1214: Inner Sanctum

ss_41673936cf0df5cdf2b4c0549e118829730d8e88.1920x1080Mark and I played a bunch of a recently-released indie game today. That game is Coffee Stain Studios’ Sanctum 2, which I purchased a copy of for Mark as a thank-you present for putting us up for the last couple of weeks, and which I was also interested in playing. I enjoyed the original game’s interesting fusion of tower defense and first-person shooter mechanics as well as its distinctive presentation and excellent music, so I was actually quite interested to try the second game, and purchased a copy without a second thought.

Then the game was released, and I decided to take a peep at the Steam Community page to see what the rest of the world thought of it.

Big mistake.

It seems that Sanctum 2 is the latest victim of elitist players expecting one thing from a game and getting something slightly different, then throwing all their toys out of the pram, demanding refunds and hurling abuse at the developers. Because Sanctum 2 is not the same game as the original Sanctum, it seems, it is worthy of scorn and vilification. Because Sanctum 2 incorporates a number of features that not only make it workable on console — it’s also being released on Xbox Live Arcade — but change the game balance significantly from the original, apparently it is worthy of review-bombing on Metacritic and endless, endless whining on forums.

ss_18b928231ce4b8b50c8e6f1bd11e9ef7cbd88164.1920x1080You know what, though? I’ve played a good 4 or 5 hours of Sanctum 2 today in total, and it’s great. It isn’t the original game, no, but why would you want it to be? Sanctum is still available for download, so if you like that, go play that. Sanctum 2 is a distinctive experience that, while in possession of a couple of strange design decisions, is a lot of fun to play both solo and cooperatively with other people. It is both strategic and action-packed; challenging and fun; and it offers a significantly greater amount of content and depth than the original game did when it came out of the gates.

The complainers’ biggest issues with the new game seem to be the fact that resources to build towers are now delivered as “drops” that have to be picked up manually, and that there is a hard limit of ten towers per level. The “drop” system means that everyone playing has to either agree on who is going to be in charge of building what — or charge off and race to be the first to pick up the resources. If you’re playing with friends or people with whom you can communicate well, no problem. If you’re playing with griefers and trolls, potential problem, but not insurmountable. (For what it’s worth, I always prefer playing cooperative games with people I actually know anyway, and I’m sure I’m not the only one — and as such I probably won’t run into this problem personally.)

The ten-tower limit also simply isn’t an issue in practical terms. I am yet to hit said limit, because plonking down “tower base” blocks to create a maze to hold up enemies does not count towards this limit, and the limited quantity of resources on hand means that it’s only really practical to build a few towers per level anyway — you have to support your towers with your own gunplay in order to succeed. It’s a true hybrid, in other words; you can’t win without your towers, and your towers can’t win without you.

Some complainers have also whinged about the fact that you supposedly can’t make complex mazes in this new game. To those people, I would invite them to have a go at the level Mark and I were playing before we wrapped up for the evening, in which we were defending two cores simultaneously from assault, and built impressive mazes on both sides of the level in order to keep the enemies away from our precious charges as long as possible. Careful tower placement and resource management was a must, and the nature of many of the enemies that came along made it necessary to cooperate, communicate and use skill and tactics to take them down rather than simply firing blindly at anything moving.

ss_8a9cbab892d41cb1734508a572f1471a5b5a2117.1920x1080In short, Sanctum 2 is a very good game if you enjoy both first-person shooters and tower defense games that demand a slightly heavier degree of thought and strategy than normal. It’s an excellent fusion of two fairly disparate game genres, and while there are a few things that could be tweaked here and there, it’s perfectly enjoyable as it is. Not only that, Coffee Stain Studios have demonstrated that they are open to constructive feedback, too, and will likely continue to improve the game after its release. Given the abuse and vitriol that has been hurled their way today, they would be perfectly within their rights to just say “fuck you” to all the ungrateful gamers who are bitching about their new release, to be honest, so I have to admire them for their self-restraint in dealing with these people.

It is, essentially, yet another case of a not-insignificant number of people suffering under the assumption that Their Way is the Right Way, and that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow an awful person. These people preferred the original Sanctum to its sequel and that’s absolutely fine; their behaviour towards Coffee Stain Studios and anyone who has expressed a liking for the new game is not.

#oneaday Day 782: Is It Worth Complaining?

20120311-020858.jpg

I had an interesting discussion on Twitter earlier with Peter Skerritt of Armchair Analysis and Craig Bamford of Leveling Criticism. Peter argued that gamers had made their bed with regard to questionable business practices surrounding downloadable content, preorder bonuses and all of the other annoyances which this particular generation of consoles has developed — that since so many people have bought into these schemes over the last few years that it’s now too late to go back, that any sort of “action” is not worth taking, and that anyone feeling the need to speak out about it should understand that doing so will have negligible effect.

Craig, meanwhile, countered that “‘shut up and consume’ is just greasy”, noting that Mass Effect 3‘s controversial day-one DLC “prompted a huge backlash which the company had to expend serious PR resources to fix.”

I’m not going to get back into this specific argument here, but I did want to address some more general points which Peter, Craig and I discussed. Namely, the question of whether or not it’s worth complaining about something.

It’s easy to complain about things on the Internet. Start a blog or a Twitter account. Rail against anything you find personally objectionable. Talk up the people who agree with you and either ignore the people who disagree or get into very loud and public slanging matches with them. “Internet Rage” is its own meme now, though ultimately the concept of “the Internet being angry at something” has arguably done more harm than good to the concept of actual, genuine protest.

The trouble is that there’s an element of bandwagon-jumping. With any kind of disagreement, most people are going to come down on one side of the fence or the other. In the case of Internet arguments, those who are skilled in rhetoric will have very little difficulty in recruiting people for their side, as all it takes, in some cases, is a particularly persuasive YouTube video or an article featuring carefully massaged statistics to get people onside. People are lazy. If you lay an argument out on a plate for them, relatively few of them will have the inclination to go and research things for themselves. ‘Twas ever thus, and we even see this in the professional specialist press to a certain degree.

It loses its effect after a while, though. Words are just words, after all, and as any protestor worth their salt will undoubtedly tell you, actions speak far louder than words.

Or do they? I haven’t bought Mass Effect 3 but do I think EA give a shit about that fact? No, because a healthy number of people have bought Mass Effect 3, and those are the only people that EA care about. Those are the people that say to EA “what you’re doing is acceptable, please do it more.” It’s not just something that happens in video games. It happens with all sorts of shady business practices. The more people just accept something as “that’s the way it is” (houuuuuaaahhh!), the more likely companies are to want to keep pushing the boundaries a little bit further each time, like a toddler trying to figure out exactly how naughty is too naughty, only with millions of dollars instead of plastic things made by Fisher-Price.

Does that invalidate the criticisms that those people who object to it have? Does the fact that, say, EA has no need to take those people’s criticisms into account mean that they should stop speaking out against those things which they find unacceptable or distasteful?

Absolutely not. For if those people stop complaining, then we have no dialogue. We have no discussion, no debate. We simply blindly accept, consume, bend over, take it. You may be happy to blindly accept, consume, bend over, take it. You may believe that there are more important things to worry about in the world than whether or not a software company squeezes an extra $10-$20 out of its most loyal fans. You may believe the lines spun by public relations in an attempt to limit the damage done to a brand’s reputation. But that doesn’t mean that the people who don’t feel the same as you should be silenced. State your case. Come out from your corner fighting. You might change their mind — though given my experience of debates like this, you probably won’t — or you might at least give them an alternative perspective to consider, even if they ultimately end up feeling the same way.

In short, I believe that yes, it is worth complaining. In the video games case, Peter argued that complacency is what has led consumers to the point they are at now, where buying a $60 game is no longer the end point of the relationship between the customer’s wallet and the publisher’s pockets — it’s the beginning. If that’s the case, though, while it may be too late to salvage matters with regards to things like DLC, preorder bonuses, shady sales practices and all manner of other considerations, surely that’s a sign that consumers upset by all this should be more vocal in order to preempt publishers attempting to take advantage of them any further in the future?

Those expressing upset and annoyance at what they see as unfair shifts in business practices are now often accused of being “entitled”. But that’s simply lazy rhetoric. There’s a big difference between being “entitled” (typically used in this context to mean “expecting something for free”) and having very valid concerns about getting value for money or being treated fairly as a consumer. In the Mass Effect 3 case, no-one’s expecting something for free. They want to pay for the game, to support the developer, but they don’t want to be treated like idiots and/or bottomless cash pits in the process. Personally speaking, I don’t think it’s unreasonable or “entitled” to expect a complete product when you hand over your money for it. But, well, we’ve been over that already and I know far too well how futile it is for both sides to try and convince the other of their viewpoint.

The point: complaining or protesting may not have a direct or immediate effect. But it ensures that we continue to discuss, debate and consider things a little more carefully than we would otherwise if there was a complete consensus of opinion. It keeps things interesting, it prevents people from becoming too complacent and it allows people to retain their individuality rather than being treated as an amorphous mass of identical, anonymous “consumers”.

Sounds better than the alternative to me. But then you probably disagree. In which case you’re wrong, you entitled twat.