Mailbag 11.30.06
The mail is in.
Play Them Longer
Wow. Interesting read. I think you are confusing "game journalist who plays all the time" and "hardcore gamer" though. They are 2 very different people. Many hardcore gamers will pick up a game like R6V or GoW and put 100+ hours into them each and nothing else. I know that for most of my friends (who are all around 30 and have careers/kids, but we consider ourselves pretty hardcore) feel overwhelmed with the amount of content on the 360 right now. We don't play through a game for 10 hours, write a review and call it a day. There are many 4 hour of sleep nights spent on XBL playing multiplayer. I am actually stoked that Forza 2 got delayed because I know that Forza 2 will get over 200 hours of play from me. So maybe for the gaming journalist who blazes through game after game and moves on to the next game, MS is light on holiday releases, but for the rest of us out in the trenches, we have plenty to occupy our time with games. Your article really made me feel like the game journalism industry is losing touch with many of the gamers out there. Also my biggest concern for gamers right now is the PS3. The Wii seems to have found its niche, but Sony has a lot of work to do to convince many of the gamers out there to make the purchase of a PS3. Exclusives are the only thing I'll get a PS3 for and it won't be the multiplayer focuses exclusives either because XBL works much better for gaming with friends. I've always been a multi-platform buyer (I own all major consoles but no PS3 yet) but each day that goes by, I'm less interested in the PS3. Most of the people I know feel that way. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. See ya.
Thanks for the letter. Even while writing this from home, tending to a baby and playing games, I'm hardly out of touch. Heh. Sounds ironic, eh? But my staff and I read every single letter that comes in every day. We check our boards, other sites, and other boards. In fact, sick as it may sound, whenever I am in a retail store I listen very closely to what people are buying, what they're interested in, and I regularly ask which games sold the most. If anything, I'm too involved. Damn, when I was in Barcelona and recovering on the beach from X06, I spoke with this guy behind me at the beach for hours about games.
But you do bring up a good point. Most gamers do spend more hours playing their games than we do. We will play a game for 10 or 15 hours, write the review and then move on. Microsoft's Achievements and Xbox Live have changed that pattern for me. I regularly play games after they are out. I played Splinter Cell and Gears of War for weeks after they were out. The slimmed down fall lineup, and this I didn't mention, has permitted me that time. So I'm thankful, in that sense, for the small number of games to come out. My wife can attest to the number of hours I play for fun versus games I play for work, while at home.
But while I made many points (not enough games, not enough exclusives, bad timing, etc.), one of the points that got lost in the pile was originality and variety. There still isn't enough variety on the system. There are few RPGS, but too many Cabela Hunting games. There are almost no adventure games, but at least two fishing games. There are two flying games, but really bad ones. But there are plenty of racing, shooting, sports, and action games. I know the variety will come. And I know that innovation and creativity is hard to come by in this day and age, thanks to the "rising cost of games." After all, it's easier to make Call of Duty 3 than to make something new and different.
I did forget one thing, however, and that was to compliment Microsoft on its first-party games. Gears of War and Viva Pinata were both original, leaders in their categories, and fresh. The third-party games, while familiar and exciting to a certain part, were very familiar, very predictable, very already been there, done that. Remember when Devil May cry Came out? It was new and fresh. Remember when ICO hit the market? It took six months to a year for some people to recognize its innovation. Remember Grand Theft Auto III? That was innovative and creative and ground-breaking. Do you see that happening this year with Xbox 360 games? Not really. We got a bunch of good games that all fall into simple categories: sequels, ports, or franchise games -- WWE Smackdown Vs. Raw (like number 10), Call of Duty 3, Tony Hawk's Project 8, Dead or Alive Xtreme 2, Splinter Cell Double Agent (4). Does any of this sound new or fresh? FEAR is good, but it's a port from the PC. Gears of War is fun as hell, and it's innovative in some areas, graphics and camera angles, even weaponry to a degree, but is it ground-breaking? Viva Pinata for all its difference, isn't compared to The Sims, Pokemon and Animal Crossing by chance you know. It's a blending and re-imagining of those games. It wants to be those games. It's not trying to be different, it's trying to be the same. My point is, where is the new stuff?
-Douglass
Where's the Beef?
I thought it was well written article and you brought some good points, but keep in mind that Microsoft has over 100 titles available at a pre-played price, which means those who purchase an XBOX 360 this Christmas can purchase a library of games that already exist from the previous period. Let's not forget they have many titles with a 9.0 and above rating by IGN. Call of Duty 3, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six Vegas, FEAR, and Sonic the Hedgehog, and Gears of War, as new releases added to the 100 titles which already exist.
Fair enough. Microsoft did bring more games to the table than it did with the original Xbox. It's got games. But how many are exclusive, how many are original? How many are franchises and sequels? All of the games you pointed out, save Gears of War, are old, sequels, or franchises.
-Douglass
Beef
Hey man, from a gamer's point of view I can understand why the Xbox 360's holiday lineup had you disappointed. And as gamers, that's really all we should concern ourselves with.
But it's also important to look at it from Microsoft's perspective. They probably anticipated demand for the PS3 would far outstrip supply for 2006-- and it has. And if you were Microsoft (which, although wealthy, still has finite development resources), how would you best allocate your resources?
Would you devote your resources to Holiday 2006, when your competitor's supply is limited and the 360 is practically the automatic alternative to people who HAVE to have a next-generation console this holiday?
Or would you prefer to leverage your development resources to counter the PS3 when that console is no longer having supply issues?
If Microsoft released all their good games this holiday season, it wouldn't have influenced the sales of the PS3 and probably would have had relatively little influence on the Xbox 360's sales this holiday season. And then when the PS3 is in high supply (which it inevitably will), Microsoft would have already used its big guns early. Timing is very important, as it can inflate or deflate software's influence on console sales.
It just seems like Microsoft is being strategic to me. Again, from a gamer's point of view, this is negative. But from Microsoft's point of view, and from the perspective of Xbox 360's ability to compete against an in-stock PS3, this bit of strategy will pay higher dividends for the company in the long run.
Plus, most of your readers are on a budget. Being flooded with huge numbers of good games is probably the greatest thing for someone whose job it is to review and write about videogames. But most of us have limited time and resources to dedicate to videogames, and when there is a "flood" of good games, that usually means we end up never buying many games. I got Gears of War and Rainbow Six: Vegas. I would really like to be able to afford Call of Duty 3 and Viva Pinata, but I can't. To me, the casual non-industry related peon, I'm oversaturated with good games. The Xbox 360 has for this holiday season maxed what I can afford and play. They could have had three more great games this holiday season, and it wouldn't matter because it is financially impossible for me and many others to get that many games.
Because like I said, we are on a budget. You probably get your games for free straight from the developers. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I'm just saying take into account that your saturation level (the point at which you are satisfied with the software available) with a consoles lineup during a holiday season is FAR higher than people like me. We don't get games by the dozens, we get them by the ones and twos-- and that's enough to fill me up this holiday season. Being over-saturated with good games is probably terrific when it's your life, but when it's your hobby it just means you miss out on a lot of good games because of time and money constraints.
You bring up some excellent points and I appreciate your level-headedness. Budgets are a good point. Longer play time is a good issue. One of my points was that unlike Sony in 2001, Microsoft should have stomped on Sony while the stomping was good. This should have been Microsoft's stomping year. Doesn't seem like it. You say PS3's are in short demand? Well, sh*t. There ought to be an enormous amount of Xbox 360 games to sway your decision. Oh wait, there are a bunch of sequels and there are only a few innovative and new titles? Hmm… What to do. Maybe I should wait. My point is that Microsoft should have laid down the gauntlet, giving us a dozen AAA games that knocked our socks off and left no doubt that Microsoft was the new king of the hill. I understand Microsoft's strategy, but I doubt it was the "actual" strategy; it seems like a default plan, like a broken football play that was saved through luck, not skill. It seems like plan B. Or not like a real plan at all.
-Douglass
Videogames Rot Your Brain
Your small snippet of news "Videogames Rot Your Brain" comes as little surprise to me. As a more than hardcore gamer who started at 5, and someone who avidly plays a myriad of violent games, I can definitely say that I support those studies. Whenever I play violent games for a long time (which I do quite often) I sometimes find myself easily angered, ill tempered and socially distraught from people around me. However, this is only to a mild degree for two reasons. First, I don't go crazy mad or anything like that, I just find I have little patience, and don't socialize with others around me as much. Secondly, this is only if I play for a long, long time. The longer I play the worse it gets, and if I played maybe say 10 hours I would be affected quite a bit, but I would only really get worse than that if I continually played over the course of say, a week or more. Basically, what I'm trying to tell you (and gamers everywhere) is that yeah, this stuff DOES happen and I acknowledge it. Just because I love gaming beyond many things doesn't mean I can't admit that it has side-effects, so I don't automatically shun and condescend to people who also think so and use these reasons to oppose gaming, I just tell them that it's context sensitive. In other words, me playing GTA for a month a few hours a day isn't gonna make ME kill someone, though it might for someone else not mentally fit for gaming such as a much younger/more immature person. So, all in all, with what I've just said, the point I have is pure and simple, many of your habits and the way you act in everyday life could very well be a side-effect of gaming (to a certain extent) so watch how you play and how you let it get to you, and don't condescend to people saying "Videogames make people violent" immediately. Thanks a lot for reading. -Brian
Brian, please take your meds before writing in to us. It almost seems like your brain is rotting… Just kidding. But seriously, I just finished playing Burnout Revenge, and I feel like taking a drive… a crazy drive through the city…
-Douglass
Duke?
Are you a Duke graduate? You must be to make dumb assumptions such as "What does a Duke student and a North Carolina student have in common? They both applied to Duke" because I am a Carolina student and I did not apply to Duke.
That's probably because you knew you wouldn't get in. Oh snap! Just kidding. That sentence was written by IGN's very own frat guy Jon Miller. And he just hit the big red button on your forehead that reads pwned.
-Douglass
Retrospective
I appreciated your retrospective on the first year of the xbox 360 console. I love my Xbox even though it just recently succumbed to the launch curse (exactly one year after purchase) but I question the idea that exclusives are what drive people to get a console. I think ultimately it comes down to what a console can do, i.e. graphics, online, and now media connectivity/content delivery. As long as my Fight Night looks as good and plays as well as their Fight Night I'm happy. Ultimately, exclusives are only great if they truly show off what the system is able to do and I think that is the more important reason to care. Besides exclusives are becoming incredibly expensive and in most cases the really great games seem to eventually come to the other systems. But I'm not holding my breath for MGS4...
It's a good question to pose. But exclusives do make each console stick out. They make that particular console special. Like, you can only get Halo on Xbox 360. You can only get God of War on PS2. And you can only get a Zelda game on a Nintendo system. Exclusives work and they matter. Hell, 99% of the gaming population that buys a Nintendo system buys it for the new Zelda, anyway, right? I do.
-Douglass
Reckless Aussies
Australian IGN correspondent Bennet Ring's reckless abuses of convoluted military-based similes are as painful as a blow to the brain stem with the butt of a shotgun.
A dingo ate my baby!
-Douglass
Violence and Games
This fight over whether or not violent video games ignite violent behavior will NEVER go away. The argument is as old as the religious wars in the Middle East, and will probably last as long.
I'm a 35 year old gamer who has played every console since I could hold a controller. To me, the argument is simple, if these games bring out certain types of behavior, I would say that the GAMER has a chemical imbalance of some sort. I have NEVER played a game, and I've played a lot of violent video games, NEVER have I wanted to act out anything portrayed in a game. Granted we all have off color thoughts from time to time, but COME ON!
I feel this study is just a political ploy to keep the majority of stable gamers who actually enjoy this type of thing...a little worried that somehow, violent video games will have to be toned down. Let's start at the source, be a PARENT and monitor your kids so the government doesn't have to do the job you obviously aren't capable of. But that's an entirely different subject. Thanks.
Well, GTA made me shoot somebody and steal their car. I wouldn't have done it if I hadn't seen it in a videogame first. I also took a chainsaw to my neighbor after I finished playing Doom. It was cool. Huh huh. But games don't have any affect on my behavior. Nope. And I can quit any time I want.
-Douglass
Balance
So, after reading the mailbag (thanks for the update!) I couldn't help but chime in on the whole issue of balancing a gaming life with a non gaming companion. When my wife and I first got married, we limited all television use significantly during the first year so we could focus on quality "us" time. However, I still receive a good deal of enjoyment and pleasure by playing videogames that few other hobbies can match. So, we decided that Thursday night would be my night - I could use the television for whatever purposes I wanted. Whether it was a violent film, videogaming, or just general stuff my wife might not enjoy viewing. It has worked really well for us and I recommend it to everyone. I got my "me" time and she appreciates it. However, when it is over, I feel like I got my fix and I am good to go. She is far more important than any fictional world I otherwise might dabble in.
By contrast, I was talking to a woman once whose (ex) husband was so addicted to videogaming that it literally split up their marriage. The husband played PS2 with friends constantly, while the wife worked and took care of the kids. The final moment for them was the day her son was born, her husband still had his friends come over (as was his ritual) and played PlayStation 2.
While I agree that videogaming is not the mass problem in society people say it is, some gamers need to take a hard look at their habits and practice some self control and balance for their sanity, and the sanity of those around them.
By the way, I just got my first xbox360 and I am freaking stoked. Peace.
Nice story. I mean, terrible story, but thanks for sharing it with us. Balance is good, and trying to balance videogames with life is a struggle. But then so is trying to balance work and life, or girlfriends and life, and babies and life.
-Douglass
