For a lot of us, gaming is a pleasant getaway from daily minutia. We game whenever we get the time because, well, reality is pretty harsh and it's a great escape to have time to do something that isn't so productive. Some of us love gameplay, and some of us love a great story, stimulating puzzles, a great scare, an opportunity to be strategic, escape from reality, get competitive, or share our non-productive experiences with others. In the end, it's all about fun and getting away from our responsibilities for a bit (unless you're a self-described journalist, which I say conservatively with regard to some of the opinion pieces that somehow tumbleweed their way into the news articles).
Back in the day, that's what gaming was all about and, for many of my fellow 80s/90s era gamers, that's what it is today. Unfortunately, with the advent of the internet and, heck, even freedom of expression on the internet, we basically share the burden of destroying the experience for each other. Here's why I believe so:
First, thanks to the internet, gaming "journalists" can help us or hurt us. They can warn us about broken games well in advance of the release (embargoes withstanding) or, because everyone uses it and news gets out faster, it can completely destroy a game's image with sensationalist pieces on why a game will fail or disappoint. There were recent pieces on The Order: 1886 and Bloodborne suggesting they won't live up to expectations. It's always great to keep an open mind and consider alternatives to your own views, but we need to encourage developer efforts to really make the most of the hardware and make games that are fun and, above all in my opinion, positive experiences. The Order: 1886 might disappoint or flop. It might not. Either way, the gaming media has done a great job of hurting the game's image this past week alone with about 30 days to go before release. So much energy is spent on the negatives, which worries me as a gamer where the industry is going because at that point, it isn't news. It's the gaming media being sensationalist for hits, regardless of the damage it might do to a game that many people may actually enjoy more than they did. Heavens forbid that a game, not just The Order but ANY game, disappoints on the gameplay front, but ask yourself: what's worse, a bad game that takes off without a hitch...or a game that "would be a lot more fun if it wasn't broken"? Something to think about, especially where first impressions are involved...
Second, thanks to internet anonymity, it's much easier to be complete trolls and/or keyboard warriors whose sole purpose in joining a discussion board is to tell you why you're wrong and why their opinion should be taken objectively. Unfortunately, a lot of us have gotten bitter towards "the other side" of the gaming fence where there will be gamers who like specific platforms over your preferences. Maybe they just grew up owning one and stick to a trusted brand, maybe they had a bad experience with the rival platform(s). Honestly who knows? Either way, the repeated internet exposure to "the other side" I believe has created a division between gamers because we're exposed to something we otherwise would have in very moderate doses at worst in society. If you ask me, it functions a lot like sexism or racism: unless you're extensively exposed to something unfamiliar in an unpleasant way, you very likely have no quarrels with peaceful coexistence. If people of the opposite color or sex land themselves in something controversial and it comes back down to you, then we have a habit of developing an aversion for those people. We classify them, attribute behaviors, etc., just as we do with gamers of opposing thoughts--made worse by people spouting off because they're protected by anonymity. And if you don't think we can make that comparison, just look at how badly we stereotype people who aren't like us with games: "This site is run by Sony fanboys!", "XBots are always slamming PS4 because the XBOX One can't touch its numbers!", or "Nintendo fanboys are as bad as Apple fanboys because they'll eat anything Ninty throws at them!"
The last thing I want to say that I find painfully negative for gamers is that we're keeping score and it isn't healthy. Many of us, myself included, are guilty of drawing parallels to previous generations and calling each other out on hypocrisy, even if the person being chastised now had nothing to do with what was said back then by some other person (again, grouping). And we always seem to be under the illusion that a PlayStation 3 gamer would never buy an XBOX One as a primary console or that even a Nintendo Wii Owner would never favor the PS4.
In summary, maybe I'm old, but what would we all have to lose by trying to be more positive about the gaming experience? People will have different opinions and the internet is quickly becoming a utility we all frequently enjoy. May as well not use the powers of anonymity or journalistic clout to divide us, y'know? Sure, there's a component of jealousy, but you can always own more than one platform. It takes an open mind, but also a willingness to stand by your beliefs. Don't avoid buying a game you're really looking forward to because a journalist says it's easy/plays too much like Call of Duty/etc. We're getting there now since (A) Everyone pretty much agrees Bloodborne, based on people who've played it, is not too easy and know it's nerfed for public demonstration reasons and (B) Despite journalists saying Halo 5's beta is too much like Call of Duty, people enjoying the beta are having a ton of fun. That aside, we still need to work out our personal differences with fellow gamers on different platforms and not take past encounters with [insert platform] fans and generalize to the fans we talk to now. Let's coexist and cheer for games. Let's not put other people down saying, "the only reason this game is even hyped is because it's exclusive". At the end of the day, we all just want to have fun and are always looking for the next big experience. And we can do it without blasting each other for thinking differently.
As always, this is just an opinion piece written by a guy who grew up really loving the classics and holds on to the more positive aspects of gaming. Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments below and, as always, thanks for reading.
The Nerd Stash: “The PS3 marked a turning point in the industry, and among the sea of popular titles came the rare games that are worth more now than ever.”
Ex-Rocksteady directors' Hundred Star is collaborating with Xbox Game Studios Publishing for its first-ever AAA game.
Highly doubt it'll be an actual Batman game that IP belongs to WB Games along with other DC property.
They're making an action adventure game. IMO I think it needs to be another Marvel game despite MS already have Blade as that action Marvel game. Dead Pool? Punisher?
Realistically it'll probably be a new IP entirely.
I hope these devs needed support to start/finish (like Stalker 2), vs are basically done with the game but wanted to secure an exclusivity-bonus because they know Xbox needs a system seller (like Titanfall).
It’s a bit strange that they’d rather invest in this game than Tangoworks’ TWO canceled projects; or just trust a single dev from their existing massive stable of talent to emerge with a system-seller themselves anytime soon.
Either way, it is just cool that we’ll likely get a new IP from the geniuses behind the Arkham Trilogy. I wonder how creative they’ll get now that they aren’t married to an established franchise.
This is about the former co-founders of Rocksteady and their new studio. So naturally it makes people think its Batman related with the way its worded, even though its not.
Exclusive? Sure
This year alone Microsoft has changed their plans so much with Xbox regarding multiplatform releases as they step closer to just being a full blown third party publisher and it's only been 4-5 months, imagine where we'll be once this game is finished. It will be a completely different landscape.
Spawn (as well as master chief) are the only characters I associate with Xbox. Are there more I can’t remember?
Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2 launched last week to solid reviews from both fans and players. But its playercount? That's another story.
That's awful. This combined with the really low Steam numbers paint a disastrous picture imo. Really bad timing too because Tango was closed down for a similar thing. Great reviewed game, and low sales and/or player count. Hi-Fi Rush reviewed a hell of a lot better and it was widely loved by everyone, Hellblade 2 nowhere near that.
I know the rumor is that the studio has their next game already green-lit, but if I worked at Tango, I would be furious. "Why do they survive while we get binned?" I'd be telling myself.
But the suit woman will have you believe "Oh we have different metrics for the success of one studio compared to another studio. We judge each studio and game on their own set criteria" or something like that, I'm paraphrasing here but you get the idea. But no one who works there knows what the hell that even means. I mean the DLC for Redfall was getting worked on days before they even got the news their studio was getting dumped in the trash. So what are these mysterious metrics to let studios survive and others perish? I bet this is all hogwash, I bet MS don't even really know. They just had to make cuts and certain studios just found their way on the chopping block. Someone had to bite the dust, why not you?
Well I bet all this does nothing for the confidence of other employees in other studios. The truth is you have no idea where your career will be in a year from now working at one of their studios that aren't the mega big ones. MS just have too many studios to manage efficiently. "We'll just throw money at them and buy them and worry about the details later on. I mean we can do it, we're Microsoft."
If this game cost more and took longer to develop than Hi-Fi Rush, then I would worry if I were Ninja Theory. Projects may have been greenlit, but the increased scrutiny over at MS may very well put them on the chopping block. The incredible irony here is that it was PlayStation players that pushed the original game passed its 1 million copies sold milestone. With that purchasing power cut out, and the Game Pass effect having trained Xbox players to not purchase games, it seems that the sequel may have been set-up for failure.
Well said... But I will continue to be a fanboy... :)
1. people used to complain back in the day as well, difference is social media has exploded since then so of course it appears to be much more noticeable now.
2. you talk about games like the order being blasted by the media but you also neglect other games they praise like splatoon. what you're essentially doing is what you're calling out the media for doing and that is focusing on the negative articles while ignoring the positive ones.
3. i do agree anonymity causes a lot of issues in regards to troll behaviour online.
4. you talked about competition and this need to always conclude there has to be a winner and a loser. i agree this ideology isn't good for anyone.
one thing everyone has to take into consideration when drawing parallels to history and how different we are is we all expect more now. those mario games back then in the 80's cost $50 to buy. what was the price of gas and a gallon of milk then to what it is now? how much do games cost now, $60? so do you not see how much pressure is put on game developers now to deliver? this is why we see such a rise in indie game development, costs just are no longer sustainable unless the aaa games are marketed as blockbusters. then when those blockbuster games come out there is added pressure to deliver something incredible. but because of time constraints, budgets and utilizing dlc tactics all we do is whine about the games when they come out because we don't envision the process, the money at stake and how high our expectations have gotten over the decades.
what i do see in forums that's kind of troubling is this underground movement to keep the commentary away from the experience and joy of playing games. this movement if you will likes to fester and keep the focus on the negative views. such as dlc or why game consoles that cost $400 that can do many more things than what a $200 game console could do back in the 80's don't perform as well as they want. more features, better performance, more exclusives. it's like we are never satisfied. then you have the trolls/fanboys who like to take things further and focus on the competition and spend most of their time making comments about why that systems isn't very good. this has all been done before for decades but since we are online now and connected around the world it's just more obvious.
at the end of the day gaming hasn't gotten worse. look around, we have more platforms than at any time in history to play games on. we also have a collection of games at our disposal that dwarfs what was available at any time in history. all with various pricing structures. so tell me again why people spend so much time complaining?
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, all.
@getrektedmate,
As long as you're not being asinine about your preferences, I've got no quarrels with fanboys. Respect for other opinions does us all some good. :O)
@Thorstein,
There's nothing wrong with making an informed decision, but it's about avoiding the negativity that can come with it. One might like to play shooters (which isn't my cup of tea) but I'm not going to go out of my way to tell you why I don't like them and why you shouldn't either. If I do tell you why I don't like them, it would simply remain an expression of my own reasons, not some campaign to sell you on my opinion or berate yours. That said, I can agree that you must make informed decisions on what's worth owning and what isn't, but we would be wrong to start a fire with people who think differently. Politics of gaming pretty much lol.
@moldybread,
On the first point, in my opinion, the issue is sensationalist media. I'm not saying games can't be criticized; some of them really deserve to be, but given the recent string of popular articles, I think it's fair to say there's an intentional theme where hits are trying to be made, y'know?
On the second point, I don't mind articles highlighting why games are looking great. People operate in an interesting way: let's look at Splatoon--there will be people interested and people who aren't as well as those on the fence. A positive article would generate responses from the interested and the skeptics which is fine. You'll get a few negatives, but those people are often dismissive trolls. Now if the article is negative, the skeptics might take a backseat and observe, but the interested and uninterested would likely lambaste each other and it creates hostility. We're all here because we love games and I don't see much meaning in the negativity. I think we should be passionate about this industry and express our differences in less destructive ways, but sensationalist articles don't exactly make that a practical scenario. Your other points, I can agree with.
@Kalkano,
You're right about that; it isn't about just the consoles, but it's an industry wide division over so many things. For me, it depends on my mood that day. Personally, I love Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Fire Emblem, and Final Fantasy VII through X, but I also love Kingdom Hearts, Zelda, and the Souls series. For me, I just love the RPG genre and the action genre, so if it's an action game with RPG elements, I'm probably gonna jump all over that. It is bad how dismissive the oppressive opinions in the industry are, and I sympathize with that completely. Sometimes, I get angry private messages because I love retro games too and other people want to argue with me personally. I don't mind, but we do need to be better than we are as a whole with how we view competing opinions.
It's really as positive as you want it to be. You can completely ignore the elements you don't like. It baffles me that people get caught up in things like gamergate, or caring that someone doesn't like a game they like (especially when that game hasn't even released).