Last week, THQ Nordic and Gunfire Games – a studio made up of former staffers from THQ’s defunct Vigil Games – revealed Darksiders 3, the long-awaited sequel to one of the most underrated and overlooked franchises of the last decade. The writing had been on the wall, with Gunfire already developing remastered versions of both the original Darksiders and Darksiders 2, but it was still a slight shock to finally hear that a third installment was in the works. After nearly five years, fans got a taste of Gunfire’s plans for the future, which include new protagonist Fury and her acrobatic, whip-based combat.

But the first gameplay demonstration for Darksiders 3, published through the “IGN First” month-long exclusive program, didn’t exactly meet the quality standards players were expecting following the polished, smooth combat and platforming of the previous game. Fury’s movements seemed oddly stilted, with the apocalyptic hero seemingly gliding along the floor at times, and her whip’s strikes lacked the power and ferocity we would expect from such a legendary warrior. This may not be indicative of the game’s final release quality – in fact, with the game not expected to arrive until sometime next year, there is a very good chance that Darksiders 3 will look substantially better – but it planted the first seeds of disappointment in prospective players’ heads. Fair or not, first impressions matter, and while Darksiders 3 is just the latest game to damage its reputation by being demonstrated too early, its lukewarm player reception could lead to significant improvements that would not have otherwise been made.

Oftentimes, “bad” demonstrations are frustrating because it fails to really represent the gameplay experience or highlight its strengths. This was the case for Ubisoft’s sword-and-shield multiplayer title For Honor, which was first revealed at the publisher’s E3 presentation in 2015. A strategic, somewhat slow-moving dueling game that takes a substantial amount of time to master and “click,” Ubisoft chose to show a lengthy demonstration right in the middle of its conference, with a group of players competing in a multiplayer match right on stage. Free of explanation from the developers, the combat appeared stiff and robotic, and I had largely written the game off as it neared its release earlier this year.

Fortunately, a beta period shortly before the game’s launch showed that For Honor was much more interesting than its initial demonstration had suggested and likely contributed to the game’s strong sales. The combat was nuanced and difficult to master – requiring a full understanding of the game’s surprisingly deep control scheme. Without understanding exactly how the game is played, For Honor looks like a hot mess, but by recognizing the rhythm and mechanics of the game’s different attacks, dodges, and blocks, it quickly becomes second-to-none. To show just how well-designed For Honor’s combat is, Ubisoft would have been wise to avoid showing actual in-engine gameplay during its presentation and instead save it for an in-depth, commentary-filled video after the fact. A developer simply walking viewers through why a character moves a certain way or why a particular feature was included can go a long way towards gaining their trust in the final product.

Occasionally, established and acclaimed franchises have also made the mistake of showing off their latest entries without giving the games enough time in the oven, and though Uncharted fans are still likely to pick up Nathan Drake’s newest adventure regardless of its early demonstrations, it doesn’t help Naughty Dog to have numerous headlines about the game’s embarrassing on-stage freezing incident or for Assassin’s Creed IV, which followed an extremely unpolished Assassin’s Creed III, to suffer a similar fate. Both games came out largely free of bugs, and certainly without the hard crashes seen during their demonstrations, but they diverted early attention off of their innovative gameplay and improved storytelling and onto something that no developer or publisher wants to see in the news.

When issues found in early demonstrations are still present in the final game – even if they have been substantially reduced – it’s much easier to spot them. This was certainly the case with both Bloodborne and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. While both are fantastic games (Bloodborne was my personal favorite for 2015) frame rate issues present in early builds, particularly those shown at E3, were still noticeable when they eventually released. In Bloodborne’s case, it was rarely too distracting, but it likely would have been ignored entirely had the issues not have been so pronounced in early demonstrations. Breath of the Wild, on the other hand, drew criticism for its inconsistent frame rate from launch day, with Nintendo releasing a patch a few weeks later to alleviate the worst issues – though present on the Switch version, it was actually the Wii U version shown off prior to the Switch’s announcement that experienced the worst slowdown during demonstrations. By waiting for the more powerful console to be announced and using that for preview footage, this would have been much less obvious.

However, poor demonstrations can also help prospective players understand why a publisher would decide to not move forward with a project altogether, or why developers would make drastic changes. Microsoft revealed Scalebound a few years ago at E3, and subsequently showed it off at both Gamescom and other press events. Each time, PlatinumGames’ first action-RPG was met with a muted reception, as the strange mix of slow combat and unlikeable protagonist seemed to clash with the developer’s usual approach. It looked, at least in a technical sense, like the studio had improved that game at later demonstrations, but it never came close to reaching the high standard of quality fans expect from Hideki Kamiya and his team. Players were not left guessing — they knew why it was canceled. The final game wasn’t going to surprise anyone with a drastic leap in quality, but would instead be another disappointment for an Xbox brand that has suffered from far too many this generation.

Nintendo failed to recognize this with Star Fox Zero, another project co-developed by PlatinumGames. The series’ long-awaited sequel was originally announced in 2015, and even was part of a closed-door preview event earlier than that, and player response was largely the same each time it was shown to the public. The game’s strange two-screen Wii U controls were clunky, and Nintendo’s insistence on highlighting them each time in the face of poor fan response seemed to suggest that the game was never going to chance, even when die-hard fans voiced their concerns. Though the project probably shouldn’t have been canceled outright, the feedback Nintendo received certainly should have been implemented into the game – which received a lengthy delay but failed to include alternate control schemes.

Gunfire Games and publisher THQ Nordic would be wise to take this type of player and viewer feedback into account for Darksiders 3. Its first trailer certainly didn’t instill confidence in most fans, but with the game still likely more than a year away from release – and longer if it receives a delay – it isn’t too late for fans to influence how the final game looks, sounds, and plays. “Design by committee” is rarely the best way to make art, but with criticism from passionate fans so easy to access, it would be a shame if it fell on deaf ears. Developers shouldn’t be scared of showing early builds of a game to the public, and if they do receive negative feedback, they must understand that it’s a two-way process and that continued updates on the game’s progress will go a long way toward restoring players’ trust. Improvements can always be made, and as evidenced by acclaimed titles like Uncharted 4, the final game is what’s most important.

 
Disclaimer : The following article was written freely based on the author's opinion, and it may not necessarily represent Inven Global's editorial stance.