[Opinion] Fanaticism and protectionism

It is common that after media events sprinkled with new trailers and announcements, social networks, forums and the comment sections of the main video game websites gather thousands of comments on everything shown and, as in everything, it is not difficult to find biased and partisan opinions That lead to heated discussions as if you were debating the classic and controversial football or political issues. First, it never ceases to amaze me that at this point in the film there are still so many people closed in band to leave "their" platform and, going further, do not stop criticizing any movement of the competition.

In this case, what I intend to reflect on is less fanatical but focused on the extreme defense of games from X company by the mere fact of launching on the console that one has. Making it clear that this seems to me to be a certainly childish behavior and typical of "what is mine is the best and what is not about you", I am surprised by the generalized reactions to what is shown in games such as The Legend of Zelda and No Man's Sky, to give two examples. Regarding the first, I do not think any presentation is necessary, about the second saying that it is a really ambitious title by the British Hello Games that is called to be a temporary exclusive to Playstation 4 to end up reaching, at least, on PC . 

The gameplay snippet shown from The Legend of Zelda It was one of the surprises of the event this morning but it is undeniable that what was shown had its chiaroscuro. On the one hand, it seems that the art direction is far from styles as peculiar as Wind Waker, but it does seem a logical and attractive evolution of what was seen in the colorful Skyward Sword. It is also clear that the open world is as promised and the size of the map, even 12 months after its release, points in many ways. But does anyone remember the snippet of, I quote, "real-time gameplay" that was shown at last E3? From what was shown six months ago to what was seen yesterday there is a considerable reduction in terms of vegetation level and general polish, quite alarming. And this, arriving preceded by the statements of Eiji Aonuma, announcing a couple of months ago that the game looked better than at E3, does not stop surprising.

If we were facing Ubisoft or EA, the rivers of ink on a more than clear downgrade They would not have taken long to see the light but, in this case, it is better to "wait for the final game" or, failing that, for the next E3 where they show a trailer closer to the final state. I am surprised by this protectionist tendency that little more than makes it clear that, if it is for the better, one can talk about The Legend of Zelda all one wants, as was done after E3, but if it is for the bad, one is falling into it. mistake of speaking ahead of time and without waiting to see the final result. I think that after a demonstration of almost five minutes chosen and edited by Nintendo itself, each of us has the right to speak, good or bad, about what we have seen. And what has been seen shows a alarming technical downturn which, yes, is not my biggest concern at all. In this respect, I am much more uneasy about this world so generic, so flat, so lifeless that lets itself be seen and that, no matter how large, it does not invite investigation at all. We know that Nintendo are masters creating adventures but we have no examples of them creating complex worlds, varied and full of content and points of interest. I think that the concern in the face of what is seen is, at least, logical and understandable.

There is at least one year left, and the room for improvement is vast, Sure. But if showing what is shown, Aonuma allows himself to boast of the created world, the sensations are not too good. Their track record and previous games give them, of course, the benefit of the doubt and it's hard to think of a bad Zelda with what to expect. But, of course, just as we were after the little shown at E3, we are fully qualified to comment on what was seen.

With whom it is most difficult to stick to his record are the boys from Hello Games that after several installments of the funny Joe Danger saga, they make the leap to one of the most ambitious indie projects that are remembered with No Man's Sky. Testimony and presentation by Sean Murray, game designer, during the past VGX they served to make a place for themselves in our little hearts due to that passion that he distilled with each of his words and that nervousness typical of someone focused on creating and not giving talks or rallies. That, coupled with an experience called to innovate and offer us overwhelming freedom, made No Man's Sky go to the forefront of the video game world and that, again, a somewhat protectionist layer was generated around it due, in part, to that temporary exclusivity from the hand of Sony and Playstation 4.

That was exactly one year ago. Today, 12 months later, We have seen a lot more of No Man's Sky but, deep down, we have not stopped seeing the same. Yes, we are talking about a practically infinite universe and procedurally generated as a result of a mathematical technology of the highest level. But why not teach us more than simply wandering through the colorful and vivid planets that will make up No Man's Sky? Why not delve into the combat mechanics? Why not take a look at the interface with which we will spend hours and hours? No, it is better to take another lap like the one that occurred in the past E3, it happened in Gamescom or it happened in the VGX of 2013. But, here comes the worst, adding a layer of popping really exaggerated that makes vegetation and mapping elements appear just a few centimeters from our character, causing what is, for me, one of the most pronounced and annoying technical defects in a video game. The problem? That seems something inherent in the way the planets are loaded and it is something that we will have to get used to, yes or yes.

This is why I am surprised to find excessive praise, nominations for game of the year or qualifications such as "it's going to be one of the most revolutionary games in the industry." The concept is great, we agree, but after a year and without an approximate date on the horizon (I bet on spring 2016) I think it was time to show something new and something that breaks with what was seen. We know we can take a ship and go from planet to planet, let's move on to something else. If as fans we stick with that and don't ask for more, spend our time praising and taking the game to the skies, I don't think we're showing the right attitude. Do you remember Kojima? That man who presented Metal Gear Solid V Two years ago, a game that we don't even have a date on and we've seen several identical trailers and gameplays. After the fantastic trailer for E3 2013, one of the best I've seen, expectations about the game soared but now, many months later with no significant news, the sea has returned to its course and the anxieties are lowered.

I firmly believe that this kind of timing When it comes to announcing games and showing "news" it ends up seriously damaging expectations and following with Anglo-Saxon terms, that momentum so necessary. Y If, as users, we do not have a critical vision and, what's more, we silence and argue with those who do, we are going in a somewhat counterproductive direction. I do not think that the fanaticism of "T-shirt" or console, in which everything related to our preferred machine are successful movements and the competition are criticizable strategies lead to anything good or, above all, are a mature thought in a medium like this.