Mass movement-
May 29, 2001 - Chris Jones
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed
within this column are those of the participants and the
moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the
GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive
material afoot.
Terry Pratchett's new book rules the Earth with a mighty fist. All hail his glory! Hail! Hail!
Don't say we didn't warn you.
I got a job today, which means less time for the column and games, but also less time getting kicked out of my apartment and living in the university library. So all in all, it was a good day.
Onward.
| Paragraph breaks are for the weak |
| If the gaming public wasn't swayed by public opinion, then your site and every other one like it would simply list the prices and release dates of every game coming out. In fact, that's all a game cover would have -- the price and name of the game, and what system it's for. By the simple fact that that is not true, we can see that not every game decision is made by careful, aylitical breakdowns of a games pros and cons. Also, that would be impossible. for instance, what is the perfect graphic? Is there one? And what makes the perfect game? One that' long, involving, has beatiful graphics, and innovative game systems? The Gran Turismo and indeed every racing game in history has used the same gameplay since the Atari days -- you press one button, the car/racer/bike/futuristic hover-surfboard goes forward. You push another, it goes backward. You push a set of buttons, it turns left, right, or whatever. And yet I know people who think that the GT sereis is a literal godsend. The very fact that games are, by definition -- just think of it for a second, by literal definition -- is something that is 'fun,' and the fact that 'fun' is an abstract -- show me a lump or mound of fun and I'll show you a hundred and one companies willing to pay you obscene amounts of money for it -- means that they defy anylitical thought. Case in point: Skies of Arcadia. Nothing in that game stands out superbely. But it is one of the most fun games on the DreamCast (Or was, whatever). By a case study, it should be middle ground, middling. But PSO wouldn't have been able to hold a candle to it if not for the online capiblity that PSO demonstrates. Thank you, case closed.
-- Raveled
|
Huh?
Good lord, there are so many buried assumptions in there I don't know where to start, but I guess the beginning's as good a place as any. We're not some sort of marketing force, we write about what's in games and what we think about it - but that's just a source of information for public opinion to shape itself around, not public opinion itself. And there are definite gradations in game quality. GT has a fairly realistic physics engine that takes into account mass, velocity, ground conditions, angle of approach... all that's a far cry from Pole Position on the Atari 2600. This might not have anything to do with "fun", which is fairly subjective, but it's generally considered fair play to say, for instance, that a game's lack of collision detection makes playing it extremely unfun. And that's what we do here at the site.
Superbely? Spelling's optional for the column, but now I can't stop thinking of a really obese superhero...
| The gaming public exists to save us money? |
| Dear GIA and insert-name-of-letter-guy-today:
Of course the gaming public is easily influenced. But then again, we ask for
it. It exists to save us money.
Public opinion in the gaming community is quite close to it is in real life:
if something does not pass your first impressions, then it will not pass ever
again. The X-Box was thrashed in the press by several gaming sites. This is
going to make many of the readers of the gaming sites not buy the X-Box, simple
as that. People will have various reasons for doing this. Some will not buy
it because it lacks a good quality or quantity of games, which is not a problem
in my eyes. But if people are not going to buy it because it is the "evil
Microsoft Corporation at it again," that is another story. That's being very
biased on a product based on what other people say without fact. The GIA is
not biased...it simply reported a lack of good quality games, with a few jokes
thrown in. I would call that very fair.
The Sega Dreamcast failed because of public opinion, and for the simple reason
that "everyone knew it would fail." People are not going to buy a system from
a company that dropped the ball 3 times in a row, pulled support from their
product, and had one of the most hostile CEOs in the history of Video Game
Companies. I purchased all the Sega CD, 32X, Saturn, and Dreamcast. I loved
them all. I love the Sega Dreamcast, I own a large stock of games for it, and
it is always going to be in a favorable light with me. But there are a few
games I never picked up for those systems, and I am happy I did not. The
public opinion (my friends, a few gaming sites), did not like the games, and I
did not buy them. When I finally played the game, I realized they were right
(with a few exceptions).Public opinion in the gaming world exists for a good reason: to keep you from
buying a terrible game with your hard earned money. I've been "screwed over"
by a few games in my time (Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Subzero, The Fifth
Element, Kendo-Rage, Desert Commander, Jaws, Twisted Metal 3, to name a few).
On the other hand, I went against public opinion on several games (the 7th
Saga, Shadowgate 64, Tiny Tank, The Secret of Evermore, every Mega Man game
every created), and I've never been happier.
Overall, we cannot blame public opinion, as it has good intentions. Many great
products will fail because a few reviewers didn't like it or just do not like
the guy that made it. But nothing stops you from taking a few dollars and
renting it to try it out, or stopping by a friend's house. As for as the
X-Box, I'm angry there is no "WOW!" games out there yet (Halo and Munch being
exceptions, in my humble public opinion), but I won't say anything bad about
it until it fails, if ever. Microsoft may be saving the best for last. And
although Sega is no longer with us in Console world, they are not a failure.
They created some of the best, most innovative games on Earth, and they are
still around in 3rd party market.
I guess the real secret to fighting public opinion is to find out for yourself
if you like a game. Everyone knows the old "opinions are like assholes"
analogy.
Thanks for your time.
Charlie, Who Still Thinks Arcana is the Greatest RPG Ever
Created
|
So wait, public opinion exists to stop you from buying terrible games, except that it also tries to stop you from buying games that you enjoy? Who do you think makes public opinion in the first place, and why do people continue to see it as some sort of monolithic entity that almost arbitrarily raises some games up at the expense of others? Public opinion for Final Fantasy is strong, but public opinion for Final Fantasy is also that it's grown to rely too much on FMV - both are real parts of what the public actually thinks. Public opinion is generated by real gamers based on what they've played of games, not as some consumer watchdog out to stomp the real stinkers... otherwise Superman 64 wouldn't have sold as well as it did.
| Straight party line |
| Chris,
There are the hardcore gamers who will always buy the
system that has the most "good" titles (good in this
case being ones they like, regardless of popularity)
... but these are also the ones who can get miffed at
a company and ignore it since "Their games are not
31337 enough for me!!!" is something I hear too much
out of supposed 'hardcore' gamers.)
However, their numbers are few. Very few. So ...
The majority of the gaming public - and where the
money is made - is regular people. They got a
Playstation, play some Parasite Eve, some MGS, this
and that. Whatever looks interesting.
This is where the money is made, and these people
don't buy after exhaustive review, they just hear
about it, their friends get it, they go plunk down
$50. Now multiply by 200,000 and you've got a lot of
money.
And there are always the company gamers - the ones who
vote straight ticket on the elections, the ones who
only buy Nintendo and defend its honor like it was
their own, same for Sony, same for Sega...sometimes
they follow a system (e.g. Playstation family) and
sometimes a company (Working Designs seems to have a
very tight fanbase, IMO). But again, these people are
few in number.
So, yes, I do think reputation and bias play heavily.
For my part, aside from one review we won't mention, I
find the GIA is usually straight-on for what I think,
too. I think this is what people need to do, is find
sites where their review matches with the site's
review ... learn to trust a site, basically. (Gamespot
PC is fair at this for me, Gamespot VG is ... well,
the less said about that, the better. And don't get me
started on Daily Radar, RIP)
So...yes. Basically, yes, I agree with him. And I used
far, far, too many words to say that.
=====
Peter
|
Actually, I think there are more party line voters than you think, although it's often not so much that they have such great faith in Nintendo, etc., as it is that they only have one system and can only afford to dedicate time and resources to that system. But hell, I've done it myself - I proudly admit to buying a PSX entirely to play FF7, and I've never regretted it. FFX alone wouldn't have been enough for me to get a PS2, but FFX and MGS2 pretty much did, and again, I don't mind admitting it. Like I said yesterday, games are a hobby, meant to be enjoyed, and there's nothing wrong with sticking to proven winners. That might lead to a situation where some legitimate new systems and games get overlooked, but I'd like to think that just encourages innovation - newbies have to keep pushing until they're so good that nobody can overlook them, and that's how they make their mark.
| Playing the odds |
| Yo Chris,
I can't really speak for other gamers, but whenever I buy a system, I base it
off of how well I think it will do. I never bought a Dreamcast because I
knew it wouldn't last very long. There have been very few games for the DC
that are uttered in the same breath as MGS or Zelda, so I don't feel like
I've missed out on much. If I have, that game or the sequel will probably
end up on the PS2 or Game Cube eventually.
For the same reasons, I won't be buying an Xbox and I can guarantee beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the system will not succeed financially or critically.
The key word that MS is forgetting is "exclusive". Without topnotch
first-party games or huge exclusives, the mighty machine will fall. Also, is
it true how big the Xbox unit is? How does it compare in size to the PS2?
--The Steve, who only made a mistake when choosing the Genesis over the SNES
|
On the other hand, it is possible to be a bit too cautious. I like the Dreamcast, and don't regret anything I've purchased for it. I never got a Genesis, and I've lived to regret it - for the time, the Genesis had a very respectable library of RPGs, action, strategy, and otherwise, and most of those are too obscure to find easily these days. Even if we accept the Dreamcast's death as inevitable, if you avoided purchasing one so you could get a PS2 ASAP, you've missed out on a host of brilliant games while you played SSX until your eyes bled... and that's just not cool.
| The gray mass is ALWAYS right, and don't you forget it! |
| Well, getting my first letter printed on the website really spawned an interest. So here goes.
The majority of people are casual gamers, and they tend to keep to a single console. So, alot of the casual gamers allready owned a PSX and great games were still being released for it when the DC came, and the DC has nothing to compete with against the PSX and it's huge library of award winning titles. And a SEGA machine WAS a risk investment, for the PS2 would come and if it had 1/3 of the great games the PSX had it would blow the DC away.
Now, the gray mass is ALWAYS right, the system that sells the most has the best games at least the majority thinks so. And the gray mass has opinions just as valid as any game reviewers.
So, just because the gray mass doesn't have the same taste as you do I do not think they are wrong and you're right.
So, once again I excuse any spelling or grammatical errors as English is not my native language.
Regards/
Jonas Lindgren
|
There's one phrase in particular here that interests me: "the system that sells the most has the best games." I've been staring at it for a few minutes, trying to figure out how historically accurate it is, and to what extent it's a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Of the top of my head, the clear winners of the last three generations of system wars have been the NES, SNES, and PSX, and few people would disagree that each of those systems had more and better games than their counterparts, although there was often some very good stuff happening on the also-rans. At the moment, the PS2 looks to be the current favorite, although it does not have a better library at the moment than the Dreamcast... but I find it hard to believe that it won't someday.
And that's the crux of the matter. I love my Dreamcast, at the moment I tolerate my PS2, but even in some alternate reality where the Dreamcast got plenty of support here and in Japan, I can't imagine that, when all was said and done, it would really have had a better library than a fully supported PS2. Maybe that's bias on my part, but maybe there's also some truth to the conventional wisdom - people are picking systems because of the public buzz, but perhaps the public buzz is also right, at least about the big things.
| Not that narrow minded, except about Microsoft |
| I think Matt is absolutely right. One of my best friends is exactly that way. He has never played a Dreamcast and he never hesitates to say that it sucks. He actually says Sega sucks. He wants a Playstation 2 and he says Playstation 2 rocks but he's played it maybe once and when I ask him specifically WHY it rocks he can only say "Because its Playstation 2.²
I'm not that narrow minded. I am the proud owner of every home console since the NES and original Sega (all in great working order may I add), but I'm just not excited about the X Box. This is for 3 reasons.
1. Nothing that they have excites me in the least. (Including Oddworld and Halo)
2. Nothing that they had at E3 excited me in the least.
3. Its Microsoft.
The last one may sound a bit harsh but I refuse to fund Bill Gates little jaunt into the home console race without him having some KILLER apps. Microsoft, like Sony, is a multi million dollar operation that could be doing just as good without home consoles, where as Sega and Nintendo came in and rebuilt the whole console gaming industry after Atari collapsed upon itself. Not only that but its in my personal belief that Nintendo as a company cares more about games than Sony or Microsoft as they've historically given their console the most first party support. Hell with the N64 they basically supported it on their own. They're not like Sony who goes in and does a game every once in a while for the system or Microsoft who will most likely port most of their 1st party support from the PC. Nintendo has 3 development houses IN the company and a host of second party development houses. Its the company thatıs BUILT around games and not pursuing the industry as an extra source of money.
So I'm a little biased. I still bought a Sony Playstation and I will have a Gamecube and GBA. My outlook on the console war was for the consumer not to get involved. I think missing out on a game experience just because you don't like the company is your loss more than the companyıs.. Still with Microsoft just coming in I've changed my tune.
First time responder Clarence Brown III
P.S. I'm still not worried about the X Box. I work in the technology industry and the people fighting over Windows/Linux operating systems are just as bad as people fighting over consoles. People who like Windows are reading about the X Box and coming in droves.. I've seen them. Itıs scary indeed. The talk of X Box LAN parties frightens me. Microsoft brings their own groupies into the game, that is those rabid Windows supporters. There are going to be more people playing consoles in this generation. While we may know that the X Box isn't all that its cracked up to be the PC people still believe the hype. "DUDE IT HAS A GEFORCE CARD IN IT". It breaks my heart but we just have to live with it. A lot of PC gamers will be invading console fandom and they'll be buying on what they know.. Hardware stats.
|
And lastly we get into the trickiest aspect of public opinion, the fuzzy war of corporate perception. The big companies have their own feel and their own corporate philosophies, public and private, and the question is, to what extent do those philosophies really effect the games you end up playing. Nintendo does have more of a warm fuzzy image when it comes to how they seem to see games: they're an unmatched first party developer, and every gamer on earth owes them a debt of gratitude for bringing things back with the NES. But there's plenty of evidence that they play hardball as well, and that they're as concerned with profit as the next guy: take a look at their third party licensing agreements sometime.
Sony, on the other hand, has always seemed somewhat grey and colorless as a developer, but they've done a great job of collecting third party developers and making an environment where everyone can thrive. More than that, it might be argued that their lack of the type of paternalism Nintendo often displayed left the field open for entire new genres that might never have shown up on a brighter, cheerier Nintendo system, such as survival horror.
So the question is, how does this tie in to Microsoft? Although few people like them and the conventional public wisdom says they're DOA, cooler heads might notice that the PC-like XBox is still easier and cheaper to develop for than standard consoles, especially for American developers. In the PC world, few people really like Windows, but it's generally understood that if you want to make serious money, you've got to develop for them. Game developers have their own conventional wisdom, and a lot of companies that wouldn't mind turning their back on Sega might want to hedge their bets by going with Microsoft. And truthfully, that's all Microsoft needs - a few sales, a few developers to survive for a few years, and live to fight again in the next, slightly improved generation. Microsoft might not seem like nice people, or even particularly worthwhile at the moment, but perhaps, in this case, public perception isn't what's going to make the difference.
Closing Comments:
All of today's letters were on topic, so I need to balance that out with some randomness. So no topic tomorrow, see you then.
-Chris Jones, paying the bills with his mad programming skills
|
