User Blog: Where are all the real gamers?

Date: 25 Jan 2010

I've started to lose a lot of faith in what I consider to be the "gaming community". I know that might shock or even offend you, but that's the straight truth. So what's got me all hot and bothered now? Well, it's simple. I'm tired of gamers as it stands. It seems like more and more we're focusing on putting rigid standards on what a video game should be, and holding video games with a level of expectation that is absurdly grandiose.

Now I don't mind video game reviewers to see a good game and point out all of its selling points, or hell, even hold the successors to those standards, but what I've been seeing a lot of is what I call "blanket reviewing". It happens all the time, especially with the Wii.

It's hard to not see the Wii's flaws when you take a game from either the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 and then port it over to the Wii. Take a look at Dead Rising: Chop 'Til You Drop, or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Reflex. It's almost impossible to not be able to look at the game then with a level of bias.

But it's become too much. Every game reviewer I've seen, whether commercial, amateur, even my own friends, have a checklist of things they absolutely need in a video game. Some of the more popular items I'd place on the list include:

- Graphics
- Network Play
- "Replayability"
- Violent Content

Graphics is the easiest to talk about. Sure, High Definition looks beautiful. It's crack for your eyes. I wouldn't see a video game now produced with PSX graphics and go, "MASTERPIECE!" but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to rule out games. There are many reasons why game developers would choose to have different styles of visuals. It could be as simple as budgeting issues, or the developer felt that the gamer needed to become more immersed in other aspects of the game. Whatever it is, I'm just tired of hearing blatant unabashed insults being thrown around just because a video game isn't the next Gears of War. We get it. Graphics are important. But there's something you might not get: THEY AREN'T EVERYTHING.

1 2 3 4

View Comments (4)

Okay I agree with most of what you're saying here. Graphics- luxury but not necessary. Look at classics like Mario and Pac-Man. Network Play is important to an extent. If the game's big selling point is it's multiplayer, Network Play is rather important don't you think? If a game is good the first time through it does have a level of replayability, but not enough to hold a player over until the next triple a title comes out. Games cost $60 a pop, don't you feel like there should be a reason to play through more than once. Not necessarily a whole new storyline for the next playthrough, but being able to get to loot you couldn't before. Playing through with a more powerful weapon to make you feel even more badass than the first time through. I don't think violent content should be factored in as much as the actual mechanics themselves. If there is a game that has overly complex controls that are more difficult than it is worth to learn then that hinders the overall experience. However if mastering the controls is worthwhile, like in Street Fighter games, then it could potentially help.

Posted by Chris Farley on 21 May 2011 04:21

Oh I completely agree. Its easily remedied and will be so the more time goes on I hope. Gamers, the more hardcore ones at least, tend to be pretty smart compared to other media consumers. You don't see awful games making 50 million like with some movies.

Posted by Jon Martindale on 25 February 2010 17:37

I definitely see a lot of that. In fact, there was an article in GameInformer magazine where they spoke about how too many game development companies are focusing on what scores they receive on metacritic and use that to determine whether or not a sequel should be made.

I also see the potential problems that come from developers trying to jump onto the sandbox game bandwagon and simply not provide enough content to support a decision, but when push comes to shove I think that in the end gamers of all age ranges and styles would rather a game have more freedom than too much restriction. A simple remedy to something like a game with too much free choice is to provide a compass and point at your next objective like in Borderlands or Fallout 3. That way you can still explore to your heart's content but when and if you get lost you can always refer to that to bring you back to the main storyline content.

Posted by Robert Gonzalez on 1 February 2010 19:42

Nice read Rob. I'd definately agree with you on most of these points. However, one additional/slightly counter point I would make to yours, is that certain games tend to skate to better reviews than they should, simply because of one specific feature. Thankfully we seem to be exiting the time when graphics were the be all and end all, though like you said its still prevalent in some cases. I think though now, we're looking at "problems" in other areas. Overly
free choice games, sandbox titles that have no direction; that'sare the next big problem with gaming.

Posted by Jon Martindale on 1 February 2010 17:16

Name (required):

Email (required, will not be shown):

Comment:

Leave a Comment

View Comments (4)

Featured News