Often have I heard the term 'time is a flat circle' coined, itself being a reference to 'True Detective' apparently, which makes that show a lot more bizarre sounding than I original expected having just looked that up. I cannot pretend I fully understand what that is trying to denote- but from context I get the gist. Eternal Return. Like the dragon game. Not 'Like a Dragon'. The other Dragon game. With the dogma. (Ah, forget it.) What I'm trying to say is- we never seem to progress because we're so damn stuck learning the same lessons, facing the same tribulations, and staring slack jawed at the exact same stupid nonsense we were last go around. Of course, maybe True Detective meant that more in a metaphysical sense- but I think the lens of cynicism works just fine.
The comment that blasted me back a thousand years today belongs to one Joe Tung on the verge of unveiling the brand new debut title of his studio 'Theorycraft Games'- a studio dedicated to developing '10,000 hour games'! as they posit. This title, a MOBA-looking 'action RPG' Battle Royale game that is certainly entertaining a crowed market both in genre and style- but I'd hardly call myself the foremost expert on what kind of crowd this style of game attracts. For all I know everybody is etching at the neck for another LOL style game with an almost identical artstyle but stretched over what appears to be a few quite different game modes. And I assume it's probably to this crowd that our CEO was talking- however even within that box- it's still some pretty ignorant slop that I can't help but gripe over.
Now, Tung here ain't no spring chicken to the gaming world. He's been around the block, so to speak. Being a Bungie alumni who left around about the time of Halo 4 dropping (that game would've made me quit my job too if I'd played it back then) and going for a long stint at Riot games before growing confident enough to shoot off on his own endeavour- Tung left to find a future creating live service games because his backwards-facing ass declares "the Games as a service model is so much better for developers and gamers"- than the traditional fixed boxed price games. Now already I have so thoughts on that- and already I can see both sides of the argument. Although let's get a bit deeper into these wilding claims first before the rebuttals begin, eh?
As I said, our CEO knows a bit or two about boxed products which has informed the decision of his virginal venture out to studio startership. He's been through the proverbial ringer of games industry marketing. He laments the "E3 Build", calling it the "one opportunity" that developers had to talk to their audience before launch, necessitating "Bull**** vaporwave", as has been experienced and acknowledged often over the years. He believes the "$60 boxed product" approach forced "Decisions that were not in the best interest of the player." To him that style of production prioritised "How do we sell as many copies in the first 48 hours that we can?" Instead of thinking "long term" about "What is best for the player" and "how that overlaps with what is best for the company." My, what an egalitarian utopia Tung paints for us through the canvass of Live, bloody, services! Who'd have thought?
So... let's be objective about this for a second- yeah? He believes that the pressure of trying to score customers leads to design decisions that sacrifices the quality of the game in favour of early week one sales. So we're talking vapid set-pieces, frontloading games, stuff like that, yeah? Sure- why not. What the heck do you think Live Service design mentality does ya dunder head? You know, where it's imperative that players stick around and play your game religiously for months in order to justify it's existence? Jason Schierer's expose into 'Suicide Squad Kills the Justice League' highlighted how it was the Live Service expectation in particular that weighed on how the team needed to design content. Making missions that were supposed to engaging but also easily repeatable, which resulted in trash that achieved neither vector. Redfall lacked quite a deep a dive, but it was game that no one felt comfortable making because of how abrasive the live service model was to the style of game the team were used to. Both these high budgets titles were sunk because of the Live Service model.
But we're being objective, right? So let's just say that those were un-suspecting studios who fumbled the bag. What about those who nail it? Well even they suffer in the long run because of the very nature of the game that they are servicing- the content wheel eventually starts to grate up against the artistic integrity of the game. What happens when you need to create cosmetics for people to buy for years on end but you're making a military shooter? Well COD ran out of military colours and insignias a while back and since then we've had Lilith from Diablo as a skin, Homelander, Snoop Dog- whatever brand they can get their hands on has slipped into this former military shooter- now a more high fidelity Fortnite competitor. Apex Legends has similarly sold itself to Final Fantasy. And Overwatch- once defined by it's creative integrity so powerful that every skin denoted some inner lore that was slowly being uncovered- now just pumps out themed brand deal skins every other month because D.VA wants that Porche money!
What about the gamers, this was supposed to be good for the gamers right? Because sure, they can get themselves into these games for practically nothing and be supported with new content forever- right? But it's not really about offering players 'new content to play' now is it? No, it's about enticing people to play this game as much as possible- and that is something else entirely. Rather than developing cool new game modes or fascinating new playstyles or aspects of the game to enrich the experience, you'll instead see traps to grip onto a player and never let go. Battle Passes that demand weekly, sometimes daily play in order to get to the cooler rewards before the season's end drags them away forever. Limited time events. Deleted early game content. purchasing loops, dark patterns- Live Services feast off of anything they can to arrest the audience- it is the exception that avoids them, not the rule.
I respect that Tung is invested in Live Services so it makes sense that he is going to big them up a little, but declaring them the healthy alternative to the traditional market is ridiculously naïve at best and insidiously deceptive at worst. Look no further than the general rejection that so many high budget live services have recently received to show you that no- this isn't the player and developer friendly world that Tung wants to insist that it is. It's cut-throat, opportunistic, dehumanising, artistically stifling and conceptually bankrupt: all quite literally the further possible example to the industry possible. I quite dislike those that lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment