Is this Overwatch? No?
Then E3 2016 gets a 0 out of 10.
Would not watch again.
All right, seriously, though? I have to start by being honest: I didn’t
really care about E3 this year. In the
weeks and months leading up to it, I was basically ambivalent; I couldn’t
summon up the will to care too much about it, knowing that A) all the
information I needed would be plastered online in days’ time, and B) getting
invested in E3 meant sitting through more press conferences. More played-out buzzwords. More non-indicative trailers. More promises of glory that would fail to
deliver. More chomping at the bit to get
past the stuff I don’t care about. More
cringe by the barge-load. The only
positive point, ostensibly, would be the annual showcase of Cuphead footage -- which to be fair almost justifies the whole expo.
So as much as it strains my credibility, I have to
admit that I’m writing this E3 post while skipping out on a majority of the
conferences. Maybe I’ll go back and
watch stuff eventually; I’ve seen a supercut already, but there’s more to
digest. And I will, especially if the
Super Best Friends put up their reactions (and I’d assume that’s available via
some Twitch stream archives). But for
now? I want to do something different
besides run down the major conferences and companies. I want to take time out to talk about E3 --
and in particular, a topic that’s been occupying my brain space for the past
month:
Is E3 basically The Apology Expo?
To start off, I want to say that I’ve thought back
to previous E3s -- at least since I started this blog. I’ve taken issue with what’s been on display,
again and again and again. So much
violence. So much homogeny. So much hype-mongering. I’d be a fool to act as if the whole show was
a wash year after year, of course, and that’s true of this year too. But I remembered that once upon a time, I was
really interested in -- even excited by -- The
Last of Us. And that didn’t turn out
well. Once upon a time, I was intrigued
by Watch Dogs. That went even worse.
Opinions may vary, of course. Still, I think the important thing is that
just because there’s a sizzling trailer that captures the hearts and minds of
onlookers, there’s still no guarantee of the final product’s quality. Watch Dogs is notorious for its visual downgrade,
and it hasn’t done any favors for itself by featuring a limp story and
underwhelming gameplay. I would think
that gamers across the board learned about the divide between hype and reality
from the big reveal to the final release in 2014 -- maybe earlier than that,
given that Watch Dogs wasn’t the only
game to come out that year or before
that or after it.
Yet here comes Ubisoft again, showing off Watch Dogs 2 with a straight face…with
a slew of preorder bonuses announced in tandem, natch. The more things change…
If a bunch of Ubisoft execs walked up to me and
sat me down with a trailer for the impending threat sequel, I would
knock their stuff onto the floor and shout “I DON’T BELIEVE YOU!” and then run
into the night. I don’t believe that
this company can redeem what’s forcibly become a franchise (partly because it
sold well). I could be proven wrong, but
this is the company whose marquis franchise Assassin’s
Creed has been run into the ground.
And sure, people are working under the assumption
that Watch Dogs 2 will pull an AssCreed 2 and see improvements across
the board. But remember, the Ubisoft
that made AssCreed 2 is a relic of
the past. As one of the major AAA
developers/publishers, they’ve consistently embarrassed themselves over the
years while sucking money from gamers’ wallets with eyes alight and lips
covered in slobber. They haven’t earned
anything even close to trust -- only begrudging acceptance and tolerance, in a
lot of cases.
So riddle me this: why the hell would I want to
shed 60 to 120 minutes of my Overwatch
time seeing these guys hype up their line of products, a high percentage of
which might help perpetuate the mediocrity of the medium, when they’re one of
the companies closest to being the villain?
I’m pretty sure I’ve asked this before, but I’ll
ask it again: why does Ubisoft even have a press conference? Well, there are some obvious (if
cringe-inducing) answers. One: because there’s no better chance
for one of the big companies to reach a wide audience. Two:
because it’s the perfect way to impress investors, shareholders, and other
corporate overlords. Three: because as a major company, it
can afford to take center stage for an hour or two. Four: because
announcing games and showing off content (such as it is) is the first step in
setting the ebon mechanisms of the Hype Engine in motion.
Of course, it’s also a way to help build
trust. Faith. Loyalty.
Let’s not pretend like any of the companies in the gaming industry
(including golden boy Nintendo) haven’t done wrong, because they have. But those companies can rebuild broken bonds
by offering up something substantial as an apology. E3 is both the symbol and the means for that,
especially since I’d think that major companies don’t usually make a habit of
outright announcing that they’re sorry or that they messed up. “Look at these new games!” they cry out with
hands clasped tight and smiles strained.
“Get these, and you’ll like us again!
And you’ll have fun, too! That’s what
you want, right? Please love us!”
And so we have EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Sony, and
Microsoft trying to win our favor.
Trying to make up for past mistakes with new peace offerings. Only…are they really?
I don’t know.
I feel like I’m in the minority here (as I should be), but I can’t get
rid of my niggling concerns. As an
example: Sony revealed a new God of War for
the public, featuring an emphasis on Norse mythology (hell yes), but also turns
Kratos into a bearded dad, saddles him with a son, and switches camera angles
to make it look like your standard third-person game. Or, given that there have been a huge number
of comparisons to The Last of Us…yeah,
it kind of looks like The Last of Us. However superficially.
I guess the trailer’s been enough to win people
over, but I’m not. I haven’t forgotten
about God of War, both in terms of
its previous installment Judgment and
in terms of the series as a whole. I’ve
never liked Kratos, because I feel like his story could’ve and should’ve ended
with the first game. I get that he’s a
murderous madman, but I didn’t find that interesting -- and if I remember
right, Kratos’ murder spree in GoW3 basically
ended with him ruining the earth just
‘cause. Which seems to have been run
back hard for this new game for some reason…?
I don’t buy it.
As one of the five people unimpressed by TLoU, I feel like creeping closer to the mechanics of that game is
a SEVERE misstep. (Or, alternatively, the
dadification of
games marches
on.) I’m one of those awful people
that thinks GoW pales in comparison
to the Devil May Cry games, but in
terms of western-developed action games it was arguably one of the best. Now the trailer suggests that they’re walking
away from that mechanical complexity to make the game just like every other
game…only
now Kratos has a son, so he’s a good character, I guess. Maybe he won’t kill this kid like he did his
daughter.
It’s unfair to pass judgment on GoW right now, I know. But it’s too late for me and that franchise;
it didn’t appeal to me back then, and it doesn’t appeal to me now. That’s the risk you take when you rely on an established
franchise, I suppose; what do you do when your last entry (or the one before
that, or the one before that) turned away more fans than it won? What do you do when name or brand recognition
inherently backfires? Call of Duty has become such an anathema
that I’m surprised people can even say its name without spitting at the
ground. Yet here we are with another one
-- and a remaster -- on the way, despite the disdain, the questioned
popularity, and one
of the most disliked YouTube videos in history.
It’s like that consistently. Oh boy, Resident
Evil 7 is officially on the way! Oh,
but RE6 was such a disaster that it
completely shattered the goodwill of the franchise. But hey, Dead
Rising 4 is bringing back Frank West!
Oh, but it already did that in DLC and updated rereleases, and that’s
ignoring Dead Rising 3 being a
contentious entry thanks to its dingier color palette, different hero, and
darker tone…coupled with a less-than-ideal PC port. Well, there’s always Detroit: Become Human. Oh,
but it’s by David Cage and Quantic Dream.
I’m having a harder and harder time divorcing the
new stuff from old problems and disappointments. Battlefield
1 may have one of the most-liked videos ever, but it’s still Battlefield -- an EA production long
since brought to its knees by persistent online issues. Gears
of War 4 is still on the way, even though the canon it’s picking up on
is…not great. Titanfall 2 is here to…uh…exist, I guess? And not become a laughingstock a few months after release? These companies are trying to hype me up with
games I’ve got no interest in -- or I’m actively repulsed by -- and to say
“it’s not working” would be an understatement the size of Saturn’s rings.
I’m working under the assumption that I’m not
exactly the target demographic for a lot of these games (if not E3 in
general). But there’s a possibility that
I’m not the only one feeling like this.
Ubisoft has to know about the discontent players have felt with their
games, right? They have to know that
people are tired of the Ubisoft Game formula, and they’re sick of the
controversies that didn’t have to exist.
They have to know that not
everyone is keen on Ghost Recon Wildlands
-- or, more pressingly, that The Division has seen a 93% drop in its
Steam player base since release. The
companies need to appease onlookers, no matter what. The question is simple, then: are they doing
a good enough job of it? Are they
offering up worthwhile apologies, tributes to the fans that have felt wronged
and scorned in the past?
*shrugs* Iunno.
That answer’s going to differ for everyone. So ultimately, I can only speak for myself --
and what was once a lingering sense of doubt has become a concrete form of
concern. I feel like getting excited by
the hottest new trailer is a fool’s errand given my experiences with TLoU and Watch Dogs, but on the other hand?
Even the trailers and gameplay footage on display are typically not
enough to interest me. I thought that
Keiji Inafune’s ReCore seemed pretty
cool when it was first announced…and then they showed off gameplay and I was
like “Ohhhhhhhhh.”
Horizon:
Zero Dawn basically went into radio silence after its E3 debut last year,
and this year it showed up again with -- wait for it -- more third-person gameplay where you shoot down robotic beasts with
technological arrows. I mean it looks
okay and all, and it’ll probably be fine upon release, but nothing about it
screamed excitement. Just…functionality,
I suppose. It looks pretty and all, and
I’m glad there’s a leading lady in the driver’s seat, but if the game slipped
back under the radar for another year, I wouldn’t be too hung up on it.
If I’m not excited about two new IPs -- both of
which show off gameplay, however embellished -- then there’s either a problem
with me, or a problem with the games.
You decide which is more likely.
Or you could just remember that the next big “new IP” is an open world game…but with zombies!
It doesn’t help that chunks of relevant
information for this year’s E3 was rumored, leaked, or announced
beforehand. Watch Dogs 2 was already revealed, nu-God of War was substantially discussed, and the idea that Microsoft
and Sony would release (or at least announce) new editions of its consoles had
more than enough ground swell. It all
helps beg the question of why we need E3 anymore, when the information gamers
need is readily available online. (Or ask
why few people put out stuff like the Nintendo Directs.)
True, the big expo is a celebration, and a
gathering point for fans of the medium -- a way to celebrate what we all
love. But speaking personally, I’d guess
that if you’re not there at the show, then it feels less like a celebration and
more like an apology…and a backhanded one at that. Spokesmen will take to the stage to talk
about how they’re taking franchises and the medium to the next level, but
they’re just as likely to show of disappointments and lies as they are genuine
pieces of art.
The baggage is real. It’s more real than the hype, in a lot of
cases; whereas hype is built on dubious promises and gambles, baggage comes from
concrete information based on past, documentable experiences. There’s a level of subjectivity to it, of
course, but let’s not go denouncing that just because we can’t unanimously
quantify everything with a review score.
And with all of that baggage, it’s hard for me to overlook the smoke and
mirrors -- the potential for disappointment, masked by an earnest desire to
shovel virtual soma down our throats -- just because a bunch of suits keep
prattling on about “experiences” and “innovation”. And drag cars, celebrities, and random
performances onto the stage.
…But hey. I
said “hard”, not impossible.
The advantage to saying “nope” to all of the
conferences is that you get to pick and choose which games matter to you. And I have, for sure. With roundups and compilations scattered
across the internet, it’s not hard to find what appeals to me. Insomniac Games is throwing its weight behind
a new Spider-Man game, which definitely has promise; all they have to do is
recreate the swinging feel of Spider-Man
2, and they’ve effectively won.
Granted I’d bet that they’ve got more than that planned, but it’ll be
interesting to see what life they can breathe into the sagging open-world
genre. Plus, it’s nice to hear Yuri
Lowenthal in a starring role again, instead of being condemned to play random
grunts and get murdered by brown-haired white dudes masquerading as
heroes.
It should go without saying, but I want to see
more of Death Stranding -- if only to
understand what the hell’s going on there.
I’d imagine that’s kind of the point (i.e. the dirty trick employed by
Kojima and crew) to garner attention; instead of flat-out showing what the game
is or how it plays, they’re coasting on fan speculation and confusion. On the other hand, you don’t get bizarre stuff
like this in the big-budget gaming space too often, and I want to follow the
game through to its conclusion since it’s being spearheaded by a man in dire
need of some marbles.
Also, apparently Kojima was one of the Pillar Men
all along. I’m okay with that, assuming
he doesn’t get his hands on the Red Stone of Aja.
I’m wary of admitting this, but I never actually
got around to playing the original Dishonored. Yeah, I know, I’m a terrible person. Looking at the trailer for Dishonored 2 -- and the information
surrounding it -- only goes to show what a big mistake I made. It’s an intriguing world, for sure; I’m no expert
at stealth, but the idea of using magic as a buffer might help make
assassinations go a little smoother.
Also, there’s a female protagonist now, which is always a plus. With any luck, it’ll deliver upon release.
And of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention The Last Guardian -- which
seems to have a release date now. Given the pedigree behind the game, I think
it’s safe to say that the trust has been earned, and it’s only a matter of time
before the dev team delivers. Until
then, what are they showing off? An
adventure. A sprawling world, featuring
what looks like a close bond between boy and weird giant animal thing. A sense of danger around every turn. That’s exactly what I wanted, and I’m glad
someone’s out to deliver…even if it’s ten years behind schedule, but
whatever. A delayed game is eventually
good.
But you know what my Game of the Show is, don’t
you? Don’t
you?
Okay, first of all? I think “Breath of the Wild” is a sick-ass subtitle. Second, I feel the call to adventure in my
bones. In my blood, even. Comparisons have long since been made to The Witcher 3, Dark Souls, and plenty of other open-world games. And yeah, I’d be lying if I said that that
expansiveness has me wondering if the game will have enough meaningful content
to fill its expanded Hyrule. Then again,
if the game follows the example set by Xenoblade
Chronicles X, then just being able to explore a bold new world is all it
takes to justify a purchase.
But what really appeals to me about the game is --
well, it’s twofold, arguably. It looks
like there’s a massive focus on
getting back to nature, and Breath of the
Wild is primed to actually use nature
as an element of gameplay instead of something to stare at on your way to the
next objective. You can climb plenty of
stuff. You can push boulders down
cliffs. You can burn grass and start
fires (and trigger explosive chain reactions).
You can gather ingredients and cook.
You can use your shield as an impromptu snowboard. You can put on thicker clothes to brave cold
weather. You can do everything you’d
expect of someone roughin’ it in the wild.
And there’s probably even more you can do that we haven’t seen.
But you know what impresses me more? The sense of solitude.
It’s apparently been confirmed that towns and such
will show up in-game, but in what capacity, it’s hard to know for sure. There are heavy implications that this game
takes place way down the Zelda timeline, presumably after some cataclysmic
event. (It might have something to do
with a war against the Guardians, or -- considering the presence of Koroks --
it’s just the world bouncing back following a cression of the Great Sea from Wind Waker.) Either way, the important thing is that
you’re all alone out there, forced to travel and survive on your lonesome to
beat out Ganon once again.
That silence and solitude lends itself to a level
of meditation that’s hugely appreciable.
As a guy who got frustrated by The
Swapper whenever it had to stop my near-silent space adventure to jabber on
and on and on, it’s nice to know that -- for the most part -- it’ll be me with
the world. Not against the world, but acting as a part of it. Borrowing from it. Appreciating it all the more.
And that’s why it’s my Game of the Show. It has nothing to do with the fact that I’m a
Nintendo fanboy.
#GoodGuyNintendo
I guess the takeaway here is that E3 isn’t
something to be sucked down without thought or restraint. It has its uses, it has its place, and it has
its importance -- a physical celebration of the medium that’s won over so many
people across the world. But it’s not
the be all and end all. Nor should it
be; it’s an event and a demonstration, but it’s also a way for companies to sow
the seeds of their mercantile machinations.
They want your money, and they’re willing to take your heart -- by any
means necessary -- to do it.
The days when E3 was just an event and a celebration are over, I think. That implies that there weren’t days where it was a corporate tool, but in the industry’s
current state? In a situation in which
you can pop over to Destructoid or Reddit or The Escapist or anywhere online,
any time, and see how the company du jour has screwed over patient customers? E3 might as well be a layer of frosting on
top of a crate’s worth of sawdust.
But sometimes?
Sometimes, man. That frosting is
still delicious.
No comments:
Post a Comment