Sorry this is too big (that's what she said). Just open the picture in a new tab to see the whole thing <3
SteamID & XBL Gamertag: ScottyGrayskull
Bit about me. I've been a gamer for the most of my life. When I was seven and waiting for my parents to pick me up from piano lessons, the teacher's two sons showed me Super Mario Bros 2. Needless to say I never learned to play the piano very well...
I've flip-flopped several times between consoles and PCs. I generally love non-generic FPS games, puzzlers (Tetris is probably my favourite game of all time) and platformers of all shapes and sizes. I tolerate RPGs, but usually don't bother because I just don't have the time to invest in them.
I'm one of those freaks that regard FF7 and Ocarina of Time as merely average. That might be partly because I'm biased against the first round of 3D games that generally looked and played like crap compared to the 2d games at the time (during that generation I was a PC gamer, where they actually could do decent 3D at the time). By no means are they bad games, but plenty of games have done just as well and actually looked good in the process.
Yeah yeah, graphics aren't everything. But as important as gameplay is, looks still matter. It doesn't have to be the best looking thing around, but it at least has to be passable.
I tried to be a collector for awhile, but realized there was no market where I lived and gave that up. Currently I have an NES, SNES, GameBoy/GameBoy Colour/GameBoy Advance SP, DS, a 360, and of course my lovely gaming PC. ^_^
This is in response to Jonathan Holmes' latest Talking to Women About Video Games, in which he addresses online passes for Uncharted 3 and wonders why people would be upset about such a thing. He then goes on to question whether such people are even real gamers.
First off, if the accompanying article wasn't there, these videos wouldn't make much sense. The impression I get from watching these is that Jonathan Holmes portrays a raging gamer, which I assume he thinks is anybody who doesn't agree with his stance? And then this raging gamer needs to be humbled by a woman, who in this case also has the gall to challenge their hobby? If I'm wrong, than what's the point of these videos and what's actually being discussed?
I'm going to maintain the stance that online passes should be fought all the way to the end. This isn't even specifically about online passes, but it's about the simple fact that a dev/publisher should never be charging us for stuff that they used to give away for free. The apathetic stance some people want to take is why we have ingame advertising. It's why we had achievements in Alan Wake for being advertised at. It's why we had an unskippable advertisement in Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit. It's why we have day one DLC that is on the disc. It's why we have to pay a fee for the privilege of paying a fee to download DLC if we dared to buy Mass Effect 2 used. It is why there are day one patches because out of the box a game is broken to the point that it is unplayable like with Rage. It is why we're being charged in this particular case for multiplayer on a service whose biggest selling point over its competitor was that it has FREE online multiplayer.
Honestly, what's to stop devs from saying "You want to see the single player ending? You should have bought it new! Now give us another $20 for the privilege!". Why does "online pass" have to refer to just online multiplayer? Maybe it means you have to be always connected some custom online service that sells your personal information to sketchy third parties if you want to play even the single player of Uncharted 3. You probably think that's ludicrous but I'm sure if I talked to gamers years ago about all the other stuff I mentioned they'd think I'm insane because of course companies would never do that. You dismiss online passes now because you don't care about the online multiplayer, but I can guarantee eventually they'll touch on something you consider important, and you won't appreciate being told to just suck it up and take it.
As consumers we can never give companies an inch, ever, because they will always take a mile. If they want more money then they need to innovate and sell us new stuff, not just claw back stuff they previously gave out for free and start charging for it. If making games costs so damn much right now, maybe they should be looking inward and making the process of making a game more efficient rather than just passing the buck onto the consumer as they release buggy game after incomplete game. I can not stress this enough. Even just within gaming there are way too many corporations that are too large and bloated for their own good, and efficiency is down the toilet. I don't care what game you're making, if it costs you scores of millions and hundreds upon hundreds of people to make, maybe you should be figuring out how to make that process more efficient rather than bragging about your costs and then complaining about how used game sales are bankrupting your company.
Being a gamer isn't bending over, spreading and letting your favourite companies take as much as they want from you. Refusing to do that isn't "grumpy principle". If anything, that apathetic attitude you're putting on display means you're the worst kind of gamer and the worst kind of consumer: the blind fanboy that'll just accept anything from a company and tell off anybody who dares question your opinion. Only difference with you is that you're calmer and more well spoken about it, and can get women to make your point for you.
Now let me get into the actual article. Firstly.. of course everybody who plays video games is a gamer. How dare you take that elitist posturing stance about "oh, well clearly you're not as much of a gamer as I am because you're complaining about having your consumer rights slowly stripped away from you by greedy and bloated corporations, hohoho". How can you praise Nintendogs, one of the games often cited by people who want to segregate who is a "true gamer" and who is just a "casual gamer", and then say to anybody "are you really a "gamer"?". Everything you're saying in this article sounds as silly as when someone states their opinion on what a "real gamer" is.
There's no kinds of gamers! We're all gamers. And besides, this isn't about who is a gamer and who isn't. This is about being a consumer and not letting companies take advantage of you. Even if it's just taking the time to input a code because you always buy a game new, that is still something being taken away from you and as a consumer who allegedly cares about this industry you should be furious about anything that is taken away from you. I say it again, if companies are so cash strapped they should be selling you NEW things, not making you pay for things you used to get for free or for cheaper, whether it be in money or in time. And for you to have the gall to tell anybody what they can and can't like, and that they should consider not playing games anymore because they dare to challenge corporations who most certainly don't have your best interests at heart, makes the worst kind of consumer. Companies LOVE you! You are exactly what they want: you are okay with everything they do and don't question them at all, instead turning against your fellow consumers who just don't want to be exploited.
I know it's a losing battle, just as it was with everything else I mentioned. The market clearly wants to be nickel and dimed to death, have advertising and marketing destroy anything that was once innocent and just simply fun, have all sense of individuality and solitude in gaming eroded, and innovation stunted to the point you'd think it's going backwards. I will still fight this though and I will always fight this, because I love games and the gaming industry just that much. Because I remember a time when the market was new and innovation was rampant, and everything was so shiny and cool. And the primary motivator in making a game in most cases wasn't just making a franchise for maximum profits, it was about making a entertaining experience. Maybe that's all just rose tinted glasses though, but I still hope that naive time can be experienced again. Because from where I stand reading things like your article Jonathan Holmes, it is not looking good.