So Kotaku recently uploaded a article going over the recent comments made by Ascendant Studios alumni, people behind the studio-gutting failure 'Immorals of Northampton' or whatever it's called. I read this article at the time and in fact they was one of the sources that alerted me to this topic to begin with when I offered my own insight on the matter. To the point I feel like the team have a skewered perspective on their game based on their closeness to the project and the bizarrely average general reviews. Actual standard people seemed to really not like the game and that did not foster positive word of mouth through any of the more reliable tracts of hype generation. But that isn't what people were talking about in the days to come. In fact, I suspect that the Internet doesn't even remember what 'Inconsequentials' even was- because all anyone could talk about was Kotaku's reductive take on the single player market.
Now I was actually a bit confused by this, because I had actually read the article and didn't come away remembering any particularly unhinged jabs at the single player market whatsoever. I had to actually re-find the article in order to figure out where all the backlash was coming from- and upon reading the headline I get it. "'Irritables of Canterbury' proves it's a grim time for single player games." Having actually read the article, I can confirm this is a case of click-bait article syndrome. There's only a single paragraph connecting this inflammatory headline with the actual situation and thus my mind totally blocked it out- but looking back- yeah, they did actually have something to say about the state of Single Player games- a popular topic in modern gaming discourse.
You see, we're all responsible for making sweeping generalisations about the state of the industry based on our own personal biases this way or that- it's just the basic way of game critiques. Most annoying of all are those who make the blanket statement that every single AAA game is a lie and how they're all merciless scams that release as unfinished messes- who then just quietly sulk in a corner when a Game of the Year candidate comes out, only to leap back out and start up with their crap for the next mistake. Yeah, some games don't come out in their best possible state- that doesn't make them the entirety of the industry and pretending they do is a reductive statement just as stupid as whatever it is that Yves Guillemot last said. Not just his public statements, but anything he has recently said this entire morning/afternoon/last night/in the bathroom where no-one could hear him. He's just that special level of stupid.
As for the actual Kotaku comment? In a nutshell the author was addressing the fact that Ascendant's debut game had a lot of things going for it- particularly for the fact that it was everything people who critique games have been screaming for. Namely it wasn't a life-sucking, money hungry live service disaster piece. But uhh... that's only what the game isn't- it was also a total mess of bad narrative, cringe predictable character work and an unengaging core combat conceit. (I know some people liked the combat, but I look at them the same way I look at enjoyers of Forspoken's combat- we just aren't the same species, I guess.) But beyond that- a shot was fired across the bough of single player games as an institution.
"Without better sales or in-game purchases to bring in money, it seems the single player model is only sustainable on games with smaller budgets" croaks the Kotaku article. Basically they propose that AAA Single player games are too often subject to overstuffing which balloons development costs to such an extent that only a massive hit can recoup costs which is... actually a super basic conclusion to draw. But here's the thing- that is the case with the entire AAA market. The multiplayer games out there that don't sell well but monetise out the ass? They also don't make enough to cover their costs because there's not enough people playing to buy the microtransactions. Just ask Avengers. Where Kotaku went wrong is narrowing their scope.
See, the entire video game world is fraught with never-ending rising budgets that write cheques very few of them can cash- it's not evidence that the single player scene is falling out of vogue- it's a condemnation of bad management choices that push for spectacle above purpose and vision. When every game begs to be a super high fidelity, open world extravaganza, but most games don't really have a purpose to being, then you're going to have an 100 hour game wherein only 10 or so hours are worth playing. (Think of every Asssassin's Creed game from the past 7 years.) This is exactly the point that the Kotaku article was making and it's a concise one- but the headline sensationalises an absolute nothing statement which is found nowhere in the actual words themselves.
It's actually quite easy for the author to turn around and sigh at the state of an audience that don't bother read an article before responding with a hit-piece- but I would honestly blame whoever thought rage clicks would be profitable than representing the actual article itself. That doesn't happen by accident, someone wanted to ruffle feathers specifically to draw the people out the woodworks who come specifically to drop the name of 'Baldur's Gate 3', 'Alan Wake' and 'Yakuza 8' in triumphant furore. Because Kotaku is one of those article generators with that negative level of integrity to their name- wherein you have to second guess ever other word out of their mouths to see if an actual point is being made or mirthless controversy is being spurred for nobody's gain. (Just check the Persona 4 article declaring it as being 'sexist' for evidence.)
So I'm going to fold up my hands and say that both sides are kind of in the wrong for this. Kotaku for fanning the flames and the people for falling for them. Oh, and the former developers for trying so very hard to wear blindfolds and not see the genuine problems that their game had on a fundamental level. (I know they received that feedback from actual players- so they have to be trying to blot it out for whatever reason.) Of all the genuine dogs-puke articles I've studied, this perhaps marks the only one I've read in a while that's not as bad as people said. That being said, still clumsy in the wording. Because afterall, it is still Kotaku.
No comments:
Post a Comment