Your login information returned multiple users. Please select the user you would like to log in as and re-type in your password.
E3 is the place where publishers and developers jostle and gyrate against each other in an attempt to show off their most precious of bits. The best they can possibly muster, the bathing-suit-area of their most recent creations. So what happens when those bits are hidden behind yards of sackcloth? What do we do when we are promised the world and given an island?
I'm talking about the way open world games have been presented at this years E3, and most specifically Far Cry 3.
I felt exalted during the Ubisoft press conference when, in response to a 'fan' question, they showed a sizzle real demonstrating the open world aspects of Far Cry 3. Grand areas were shown. Statuesque mountains over shimmering lagoons. Skydiving, hang gliding. It seemed like a beautiful dream covered in ice-cream soft-served directly from Belladonna's vagina.
When I walked up to the Far Cry 3 booth at E3 I expected to taste that dream. To cover my skin with its creaminess and even roll around in a vat of it with my mouth open. Little did I know that dream would be shattered when I learned they were only showing a linear mission from the game. And I tried, my wonderful friends, I TRIED to run away from such bonds. I tried to undo the shackles of the scripted demo and run free and naked in the opposite direction. But then the Ubisoft employee practically yelled at me to head for the dot blinking ominously, like a drunk and winking uncle who had finished his bourbon and undid his pants.
So like a God-fearing and dutiful nephew, I followed through with the soul-shattering act. I headed for the blinking dot which wafted the scent of stale alcohol, shoe leather and Just For Men hair dye, and did my deed. I'm not proud, but I did it.
My question then, as is often said, is why was that even necessary? We had the conversation during our Podcasts this weekend and the argument was made that open worlds are just too hard to demo properly. That there might be bugs which players can often stumble upon...and no one wants that. In Bethesda's case, the argument is made that people expect bugs to be present so are more apt to ignore them for the larger picture and the hope that most of them would be quashed before launch. There might be some truth to this, but surely there is a better way to demo an open world game than to give me a linear mission which is just as claustrophobically delivered as being buried alive in a casket.
Why not give me a larger, yet still smaller, area to simply run around in? Give me a medium land mass, some weapons and vehicles, some enemies and a time limit. Done. Allow me to explore a little bit of the world. Allow me to see what I can do! Are we so enslaved by the linear shooter that publishers are terrified of showing anything else, even when the game purports itself to be anything but? Do they think that the modern gamer, when given the option to move horizontally more than 100 feet, will immediately shit his pants on the show floor, sending other gamers into a frenzy of pants-pissing and vomit gargling, and all the booth-babes to forever eschew E3 till the end of time?
Nonsense I say! Hogwash! And I say this! Do not be afraid to show your true colors, even if those colors may dare to have more vibrance than we're used to. Put your best foot forward, no matter how out of the mainstream it may seem. There is a reason games like Dishonored and Watch Dogs stole the show at E3. Because they were not afraid. They presented something new and gamers, including press, swarmed and feasted like starving piranha.
Far Cry 3 was a popular addition to the show floor, but it could have been more-so. By Sunday the lines for it were practically nonexistent. Maybe if they had shown a living world, instead of a mission, they would have made even more of a mark.
Comments
12 years, 5 months ago
Couldn't agree more, I mean, look at Gta, at Just Cause, Saint's Row, Skyrim, all these open world games, demos and presentations give you at least a sections to run around in, and they're GOOD. Take an example, Brad played the Just Cause 2 demo for 10 HOURS, now it's a very fuckaround friendly game, so is Skyrim and Saint's Row, so I guess Far Cry wants to show off its mechanics or story or whatever, but they can give you an open area, give you 10 mins and a couple of objectives or whatever. If you don't think people can handle an open world game, why are you making and showing an open world game in the first place?
12 years, 5 months ago
I think they attempt to reign in open worlds in an attempt to control the player's experiences and by extension control the press that surrounds their game.. If they presented everyone with the entire open world then the reports coming in may cover things that the devs don't exactly want to get out. As you said, bugs, glitches and incomplete sections of the map could bring down perspective buyer's opinion of the title. In a world where gamers seem to feel more entitled than ever, and simple announcement trailers can cause fits of rage that storm on for months, trying to do everything you can to preempt that makes sense.
However I think there should be more risks taken with this sort of thing. You all (at 4player) reported on your experiences with the Skyrim demo at Pax (I think) before the game's release. You all had different things to report on and they all sounded fun. By limiting the space the players have the devs are limiting the experiences that can be had and thus making their game seem dull and potentially lifeless. I guess most have come to believe that clean presentation gives a higher profit margin than allowing for varied experiences.
12 years, 5 months ago
One of the best open world demos ever to be at Pax (also released later on Xbox live), was Just Cause 2. They knew what people wanted to see and gave a proper demo that did just that. They gave a small portion of open world that made you want to see more. Far Cry 3's open world could be fantastic and enjoyable to explore but no one can know. Its a damn shame because , i'm positive that what people wanted to know out of E3.
12 years, 5 months ago
When I play demos, I often try to not do the main thing. In racing demos, I turn around and play chicken with the other racers. In the Red Faction: Guerrilla demo, I just turned around and smashed everything behind me before trying to smash everything in front of me. In the Just Cause 2 demo, I wasn't really aware of any missions except just running around and blowing things up while tying other things together. I do it just to see if I can break it or how bounded the real game might be. If you give me a decent movement mechanic and physics, I will try to abuse them to end up on the rooftops. If you tell me to shoot the hinges, I'll go have a look around.
12 years, 5 months ago
It does seem very odd when publishers or devs choose to demo a linear segment when the draw is openness.
12 years, 5 months ago
The first thing I thought of after reading this was "Just Cause 2," and I see other people thought the same thing. That's pretty much the perfect example of how to do an open-world game demo right. Think how shitty it would have been if they just shoved you in a mission and gave you a slap on the wrist and ten seconds to get back to the area if you tried to explore.
On a side note, I just wanted to say that I find your writing absolutely hilarious, Joseph. You are quickly becoming my favorite member of 4PP, and are helping to fill the Travis-sized void in my heart.
12 years, 5 months ago
I'm going to assume that publishers think a majority of gamers are casual gamers who need to see the linear hand holding stuff to be interested in a game and that the open world aspect of the game will overwhelm them. After seeing the success of franchises like Halo and GOW I can't really argue with that idea. As long as the final product has the things it that I look forward too in the said advertised game I'm not that fussed on what they advertise but hell that's just me.
12 years, 5 months ago
It sound like what you're proposing is a Dead Rising: Case Zero- type of scenario. I fully support that, as that would be much better than any contradictory linearity. However, I did notice the on-stage multiplayer demo that the Far Cry 3 staff showed off during the conference, and I can't help but wonder if maybe this was the part of the game you played, rather than the actual full open world of the single player.
12 years, 5 months ago
I would take an open world demo with a few bugs over a perfect linear narrative that promises an open world without following through on it. If you're emphasizing an aspect of your game as something that makes it unique or worth playing, it should probably be exhausted in the demo. As long as it's playable and there's a prompt response to fix the bugs, I say fuck it and go balls deep - flaws and all.
12 years, 5 months ago
Apart from the 'naughty bits,' I agreed completely. These teams just don't get it. Why they keep falling short and theirs betters out sell them. They want safe and we want new. That's why games like Watch Dogs get our attention. While, Farcry 3 gets a empty line.