Oh, I also tried the demo for
1348: Ex Voto over the weekend
, derisively being referred to as 'the lesbian knight game'. It was a short demo and established just enough of the premise and gameplay to give me a good idea of what this is going to be.
I wasn't very impressed with it, if I'm being honest. The gameplay the demo offered was very basic, slow paced and uninspiring. I can most readily compare it to
Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice in terms of mechanics minus Ninja Theory's flare for dramatic combat combined with the atmosphere of
A Plague Tale: innocence minus Asobo Studio's ability to present an otherwise boiler plate medieval setting with something that differentiates it from the pack.
The game is set during one of the outbreaks of the Black Death and I wonder if the demo shouldn't have just dropped the character into a plague infested village somewhere in the middle of the storyline without any spoilers so that we could see what it will be like to be a 'knight' travelling across a dangerous land filled with suffering and sickness to be reunited with her lover. My guess is that they wanted to start the demo at the beginning of the story because Jennifer English is the lgbtq+ 'it girl' in video games (currently) and they want to market her to potential buyers but I can't really say I know the answer.
There are upgrade systems for the character that you acquire as you go which increase combat capabilities, health, etc. All standard stuff but the combat in the demo, which begins at the start of the start of the game from what I can tell, doesn't inspire me in any way. Giving us the potential to see what lays ahead may have been the better way to go here.
As for the 'controversies' surrounding this game, they seem to stem from the following:
- LGBTGQ 'agenda'
- Character designs/art direction that seems intentionally uglified or homely
- The studio jumping into the culture war as a marketing tool in opposition to a low fantasy knight simulator called Knight's Path which has a release date not any time soon.
To address these particular issues in order:
LGBTQ 'agenda'-the character you play is a female who looks like a skinny boy in the mid 14th century who is in a relationship with a 'pretty' (I guess) blonde who is being sent to a convent, which will definitely get in the way of their intentioned romance. The criticisms range as you might imagine, from Aeta (the protagonist) being a girl raised as a boy (because that CLEARLY never happened in human history) to gay people apparently never existing in medieval times (false) or were persecuted (true) and killed on sight (false). The problem I have with the criticisms is that we don't know the context in which any of these narratives are taking place. Why is BIanca being sent to a convent? Why is Aeta's training permitted by her father despite being frowned upon by her mother? We have no idea whether or not these storytelling devices are being handled with any degree of verisimilitude that an intelligent audience can respect or if it is, indeed, another dose of lectureslop waiting to ambush us. We simply don't know how these things will be handled yet.
Character design/art direction that seems intentionally uglified or homely-The game is perfectly fine in terms of graphic quality, if nothing spectacular. You can tell this is going to be a budget title based on the experience the demo provides, similar to
A Plague Tale, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The game's characters ARE homely, in my opinion, but we're talkikng about a 'realistic' take on medieval Italy and not some idealized fantasy setting. It would be very strange to be playing in a time period where everyone was sick, dirty and malnourished but somehow, amazingly, these characters are concerned about living up to 21st century beauty standards. They seem to focus, particularly, on Bianca's gross facial blemishes a bit too much, however. In the opening scene, they spend an incredible amount of time showing you just how unattractive she is to the modern eye. It't not enough to put me off giving this game a try, but it's definitely enough to put me off my lunch.
The studio jumping into the culture war as a marketing tool-I'm not going to beat this drum too much. They had a chance, in modern gaming culture, to simply say 'We are making our game and we hope you enjoy it. We hope
Knight's Path is greatly successful and that you will try both games out and enjoy them both.' It's literally the easiest thing in the world to say in these times. This game is going to fail no matter what, and I think a large part of it has to do with how angry they've made a very vocal contingent of online gamers with an unnecessary tweet. This is not a triple a game and the access media isn't going to save it. I believe they've already written their own epitaph.
But all the same, I'd probably throw 30 bucks at this at some point, or at the very least buy it during a sale. If for no other reason than because it takes place during a time period I am endlessly fascinated with and I have no reason, as of yet, to assume the worst of the product itself. And I'm not sure that any voices out there will give it an honest review. People are either going to prop it up no matter how awful it is or they're going to shit on it no matter how much it exceeds reasonable expectations.
So far, the only thing I hate is the bowl cut. It was a popular mens' hair style in the 14th century as I understand such things in a historical context so that's fine. But it's also a popular hair style in Colorado, especially among certain overly angry bisexual statisticians.