I’ve been noticing more and more recently that there’s a group of people that believe that a game shouldn’t be judged by the quality, sales figures, critical scores, or really any other widely used metric normally applied to the judgement and comparison of games. Instead they believe the only thing that matters is the amount of people that worked on a project and by extension, the amount of work put in. I even got into an argument with one of these people on Twitter (of course).
This is an odd, nonsensical point of view that has no place in reality. Especially not the highly competitive, very crowded entertainment sector known as the gaming industry. Judging a game, or really anything, strictly by the amount of work put in makes no sense. No one does that in any other field. They can spend years and millions of dollars making a movie, but that doesn’t make it good (glances at Suicide Squad). It has to actually be good. What if you walked into a restaurant and ordered a steak. Then the waiter brought you a cold, under cooked piece of meat smothered in ketchup with rotten vegetables to go with it, but when he served you he said 10 people worked on this over the course of 5 hours. That wouldn’t suddenly make you appreciate the steak more, or at all. If anything that would make you even more unhappy with it because it means an entire team of people did a shitty job and no one said or did anything to fix it. Just because a lot of effort is put into something doesn’t reflect the quality of the finished product or, more importantly, the value of that finished product.
We have a very rigorous and competitive system for critiquing games. We have Metacritic, professional reviews, amateur reviews, opening week sales figures, total sales figures, and game awards shows just to name some of them. There are so many techniques used today in order to figure out the quality and value of a game and arguably we still haven’t quite figured it out. But no one with half a brain actually cares how much effort is put into it in a vacuum. People care about the final product. Many games take a long time to make, but that doesn’t mean they end up good. Remember Mass Effect: Andromeda? And let’s be completely honest, The Last Guardian was good, but it wasn’t 10 years of development across three gens good. And really the less time and staff it takes to make a game, the more impressive it is, both for the consumers and the publishers. So why would we ever use the amount of staff and work that went into a game as the means of judging its actual value? Paper value for investors sure. That makes sense. But actual consumer value? That would only hurt consumers in both the long and short run.
I had a guy argue with me about Battleborn. Battleborn is an average at best game. It reviewed at a six to low seven. It did not sell well. It did not last long. It didn’t win any notable awards. The servers were quickly dead. And yes it did have to compete with Overwatch, even though the developers said it wasn’t trying to, but that excuses nothing. If it was good, people would have played it instead of Overwatch. By all counts it was a bad game. But some guy tried to argue with me that none of those things matter. All that matters is that a team of people worked on it and because they worked hard, supposedly since we have no way to actually prove that, it should be respected alongside any other game like Horizon Zero Dawn, Monster Hunter World, or The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. That’s some of the most ridiculous bullshit I’ve ever heard.
People don’t even get judged solely on their effort. You can work your ass off at just about any job. You’ll still be judged on the quality of your work product and output. No employer will allow you to do a terrible job and keep your job just because you always show up on time and work hard while you’re there. That’s not reality. And really I can’t even believe I had to take the time to write a blog post about such an obvious fact of life. And I wasn’t going to till I saw this same faulty line of reasoning show up in multiple places in references to multiple terrible games. And I’m sure I’ll be seeing it again soon in reference to Sea of Thieves as well.
Imagine a world where all games are considered equal. A world where The Last of Us, Neverdead, Super Mario Odyssey, Assassin’s Creed Unity, and Mighty No. 9 are all treated equally within the market. It would be chaos for consumers. Games would cost way more than they already do. The quality of product would be severely lacking. Esports would be more of a joke than it already is because they’d be featuring terrible games. There is absolutely no sense in judging a game based on the work put in. Especially if it’s not a small indie game made by a kid in his basement. The amount of work and time in no way reflects the quality of the final product. And we as consumers shouldn’t allow developers and publishers to even try to value games that way, even though they already try to. Because if we do, every game will end up being No Man’s Sky . . . pre-patches.
*This is a piece I wrote several years ago (2014), but for some reason never published. What I think is interesting is that some of the things I’ve called for here have been implemented into modern gaming via patches for certain games (GTAV) and also some modern games are finally allowing perspective choice, such as Star Wars: Battlefront (2015). But in general the industry still has a way to go on this topic.
Quite often there are games released (I’m talking AAA almost exclusively) that I really want to play at first announcement. They have the story, or the graphics, or sometimes even just the right looking character. It’s no secret that marketing can be the difference between record sales and a failed project. Sometimes I even do buy without taking the time to properly do my research. But then once I actually get a look at the gameplay, I’m totally disinterested in playing it. In the moments where I learn this after I’ve already purchased I play the game anyway because I’m not one to just throw money away. But in the times where I’m given advanced notice I simply let out a long sigh of disappointment and never purchase or play the game except in the rare occurrence where I get a chance to play it for free either because a friend has it or PS+ tosses it out one month. And even then sometimes I still pass on it.
I don’t know if other gamers have this issue, but I seem to be dealing with it constantly. There are certain aspects to the way a game is made that I often think are just wrong and would have been better if done differently. I’m not super picky about certain aspects of a game while I’m a complete stickler about others. My biggest pet peeve is when a game that should have clearly been made in third person is produced in first person. This is obviously a subjective opinion. I prefer third person games to first person just like there are plenty of gamers who prefer first person over third person. The main difference is that first person games are tied directly to esports now so they tend to get a lot more support than third person. This is especially true when it comes to PVP for some reason. I do play games in first person and there are certain first person titles that I really love like Mirror’s Edge (2008). But more often than not games are announced that I’m totally ready to buy and then later on found out it’s in first person and then I don’t even bother. Sometimes I’m on the fence about it like with the upcoming Destiny (here I’m referencing the first one because this was written early 2014), but other times I never consider it again.
*I ultimately did purchase the limited edition of Destiny and if you read my blog regularly then you are already aware that I deeply regret it but not because it’s in first person.
Now obviously some games are meant to be in first person and they wouldn’t be any better in third. Call of Duty is a great example of this. It’s a first person shooter that would be no better in any aspect or even possibly be worse than it already is were it to be made in third person. The same is true for certain third person games such as Sly Cooper. That would be a horrible experience in first person, except for maybe in a very well made VR scenario. But quite often some games are produced in one POV when they would be so much “better” and sensible in another other POV.
For me, there is no better example than Deus Ex: Human Revolution (2011). You give me a super slick looking cyborg with inlaid blades, robo shades, and enough tech to make Raiden (MGS not MK for all you noobs) jealous and then you tell me I’m not going to be able to see him for most of the game. That makes absolutely no sense. That game should without a doubt have been in third person. We know this to be true because of the many moments where the game switches to third person when you do cool stuff like stealth kills or even just climb ladders. And no I don’t care if the past titles in the series were in first person. Clearly that was the wrong decision, at least for this title, and should have been changed. I was ready to pre-order it after watching the reveal trailers, but when I found out it was in first person I passed. Tried a friend’s copy for about 5 minutes and put it down never to play it again. Even passed on it when it was available for free on PS+. It should have been in third with the option to switch to first for more precise gun use.
There are also games that are in the middle that could be very good in either first or third person. Mass Effect is a great example of this. It’s in third person over the shoulder, which works great. But it also could have easily been a first person shooter and been just as good. It would only have needed to switch to third person for cut scenes which is a common practice in first person games. Between games that could go either way and be fun and games that should have gone the opposite way, I have to ask the question “why not?”
Why don’t we ever see games remade in different gameplay styles? It wouldn’t even be that hard in comparison to making a brand new game. You already have your plot, graphics, level design, and voice acting. You need only remake the gameplay and you have a brand new and sometimes better gaming experience in a fraction of the time. Then you can ship it out quicker and charge less for it without taking a loss so everybody wins.
Obviously I’m not saying this is a practice that should be done with every or even most games. I would absolutely never consider playing a first person God of War game. The thought of that just makes me cringe. But there are clearly titles that can and sometimes should be remade in a different POV or with other gameplay focused changes. Wouldn’t you like to try something like Tomb Raider (2013) in first person? It may not be better, but it could also end up being a much more dramatic gameplay experience.
I think a great example is Thief (2014). I was so excited to play it that my girlfriend pre-ordered it for me. But it was actually a pretty boring experience (read about it here). I understand why Thief was made in first person and what it was trying to accomplish. But I truly believe that it would be more enjoyable and less annoying to play in a third person view. Especially when it comes to combat, which is pretty sloppy in that game when not landing exclusively stealth knock outs. Now I can admit that it happens to be a game where stealth knockouts should be your go to means of dealing with enemies, but if you played the game then you know that it’s not made well enough to accomplish that in any practical amount of time. Especially for inexperienced to average level stealth players.
While I’ve been focusing on POV, that’s not necessarily the only change in a remake that could lead to a great gaming experience. There are also contextual gameplay changes that could help certain titles a lot. What if we were to see certain games recreated with an entirely different combat system? Now personally I like Final Fantasy XII (2006) and while I don’t consider it to be the best of the franchise, I was not unhappy with the battle system. It was innovative and attempting to change the experience to something other than the basic turn time which had existed for several years. Whether or not it succeeded in creating a good battle system is up for debate, but I do know that many people were unhappy with it as well as the newer systems in more recent games such as Final Fantasy XIII (2009/10). Why couldn’t we see these games recreated or better yet originally released with the ability to play in the classic turn time style? (Some of them actually do include the choice of turn time, but it’s disappearing with each new title.)
That would be my ideal scenario, if I’m honest. A game comes out where multiple styles of play and POV would make sense and be enjoyable and they are all included in the release copy. But that’s asking a lot for some games. There’s also the possibility of releasing multiple versions of a game or including other gameplay style options as DLC. If given the opportunity, I would totally play Deus Ex: Human Revolution fully in third person. When it was new, I would have even been willing to pay extra for the privilege.
Again, I’m not saying that this is something that should be done for every game. But there are definitely certain titles where it could be quite enjoyable, profitable, and in some cases useful. I bet certain games would even sell more copies and garner more positive response in an alternate version than in the original. While such a policy does go against the current system of video game development in many ways and may even be insulting to developers, I say “so what?” Gaming is about entertaining the player while trying to make a profit. It’s pretty obvious that such a move to create alternate versions of certain games would do just that. And since credibility is kind of a dead thing anyway what with all the HD remakes and paid DLC for unfinished releases, would this really be such a disgusting practice in the current gaming industry?
Here’s a list of some of the games that I would love to play in remade versions. Note that I’m not saying all these games weren’t great the way they were made. I’m just saying that I believe they would be fun to play in an alternate version.
Elder Scrolls – Third Person
Brink (2011) – Third Person
Uncharted – First Person
Kingdom Hearts – Turn Time RPG
Demon’s Souls (2009) – First Person
Prince of Persia – First Person
Minecraft (2011) – Third Person
Lord of the Rings: The Third Age (2004) – Real Time Action RPG
Dragon Age: Origins (2009) – Turn Time RPG
Metroid: Other M (2010) – First Person
I’m curious to know if other gamers have similar pet peeves with games and how you feel about the idea of developers releasing alternate versions so please leave a comment below.
Recently Kotaku put out an article complaining about Bethesda’s policy on review copies. You can read the whole thing here, but allow me to summarize the main talking points for you. Essentially Kotaku is unhappy with Bethesda because their general policy on review copies is that they don’t distribute them in advance of release date. And when they do release them in advance, as with the recently released Prey, it’s with such a negligible amount of time before launch that they might as well not have released them in advance at all. The author goes on to say that this is a bad decision on the part of Bethesda for a number of reasons. Some of the more important reasons are that A) Such a policy forces reviewers to rush out reviews too quickly to get a proper feel for them, often leading to lower scores due to an inability to adequately experience the game. B) The low scores hurt developers because supposedly some publishers, while it was never actually stated that Bethesda was one of these publishers, give bonuses based on Metacritic scores that hit a minimum of 85 or higher. The article states that Prey was resting at 80 at the time of publishing. C) Metacritic is a bad system that causes problems and somehow this is not only Bethesda’s fault but the responsibility to go against their own policies/beliefs is a must in the wake of the current system. That basically sums it up.
I really didn’t like this article. As a long time game reviewer, I don’t actually disagree with the author’s general opinion that it is quite inconvenient that Bethesda doesn’t give out their review copies in advance. But the bulk of his points, general philosophy, and reasons for judging Bethesda negatively are mostly preposterous and overlooking the bigger issues at hand which stem from a flawed reviewing industry, not a flawed development/publishing industry. That’s not to say that the development/publishing industry isn’t flawed, because it for damn sure is, but in the case of this article, for once the publisher can’t rightfully be blamed. For the purposes of discussion I’ll keep the conversation focused on Prey as the article did.
The first point that needs to be addressed is that Prey had a pre-release demo. It wasn’t on PC so that’s a fair point of contention but at least a demo was released a week in advance of the game, giving a large percentage of potential buyers the ability to try the game in advance and giving basically 100% of potential buyers a chance to at least see the game in action in advance of the launch date via services like Twitch and YouTube. I myself posted a lengthy playthrough of the demo a week prior to the game’s launch. Whenever a demo is released, reviews cease to seriously matter. Maybe not to developers but to consumers they’re nearly irrelevant unless you don’t personally have access to the demo. Demos have become a rare thing. Most AAA titles don’t get them anymore sadly, and for a really unethical reason too. But when a game, like Prey, gets a demo the reviews are at best just to read for kicks. Why do I need anyone to tell me whether or not to buy a game when I can play the game myself and make an informed buying decision?
Remember that the only true purpose of reviews is to help uninformed or on the fence consumers that have not played the game in question make a buying decision. They aren’t for people who have already played a game to read and either troll if they disagree with it or jerk off to it if they agree with it. People who have already purchased or played the game aren’t the target audience and honestly have no business commenting on a review unless it’s genuinely to answer a question from someone who actually is considering buying the game or to debate a legitimate point of contention with the review because they feel it misrepresents the game and/or misleads readers into making a bad buying decision. Otherwise reviews aren’t for people who have already played a game. That means that in the case of Prey very few PS4 and XB1 owners had/have any real need to look at reviews of the game. If you’re interested, you play the demo, which is long enough to get a fair understanding of it, and make your own informed purchasing decision. I played the demo, was unimpressed, and did not buy the game. I’ve yet to read a single review all the way through for Prey, because I have no legitimate reason to, since I already tried the game.
To address the author’s point about having to rush out reviews when given a short or no lead time to launch with a review copy. This is not the publisher’s fault. There is no law that says your review has to go out first. This is a personal issue with your business/industry that is made inconvenient by Bethesda’s policy. But so what? Bethesda, or really any publisher/developer, doesn’t actually owe review firms anything. Review firms owe Bethesda for providing them games to review, whether free or not, so they can continue to have a business. Really the race to be first published shows inherent flaws in the review industry more than anything else. A traffic based compensation system does nothing good for anyone because it leads to click bait writing, rushed content, and a general lack of quality in today’s journalistic system where marketing and social media do more than quality content ever will. Not to mention, such complaints show a lack of brand loyalty from your reader base. Or at the very least a fear of such a thing. If you run a quality firm then you should be able to retain your readership. If you can retain your readership then it doesn’t really matter if your review comes out first or not. But if you don’t run a quality firm then it would make sense to be unhappy about Bethesda’s decision about review copies because you’re always vying for the click bait audience to stay afloat. Yet that still isn’t Bethesda’s problem because it’s not their responsibility to keep review firms happy. In fact they would probably prefer if they all ceased to exist and just worked directly with private content creators.
The author’s second point about review scores and how they affect Metacritic numbers which can translate to bonuses is based on a lot of speculation. In the article it’s stated that his information on the subject is all anecdotal and he provides no specific sources for these claims. It’s also kind of weird to assume Bethesda knows nothing about how Metacritic works and how their review copy policy affects their scores. If anything this is an intentional measure to keep developers loyal to Bethesda by artificially controlling the numbers. Is that a bit scummy? Sure. Is it in any way an actual problem for the people at Kotaku, IGN, or any other review firm? Probably not really. I mean it’s not like those firms artificially control access to content or opportunities in the gaming journalism industry right?
I will say though that if it is in fact true that the minimum score for developers to get a bonus is 85 on Metacritic then that’s another example of a totally unbalanced and unrealistic expectation of success. An 80 is a good score. For some it’s a great score. Personally I hate the number system for reviews. As a reviewer who genuinely tries my best to be fair and honest with every single review, whether AAA or indie, I find picking the number to be the most difficult, most stressful, least useful part of writing a review and judging a game/movie. First off, it gives people an excuse not to actually read the review. Many people just look at the number and don’t take the time to try to understand where that number comes from or if it’s even legitimate. We’ve all read at least one review where the number said one thing but the review said something completely different. It’s also extremely difficult to be completely fair about choosing that number. I have a system, as I’m sure most experienced reviewers do, and I believe in my system. I’ve crafted it over the course of writing more than 100 game reviews. Yet even today I still struggle with making sure I’ve actually picked the right number for a game. Other than supporting Metacritic, there’s little gained from the number in terms of actually helping the consumer. It also hurts developers more often than helps them in a world where standards are so high that an 80 is supposedly considered a weak score.
While I may agree with the general idea behind the Kotaku article, my point still stands. The article is not motivated by a genuine desire to help consumers or developers. It’s selfishly motivated to help review sites continue to take advantage of a system that is unfair to begin with often at the expense of developers and consumers alike. I may not completely agree with Bethesda’s choice to not distribute review copies in advance, but I 100% support their conscience decision not to support these review sites that have become so arrogant that they believe they can dictate the way publishers do business. That is the right of the consumers who actually pay for their games. Not those who get their software for free regardless of the situation. Before you ask, yes I am aware that Kotaku is blacklisted by Bethesda. But the article is not written with a focus on Kotaku. It’s written for review sites in general and as such should be discussed in that way.
It seems all anyone can talk about right now is Mass Effect: Andromeda. And rightly so because that game is awesome. I’ve spent the better part of the last three weeks just trying to find time to play it. But what I find most interesting is how much discussion around this game is focused on the romance options.
I saw a very interesting question on Twitter in reference to Mass Effect: Andromeda, but really it was more about Bioware games in general. This person asked the question “Do you prefer romance content in a BioWare game to be specific representation (e.g. gay) or available to any char?” This is a profound question. In one sentence it brings up various issues like sexuality, consumer rights, creative control, and social responsibility. Now I don’t actually believe there is a correct answer to this question. By nature this is a subjective question, starting out with the words “do you prefer”. I don’t even really have an interest in answering this question with this post, but rather to bring up some talking points that I think are important when discussing questions like this one.
The first thing that I think needs to be said is that everything is not for you. By you I don’t mean any specific group in particular. You can be Black, White, homosexual, heterosexual, transgender, Muslim, Christian, or any other such identifier that creates political and/or social divisions between people today. I can say with 100% certainty that there is at least one piece of entertainment that you are not the target audience for. Target audience is important and it’s important as consumers to recognize the role it plays in our lives. Video games, movies, television shows, novels, and basically any other form of mass entertainment today costs a lot of money to create and distribute. And regardless of what you want to think, companies and investors get involved in these projects to make money.
Whether right or wrong, most businesses today target a specific audience when creating a product, even when not entertainment, because it’s considered to be the most effective way to predict and garner an acceptable amount of sales. You can’t please everyone is a statement that’s never been truer than it is today and the fact is that companies not only know that but they take that advice very seriously. Developers target a specific population when creating a video game. Every decision they make is considered through the lens of how it will sit with that target audience. That’s not to say that people that don’t fall within that target audience can’t experience and even enjoy those games. It’s merely to state that the developers can’t and aren’t trying to please everyone. Nor should they, because statistically speaking trying to please everyone leads to lackluster games and lower total sales.
The point of the target audience issue is not to say that you don’t have a right to your own opinion if you don’t fall into the target audience. It’s simply to provide a context for how smart businesses conduct business. The fact is that the opinions of people who don’t fall into the target audience just don’t matter as much if at all as those who do. And the only way to change that is to show numerically that your group’s opinion has an actual effect on the developer’s business that outweighs or at least matches that of the target audience. I think the sexism in games discussion is a great example of this. Many people, both men and women, often complain about sexism in games. Whether it’s the objectification argument or the weak female characters argument, or whatever other issue, it’s very apparent that games today and for basically the entire history of video games with humanoid characters in them have swayed more towards the supposed interests of men than women. Is this fair? Absolutely not. Is this based on profit focused business decisions? Absolutely. We can see that while not as quickly as many people would like, this trend is changing. Today there are more games geared towards a female audience. Today there are more games that star a female protagonist. Some people may see these as good things. Some people may see these as bad things. And some people don’t care either way. But what’s important is that these changes have nothing to do with gender politics, fairness, or ethics. They have to do with profits. The percentage of female gamers and men who don’t mind playing female centered games, that actually spend money on games, is growing. That qualifier about spending money is really important. In fact it’s the most important part of the sentence.
Take someone like my girlfriend for example. She has played a number of games, but has not paid for a single one of them, other than as gifts for me. That means that for all intents and purposes, her opinion about the state of women in video games is next to worthless to the industry because even if games were in no way sexist or biased against women there is no data to show that such changes would increase the amount of dollars someone like my girlfriend would spend on video games. It’s only in recent times that people who want less sexist games and actually will have a noticeable effect on the market are organizing and voicing an opinion. That’s the only reason these changes are starting to take place.
Many people continually argue that games treat homosexuals unfairly. That may be true, but it has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with the fact that the intended target audience for most games where sexuality plays a factor is heterosexual. But I guarantee you that if tomorrow someone could promise beyond a reasonable doubt that they had an idea for a game starring a gay male that would garner 100% of the world’s homosexual population to purchase a copy that EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, and every other AAA developer would be lining up to bid on it. Even just a guarantee of 100% of the currently gaming homosexual population would be enough to get that game made. This isn’t an issue of ethics or equality. It’s an issue of business and regardless of how you feel about that, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s the way things work. The best way women can change sexism in games is to avidly purchase games that aren’t sexist and encourage other women to do it as well and then to post about their purchase and why they made that purchase on both social media and official game forums. That change is not going to occur as a result of obnoxious documentaries, feminist blogs, and Twitter battles. It will occur when the market shows itself to be more profitable when not being sexist with evidence directly linking the profits to not being sexist. I’m of course using “sexist” as a stand in word for “making female gamers happy”. I’ve yet to see anyone present an idea for a plot based game that would evenly satisfy players of both genders, be written realistically and well, while also making the gender of the character actually matter to the plot and player. But I digress.
So when looking at Mass Effect: Andromeda or any other game, remember that just because you don’t like something doesn’t necessarily matter because you may not even be the target audience. I’m speaking as a Black male and I know games are rarely made for me. I wish developers would come out and say their target audience for a specific game outright, but that would never happen because people take things too personally. Making such an admission would cannibalize their sales just because of how petty people are. I wish we lived in a world where people could be told they aren’t part of the target audience, buy the game anyway, and attempt to objectively critique it from the point of view of the target audience, but if anything our society is only getting farther away from such a high level of reviewing and purchasing maturity.
The second thing that needs to be said about Mass Effect: Andromeda¸ and Mass Effect as a franchise, is that it’s not a dating simulator. Many games today have romance or at least sex in them, but very few AAA games are made with romance/sex as the focus of the game. If you like romance/sex in games then you should just be thankful that Mass Effect has it at all, because it doesn’t need to. The games are not about finding love or physical love. They’re about being a human tasked with saving humanity. Romance options aren’t a mandatory part of the game and they have little bearing on the actual story other than how they affect your personal decisions. You can play through the entire franchise without pursuing a single romance and it will not affect your main plot experience in any noticeable way. And if you’re taking you role as Spectre or Pathfinder seriously, like the games intended, then you aren’t letting romance options cloud your judgement. I played Mass Effect one as the default white male, heterosexual Commander Shepard. Though I had more of an interest and general liking for Ashley Williams compared to Kaiden, I chose to sacrifice her. It was a hard choice. But I did it because I believed that Kaiden, because he was a biotic not because he was a man, was more useful to my mission than Williams was. That’s the point of the games. Making hard decisions that a true leader would make in those situations for the good of the mission and by extension humanity. If you’re not making your decisions based on what you believe the best leader would do then either you’re playing the game incorrectly or you’re playing the wrong game. While yes I do believe that everyone has a right to play a game the way they want to and should be able to enjoy that game, I still believe that when a developer makes a game they have an intended use and that playing completely outside of that use and judging the game outside of that use is wrong.
I’ve written about my sister and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time before. She loved riding Epona, but did literally nothing else in the game. When she asked me to make a file just for her it was one of the proudest moments of my youth. But once the game started and she realized she couldn’t ride the horse from the beginning she immediately put the controller down and lost all interest. My dreams of being the proud brother of a gamer girl were crushed. Would it be right for my sister to say Ocarina is a bad game because she couldn’t fulfill her goal of riding the horse indefinitely? Of course not. The fault is hers for going to a serious adventure game looking for Barbie Horse Adventures: Wild Horse Rescue (2003). The same rules apply to Mass Effect: Andromeda. If you went into that game hoping for the best dating simulator that let you fulfill whatever your alien romance fantasies are and couldn’t, that doesn’t give you the right to call Mass Effect: Andromeda a bad game. Because it’s not sold as an alien romance simulator. That’s not to say that Mass Effect: Andromeda is a perfect game outside of romance/sex options because it’s most certainly not. More than 50 hours in, let me tell you it has a ton of issues. But the fact that I can’t have the imaginary love life I was hoping for doesn’t give me or anyone else the right to trash the game because that’s an inappropriate focus of judgement for this particular game/franchise.
The intention of the developers is my next and last qualifying point. I believe in creative control and artistic license. I’ve written about this issue many times before. As a writer, with collegiate training in fiction writing, I take creative control/freedom very seriously. There’s nothing I hate more than when people who don’t write say something should have been written differently for subjective reasons. There are technical reasons that fictional writing can be considered bad. These can be debated, but I’m all for people critiquing technically bad writing. But when it comes to the subjective interpretation of characters, I get really angry when people argue that something was done badly just because it’s not the way they perceive or experience a type of person in their own life.
Good writers write what they know. Sadly, today many writers in many forms of entertainment are being forced to write things they don’t know. I’ve written several pages of blog posts about the representation of minorities in video games and how it’s for the most part been done pretty badly in AAA games. But I don’t blame the writers. I blame the studios. Because I know that the entire system is built on prejudice. I have no problem with the fact that some White guy in Montreal can’t seem to write a Black character that’s not offensive and built on stereotypes. It’s very possible that the writer has little to no personal experience with Black people outside of film and television. Being from LA and having spent five years of my life in Philadelpha, I can also say that it’s very possible that this same White writer actually does know a number of Black people who are literally walking stereotypes. I have no problem admitting that I personally love fried chicken, am an excellent dancer, and have an extremely nappy and all natural afro. If a White guy only knew me in a specific setting, such as a bar, there’s an excellent chance that if he tried to write a character based on me that it would be considered very stereotypical. And that’s not his fault. A White guy from and currently living in Montreal is not the correct person to be writing a Black character of either gender from Detroit. What needs to happen is the studios need to hire Black writers to write their Black characters well. And the same goes for Latinos, Asians, women, homosexuals, and so on. I do not believe that game writers today set out to write offensive or stereotypical characters. I believe studios are too cheap to hire additional writers and too prejudiced to hire the correct ones when they try to create more diverse characters in their games.
Qualifications aside, I still don’t agree with the idea of telling a writer that the way they wrote a character or interaction is wrong in a work of fiction. I’ve already said good writers write from personal experiences. That moment that you might think is completely ridiculous may very well have happened to that writer in their personal life. And you telling them that their life is unrealistic is not only untrue, but it’s unfair to make such a claim. It’s also beside the point though because writers have a right to tell the story they want to tell. That’s what fiction writers are hired and paid to do. They aren’t telling your story. Again, if you aren’t the target audience, they might not even be telling a story for you. They’re telling the story they wanted to tell. And if you don’t like the way that story is told then by all means go to college, study writing, write your own stories, figure out how to get distribution, and tell the stories you want to tell. It’s really difficult and it’s really insulting when people talk down to the craft of writing and those who are paid to do it professionally.
Now that we’ve covered some of the more important qualifiers of this discussion, let’s get down to the actual business at hand: sex in Mass Effect: Andromeda and by extension all of Mass Effect.
I’m a heterosexual male and I’m not happy with the way sex/romance works in Mass Effect: Andromeda. I still stand by my previous points that it’s very possible that my opinion as a Black male is irrelevant to the studio and that the game isn’t about sex in the first place, but I also believe that as an American born citizen the First Amendment gives me the right to voice my opinion on the subject. If you too are an American citizen or are also a citizen that comes from a country that grants people the right to voice their opinions freely then you are free to read, consider, ignore, refute, agree with, or attack my opinions on this subject and I hope you do so in the comments section. I will not be Twitter battling about this post, just so you know. Meet me here, where the article is published, and I’d be happy to thoroughly discuss the points argued here and any other ones you’d like to bring up in detail. Please know in advance that any attempt to get me to debate this post on Twitter will end with me telling you to “leave a comment on the blog” with a screenshot of this paragraph.
First thing I’m unhappy with about sex in Andromeda is that it’s still too human-centric. Regardless of your character’s gender and/or sexuality, you can get with humans and Asari and be granted some form of actual sex scene, but the same is not true for any other race in the game. The one Turian option just gets to roll around for a second fully clothed and in armor. First off, why can’t Turians ever get out of that armor? No this is not an admission of some weird personal interest in Turians. It’s a statement about how I hate the narcissism that humans continue to show even when creating fictional scenarios. But what’s even worse is how unfair this four race romance limit is. Krogans need love too. In four games you still can’t romance a Krogan. And in this one there’s actually a decent abundance of female ones. The Angara are the new race on the block and they’re right up there with Asari on the hotness scale. But there’s only one female that can be romanced in the entire galaxy and she’s in the most inconvenient place, can’t be fully romanced till the end of the game, and even if you do pull it off you don’t actually get a sex scene. There’s only one male option as well, but at least he lives on the ship. Specieism! All sentient races that can fight alongside you should also be able to be romanced. And every sentient race in the galaxy should be up for grabs at an equal level of let’s call it “exposure”. That doesn’t even address races like Batarians, Volus, and Vorcha if you’re into that sort of thing, which you have every right to be in a video game.
My second issue is why is it so damn hard to play the field in these games? My record for any one playthrough of any Bioware game from any franchise is two romances. That is not realistic. If you’re a space traveler wandering literally an entire galaxy, you should be able to get it done more often than that. What would Captain Kirk say? You should be able to have a different partner in every life supporting solar system if you want to. I really like that they finally made it so that you can get with people outside of your ship mates. But there’s so few options available. And everyone seems to be aware of your romance business. Am I to believe that all females across the galaxy talk this closely? That’s the real stereotype in this game. Not all women are gossips and not all of them demand monogamy. Looking at you Cora. I’m speaking as a person who did a heterosexual male playthrough, but I’m sure there are people who played as other types of characters with other interest who felt similar levels of irritation with this vastly underwhelming space nookie limit.
My third issue is why is there that one casual sex character in Bioware games? They like to pick one female character to be the “whore” character rather than just creating a plethora of characters, some of which might be into the idea of a one night stand. In Dragon Age II it’s Isabela. In Andromeda it’s Peebee. And along with that, why don’t you get a proper sex scene when you go the casual route with Peebee? Don’t short change my experience for not committing. That’s not even how it works in real life much of the time.
While I’m not personally affected by it because of the way I choose to play romance in games, I definitely don’t agree with the fact that the options for homosexual playthroughs are even more limited than the straight ones. But to be fair I would argue that the human narcissism problem needs to be brought up here again. For me I make it a point not to romance humans unless it’s after having already romanced all the aliens I can. If I know I can trade the human for an alien later then I’ll go for it. No this isn’t a gender thing. It’s a species thing. My favorite part about Mass Effect is being able to meet and interact with different and sometimes new races. I think that’s the real point of the games. It’s about being a human and realizing that in the grand scheme of things you’re just not that important unless you’re part of something bigger such as the Nexus or the Citadel. I think choosing to only fraternize with other humans takes away from the experience of flying to new planets and meeting new races. So for me, whether gay or straight, I find human romance options extremely boring. But it’s important to realize that sexuality in the gay or straight discourse is a strictly human system. And one of the things I really like about Mass Effect is that it goes out of its way to drive that point home.
Are Asari lesbians? No not really. How can a race of all females technically be queer? So technically if you’re a female character and you romance an Asari it’s not really being a lesbian. But if that is the case then you would have to argue that being a male character and romancing an Asari isn’t really being straight either. But then at that point could you not technically apply that to all alien races and say that any romance with any non-human when your character is a human is not technically gay or straight? The dictionary definition of both hetero- and homo-sexual only applies to humans having sex with humans or more specifically a member of a species only having sex with another member of the same species. We don’t apply the term homosexual to men who have sex with male sheep. We just call it bestiality and move on. Now if sheep were fully sentient and able to express themselves to us maybe we wouldn’t just call it bestiality but for now those social issues don’t really exist. So then at that point romancing Jaal, Peebee, Avela, Vetra, and Keri aren’t technically gay or straight options. Meaning that there is only one option for heterosexual male characters: Cora, two options for homosexual male characters: Gil and Reyes, two options for heterosexual female characters: Liam and Reyes, one option for homosexual female characters: Suvi, and actually three options for either male or female bisexual characters.
From a purely scientific standpoint, the game is actually not biased for or against hetero- or homo-sexual males like everyone claims. Instead it is biased against people who choose to play under very human-centric rules of sexuality. The problem more comes down to the fact that people, being limited to human ways of thinking and feeling about things, are projecting human gender types and social norms onto alien characters and equating those options as falling within the gay or straight discourse. I would argue that goes against what Bioware wanted/wants to do with romance in these games altogether. All that being said, Turians, Krogans, Salarians, and Angarans all have males and females so if you do choose to apply human sexuality to these non-human romance options then yes the game is biased towards heterosexual males and homosexual females with five options a piece. But I would argue the real bias here is in the presentation.
Bioware has been quoted as describing the romance sequences in Andromeda as “softcore space porn”. That’s only half true because it only happens in the case of romancing humans and Asari and only in heterosexual or lesbian scenarios. The rest of the races and sexualities are given the bad television treatment. A lead up, screen goes black, a fade in after the fact, and a lead out. Disappointing. If I might steal a quote from the great Chris Rock, “Don’t take my clothes off and not f@$k me.” Not giving everyone all the sex options they want is one thing. But not giving everyone the same quality of sexual experience depending on their sexual interests is just plain offensive. It’s just blatantly showing favoritism.
I do realize that this is a much more in depth game than something like Fable so you can’t just romance everyone in the game because it would either lower the quality of the experience or cost too much money to produce. But I feel like in general there could be a lot more romance options for any type of sexuality you choose to play as and a much more level presentation of those romance options.
This was a fun post. My girlfriend thinks I’m weird for having written it. I’m curious to know your thoughts on the subject of sex in Mass Effect and video games in general. Leave me a comment. Feel free to include screenshots. 😉
If you’re in the market for a port of a mediocre 2D fighter then look no further because that’s exactly what I reviewed this week. Chaos Code: New Sign of Catastrophe is easily a pass, but if you have interest in this recent port then please read my review before spending your money. I published this review on Brash Games, but here’s the introduction:
The problem with 2D fighters is that at the end of the day they’re mostly all the same. So many smaller developers using the same washed out formula to try and be the next e-sports phenomenon. The problem is that’s a one in a million chance when you have to go up against big budget masterpieces like Injustice and well established staple franchises like Street Fighter. Occasionally something smaller like BlazBlue or Skull Girls gets picked up but people often forget that even those developers aren’t that small or new. What this has led to is a constant stream of pretty run of the mill fighting games, all of which are good enough to exist, but none of which are noteworthy in any way. They all just hope that their music, characters, and story stand out enough to gain a cult following. The recently released (3/15/2017) Chaos Code: New Sign of Catastrophe by Arc System Works is another such commonplace fighting game. In case you weren’t aware, Arc System Works is the company that developed BlazBlue.
You can read the rest of the review here. For this and other reviews by me on Brash Games you can also check out my Author’s Archive page.
I’m a Dark Souls fan. I own all the games in the franchise including Demon’s Souls. So of course I purchased Bloodborne. There was never an option to not purchase that game. Same genre. Same developer. Of course I bought it. Now I didn’t buy it at release because I didn’t have time to play it then. I purchased it new as a physical copy for $20. Of course before I actually opened the game but after the return date passed, they put it on sale on PSN with all the DLC included for the same price in a flash sale. I was disappointed but not at all angry. I honestly have no interest in the DLC. I’ve purchased the vanilla version of every game in the franchise and I’ve never purchased any of the DLC. I just want to beat the final boss, see one of the endings and move on with my life. That’s actually how I play most games and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s my money and my time. I purchased the game new, thus supported the developer. I purchased the physical copy of the game, thus supporting physical businesses and not allowing SONY to believe that it’s acceptable to charge the same price for a digital copy of a game as a physical, because it’s not. I just wanted the base game and that’s what I purchased. Honestly Bloodborne is an amazing game. I won’t say it’s better than Dark Souls but I absolutely enjoyed every minute of it. It’s just too bad I’ll probably never get to finish it because technology and bad coding practices screwed me over.
One of the biggest selling points of PlayStation Plus has always been “the cloud”. You are promised the ability to save your files online and then the ability to access them anywhere in the world. I never really liked the cloud. I keep saves of games I’ve beaten on there but I never really used it for anything important before Bloodborne. I’m an American with an American PSN account, but I don’t live in the United States. Now the first problem that new technologies have created for me is of course region locks. This most disagreeable, fascist, and just plain terrible practice has cost me so much money that I shouldn’t have had to spend. Every time I want to buy a physical copy of a game I have to import it from the US. That means that whatever you pay for a game, I have to pay plus the cost of shipping overseas. The reason for this is quite stupid. They always sell these new consoles/games today as being region free but that’s a half truth. The DLC is still region locked even if the discs aren’t. That means that because I have an American account, if I purchase an Asian copy of a game I will never be able to use the DLC on my main account because you can’t change account regions or have multiple regions tied to a single account. Now usually this doesn’t actually end up mattering because most games today get an English translation sold here in Asia and rarely do I buy DLC. But I still don’t tend to buy games here in Asia and instead import them because now every game ends up having some form of DLC one way or another and because of the region locks on DLC I’m required to have an American copy or run two separate accounts which I just won’t do because it’s a multiplayer nightmare to try to get all your friends worldwide to add and keep track of two different accounts for the same person. Especially when meeting randoms online. Also trophies.
Region locked DLC is the reason I don’t own Nioh yet. I want a physical copy and I got all the alpha and beta free DLC. But the only way I can access that DLC is buy having an American copy. Yes I could purchase a digital version of the game, but I don’t like digital copies. Nor will I over pay for my games. When it comes to release day games, which I rarely buy, it’s no problem to go digital because the price will be the same. Of course assuming I don’t want the special edition physical swag. Looking at you Horizon: Zero Dawn. But when I don’t care about getting a game on release it really comes down to price. 100% of the time the physical price of games is lower than the digital price after the initial release window. And if you have an Amazon prime account the physical price is lower at release as well. In less than six months Nioh will have dropped to $30 for a physical copy. Other than in a possible flash sale, which may never come, the PSN store price will still be at $59.99. I will not pay $60 for a game I can get for $30 as a physical copy. Now of course I have to take shipping overseas into account, but all that means is that I have to wait till a bunch of games I want are all on sale at the same time so I can bulk ship them and try to recoup/justify the cost of shipping overseas. That’s the reason I end up buying so many games on Black Friday. It justifies the cost of shipping. Now if SONY would just choose to sell digital games at fair market value, I wouldn’t have this problem outside of special edition physical swag scenarios. But they just won’t price software fairly. So here we are. But I have digressed quite a bit so let’s get back to Bloodborne.
The reason me not living in the United States is important is because I recently went to visit my family in the US. While I was there I decided to play Bloodborne on my cousin’s PS4. This was the worst gaming mistake I’ve made this gen. My cousin has a digital copy of Bloodborne and told me that I could play while I was visiting. I did everything correctly so that I could reap the benefits of the promised new conveniences of new gen gaming technology. I saved my Bloodborne file on the cloud. Now I can’t actually tell you how many hours I had put into the game at this point because save files showing you that information seems to no longer be a default standard in game production. Some games will still tell you in game but many won’t. All I can tell you is that I was above level sixty and that I had defeated Shadow of Yharnam and was near the boss door for Rom the Vacuous Spider. I went to my cousin’s PS4 and logged into my account. I downloaded my save file from the cloud, which I’m allowed to do because I’m a PlayStation Plus subscriber. I played my Bloodborne save file on my account with my cousin’s digital copy of the game because you are able to play games owned by other accounts on the same console. By the end of my visit I had beaten Rom and gotten all the way to Yahar’gul Chapel. I saved my file back to the cloud. Here’s where I first started to notice things were fishy but I didn’t go with my gut for some reason and trusted a combination of SONY’s new saving system and what used to be considered common sense.
On the PS3 when you save anything to either the cloud or the console you can create multiple save files and copies of any one save file for any game. I used to do this all the time with RPGs. I would create multiple saves at various points and keep all of them. We have lost this luxury with the PS4. In order to save my file from my cousin’s PS4 I was forced to overwrite the file I already had saved in the cloud. I don’t know why this is now the case, but on the PS3 I could have kept both files simultaneously. I reluctantly accepted the overwrite because I had made so much progress during my trip. When I got home, I went to pull the save off my cloud storage and again I was forced to overwrite my console save instead of having both at the same time. I don’t know why I didn’t back up the original on a usb drive. I don’t know why I trusted SONY or any company for that matter to not screw me over because empirical evidence and statistics shows that they always will. But I agreed to the overwrite anyway believing that things would work the way they’re supposed to in a sensible gaming scenario. Boy was I wrong.
I was ready for my next Bloodborne session and had gotten a friend to agree to login in order to help me with the next area. I was met with a rude awakening. I could not load my save. Instead I was given a message saying that I couldn’t use my save until I downloaded the Old Hunter’s DLC. I didn’t know why at the time. I didn’t have the DLC and I had no interest in buying it. What I found out later was that my cousin had/has the DLC on his console and his PS4 laced my save file as a DLC version even though I hadn’t actually accessed any DLC content while I was playing on his console. Due to lazy coding on the part for From Software, the game would not load up without the DLC being present on the console once a trace of the DLC’s presence had added itself to my save. Not using the DLC was irrelevant to the situation. Essentially my save acquired a hidden virus that can’t be cured. And to top it all off, because of SONY’s decision to no longer allow multiple saves I didn’t even have my old save from before I went to visit my cousin.
More than 70 levels of gameplay trapped behind a pay wall that costs as much as I paid for the vanilla game. If you read my blog regularly then you know I don’t do paid DLC except in very rare and very specific situations. You also probably know that the only thing I’m less willing to compromise than my beliefs about how gaming should work is my price points. I paid $20 for Bloodborne because that’s the price I chose to pay long before I bought it. The DLC costs $20. There is no way that I will pay literally a 100% markup just to finish the base game I already paid for. And even if I did purchase the DLC, I honestly wouldn’t play it. I’m not interested in playing it. I just want to finish the base game as I have with all the Souls games (excluding DS3 which I own but haven’t played yet). It goes against just about everything I stand for to pay $20 for this DLC.
I’ve tried multiple fixes. I uninstalled and reinstalled the licenses multiple times. I disconnected my internet and tried to play offline. Nothing works. The one thing I tried that seemed to work was logging into my cousin’s account on my console and downloading the game and DLC. I believed this would solve the problem because I had played the game on my account on his console just a week prior. I’ve also played numerous games owned by other accounts than the currently logged in one on various PS4s. But when I tried to run the digital copy of Bloodborne from my cousin’s library on my account the content was locked. I’ve literally never seen that happen before. But what did work was when I put my physical copy in the console and ran it. It used the permissions from my copy to run the game and still made use of the DLC from my cousin’s account. Together I was able to play my save file. This was a grand day. I was extremely happy. I thought everything was back to normal. And I still had no plans to play the DLC even with access to it. I just wanted to finish the game. I played a bit and then inevitably had to stop because life is a thing. I went on to play other games both physical and digital over the days following. Then when I went back to play Bloodborne, once again with the same friend coming in to help me, the save wouldn’t load again. I cannot think of any reason why it just stopped working. But I didn’t lose faith. I deleted all the content from my console again and re-downloaded the game from my cousin’s account believing I would get the same results. This time it didn’t work and I can’t even begin to explain why.
This whole situation really hurts me. I’m a loyal gamer. I’ve never purchased a single used game for my PS4 or really any console except for one time when Gamestop conned me into purchasing a used copy of Mirror’s Edge on XBOX 360. I’ve never hacked any of the many consoles I’ve owned over the years or pirated a single game for any of them. I do my best to support the industry even though I often don’t agree with a lot of the decisions made by companies today. But there’s just no way that I can be ok with this outcome. I am not going to pay $20 to finish a game that I purchased new and have already put probably more than 50 hours into. I shouldn’t have to do that. I’m not gonna start over either because that’s no less of an unacceptable concession that I shouldn’t have to make. I haven’t done anything wrong. I purchased a game and I just want to finish that game. I feel that I’m not over-asking by making that request. I’ve tried to contact From Software (developer), Japan Studio (publisher), and SONY (console distributor) multiple times through multiple platforms, but all three companies have ignored me. From Software and Japan Studio don’t even have a means to contact them on their respective websites. They literally link you to SONY’s support page which is no more helpful. They don’t even take emails anymore, which is really odd in my opinion. I finally was able to get a response from @AskPlayStation on Twitter and all they told me was use the live chat. I had to work around the time change between USA and Asia to try to contact the live chat support. Then when I finally managed to do that they have the nerve to tell me the live chat is region locked. What the hell is that!? Why would you region lock customer support? While I’m logged in with a USA account no less. Then when I explained that the live chat wouldn’t work for me because of my location to @AskPlayStation they had the nerve to tell me to call them. Because I’m going to place an international call to a company that clearly doesn’t handle customer service well that will end up costing me more than the DLC. The whole situation stinks.
I don’t have some grand argument here or opinion on some important current event. This is just a plain despicable situation brought on by modern DRM practices and bad coding. From Software and Studio Japan are both companies that I have always respected up until now, but if I can’t finish this game with this save file for a total of less than five additional dollars (the largest concession/compromise I’d be willing to make) then I think I might just be done with both companies. That’s not something I want to do. But I believe in the rights of consumers and this is blatantly wrong.
As promised, I purchased and reviewed Mass Effect: Andromeda. I have given this game as thorough a review as I could having only gotten to put in just over 30 hours since it released last week. I have been as fair as possible, considering I haven’t finished the game yet. I published this review on Brash Games but here is the introduction:
10 years ago, Bioware released the first Mass Effect. While this was not a perfect game, it in many ways revolutionized both the sci-fi and open world exploration genres of video games. Last week, Bioware released the latest game in the Mass Effect franchise. Like with the original Mass Effect, this is not a perfect game by any means but once again it revolutionizes the way we travel through space, meet alien races, and ultimately save the galaxy. Or at the very least a galaxy in the case of this game, because you’re no longer in the Milky Way. Let me start by saying that I have not yet finished the game. I’ve played every day since its release and have amassed more than 30 hours of playtime counting multiplayer. Since I did not receive an advanced copy, it would have been impossible for me to have completed the campaign of a game this size within the opening release window.
You can read the rest of the review here. For this and other reviews by me on Brash Games you can also check out my Author’s Archive page.