Let's check a trend, shall we?
Gamerankings scores by series, from old to new
Super Mario World: 96.7
Super Mario 64: 95.7
Super Mario Sunshine: 91.5
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 97.5
Sonic Adventure: 87.2
Sonic Heroes: 74.4 (highest; xbox version)
Sonic and the Secret Rings: 70.8
Sonic the Hedgehog 2006: 46.2 (highest; xbox 360 version)
Soul Calibur: 96.4
Soul Calibur 2: 92.5 (highest; Gamecube version)
Soul Calibur 3: 86.5
Star Fox: 85.8
Star Fox 64: 89.8
Star Fox Assault: 70.8
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2: 94.9 (highest; Dreamcast version)
Tony Hawk's Underground: 90.9 (highest; PS2 version)
Tony Hawk's Project 8: 82 (highest; Xbox 360 version)
Pokemon Blue: 88.3
Pokemon Silver: 91.1
Pokemon Ruby: 83.8
Pokemon Diamond: 84.8
Notice the trend? Each new generation nets lower and lower scores for these popular franchises. Pokemon is the exception; we'll get to that later. Now think about this: New Super Mario Bros. and Sonic Rush were hailed for sticking to the roots of their franchises.
New technology creates great new opportunities. Sometimes they can be beneficial, like the jump to 3D in Super Mario 64 (one of the most popular in the series even though it didn't score as high as Super Mario World); other times it can be harmful, like touch screen control for Super Mario 64 DS. However, Super Mario 64 was a rare case. Generally, straying too far from a franchise's roots is not a good thing. On the flip side, staying too close to its roots hurt Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Still, because they didn't change drastically, the games got higher review scores than Sonic the Hedgehog, Tony Hawk's Project 8, and Star Fox Assault.
I also want to point out that Pokemon Silver and Star Fox 64 did better than their predecessors. These two games didn't add anything drastically new to their series', but they made use of new technology for strong benefits: Star Fox 64 got detailed, true 3D graphics and Pokemon Silver got color. That seems to be the best way to implement new technology.
Friday, June 8, 2007
A Gamer's Suggestions
I'm not an expert in business no matter how you slice it, but I am an expert in video games. On that note, I'm going to look at the biggest problem plaguing each console maker right now and give my thoughts on them. You may think it's pointless, and it may be, but I have a pretty good track record with video game-related predictions.
Sony's problem is obvious: people do not want to pay 600 dollars for a video game console. Sony's attempts to counter this problem are certainly true; it is cheap for a Blu-ray player, and it certainly does have the potential to last a long time. The problem is that the average consumer doesn't read gaming news sites and doesn't think about these benefits. The average consumer just sees a 600 dollar video game console. If a price cut is not economically viable for Sony right now, they should bring their defense to the public somehow. If they can dissuade the average consumer from seeing nothing but a 600 dollar game console, they might be more successful.
Nintendo's problem doesn't lie with the average consumer, but with the hardcore gamers. Now, I'm a hardcore gamer and I absolutely love my Wii, so I don't really agree with these concerns, but they certainly exist. On that note, Nintendo needs more hardcore games to snag the hardcore gamers. I suggest they get a move on with Project H.A.M.M.E.R. and Metroid Prime 3. They're certainly getting started, but they need to pick it up.
Microsoft is doing great in North America, and pretty good in Europe, but it's lacking in Japan. Japanese gamers like RPGs, plain and simple. When popular Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu polled its readers to get the top 10 video games of all time just a couple years ago, the only game on the list not made by RPG giant Square-Enix (or one of its two parts) was The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time at number 10. So Microsoft needs more RPGs to snag Japan. Blue Dragon was good, but they need more. Microsoft, keep working with publishers.
Sony's problem is obvious: people do not want to pay 600 dollars for a video game console. Sony's attempts to counter this problem are certainly true; it is cheap for a Blu-ray player, and it certainly does have the potential to last a long time. The problem is that the average consumer doesn't read gaming news sites and doesn't think about these benefits. The average consumer just sees a 600 dollar video game console. If a price cut is not economically viable for Sony right now, they should bring their defense to the public somehow. If they can dissuade the average consumer from seeing nothing but a 600 dollar game console, they might be more successful.
Nintendo's problem doesn't lie with the average consumer, but with the hardcore gamers. Now, I'm a hardcore gamer and I absolutely love my Wii, so I don't really agree with these concerns, but they certainly exist. On that note, Nintendo needs more hardcore games to snag the hardcore gamers. I suggest they get a move on with Project H.A.M.M.E.R. and Metroid Prime 3. They're certainly getting started, but they need to pick it up.
Microsoft is doing great in North America, and pretty good in Europe, but it's lacking in Japan. Japanese gamers like RPGs, plain and simple. When popular Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu polled its readers to get the top 10 video games of all time just a couple years ago, the only game on the list not made by RPG giant Square-Enix (or one of its two parts) was The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time at number 10. So Microsoft needs more RPGs to snag Japan. Blue Dragon was good, but they need more. Microsoft, keep working with publishers.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Video Game Companies can Learn from Comic Companies
Competition is at the very heart of capitalism. We as gamers should be glad that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are trying to beat each other because that ensures we'll get the highest quality gaming experience. The problem is, sometimes the competition goes beyond the realm of business. Gamers are certainly more responsible for the console wars problem than the game companies, but representatives of the Big Three make comments that don't exactly help matters.
They're totally different from another well-known set of rivals: Marvel and DC Comics. Probably the two biggest comic book companies around, they are in fierce competition for readership. But there's no bad blood between them; in fact, they often publish cross-overs featuring characters owned by both companies. Now imagine the video game equivalent of that: an official, retail-sold game featuring Mario, Master Chief, and Kratos. Ok, I'll give you a second to stop laughing.
It's preposterous, of course; Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft would NEVER work together like that. But why not? Why are video game companies so different from comic companies? Why is it that Link will never meet Jak or Kameo, but Superman has met Spiderman at least twice?
Maybe crossovers are taking it a little too far; baby steps at first, right? So here's a challenge to the Big Three: try being friendlier with each other. Poke fun at each other playfully. Bungie, a second-party developer for Microsoft, has provided a good example. When Shigeru Miyamoto said he could have made a game like Halo but decided on a different path, many people, including people at Bungie, took the comment as Shiggy dismissing Halo's quality and success. I don't think that's what he meant at all; Reggie is the only guy at Nintendo who's big on the trash talk. But Bungie responded by saying they're working on a side-scrolling game featuring two brothers who are plumbers. That's a friendly jab; it's a good start.
Who knows; if the Big Three start playing nice with each other, we may see a day when the "console wars" don't matter. Who knows; we may even see Ratchet and Joanna Dark in a future Super Smash Bros. game.
They're totally different from another well-known set of rivals: Marvel and DC Comics. Probably the two biggest comic book companies around, they are in fierce competition for readership. But there's no bad blood between them; in fact, they often publish cross-overs featuring characters owned by both companies. Now imagine the video game equivalent of that: an official, retail-sold game featuring Mario, Master Chief, and Kratos. Ok, I'll give you a second to stop laughing.
It's preposterous, of course; Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft would NEVER work together like that. But why not? Why are video game companies so different from comic companies? Why is it that Link will never meet Jak or Kameo, but Superman has met Spiderman at least twice?
Maybe crossovers are taking it a little too far; baby steps at first, right? So here's a challenge to the Big Three: try being friendlier with each other. Poke fun at each other playfully. Bungie, a second-party developer for Microsoft, has provided a good example. When Shigeru Miyamoto said he could have made a game like Halo but decided on a different path, many people, including people at Bungie, took the comment as Shiggy dismissing Halo's quality and success. I don't think that's what he meant at all; Reggie is the only guy at Nintendo who's big on the trash talk. But Bungie responded by saying they're working on a side-scrolling game featuring two brothers who are plumbers. That's a friendly jab; it's a good start.
Who knows; if the Big Three start playing nice with each other, we may see a day when the "console wars" don't matter. Who knows; we may even see Ratchet and Joanna Dark in a future Super Smash Bros. game.
Fortune Faded
First of all, for those who didn't know, "Fortune Faded" is the name of a song by Red Hot Chili Peppers.
The gaming world has, or at least its blog comments and message boards have, been filled with talk about the cover of a recent issue of Fortune magazine. The cover shows a silhouette of a hand holding a Wii Remote with the words "How Wii Won". Needless to say, many gamers are outraged, as the console wars are not over yet (in fact, they've just begun). As you know if you've been reading this blog, I'm against "console wars" anyway, but I agree that it's way too early, as far as gamers are concerned, to declare a winner.
But as far as Fortune is concerned, the timing is perfect. Gamers shouldn't get mad or excited about what Fortune says, because Fortune is not a gaming magazine. Fortune doesn't cover games, features, or variety; they cover business. And from a business standpoint, Wii certainly is the winner. That doesn't mean it will sell the most consoles or have the best games; again, Fortune doesn't care about that. They care that Wii is cheap to produce, selling well, and netting Nintendo a profit for each system sold. The way Fortune is looking at it, what they're saying is totally true.
Don't look at the Fortune cover as the magazine's view on the console wars as gamers know them, because that's not what it's saying.
The gaming world has, or at least its blog comments and message boards have, been filled with talk about the cover of a recent issue of Fortune magazine. The cover shows a silhouette of a hand holding a Wii Remote with the words "How Wii Won". Needless to say, many gamers are outraged, as the console wars are not over yet (in fact, they've just begun). As you know if you've been reading this blog, I'm against "console wars" anyway, but I agree that it's way too early, as far as gamers are concerned, to declare a winner.
But as far as Fortune is concerned, the timing is perfect. Gamers shouldn't get mad or excited about what Fortune says, because Fortune is not a gaming magazine. Fortune doesn't cover games, features, or variety; they cover business. And from a business standpoint, Wii certainly is the winner. That doesn't mean it will sell the most consoles or have the best games; again, Fortune doesn't care about that. They care that Wii is cheap to produce, selling well, and netting Nintendo a profit for each system sold. The way Fortune is looking at it, what they're saying is totally true.
Don't look at the Fortune cover as the magazine's view on the console wars as gamers know them, because that's not what it's saying.
Add-ons Never Win
It is completely against the point of this blog for me to defend one video game company over another under normal circumstances. However, I've been hearing something a lot that is severely unfair to one such company, and unlike with most similar cases, I haven't seen a lot of defense. That's why, in the interest of balance, I'm going to present the reason why I believe the SNES Playstation would have failed.
First, a little background for those who need it. The Playstation was originally the result of Nintendo working with Sony to create a CD add-on for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES). At some point, however, the deal fell through and Sony instead turned Playstation into a new, standalone console themselves. When the Playstation greatly outsold the Nintendo 64, people started forming the conclusion that Nintendo brought its own demise by severing the deal with Sony. They believe that if Nintendo had stuck with it, Sony would not be a competitor and Nintendo would have continued to rule the industry. Now, they reason, Nintendo is paying for its mistake.
But that belief completely contradicts what video game history has told us: add-ons never win. Sega's equivalent of the original Playstation concept, the Sega CD, is a good example. The Sega CD (or Sega Mega CD depending on your region) is known for Sonic CD and a lot of terrible FMV-based games (look up "Night Trap" if you don't know what I mean). Sony's own EyeToy, while successful by peripheral standards, did not sell all that well overall. Nintendo's 64DD, a disk-based add-on for the N64, only came out in Japan and was not even very popular there. Therefore, the odds of the SNES Playstation being a success were pretty low. If nothing else, I think everyone can agree on that point.
So if the SNES Playstation failed, would Sony just give up on video games? Not likely. There is certainly the possibility that Sony would leave the video game business, but with the industry growing at the time, it's not likely. I believe, in the face of the SNES Playstation failing, Sony would decide to make its own console anyway. Sony's a huge company; they could afford the experiment.
Meanwhile, Nintendo is not and has never been "dead." While the N64 and Gamecube didn't sell as well as Sony's counterparts, they sold considerably and crushed their Sega counterparts. With the recent success of the DS and Wii, Nintendo is doing fine. To say Nintendo was dead because Sony's products sold better would be like saying Sony's dead because the PS3 and PSP aren't doing as well as their Nintendo counterparts.
The point is, it's unfair to say that Nintendo acted stupidly in severing its deal with Sony. The deal would probably have been disastrous for Nintendo, and Sony wouldn't give up easily.
First, a little background for those who need it. The Playstation was originally the result of Nintendo working with Sony to create a CD add-on for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES). At some point, however, the deal fell through and Sony instead turned Playstation into a new, standalone console themselves. When the Playstation greatly outsold the Nintendo 64, people started forming the conclusion that Nintendo brought its own demise by severing the deal with Sony. They believe that if Nintendo had stuck with it, Sony would not be a competitor and Nintendo would have continued to rule the industry. Now, they reason, Nintendo is paying for its mistake.
But that belief completely contradicts what video game history has told us: add-ons never win. Sega's equivalent of the original Playstation concept, the Sega CD, is a good example. The Sega CD (or Sega Mega CD depending on your region) is known for Sonic CD and a lot of terrible FMV-based games (look up "Night Trap" if you don't know what I mean). Sony's own EyeToy, while successful by peripheral standards, did not sell all that well overall. Nintendo's 64DD, a disk-based add-on for the N64, only came out in Japan and was not even very popular there. Therefore, the odds of the SNES Playstation being a success were pretty low. If nothing else, I think everyone can agree on that point.
So if the SNES Playstation failed, would Sony just give up on video games? Not likely. There is certainly the possibility that Sony would leave the video game business, but with the industry growing at the time, it's not likely. I believe, in the face of the SNES Playstation failing, Sony would decide to make its own console anyway. Sony's a huge company; they could afford the experiment.
Meanwhile, Nintendo is not and has never been "dead." While the N64 and Gamecube didn't sell as well as Sony's counterparts, they sold considerably and crushed their Sega counterparts. With the recent success of the DS and Wii, Nintendo is doing fine. To say Nintendo was dead because Sony's products sold better would be like saying Sony's dead because the PS3 and PSP aren't doing as well as their Nintendo counterparts.
The point is, it's unfair to say that Nintendo acted stupidly in severing its deal with Sony. The deal would probably have been disastrous for Nintendo, and Sony wouldn't give up easily.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Take Reviews Lightly
I've played a lot of games lately, most of which I've liked. Three recently-played games I enjoyed are particularly notable: Red Steel (Wii), Shadow the Hedgehog (various), and Deep Labyrinth (DS).
Why are they notable? Because they all got awful reviews. If I had let the reviews stop me from trying them, I'd be missing out on a whole lot of fun. True, Shadow and Deep Labyrinth aren't the greatest games out there, but I like them much more than reviewers seem to. As for Red Steel, I absolutely love it.
Even if you disagree with my liking those games, I hope my point is clear: don't let reviews scare you away from a game you think you'll like. If it looks good to you, try it. If you don't want to waste money on a game you might not like, I reccommend Gamefly; it's a great value. You've got very little to lose. And if you're sure you'll like a game despite what reviews say, just buy it; that's what I did with Red Steel, and I don't regret it at all.
Similarly, don't waste money on a game that doesn't appeal to you just because it gets good reviews. I never had much interest in Final Fantasy VII, but since everyone raves about it, I decided to give it a try. The result? I absolutely hated it. Don't get me wrong; it's good to try games outside your normal favorites, but don't rush out to buy a game just because it's greatly hyped.
Reviews are ultimately one person's opinion, and even if reviewers do their best to take an objective look at a game, it's impossible for them to take every gamer's tastes into account. Nobody has a better idea of what you'll like than you do, so if you think you're going to like a game, give it a try.
Here's a good example of reviews not reflecting the average gamer: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon got awful reviews from pretty much every source, but it sold extremely well. On the flip side, Psychonauts got excellent reviews but did not sell as well as one would think. I enjoyed both games (Psychonauts more than PMD), and I played them before hearing any reviews or reading any sales stats.
So clearly, reviews aren't always right. Trust yourself, and you'll get the most out of your gaming experience.
Why are they notable? Because they all got awful reviews. If I had let the reviews stop me from trying them, I'd be missing out on a whole lot of fun. True, Shadow and Deep Labyrinth aren't the greatest games out there, but I like them much more than reviewers seem to. As for Red Steel, I absolutely love it.
Even if you disagree with my liking those games, I hope my point is clear: don't let reviews scare you away from a game you think you'll like. If it looks good to you, try it. If you don't want to waste money on a game you might not like, I reccommend Gamefly; it's a great value. You've got very little to lose. And if you're sure you'll like a game despite what reviews say, just buy it; that's what I did with Red Steel, and I don't regret it at all.
Similarly, don't waste money on a game that doesn't appeal to you just because it gets good reviews. I never had much interest in Final Fantasy VII, but since everyone raves about it, I decided to give it a try. The result? I absolutely hated it. Don't get me wrong; it's good to try games outside your normal favorites, but don't rush out to buy a game just because it's greatly hyped.
Reviews are ultimately one person's opinion, and even if reviewers do their best to take an objective look at a game, it's impossible for them to take every gamer's tastes into account. Nobody has a better idea of what you'll like than you do, so if you think you're going to like a game, give it a try.
Here's a good example of reviews not reflecting the average gamer: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon got awful reviews from pretty much every source, but it sold extremely well. On the flip side, Psychonauts got excellent reviews but did not sell as well as one would think. I enjoyed both games (Psychonauts more than PMD), and I played them before hearing any reviews or reading any sales stats.
So clearly, reviews aren't always right. Trust yourself, and you'll get the most out of your gaming experience.
Sigh...Console Wars Again
Sorry it's been so long; between homework and my new job, I haven't had much time. Since my last post, I've compiled a long list of topics I'd like to cover. But after reading some comments at QJ.net, my gaming news site of choice (despite its average user base), I felt the need to revisit an old topic first. It was originally a comment to an article on QJ about the creator of Folding@Home discussing the possibility of putting the project on the Xbox 360. The article ended with a claim that the noble cause of Folding@Home is "worthy enough to break even the toughest fanboyism." Here's what I had to say:
Regarding the last sentence of this article: sadly, NOTHING is "worthy enough to break even the toughest fanboyism." Want proof? Look at the other comments to this article.
Fanboyism and its brother, the console wars, are more destructive to gamers than Jack Thompson and Uwe Boll combined. They take the fun out of gaming, as we care more about competition than enjoying our games. We as gamers must stop this competitive nonsense before it gets as ridiculous and all-encompassing as the battle between Democrats and Republicans has become to the United States government.
I want to highlight that comparison, because I think it works well. Nowadays, politicians are solely focused on beating the other party. Republicans fire attourneys for disagreeing with the President while Hilary Clinton bullsh*ts to make herself look good and Nancy Polosi is the biggest bitch since...well, since Hilary Clinton. Meanwhile, kids too young to vote who don't even follow the news talk about how the President orchestrated 9/11 while at the same time saying he's too stupid to tie his shoes (apparently harder than orchestrating a massive conspiracy, eh?) and others have the nerve to say the military hospital issue was no big deal. Nobody is using common sense in politics anymore; it's just "us vs. them".
The same thing is happening in gaming, and it has to stop. Forget which system you own and which company you have been supporting for years. Even if you dislike company A for a reason you consider justifiable (i.e., something more reasonable than disliking company A just because you like company B), express it rationally and specifically. You can like and dislike whatever you want, but don't take it to the extremes or you'll just come out sounding stupid.
All the time we spend posting these comments could better be spend playing the very games about which we comment. It's not easy; we can't just make a choice to stop caring about competition unless we have unbelievable willpower. Everybody, especially people who write for gaming media, needs to stop. Because even though I know all the stuff I'm saying is true, I still get drawn in by the artificial prospect of any company failing that this sort of nonsense creates. I posted about this at my blog (unknownwarrior33.blogspot.com) and on MyQJ, and I got some comments from people who agree, so I know there are some of you out there. Please help me spread this message.
And in case any QJ writers are reading this, you guys can have a huge impact on this. Many of your articles mention the console wars and competition, specifically how certain events may affect them, and they also make or mention unnecessary comparisons between systems. For example, in this article, the paragraph asking about why they chose the PS3 was unnecessary. And when reporting on sales charts, you don't have to comment on them. Some of your articles keep neutrality excellently, but others are greatly lacking.
I'm not asking anyone to censor themselves; I'm just asking everyone to tone it down. I'll once again pose the question I posed in my blog entry: if you didn't know anything about the other systems, would you enjoy your system more? If the answer is yes, you know what I'm getting at. It's hard to enjoy system A when comments by writers and other gamers constantly make you second-guess your choice not to support system B. Writers (at QJ and elsewhere) and game company executives (executives at all three console manufacturers have furthered the console wars), if gamers really come first, please stop all the comparisons. Let us make our own choices and enjoy what we have.
That version of my comment was for the masses. This next session is for people like many of my fellow commentors, who go on and on about why one console sucks without even using evidence or, even more basic, proper grammar. Here's what I say to those people: SHUT UP ALREADY! We don't care which console you like. We don't care what genre you prefer. We don't care about your spin on the info we've already heard. We don't care about the tricks and deceptions you think a company uses. Unless you're going to be civil and/or back it up with solid facts or reasoning, we don't want to hear what you have to say. Your comments will not make Nintendo eliminate friend codes, Sony drop the price of the PS3, or Microsoft make online play free. You can state your opinion without turning it into an exercise in mindless bashing.
That's where I ended in my QJ comment, but I'm going to go a step further here and address the people to whom I directed the previous section but who still do not get the point: NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK, YOU MORONS. PLAY THE GAMES YOU WANT TO PLAY, LET US PLAY THE GAMES WE WANT TO PLAY, AND SHUT THE F*** UP ALREADY. You're not going to change anyone's opinion with the b.s. you're spouting, so don't waste your time.
We all have a responsibility. That's why I will never make comparisons between consoles in this blog. Someone might claim I'm a hypocrite because I noted that "Sonic and the Secret Rings" for Wii got higher reviews than "SONIC the Hedgehog" for PS3/360, but those are two completely different games that just happen to be in the same series.
I will make one exception, but for the sake of balance: Wii tends to be bashed the most, but it continues to outsell its competition even despite a shortage of units, so it can't be that bad. I'm not even saying it's a better system; I'm just saying the bashing is disproportionate to the sales. Also note that I gave reasoning, and if anyone wants me to, I can cite specific evidence that it is outselling the competition. Just ask in a comment and I'll give it.
And just in case that's not enough for everyone, I'll say something in defense of the other two systems as well. The PS3 may be expensive, but that hasn't stopped a heck of a lot of people from buying it. And the Xbox Live may not be as interactive or creative as Playstation Home, but its core service is tried-and-true and already has a huge user base.
See? Balance. To all the console bashers out there, try it some time; it's not that hard.
Regarding the last sentence of this article: sadly, NOTHING is "worthy enough to break even the toughest fanboyism." Want proof? Look at the other comments to this article.
Fanboyism and its brother, the console wars, are more destructive to gamers than Jack Thompson and Uwe Boll combined. They take the fun out of gaming, as we care more about competition than enjoying our games. We as gamers must stop this competitive nonsense before it gets as ridiculous and all-encompassing as the battle between Democrats and Republicans has become to the United States government.
I want to highlight that comparison, because I think it works well. Nowadays, politicians are solely focused on beating the other party. Republicans fire attourneys for disagreeing with the President while Hilary Clinton bullsh*ts to make herself look good and Nancy Polosi is the biggest bitch since...well, since Hilary Clinton. Meanwhile, kids too young to vote who don't even follow the news talk about how the President orchestrated 9/11 while at the same time saying he's too stupid to tie his shoes (apparently harder than orchestrating a massive conspiracy, eh?) and others have the nerve to say the military hospital issue was no big deal. Nobody is using common sense in politics anymore; it's just "us vs. them".
The same thing is happening in gaming, and it has to stop. Forget which system you own and which company you have been supporting for years. Even if you dislike company A for a reason you consider justifiable (i.e., something more reasonable than disliking company A just because you like company B), express it rationally and specifically. You can like and dislike whatever you want, but don't take it to the extremes or you'll just come out sounding stupid.
All the time we spend posting these comments could better be spend playing the very games about which we comment. It's not easy; we can't just make a choice to stop caring about competition unless we have unbelievable willpower. Everybody, especially people who write for gaming media, needs to stop. Because even though I know all the stuff I'm saying is true, I still get drawn in by the artificial prospect of any company failing that this sort of nonsense creates. I posted about this at my blog (unknownwarrior33.blogspot.com) and on MyQJ, and I got some comments from people who agree, so I know there are some of you out there. Please help me spread this message.
And in case any QJ writers are reading this, you guys can have a huge impact on this. Many of your articles mention the console wars and competition, specifically how certain events may affect them, and they also make or mention unnecessary comparisons between systems. For example, in this article, the paragraph asking about why they chose the PS3 was unnecessary. And when reporting on sales charts, you don't have to comment on them. Some of your articles keep neutrality excellently, but others are greatly lacking.
I'm not asking anyone to censor themselves; I'm just asking everyone to tone it down. I'll once again pose the question I posed in my blog entry: if you didn't know anything about the other systems, would you enjoy your system more? If the answer is yes, you know what I'm getting at. It's hard to enjoy system A when comments by writers and other gamers constantly make you second-guess your choice not to support system B. Writers (at QJ and elsewhere) and game company executives (executives at all three console manufacturers have furthered the console wars), if gamers really come first, please stop all the comparisons. Let us make our own choices and enjoy what we have.
That version of my comment was for the masses. This next session is for people like many of my fellow commentors, who go on and on about why one console sucks without even using evidence or, even more basic, proper grammar. Here's what I say to those people: SHUT UP ALREADY! We don't care which console you like. We don't care what genre you prefer. We don't care about your spin on the info we've already heard. We don't care about the tricks and deceptions you think a company uses. Unless you're going to be civil and/or back it up with solid facts or reasoning, we don't want to hear what you have to say. Your comments will not make Nintendo eliminate friend codes, Sony drop the price of the PS3, or Microsoft make online play free. You can state your opinion without turning it into an exercise in mindless bashing.
That's where I ended in my QJ comment, but I'm going to go a step further here and address the people to whom I directed the previous section but who still do not get the point: NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK, YOU MORONS. PLAY THE GAMES YOU WANT TO PLAY, LET US PLAY THE GAMES WE WANT TO PLAY, AND SHUT THE F*** UP ALREADY. You're not going to change anyone's opinion with the b.s. you're spouting, so don't waste your time.
We all have a responsibility. That's why I will never make comparisons between consoles in this blog. Someone might claim I'm a hypocrite because I noted that "Sonic and the Secret Rings" for Wii got higher reviews than "SONIC the Hedgehog" for PS3/360, but those are two completely different games that just happen to be in the same series.
I will make one exception, but for the sake of balance: Wii tends to be bashed the most, but it continues to outsell its competition even despite a shortage of units, so it can't be that bad. I'm not even saying it's a better system; I'm just saying the bashing is disproportionate to the sales. Also note that I gave reasoning, and if anyone wants me to, I can cite specific evidence that it is outselling the competition. Just ask in a comment and I'll give it.
And just in case that's not enough for everyone, I'll say something in defense of the other two systems as well. The PS3 may be expensive, but that hasn't stopped a heck of a lot of people from buying it. And the Xbox Live may not be as interactive or creative as Playstation Home, but its core service is tried-and-true and already has a huge user base.
See? Balance. To all the console bashers out there, try it some time; it's not that hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
