Kotaku and Single player games: a balanced review

 

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.

The Aveum Annihilation

 

It comes about now and then that a project will drop at the wrong time to the wrong audience and turn out... wrongly. That is to say; not every failure was meant to be so for the pure merit of what it is, and not every success is due solely to the strengths of the pieces involved. Indeed much about the life we lived is based on the peripherals and inconsequentials of the world- who we know, where we are, the events around us. 'Merit' is a lie perpetuated by the fortunate to give the bereft some grim hope to persist in search of a brighter future that doesn't exist. Even the act of giving up is criminalised and blasphemed, because the rich can't stay afloat unless we are kneeling in the gutter for them to stand atop. But I'm sliding a bit away from the point- we're here to talk the Immortals game!

I think there's always a bad sign regarding a game when the name is a headache to say. Sure, there are many games out there with bad and caustic headlines that manage to worm their way onto 'classics' lists- just take 'Dragon Age: Origins' for example- a game with a subtitle that is completely and utterly meaningless outside of the context of referring to this being the start of the franchise. There is no other 'Origin' told throughout the game in any context- it's marketing pure and simple. But we don't ever think of the game's weird name because it's become a household name. But if you don't have a unbridled classic brewing in your little pot, a cleaner title is just better for marketing. Perhaps consider renaming 'Immortals of Aveum' to... well, literally anything else? I still have to look it up and I've done 5 or so articles on the little bugger- that's a problem!

But the name is not what sank Aveum. In a recent candid comment from a former EA developer, a spotlight was shone on the process of what the game was and how in many ways it and the team were set up to fail from the get-go. One of the nearly 50% of Ascendant Studio that were laid off from the team after the game's unfortunate failure called it a "Truly awful idea"; laying the blame of the game on "Trying to make a AAA single-player shooter in today's market." Atop of highlighting the game was a new IP and was filled with the bloat typical of a plus 100 million dollar budget. (including the 40 million for marketing) Again, we come back to the idea of the perhipherals of the situation. Not the talents of the team- but the 'timing' of the game. Let's examine that.

Now I don't need to interview the fellows themselves to figure out what they meant by 'today's market'. As it stands a lot of the top most player games are AAA shooters- but most important they are multiplayer shooters, that all leverage some sort of Live Service functionality. Warzone, Battlefield, Apex, Destiny, Halo. Some have increasingly limited Single Player offerings, but those are just to get players through the door and keep them busy when the servers are down. The multiplayer is the draw that keeps them hooked and buying cosmetics long enough for the investment to hit their return multiplayers that make shareholders salivate. If that is the game that rules the roost, then delivering an experience with no multiplayer portions whatsoever was tantamount to suicide, no?

Yet here's the rub- the cold water- things are never that black and white. If the world really existed in such a state that only things which were already popular could be successful, then innovation wouldn't be a concept; now would it? Do you think Divinity Original Sin dropped into a healthy CRPG market and did gangbusters there? No- it released to a world starved for heavy duty RPGs and thus capitalised on the market gap. Heck, what about DOOM 2016, which released during an equally heavy Multiplayer Shooter trend? (although 'Live Services' were not as industry-standard back then.) Admittedly, that game did have an online component- which died mere seconds after the game launched- but the Single Player portion? Instant classic. Best seller. Earned a sequel. So what is the difference between Aveum and DOOM? Or Wolfenstien? Or any of the other AAA shooters of the modern age that did well?

Honestly, Aveum just wasn't that good. Bloat, is perhaps the right term here as coined by this ex-employee- because the game had nowhere near the amount of content variety to justify the playtime. The whole wrist-based magic concept feels weak too, on a visual scale, which weakens the spectacle of action in a genre that thrives on visual spectacle. The story was over-stuffed, the characters were under-baked, the general art-style looked only a tad less overdesigned than Godfall- but still a total mess. It just felt as though the game lacked a heart, which was attempted to be paved over with style and passionless excess. If Aveum was an excellent game, it would have drawn eyes despite itself. Build it and they will come.

To which I will say that the game was a bad idea from the outset. First-off- it is utterly insane that this game wasn't a VR title. I've scoured the internet searching for some sort of VR release because for the love of god- it seemed made for it. I've even spoken with people who tested the thing, who themselves were baffled that it went to launch in the absolute state it was in! There has to be something said for a product not passing the sniff test from the most important demographic, the makers and the players. If they can't justify the product, then who is going to buy it at the end of the day? Be honest with yourselves! And more than half a year later- what is the game's legacy? It decimated a studio and stained EA's banksheet.

I bring this up to draw a line under what should be an example. Games can never be forced together out of elements that should work. Aveum was constructed by a team of industry vets, given a stupid amount of money, featured a talented cast of stars- but it didn't have a heart. Art will always be the story of people laid out before you- a heart peeled open. Any form of art lacking that heart is going to fail to reach, to impress and to succeed. That's just the basic aspect of creation in a nutshell. That is what is missing from titles like Suicide League. From studios like Ubisoft. And from industries like the music complex. Just have a little heart, will ya?