how distorted the industry has become -- so much so
that the House of CoD itself is
falling prey to the delusions and problems it helped create in the first place?
Listen. I know I’m the Eternal Optimist. I know I’m idealistic. I know I believe in goodness, and hope, and
all the frilly stuff in life. But I’m
not stupid. I know that every creation
that gets out there -- books, movies, TV shows, comics, magazines, art, songs,
plays, and even video games -- is out there to make money for its creator. That’s why I keep using the word “product” as
a sort of catch-all term. I know how it
works -- but I’m fine with that. The
assumption, and the deal at large, is that people spend money in order to get
their hands on the latest product, because it’s genuinely good, and want to
support the creator, so they can put out more genuinely good products.
But lately, there’s
been a compromise of that deal.
Activision is proof of that; they get consumer money not by putting out
genuinely good products, but by putting out products in general. And in the case of CoD -- and what may inevitably be the case with Destiny -- they’re not even remotely
good. They’re taking the deal for
granted, and using that opulence in what’s at once the stupidest, brazen,
short-sighted, and damn near insulting way possible. Half a billion dollars is not going to ensure
victory.
For a creator, true
success comes from being able to make an audience happy. From gaining loyalty by virtue of quality,
not by quantity. Earn that loyalty -- that respect
-- and it’ll be worth more than mere dollars.
So, bottom line. What’s it going to come down to?
I can’t change very
much. Nothing, really. Activision’s made its move, and soon, plenty
of gamers will be, too. I can’t say much
about the actual quality of Destiny
until the complete game is out and about -- and the same goes for everyone
else, even if they’ve got opinions more scathing than mine. Likewise, I can’t tell people to “boycott
this game” because (setting aside the fact that it’s usually just an empty
threat), they have a right to like whatever they want, and decide for
themselves if a game is worth their time.
Telling someone that their opinion is flat-out wrong is one of the
greatest crimes a man can commit, and it’s the first step down a slippery
slope.
But there is something
I want to do. See, there’s a school of
thought that suggests that a post like this should end with a “call to action”
-- telling people to do something to change their lives, or the lots of
others. It’s something that can lend the
writer’s words some more credence. Or if
nothing else, it’ll just add a little oomph.
So while I can’t -- and won’t
-- tell anyone outright to not buy Destiny
just yet, and I’d be stupid to tell them not to even give it a glance,
there is one thing I can do. One simple
call with plenty of applications. So to
anyone reading this, no matter their feelings on the subject, the game, the
company, or games at large, I have one simple suggestion.
I want you to think.
Think, and think
critically. If you plan to buy it, don’t
just buy Destiny because it
exists. Ask yourself why you want to buy it. Think carefully about what it can offer you
in the grand scheme of things, and whether it’s worth it in the end. Think carefully about what it entails, and if
it’s truly the “next-gen experience” you’re hungry for. Think about whether or not the game is up to
your level of standards -- because if for any reason you feel like you have to
lower them, or make excuses just to enjoy it, then put it
the fuck down and walk away.
But in order to think
about it, you have to go about it the right way. So keep yourself informed. Read articles, watch videos, check out the
wiki, and more. Read a handful of
reviews once it’s out. Reflect on your
preferences and past experiences. Ask
your gaming buddies. If it’s a simple
question of “Hmmm, did I like Borderlands?”,
ask yourself that. But that by itself
isn’t enough. Be willing -- eager, even
-- to think harder on the subject.
“Okay, so why did I like Borderlands? What about that game would make me want to play
a different version of it?” If you can
figure out what strikes your fancy, you can enjoy the games -- the products in
general -- that that line up with your preferences. Or you can be pleasantly surprised when a
product that’s earned your attention, but ISN’T in your comfort zone defies
your expectations and gives you some real satisfaction. Be willing to dig deep into a product, and
yourself, to come to a conclusion.
We can point fingers at
Activision all we want -- and in a lot of ways, they’re deserving of it because
of the problems they helped unleash upon the industry. But if we’re not willing to blame ourselves
-- to change ourselves, from top to
bottom -- then it’s going to be more than just a company or two that ends up
losing big.
If you want to win,
then go for the win. And realize that
you’re the one who can decide what it means to grasp victory.
And that’ll do it for
now. See you guys around.
Attaching the "next-gen experience" tag to any game that is ultimately made for two generations seems foolish to me, although the term "next-gen" does as well. We started Gen 8 with the 3DS, are technically still in Gen 7, and nobody's even going to be thinking of Gen 9 for a while.
ReplyDeleteAs for Destiny, the more I think about or hear about the game, the more needlessly presumptuous is sounds in both its own quality and how important it is. While the concept of exploring Venus and uncovering secret catacombs along with better weapons that shoot chunks of fire is enjoyable to me, it is not really anything all that different from what is on the market. Even the name of Destiny does come across as something that not only wants you attention, but is attempting to make it appear to be, just that, your destiny. A destiny filled with similarity to one game I played for an hour I didn't care much for, and one game I slogged through 70 of, loathing my time with it and detesting everything it represented.
Yet, as you said, the game will still sell, some reviews may be tempted to give the game a good score so not to experience a fallout when they are the only one giving the game a 6.5, but near its release, you better believe the marketing will go bananas and it will break five million sold in, at most, two days. It is the current state of the industry, and hopefully companies will start being smarter with how they make and set expectations for their games, if not, nothing of much worth will be lost.
Nobody BETTER be thinking about Gen 9. Seeing as how this one is off to such a rollicking good start, I think everybody needs to take a good, hard look at themselves and figure out what they need to do.
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments aside, it really is going to be interesting to see how people will react to Destiny. They're the ones that are going to decide if the game is the next big thing, not Activision. Do people have space in their hearts for yet another uber-serious big-budget shooter? It's possible, sure, but seeing as how indie games are on the rise (in more ways than one) and triple-A games are becoming more of a black spot than a selling point...well, it's gonna be a show.
I'm not so biased that I'm going to wish for Destiny to fail, because that'd mean a lot of good people would take the heat. But unless Activison makes good on its lofty goals, I might not have to wish for anything. And that's all I'm gonna say on that.
Tokyo Jungle makes all the pain go away.