Further to my last 
… because I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and also because I like this thread and the tone of the people posting here, and thusly I think it might be a good home for it:
I’d just like to comment on the issue of having been potentially misled, or even lied to about this game.
Some people (here and elsewhere) have stated some pretty strong views on this, and have also provided evidence why they feel that this has been the case.
I’m less convinced about this, not least because, regardless, I feel that I’ve been sold a solid product at the end of the day.
I think, also, that there’s a couple of things at play here. One is obviously to do with how someone actually ‘sells’ you a product, or even an idea; PR and marketing, I guess you could say, in this context. My views on this in a moment.
The other is simply to do with how creatives share their ideas and ambitions with you.
Some artists (even ones involved in commercial art or entertainment) work in a very private way, and simply hate discussing their ideas or vision in any way prior to presenting their work. Others, especially those more overtly involved in commercial art and entertainment, love to share their ideas as part of their process. In any case, when money is involved, inevitably both are often forced to give up something to the process of marketing their product in advance of launch.
When artists (and developers in our context) share their ideas, prototypes and ambitions with me I understand that they’re involved in a process of creation; it’s a work in progress.
They might be very excited to tell me about (and maybe even show me) a whole raft of ideas they’re working on; and I might get excited about them, too. But at any point it might be that a particular idea turns out to be crap, or impossible to realise for whatever reason, or becomes superseded by another idea. It might even be that it remains a fecking brilliant idea, but it’s one of six other fecking brilliant ideas, and they only have time to finish those.
I’m not going to knock them for that. I’m sure they’re as disappointed as I am (probably more so) that it didn’t work out quite like they’d hoped. And I’m not going to knock them for sharing with me in the first place; for ‘getting my hopes up’; that just feels a bit ignorant and spiteful to me.
But it’s at the interface (which is not always direct) between the artists and their audience, during these developmental and iterative periods, that problems can arise; namely, in this context, through the interferences and processes of PR and marketing.
This is a relationship, and so it involves two parties, and both can make errors of judgement: the one, only telling people what they think they want to hear; the other, only hearing what they want to hear; and both parties potentially disregarding the fact that they are talking about a work in progress.
Yet, even here, I think there’s a big difference between outright lying and what you might describe as ‘faceting a presentation’; you might even call it ‘spin’, but that, too, comes with negative baggage.
Successful marketeers, like politicians, are skilled at faceting their presentation… you might call that lying sometimes. Actually, I despise this aspect of marketing (and politics), but I’m not so naïve that I’m blind to it happening, all the damn time.
When a film studio cuts a trailer for a movie, they don’t show you exactly what the movie is, they try and give you a taste of it and show the bits they think are really good; they try and sell you the experience. Even as individuals, we do exactly the same thing whenever we apply for a job; in our CV and covering letter we tell our prospective employer things we expect they would like to hear; we facet the presentation of ourselves. It’s nothing surprising.
In any case, it’s the marketing rhetoric to do with “a game for PC gamers made by PC gamers” (paraphrased) which seems to have become a contentious item. It’s also the thing that has backfired; that’s what happens when your ‘faceted presentation’ is found out.
Some people have also expressed dismay that (in light of the rhetoric) all gameplay demonstrations were given using a controller, and cited this as further evidence (bah humbug!) that they obviously had no intention of prioritising PC gamers. Hmm, I dunno; seems to me that it’s clearly a much more engaging, rock’n’roll way to demonstrate a game to stand up on a stage (or sit down on a couch) with a wireless controller in your hand and talk about what’s going on, without a desk, a mouse and keyboard in your way. It’s a much more aesthetic approach to showcasing your game. I think that’s entirely understandable, especially when a large proportion (probably the majority) of your intended overall market use controllers; even if I don’t really enjoy the console/controller environment myself.
Despite the rhetoric, though, I think it was pretty clear for all to see, from demonstrations of actual gameplay, that this was likely to be a game optimised for console/controller gamers.
And, even if it wasn’t clear to see, it’s really not a stretch to anticipate it being the case, especially from a commercial standpoint as I say.
Also, the Quest for the Red Lyrium Reapers, for anyone who did that, was a great big Xbox advert. It was actually pretty cool; the DA:I game trailers were really good, and this had them all in one place with a sort of mini-game throughout them to unlock items in the game. But, since it forced you to watch all the trailers all the way through, it was essentially a big Xbox advert, with their logo flying around all over the place. So what? They had an investment in the release of the game on their platform. No biggie. Just another clue as to what to expect.
So…
Misled? Maybe, but not, in my view, badly or maliciously so. Takes two to tango.
Outright lied to? Nah.
I was glad to see their ideas and the extent of their ambition shared en route.
I’m just a bit disappointed they couldn’t fully realise everything this time around (as much for them as for myself).
Still. Good game. Props.
~TG
Retour en haut
