Google+

Topics

E3 E3 2012

We Recommend By ZergNet

159 comments

  • leonardo-j-ceballos - June 8, 2012 4:35 p.m.

    David, while I don't disagree that a lot of AAA video games are reaching a kind of "sameness" when it comes to gameplay, I think you are overstating the problem here. E3 is in many ways a big party; just look at the decorations, music, and presentation. Especially when looking at games like Tomb Raider and Last of Us, I think many of those guys around you would have had very different reactions when playing home alone; the violence there would have had the necessary context. Watching things in a big crowd like that is very different. I have an example: pro wrestling. When I've tried watching it by myself, it is what it is: a cool stunt show with boring, cheesy, repetitive dialogue. If I watch it with a few buddies, or even better, in an arena with screaming fans, it becomes a frenzied good time. Its a combination crowd mentality with the party-like atmosphere, compounded with jet lag, sleep deprivation, etc. And in some cases, you go: "that was awesome!" because it was well done, but where in other circumstances it you'd shudder or recoil, in a crowd like that you whoop and scream. Just my two cents.
  • avantguardian - June 8, 2012 5:22 p.m.

    as others have pointed out, and david did as well, i think the context is what really matters here. big events get big reactions. sporting events, concerts, movie premiers, etc. people get swept up in it. it seems to appeal to the innate desire of social inclusion. as such, it seems to contain a lot of the obvious pitfalls that peer pressure and mob mentality present. you've always been my favorite writer on here, dave, and while reading this i couldn't help but think of you playing bulletstorm, and loving it. not that you claimed to love the gratuitous violence (of which there is PLENTY...shoot his nuts!! LOLZ!!), but how you seemed to push that aside to try and see the beauty underneath all of that frivolity. the mechanics, the player choice, hell even the "artistic" possibilities. we will always be at the mercy of what our society(ties) chooses as acceptable. it comes back to the individual to look beyond the shock to find the true value (if any) of something. it doesn't help that a majority of gamers seem like immature little children, regardless of age =p
  • Shanetexas - June 8, 2012 6:28 p.m.

    I would have to give this E3 a thumbs down. Watch Dogs? Star of the show? Boy, that seems...real fun to play. "We'll create a stealth game, but we'll have the hero use a cellphone!". Eh. Sure, realistic environments, but dumbass AI ("What? My cellphone is jammed? Guess I better walk away from my post. I hope nobody walks in. I'm sure the crowd standing RIGHT by the door would say something like, "Hey, that guy is getting in for free!") Hearing bad things about Resident Evil 6. Seems like there's only 40% of the game I want to play, and the rest is gameplay mechanics stuck in the 90s. Tomb Raider = Uncharted. Depressingly so. I'm not sure I want to play a ripoff. SmartGlass? Wii U? What is that nonsense? Ass Creed 3 looks to be good. The Last of Us looks to be very good. Somewhere, at some point, people are going to get tired of Call of Duty first-person shooters. Don't worry folks. Nowadays the real money is made of making "Max Payne" for smart phones.
  • pr0tostar - June 8, 2012 7:03 p.m.

    I agree with this article wholeheartedly. I also admire you as a journalist for admitting your concern over it. Initially I was thinking as I was watching the Watch Dogs trailer "ok, this is cool. It's a redefinition of the open world action game. This guy hacks everything./everyone to get **** done and makes his getaway..... with bullettime shooting and Jet Li stunts?? Oh so now he's genius hacker AND a superhuman. Absolutely killed any interest the first part stirred in me. You're right... gaming is losing its variety over this craving for the extreme. I admit, I love ultraviolence, I can sort reality from fiction, and I take no shame in wanting to cut up everything I possibly can when MGRising comes out. But when an entire E3 had nothing remarkable other than "Michael Bay" games and "best explosions" ...It makes me think it's time for the industry to look at what it's become and who they're selling to. Oh and... Dubstep belongs in the dance halls. It does nothing for any sort of videogame.
  • RandyChimp - June 8, 2012 7:15 p.m.

    With regards to the violence and the audiences reaction, I whole-heartedly agree. The moment where Ellie throws a brick at someones face in The Last Of Us, when the audience cheered, I inhaled sharply, reacting to the visual image of severe pain, which is, I'm sure, the intention of the developer. I didn't understand why people were cheering to the image of a girl who had to resort to breaking a mans face with a brick to save her friends life. As for the Far Cry 3 boobs, all I could think was "Wow, this unnecessarily long shot of animated tits is sure telling me that this is a game that wants to be taken seriously." I'll get Far Cry 3, as it looks amazing to play, but am I a little disappointed at the inclusion of boobs that aren't inherent to an important point in the story (such as a love scene between two characters)? Yes, unfortunately, I am.
  • robotdickens - June 8, 2012 7:20 p.m.

    I think we're all just hoping for more violent games. Amazing indie games are a dime in a dozen. Even then most of them aren't praised for their gameplay but the art style being innovative and fresh. The same goes for other genres like RPGs and simulations. Violence is easy, creativity isn't.
  • Craza - June 8, 2012 7:45 p.m.

    Watching The Last of Us gave me multiple impressions, and depending on whether or not your actions do have consequences is the basis of all of them. Say, for instance, when the two first encounter the group of scavengers. Couldn't they have just sneaked past them? There was an entire hallway they could have gone down with no other people in sight. And again, with the case of the man laying on the ground asking for Joel to not shoot. He wasn't begging, in my opinion, as was mentioned in the article, but that would have made me hesitate nonetheless if I were the one playing the game. However, it could be that even if you do spare his life, he'll just get right back up and pummel you again like in about every single other video game ever. BUT, IF the AI is programmed to change their attitude towards you based on actions such as that, then I would by all means try to play that game as more of a pacifist. I mean, in a post-apocalyptic world where there are few humans left alive and everyone is just trying to survive, why is it right to kill anyone the moment you see them? I'd try to preserve human life as much as I could and just avoid them if they were shady looking. Only in dire situations would I think about injuring or killing someone else, and killing would be the absolute last option to me. Later, when Joel is holding the revolver to the man's head and using him as a hostage, the man tries to calm Joel down and pleads with him to act rationally. THAT is absolutely remarkable, but then he's just killed with no remorse. What would happen if Joel released the man? Would the man simply say to leave and nothing else had to happen, or would he just turn on him as the AI does in any other game once given the opportunity? If these choices are available in the game and actually reflect on the NPCs and AI, this game would be absolutely amazing and a real pioneer in enhancing the video game experience. The rest of the game looked extremely well done, with excellent detail and atmosphere that pulled me right in. However, the immediate violence and urgency to kill everyone on sight made me almost disgusted, just like how the journalist here has felt. BUT, I just want to point out that it's very much possible that the demo player was trying to showcase the combat mechanics and how a skirmish would play out. I understand that, but I would have much preferred to see whether or not other opportunities were available. Like I said before, is it possible to sneak past enemies to avoid a violent conflict? Can a person be spared just moments from death after a brawl and inflict a positive reputation or affect your character's own behavior or mental state? If that particular NPC was spared, is the AI capable of realizing he could have just as easily been killed and then work to gain trust with the player, or maybe simply just back away slowly and let the player and his companion go on their way? All of these things are gameplay mechanics I would want to see, and it would make me ecstatic to play this game. At the moment, it just seems like another "Violence/survival first" game with great polish, good atmosphere, and engaging characters. Is that bad? I don't think so, but for a person of my disposition and in a game like this, I would do everything I could to play as a pacifist and simply enjoy the story and try to figure out how to resolve conflicts without the use of violence, or very little of it. Those are my thoughts in a very long post.
  • santaclouse37 - June 8, 2012 8:56 p.m.

    I completely agree with you, and your wall of text kind of summed up my thoughts exactly.
  • ParagonT - June 9, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    If these features were indeed in the game, and there was a mode where you only had ONE life, I think it would be amazing. Every choice matters, your disposition on whether to kill or not kill someone influenced your outcome with death and/or punishment, or reward and/or life.
  • brickman409 - June 8, 2012 8:21 p.m.

    this sort of reminds me of fahrenheit 451 where people laughed at the videos of people dying (i think they were clowns dying or something) anyone else remember that?
  • KrazyGamer - June 8, 2012 9:08 p.m.

    You guys are all idiots, All these games You guys are bitching about have potential to be amazing games, and no matter what you say, The sales are still gunna be stacking. And why are you getting so worked up over the Violence potrayed in the games? Its nothing new, just like the audiences reaction.
  • RadgarLaser2 - June 8, 2012 10:13 p.m.

    Pretty disappointed as well. Violence was really on display this year and the increase of shooters are only on the rise. Even Spike and G4 decided the hell with it and really showcase those type of games on numerous days rather than try to fit a diverse range of genre. Most noticeable was the lack of anything Nintendo besides their Press Conference.
  • NullG7 - June 8, 2012 10:49 p.m.

    Just keep things in perspective, for just about every instance of simulated violence and hardship there is a real world equilivant and for every affliction there is a victim that is allot like you. Nuff Said
  • vincent-wolf - June 8, 2012 11:38 p.m.

    Dear author, Hello Kitty Island Adventure is this way ---> I always welcome violence in games, it's awesome. Stop complaining about it, we already have too much robot or green blooded alien shooting. I want to actually see human beings die on my screen.
  • CombatWombat101 - June 9, 2012 1:26 a.m.

    And the "Missing the Point Entirely" award goes to...
  • JSayonara - June 9, 2012 12:57 a.m.

    Gaming has always been about violence. What can you actually do with a game? Sex is right out as is any non action orientated storyline, that's what movies are for. So, that leaves: Puzzles Platforming Racing Sports And... Action. And the hallmark of action is...violence. Whether it be Spyro toasting a little cartoon baddie or that guy in Soldier of Fortune shooting people in the nuts for fun. Until the world gets over it's sexual hang-up's and we games based on fucking... Violence is always going to be the number two, society acceptable past-time of the human race. Games simply reflect this.
  • bash street kid - June 11, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    Really? What about Exploration?
  • FierceDeity - June 9, 2012 2:35 a.m.

    this
  • Clovin64 - June 9, 2012 3:22 a.m.

    One of the main reasons I'm looking forward to The Last of Us is its brutally terrifying portrayal of violence and killing in order to survive. Of course, if my parents saw me playing it, they would no doubt just miss the point entirely and think the violence is just for shits and giggles.
  • jon-moss - June 9, 2012 8:14 a.m.

    I too was rather taken aback by the reactions to the gratuitous use of violence in most of the major presentations at E3. But if you get a bunch of guys together at a video game conference then there's always going to be that group of journalists who treat it as a big frat party and act accordingly. Just like when you go to the cinema there's always people who find it funny to shout and throw popcorn at the screen. I thought the 'The Last of Us' presentation was wonderful though. My main reaction when the little girl threw the brick was really due to the unexpectedness of the situation rather than the act of violence itself, and I've heard that in other demos of this sequence she doesn't throw the brick at all. Her actions will change depending on the situation you find yourself in. In most games the little girl character would stay behind and wait while you clear the rooms ahead, then you'd call for her to join you. In this case she appears out of nowhere in an attempt to aid and protect you. She also realises she's no match for the enemy physically so she grabs the only thing available to her and uses that as a weapon. That's an inteligent reaction to the situation at hand on her part, and that one act speaks volumes regarding her maturity as a character. It also demonstrates that this is not some annoying simpering NPC character you have to escort through levels who keeps bumping into walls and getting stuck in door frames, which I think we should all be thankful for.

Showing 121-140 of 159 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.