The Problem with the Metroid Prime: Federation Force Petition

A petition on Change.Org is nearing towards 20,000 signatures, as of this writing.

I don't normally review petitions, instead sticking to the premise of this blog (game journalism), but in this case I'll make an exception. This story is going around and the news sources are painting games as entitled, whiney children petulantly seeking their own self-worth. I think that's not fair. So, let's look at this petition in detail, and see what the problem is:

Metroid Prime: Federation Force was announced at the Nintendo digital event on June 16, 2015. For almost a decade, long time Nintendo fans have been waiting for a true Metroid game. Metroid is one of Nintendo's most beloved and respected franchises spanning almost 30 years of legacy. The foundations of isolation, atmosphere and exploration in unknown planets are what made Metroid great. With the release of the Wii U and its greater technological capabilities thousands of fans were expecting a new and improved Metroid game. 

So the opening paragraph sets up what the author's argument is, in two parts: (1) Metroid has historically been dark, a game of isolation (except maybe Hunters?), and (2) players were expecting a new actual Metroid game. Fair enough, let's go on.

What we got however is a disgrace of a game with the name "Metroid" slapped on the title. It has no elements at all of what Metroid is about and its a disrespectful manner to old and new fans of the series of showing them that the Metroid franchise is not dead afterall. This is not the Metroid we asked Nintendo to make.

And here's the realization of the two arguments in the first section. This new game is not about isolation, because it's a multiplayer game. It's not dark, it's colorful. It's hardly got any elements of what makes a Metroid game a Metroid game.

Or does it? The argument fails to address that the controls and the look of the game match closely with the Metroid Prime series. While it is a multiplayer game, it still has the look of the series, and while not matching with the Metroid series as a whole, it is in the same universe as that series.

I think Nintendo is able to do this well, and the game is probably going to be fun (not so sure about Blast Ball, but whatever).

We should let Nintendo know what we really think of the game and make them actually LISTEN to their fans for once. Help us stop this atrocity of a game from bearing the beloved Metroid franchise name and make Nintendo halt production on it.

I was on board with you for most of this petition. I think this isn't the Metroid game fans of the series wanted, and it's a universe multiplayer game fans didn't want to be involved in. So who was this game made for? Obviously, it's a gap-filler. What I mean is it's like Link's Crossbow Training, where it's in the universe (kind of) but not really a game in the series. It fills a gap because Nintendo isn't currently developing a title in that series, so they just use the assets they have to make something fun and cheap.

The problem I have with this petition was that is asks Nintendo to "halt production on it". No, this isn't fair. I may dislike the game and think it's a crappy replacement for a good game, but I'm not going to ask Nintendo to halt production of it. I'll just vote with my wallet like a normal gamer.

Just Nintendo gamers hanging out in a creepy white room.

Do I think the petition's creator and signers are entitled? Absolutely not. They're justifiably angry at Nintendo for seemingly cutting corners. I don't see a problem with that anger other than their demanding Nintendo halt production on something they've already showed off at E3.

So, these are my problems with the petition. I'm not sure it really addresses what the game is, and why Nintendo's making it. I would hope the petition creator would remove the language demanding Nintendo halt production of a game that's already mostly complete. It just seems petty.

Review: "Over 12,000 sign petition to cancel Metroid Prime: Federation Force" by Dan Pearson, GameIndustry.biz

Original article here.

I am an avid reader of GameIndustry.biz. I like reading more about the industry of games than the political coverage or enthusiast press coverage of games. Typically, GameIndustry.biz tries to remain impartial as to the arguments of gamers and the game journalists (read: the Mass Effect 3 fiasco and GamerGate). Though to be honest, their coverage as of late has mimicked the coverage one might expect on Kotaku. This article is no different.

It starts out promising, as coverage on a simple petition about games should:

Incensed 'fans' call forthcoming 3DS game an "atrocity"

A petition seeking to halt the development of Nintendo's Metroid Prime: Federation Force, a 3DS title which was announced during the firm's E3 Digital event, has passed 12,000 signatures in just 2 days, rapidly approaching its goal of 15,000.

This is factual and simply explaining the situation. However, the subtitle putting quotes around "fans" is confusing to me. Is the author suggesting these people petitioning Nintendo due to their deep-seated respect for the Metroid Prime series aren't fans?

Then the author does something that should be avoided in most cases when reporting on a controversy:

Currently, it's slated for a 2016 release. Frankly, it doesn't look like a classic, but The Internet is furious.

He invokes the internet. No, Pearson, the internet is not furious. The internet is either a collection of networks for computers to interact on or a group of people. If you mean the group of people, a small number of them know what Metroid Prime: Federation Force is and an even smaller number actually care one way or the other.

After he quotes from people on the petition (fans who are angry that the game they waited for is being sidelined for a multiplayer party game), he gives his opinion on the matter. I will say it's perfectly acceptable for him to do this. He's presented the petition's argument, so now he's going to present his own and contrast them.

Maybe there's some justification for frustration, given that many feel Nintendo put on a relatively weak E3 performance overall. Given that it's been five years since the last full Metroid release, perhaps fans do have a right to be upset that a not-brilliant looking spin-off on 3DS, rather than a full-scale Wii U game, is being put out under the Metroid masthead. You could argue that, finally, people have lost patience with the endless reworking of old IP - even that they have a right to be disappointed after the wonderful Splatoon reminded them of what the company can do when it finds its inspiration. But really, atrocity?

Unfortunately it starts from a poor place. Complaining about the language and not the argument is a problem. If he had left that little bit out this might have been a good paragraph, but it gets much worse:

So entitlement, particularly amongst fans, is nothing new. One of the consequences of the democratisation of mass media is that there are more messages to be heard, that previously relatively isolated opinions become movements - sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. Is there a lesson to be learned by Nintendo here? A warning to heed? Perhaps.

Yes, "entitlement". I'm getting flashbacks to IGN's (at the time) Colin Moriarty openly crapping on Mass Effect fans who hated the ending to the third game. These "movements" as he puts them, are connected to entitlement. He doesn't explain the connection, he just makes it. I really really don't like this. It removes any blame from Nintendo that he might have given in previous paragraphs and puts it directly on the fans of the series.

He ends with this:

But there's definitely a very clear snapshot of the power of consumer feeback [sic] which increasingly surrounds the industry - and the need to find a way to either appease or mollify it. Generally, it behoves the companies involved to do their best not to acknowledge the anger of what is almost always the minority of its audience, but Nintendo might not currently have that luxury. Whether it's a reflection of the sentiment of the wider fanbase is debatable, but the firm's reaction could be pivotal to the perception of its position.

Which is better. It is true the angry fans in one of these controversies are typically the minority. But minority of what? Fans? I suspect most Mass Effect 3 fans were upset at the ending of the game, but only the ones willing to pour their time into that anger took to social media to demand BioWare do something about it. Saying these people are the minority does them an injustice, because it marginalizes their concerns. The real number of people pissed about Nintendo's decision could easily be the majority of people who wanted a new Metroid Prime game and not a robot soccer game. There's honestly no way of telling, but I would say that a huge number of angry people willing to take time out of their day to complain about anything on the internet proves that there is an even larger group angry and unwilling to engage with you.

So ultimately Pearson does a good job. I don't give numerical ratings for these journalist/blogger pieces, but he did well. I may complain about the use of "entitled" and the marginalization of fan concerns, but he didn't do as bad as some of the clickbait sites.

On the Deus Ex: Mankind Divided "Apartheid" Controversy

There was an article by Zach Furnis in Destructoid that introduced me to this whole issue. Let me preface this by saying Zach Furniss makes some good work. He's been fair about the whole Metroid Prime: Blast Ball kerfluffle, and has covered E3 with an enthusiasm and excitement that could match any hardcore gamer.

That was not a bad article. The author isn't biased, he's covering everything in good graces, and showing excitement about a game while reporting on an idiotic internet outrage. He sums up everything perfectly:

There's been a negative reaction online to Eidos Montreal's use of the racially-charged term "mechanical Apartheid" in its promotion of Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. Internet idiots have taken a break from their frappuccinos to rally in outrage over the term "mechanical apartheid". Is this an incorrect usage of the term? Not quite. The term is used appropriately, as the augmented in the story are treated as less-than-human and separated from the general population.

So Destructoid spoke with Mary DeMerle about this whole idiotic thing:

Speaking with Destructoid today, we asked the title's Executive Narrative Director Mary DeMerle about the aforementioned term, past blunders like Letitia from Human Revolution, and the need for cultural sensitivity in science fiction.

Yes, okay. If you actually watch the clip that he links to there, Letitia is a pretty horrible stereotype from the forties of black people. But is it played for laughs? Is she portrayed as somehow stupid as a result? I don't think so, but that's not the problem here.

The rest of the article is done well. He basically lets DeMerle get what she wants to say out there, and allows her to defend their right to use the term in its correct context. Any racial discomfort you feel as a result of the usage of the term is with good reason, it's a crappy situation and is one for the player to feel uncomfortable about. Most people understand that it's usage is correct, just like holocaust imagery is used well in X-Men to explain the motivations of Magneto.

But then you have people like Bob Chipman, a gaming YouTuber, who decided to jump the shark and somehow mentally link the Charleston shooting and Deus Ex. Because we all know using the term "apartheid" is bad when in a game.

There are two problems these critics have with the game, so let's talk about them.

The First Problem They Have: Games are Child's Toys

The real problem is that these culture critics see games as a child's toy. The use of the term "apartheid" in a *gasp* video game is horrible to them. It would be like Dr. Seuss creating war propaganda.

*cough cough*

Needless to say, all this outrage is idiotic. Chipman himself backpedaled hard to avoid serious repercussions. With Sarkeesian being thoroughly denounced for her comments bashing violent games during E3 and Chipman being thrown to the wolves over his attempt to be edgy, it's looking like a bad day to be an outrage manufacturer.

All in all, not many articles have been biased in the traditional games journalism outlets. VG247 and Gameranx had some stuff, but it was fairly neutral, as was this Destructoid article.

The only real problem was The Verge's coverage of the controversy by Adi Robertson.

The Second Problem They Have: Games Don't Handle Serious Issues Well

The Verge says this:

It plays with the aesthetics of oppression, but the game is only fun because your character doesn’t actually experience it — in the demo mission, in fact, he’s hunting down an aug rights activist (and alleged bomber) for an anti-terrorist group.

This is a not that bad of an article. Reporting on a game shouldn't be a platform for your politics, but an expression of what other people are saying. Essentially, this person is saying "Aiden looks like he's oppressed, but he never experienced true oppression or the game wouldn't be fun." But it isn't too bad because the author is expressing an opinion that is in line with the comments people have made against using the term.

But then the author continues:

"Apartheid" is a loaded term, and it could easily turn out to be a cheap and simplistic way to lend gravity to the plot. Intentionally or not, though, Mankind Divided seems to get across a clear message: it’s hard to talk about oppression along just one axis.

Which makes sense, given the comments people have made. I mean, that was essentially Chipman's complaint. But ultimately, the argument is that Deus Ex doesn't deal well with the apartheid imagery and terminology because Aiden doesn't feel that oppression.

One problem: the author flat out admits to having only played the demo.

This is broad-brushing an entire game because the demo doesn't let you feel human and character struggles in historically uncomfortable contexts. The game's not out yet, so how can you possibly say anything about what Aiden's going through in the storyline? He could very well feel oppression and prejudice. His augments are very visible, and therefore it's very easy to marginalize him.

So all in all, the critics either think games are too immature for mature themes or can never handle mature themes to begin with. I think they're both wrong. ome games have handles human tragedy very well, others have given in-depth character experiences and stories, and to say that only the lowest common denominator is the entire industry is like saying that film is only Michael Bay movies.