How many of us buy with the hopes of a long future with our toys, only to be stuck holding the Super Scope 6?
I'm a long-time advocate of the idea that being a good fan means knowing the flaws of what you love. Television networks cancel a long-running television series for a reason. Your your favorite musician doesn’t sound as good as he did when you initially "discovered" him in your high-school days for good reason, too.
In gaming, I've noticed this growing divide between fans and journalists. Oddly enough, this is where little blogs and people like yours truly come in handy. Doesn't it hurt when you read a review that didn’t "get it" right? It's aggravating to see a message board full of sausage fingers speak ill of something you hold so dear.
Take a deep breath and hold my hand. What is this separation growing between developer, journalist, and gamer? Is this divide even necessary?
We tend to take our thousand-dollar-a-year hobby very seriously — almost to the point of losing focus in the face of an opposing viewpoint. This year is no different from any other. With the burgeoning movement of motion-control devices (no pun intended), gamers feel the need to pick a side and support their investment of choice, which is completely natural and even logical.
Here we see Kaz Hirai, CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., holding either one of the greatest achievements in gaming technology or a glowing paper weight.
I love that games may — by proxy — influence advancements in how we consume media and communicate with others as a whole. Tools like Microsoft’s Kinect and Sony’s Move could be huge in the medical field as far as studying kinesiology and mobility issues of the physically impaired. This "picking a side" itch we have to scratch will fade in 10 years (if that) when everyone sees and benefits from the potential good from these devices.
But what happens if all (or a majority) of this is negative for gaming? What happens if the 3D our eyes imbibe in theaters and eventually in our homes carries a penalty? Not so much in the vein of long-term health issues (which could very well be a risk), but this now novel option becoming a mandatory drain on developer and consumer resources. I’d like to think I am not alone in this feeling of trepidation. But this point illustrates that I too feel that my dollar is valuable and no smooth-talking company will to con me. And so the divide grows.
This feeling of insecurity is a two-way street. Hydrophobia's recent news made clear that developers are just as protective as gamers when it comes to this worldwide culture. The fact that we still live in an age where a bad review warrants a journalist to get a phone call because "he wasn’t playing it correctly" gives me an uneasy feeling. On the flipside, it's sad to see a glowing review given a score that doesn’t reflect the text itself. Example: "Game X is experimental. The story is amazing and the overall game was fun, but the controls could have been better. Score: D."
Instead of making news through gameplay analyses, readers only notice Hydrophobia through the conflicts between certain journalists and the developers.
While we tip-toe around the topic of being responsible and respectful, read Peter C’s article on TheSixthAxis about the responsibility of critics and game journalists. He illustrates excellent points of how varying the voice of journalists can be and why it's discouraging to fans who value their opinions. The one vital flaw with Peter’s article is that he boldly states:
“I spent some time with the developers the week before release so that I could see how the studio worked, what they were working on and how they were gearing up for their game’s release.”
Peter visited Dark Energy Digital, palled around with the small company, and wrote a review for Hydrophobia a week later — a review that admitted faults but was majorly positive. If you call out the gaming press, be sure you practice what you preach. Journalists have no reason to hang around a development studio for a game they cover. I’m sorry, it's just how I feel. In this case, developer and journalist should have a clear divide.
Maybe this is a common practice? I always hear of journalists venturing to some far-off exotic locale in order to sit in a hotel room with a public relations rep to fully experience their latest product — a product that you and I fight tooth and nail over on gaming sites and message boards trying to prove its worth. Funny, I haven’t received an invite yet.
But now i'll turn to Tom Chick’s review of Civilization 5. Personally, I thought Chick was spot on and that his C score further echoed his main idea. I expected the outcry of forum posters on 1UP, but to see Twitter explode with gossip of Chick’s “link baiting” and “1UP’s desperation” seems to have introduced a new wave of instant-gratification rabble-rousers. I have yet to see a non-fan of Civ 5 complain about the article.
This is the neo-age of justifying our purchases one left-click at a time. No one wants to be the kid at the table holding the Super Scope 6. No one wants to have invested all his time and money in this overly cherished hobby only to be told the flaws.
I try and practice what I preach as well. It's difficult, and this article functions as a reminder for both you and me. When your favorite game you haven’t played yet comes out and receives negative comments and reviews, remember that you are an impulsive person who occasionally can’t help yourself when a keyboard is in front of you. Instead, punch a pillow as hard as you can; put your most hated developer or journalist on it. Trust me — it helps.
Also, grow up.
Author’s note: I would have loved to put the Fallout: New Vegas review controversy in this article, but I couldn’t get enough sources to back up Bethesda’s shady dealing…oh wait. Screw it.
Brought to you by The Brog.