I don't read a lot of video game articles, comments, and so forth, in fact it wasn't until this week that I began really delving into the world of video game journalism, the media, and people who contribute to it. I mean, I LOVE video games, naturally, but I've never really embedded myself in the hysteria so fully as I have this week.
It's ridiculously entertaining to be honest. Video games are such a diverse and growing medium so full of varying points of view and varying ideologies for what games should be. It's like being in Paris in the 1890s, well, that's an insult to Renoir, but well, maybe there is some truth in that.
The ideology I don't understand is how it comes to be that some people can be so incredibly invested in the companies and games that are released. I'm not talking mere excitement here but full on hysteria bordering on unhealthy obsession.
Before I go any further, I want to reiterate that I fucking LOVE video games, so don't go any further in labeling me as someone who just doesn't get it. I do get it, this shit is awesome, but I think a lot of fans need to take a step back from the medium and reevaluate the amount of faith they put in these games and their developers.
A game company is simply a massive corporation that finds out what sells and then offers it. It has no stake in your well being, is largely unconcerned with artistic credibility, creatively pushing any envelopes, or doing anything other than making sure they have enough money to develop another game. Of course, we have exceptions, but even then it's a long shot. So I can't understand how anyone could so vehemently defend a game, series, or company? You're an individual, not a spokesperson for these multi-billion dollar corporations. Trust me, they have their own people for that sort of thing.
Artistic growth is not dependent on making sure mega billion dollar companies survive or blindly praising the latest and greatest sequel because the advertising bonanza and all of your friend's opinions are so hard to resist. It's about always questioning the status quo, about expecting more out of the medium, and of course, enjoying it a hell of a lot every so often.
I propose that in the future when someone says a word that you don't' like about your favorite game, series, what have you, don't flippantly curse them out and storm off, try to take a moment to consider what they are saying, where they are coming from, and perhaps through mutual understanding you can gain a better appreciation for this fantastic art form and perhaps even begin to expect more from it. We need healthy discussion in this industry and among it's consumers, not soldier's defending the honor of a mega corporation that could likely care less about you - as an individual.
Of course, I'll try to do the same.
|
EricBlair's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
I much prefer games that use tried and tested things. Like Resident Evil 4. Did almost nothing new, but did it all so well that anyone could pick it up and really enjoy it. Anyone into games anyway. Or horror.
You are not your bank account.
You are not the clothes you wear.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your bowel cancer.
You are not your grande latte.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not your fucking khakis.
Yeah, it took me perhaps too long but I can open my mind up enough to at least listen to someone else's opinion and have a civil discussion that tends to end well. Though talk shit about Final Fantasy III (VI, whatever) and you and I are having words.
Huh??? I think that game publishers tend to think this way much more than game developers. I think developers by nature tend to be creative and often push to offer something new, something different. COD:Modern Warfare was certainly a "risk" at the time for the series and the devs (IW) pushed for it because they were tired of creating World War 1/2 games. For sequels the devs walk a fine line of appeasing fans while still trying to be creative - a tough job they don't always succeed at.
... a lot of those "million dollar" games are quite risky. I'm sure that Insomniac had some nightmares when creating the first Resistance game. Yes, it was a shooter... but with wild and crazy Ratchet and Clank type weaponry, all done in a sepia toned artistic version of an alternative past. It could have been a massive flop.
Meh... there is artistry and inventiveness in many games. It's not just Indie games. Then again, some games are crap - both big budget and Indie games, though it's a lot easier to hide the Indie game failures.
I think its interesting that tons of c-blogs get written about new games shortly after release, or a review is written and they are largely ignored.
The reason people become "invested" in gaming companies is because the gaming companies provide them with consistent entertainment and pleasure. It's like a mild, safer version of addiction.
Our base instincts tell us to do what feels good, and avoid what feels bad. This doesn't take into consideration those that find pleasure in pain, but that's another debate for another day.
So, if you break it down to simple terms, video games make us feel good. If you give someone a kiss, and it was good, they will associate good kisses with you and may only want them from you. They become your ally, so to speak. They would defend you from any harm and negativity, because that's what we do.
Negativity causes pain, and we wish to avoid pain and watching loved ones suffer.
So Square releases many games that make you feel good, that some people get to the point where they are so content, that they can look past obvious flaws and see the "diamond in the rough" of anything Square does. This company has provided so much good entertainment, that even if they start releasing sub-par games, the gamer tries their best to appreciate anything they could about the game.
From what I gather on humanity, they like pleasure, and they like sharing pleasure with those around them in hopes of bringing pleasure to others, and creating/strengthening bonds between individuals. When you and your friend buy the same sub at Subway, you enjoy it, and he hates it, it creates a bit of tension.
Your first instinct might be "But I like it, how could anyone not like it?". I don't know, I'm not you. That would be my first instinct I suppose.
A Game publisher is most likely just in it for the money, such as Activision. Game developers like Infinity Ward are the ones who actually put the game together. They create the experience that either causes pleasure or pain. It's like a musician most likely can't publish their own music, they need a business-person to handle it, and the business-person may or may not actually give a fuck what people want. They might just want the money.
Artistic growth is dependent on people doing what they are already doing. They find things they like, they talk negativity about things they dislike, and they get together and become a symphony of different instruments all playing different notes. The actual artist then chooses to listen to certain instruments and either refine their work or continue making it how they want. Artistic growth depends on people doing what they do best. Discussing.
Not everyone flips out and attacks the person for hating a game. Sure, there might be swearing, but those are just words. The problem arises when people start labeling another whenever they disagree. You call people who defend a game company a "Spokesperson". In my opinion, this is a part of the problem, the subconscious urge to label people for what they do. We all do it.
I don't know what kind of people you talk to, but I gain quite a bit of data from listening to people do what they do. As far as I'm concerned, all discussions on the internet are "healthy" until it gets to the point of personal attack and/or labeling. But even then, all the conversation does is shift from the opinion of the game, to the opinion of the reviewer, and to the opinions of anyone else willing to type a few letters into a box.
I propose that you don't propose a pipe dream. If all of us did what you asked, then none of us would really be "us". We are the end result of everything we do, say, and everything that happens around us. We are the "Sum of our parts". A person is a person, 2 people combine to become friends/lovers/enemies. Many people combine to make families, friendships, groups, gangs, clans, towns, cities, states, countries, and ultimately humanity as a whole.
I propose that we keep moving forward, and if it gets to the point where it becomes intolerable for everyone, then we get together and discuss it.
Just my opinion.