FoamingPanda / Member

Forum Posts Following Followers
2567 44 41

FoamingPanda Blog

In the Shadow of Mass Advertisement, Low Expectations, and Habitual Consumerism

by on

Why the Wii betrays consumers: 

1.  Mass advertisement.
2.  Altering and expanding the market by the most derogatory method possible.
3.  Lowering consumer expectations.
4.  Limiting the function of video games to little more than a childish plaything.
5.  Exploiting nostalgia and franchise tags that are over two decades old.
6.  Reordering value by the low standards and expectations consumers develope.
7.  Producing games that reflect the demand of the new "family-friendly" and "casual" audience.

Too bad Wii fans are participating in the collective regression and intellectual genocide of video games as a meaningful and valid entertainment medium.  Too bad Wii fans are advocating low standards, embracing obsolete hardware, and ignoring the higher functions of video games.   Too bad Wii fans are supporting the single most regressive, anti-consumer, and limiting company in this sick industry.  Too bad the quality of Wii games this generation will decline in porportion to the size of new "casual" consumers.  Too bad the Wii butchers the functionality and quality of gaming to such an extent that it can't provide anything beyond the most basic, primitive, and immediate forms of pleasure. 


Watching a 20 year old marketing icon jump around a world devoid of meaning and consequence doesn't exactly stimulate my desire for entertainment.  Swatting a ball around with the flick of a wrist, or making silly star-patterns for boosts, doesn't exactly cater to my desires either.  But hell, you're right.  We probably do have different experiences.

My problem with Wii, and Nintendo in general, is that they limit the functionality of games (and technological progression) to its most base, simple, and regressive forms -- they provide no alternative products, or freedom for developers who might want to make games around the demands of consumers who have moved beyond gawking at 20 year old marketing icons and pointlessly swatting balls across the screen. 

My problem is complicated by the fact that Wii is working against the best intrests of consumers in this industry, lowering the expectations of consumers, and destroying the validity of gaming as a respectable entertainment medium.

I'm simply too critical to use the base and simple entertainment I might recieve from a Wiisports games as a benchmark that justifies the existence, quality, and potential of a "next-gen" console.  You like Wiisports and SPM?  Great. 

Does it make Wii a good console?  No.  Does it mean that Wii is working to advance the industry and the entertainment medium of gaming? No.  Is it fair to praise these products in such a high and valuble light when they cater to the lowest expectations and desires we all have?  No.  Does the Wii provide cutting-edge hardware at a fair price?  No.  Does the Wii encorporate and embrace gaming as a valid and broad entertainment medium? No.  Does the Wii encourage third party development and exceed the demands of consumers?  No.

We all know what good is for this industry from the perspective of consumers.  We've always known:  stronger hardware, cheaper prices, more developers, more intellectual freedom, more innovation, newer and bolder ideas, greater functionality, more depth, more game for your dollar.  I don't exactly need to look into a crystal ball and evoke a druidish chant to scrye what is good for us.  Nintendo has forced many of its fans to reorder, forget, or denounce these very functional, positive, and historically important values to rationalize their support for a product that works against their interests, fails to meet the benchmarks of this generation, and has butchered the functionality and scope of gaming as an entertainment medium.

Bashing the Wii for the horrible quality of its hardware, the marketing campaign it has employed, its mission statement, and its clear shortcomings is anything BUT mindless fanboy rabble.

Until the end of time... or the next sequel?

by on

Oh god, they're making a Star Ocean 4...?  I thought Star Ocean Three was UNTIL THE END OF TIME?  I feel a rant coming.... 

Agent Panda: Why, Mr. Star Ocean? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep developing? Do you believe you're programming for something? For more than profit? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it a valid plot contingency? Or character development? Perhaps closure? Yes? No? Could it be for an abstract perspective? Illusions, Mr. Star Ocean. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble developer's intellect trying desperately to justify a franchise label that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the franchise label itself, although only a developer's mind could invent something as insipid as Star Ocean 4. You must be able to see it, Mr. Star Ocean. You must know it by now. You can't provide a quality product. It's pointless to keep developing. Why, Mr. Star Ocean? WHY?  WHY DO YOU PERSIST?

HAS THE GAMING WORLD GONE MAD? 

"I don't see Sony releasing installments of God of War Kart, God of War Party, God of War baseball, Paper God of War, Baby Kratos, Baby Ares, Baby Athena. And so on and so forth. I really could go on but I think I've made my point..."

Why Pokemon [And other Childish Games] Deserve to be called Childish

by on

I never knew there was something about a medium of entertainment that origionally made it inclined to cater to only a specific range of emotions and entertainment levels.  If you posit such a value you on gaming, I feel obligated to feel a slight bit of sympathy for you.  I think games have proven that they can be so much greater than childish toys.   The industry is conditioning us to think solely as "gaming as toy" for the following reason -- producing shallow games is cheap and they typically sell well once your customer's standards have been lowered.

I would actually argue that Pokemon, past its childish conception, actually contains gameplay elements that are fairly complex and demanding in nature.  If you're telling me to "read a book," when I argue that games should be expected to have high quality ideas and stories, you might as well tell Pokemon fans to "read a book."  Pokemon is a book, but it is a book designed around the demands of children. If Pokemon was change to ANY other entertainment medium, how would you regard it?  Can you honestly tell me, "darn it Panda, that first Pokemon movie was some hardcore adult stuff," or "I found that Pokemon game to be very intellectually and emotionally stimulating!"  Are you trying to tell me there is something mature about navagating a gullible child through a world devoid of meaning, consequence, and adult themes? 

The absense of certain adult elements [complexity, depth, meaning, emotion, drama, violence, sex, etc] detracts from the net value of a game.   Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment.  While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games.  Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon.  The quality, depth, and scope of the mythology obliterates an explicitly childish world like Pokemon.  Contrast the two mythos listed above according to our "book" analogy -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws).  Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons.  This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

For a person who has moved beyond judging video games as petty toys, childish games often lack the artifical value that makes them appear "fun" to users who view games in a far more limiting fashion.  For the person who holds games against a higher intellectual standard, it appears strange to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple and hollow that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

 

I'm Done: Panda's Unbiased Look into Nintendo's "Next-Gen" Plans

by on
Well, friends, Panda has finally reached the pinnacle of logical thought concerning Nintendo.  In this thread, you will find the most objective, gamer-friendly, and industry-positive interperation of Nintendo's "Next-Gen" plans.  If you object to a paticular point of this post, I encourage you to explore my blog.  Chances are, I've done a post on it one time or another.  Read over this with an open mind, thanks.

The Problem with Gaming in General

Gaming has long been critcized as a childish and wasteful hobby.  The critcism against gaming at the present time is quite fair, I agree.  But, nothing about gaming makes it originally more likely to be subject this form of critcism than any other form of entertainment media.  Why can we not apply this same critcism toward any type of entertainment media?  Some individuals do, but their voices have largely been marginalized and dismissed -- the same can not be said for gaming.  Gaming is one of the few entertainment media formats that still has value judgements posited on the format itself -- "video games are for kids.  games are a waste of time. games are a waste of money."  These value judgements plauge gaming because consumers demand products that have endowed 99% of games with a distinct nature: shallow content, excessive enfranchisement, painfully ignorant stories, familycentric entertainment.

Gaming is perverted by hyper-marketing, a focus on the child and teenage consumer, and an abject and terrible set of standards by which consumer judge games.   The demands of consumers perpetuate the stagnation of games.  Until consumers demand products that can breech other forms of entertainment media in terms of quality, I believe it is quite fair that most of society views our shared hobby as a childish waste of time -- it's what we demand, for the most part. 

Nintendo, more so than any other company on the market, is responsible for the perpetuation of the idea that gaming is a wasteful and childish toy.

Nintendo has Sold us Down the River 

Supporting Nintendo, particuarly their 20 year old franchises that create an enormous feeling of nostalgia, has become rationally unplausible this generation because Nintendo has offered a console that is over three years obsolete in terms of hardware.  A fan might love Nintendo with all their heart, but, if they were to judge Nintendo by an objective or historical standard, they would find that they were supplied with an antiquated console that does not take full advantage of next-gen tech.  The Nintendo fan is thus left in a minor paradox if they wish to continue supporting Nintendo: they must either re-order their values to rationalize their support, OR their values have already been subject to reconstruction.  If a fan of Nintendo is not forced into this paradox, they most likely are not aware of the full potential or capacity of gaming. 

Nintendo games on the market today are not "fun."  Most are constructed around 20 year old ideas implemented in the most simple, brutual, dull, and shallow ways possible.  Nintendo fan's standards and expectations of gaming have been warped and lowered so these games might appear "fun."  The strength of these games lies in unwarranted gameplay reduced to its most simple and brutual extreme.  We all love games that are reduced to such a low, but Nintendo has elevated and promoted these games as the pinnacle of this generation.  Nintendo refuses to provide us with superior products, and a broader conception of gaming, because we demand and value simplistic products.  Nintendo has provided fans with a shallow console, and shallow games, because they know that consumer loyalty will ensure profit -- you love X (X=Mario, Zelda, Samus, Etc.) so much so that most ignore the major flaws of the console and the short comings of supposedly "next-gen" Nintendo games, but... [see my blog for a full proof on this]

Consumer loyalty only goes so far.  Nintendo has limited the function of gaming to that of a simplistic child's toy that functions off technology that is an entire generation obsolete -- making games for such a low quality machine is far cheaper; it's also extremely cost effective when the main goal of Nintendo is not to sell the gamer games, but to encorporate a broader audience.  These games only appear fun because some consumers evaulate games by the most low, bias, and abject standards in entertainment media.

Nintendo introduces the mainstream market to gaming by showing them that gaming amounts to little more than a fun toy that can read simple kenetic motions that transfer into familiar on-screen tasks.  These consumers do not come to expect quality or complexity from gaming -- their assumptions about "gaming as a toy" remain entact; the form of input is now slightly more appealing and let "geeky."  As the demand of casual consumers grow, Nintendo need not raise its standards, or devote precious resources, into developing high-quality games for its traditional market.  It need only throw consumers a rotting bone, in the form of yet another 20 year old franchise game, every quarter or so to maintain consumer loyalty. [see my blog for a full proof on this].

Since Nintendo has managed to re-structure their fans' values concerning games, they have also managed to re-structure their values concerning consoles -- the big Nintendo fan, in order to rationalize their belief, must restructure an intuitive ordering of value.  Obvious things we value in consoles -- power, cost effectiveness, utility -- take a back seat to more abstract, and quite functionless values, that only appear "great" because Nintendo has effectively lowered much of the market's standards.

Nintendo is trying to sell me, you, and all people who think games are a little more than a child's toy down the river this gen.  They are attempting to alter the standards and natural progression of this industry and reduce gaming to its most simple function (simply because this is the most cost effective platform on the market).  They offer us vastly inferior products, constructed on ideas that are literally DECADES old, that are based around the demands of consumers who view games in their most negative, limited, and unwanted light.

On Gore

by on

Violence for Violence's sake rarely contains a higher level of entertainment in the minds of most consumers -- I hate games that are structured solely around an aggration of violent acts.  But, I consider violence to be INCREDIBLY important to games that merit and provide a context for violence.

Most people who are acting as apologists for Heavenly Sword's new PG-13 spin seem to think that violence should define the setting and style fo a game (i..e., ah yes, the game is about beating people up!  It'll still be good, as long as we can beat people up!).

The truth of the matter is that the setting, story, and context should define violence.  A developer should not superficially alter a level of violence that a specific context merits for any external and subjective reason.  Violent actions, when adjusted to their context, become central to the game and shape and influence actions inside the game.  The absense of violence makes most video games incredibly naieve, excessively childish, and horribly linear on a conceptual level.

What happens when you slam a sword through the throat of an evil villan in a video game?  I am an adult.  I am a consumer.  When I attack an evil or dubious character that deserves justice, I fully expect, and desire, to see a torrent of blood explode from their throat, as they choke on a fountain of blood and scream for their life.  But, let me be the first to tell you, that even my desires would be altered if video games presented a logical level of gore (I can't stand prolonged scenes of unwarranted gore).  We value violence too much in video games precisely because violence is presented in its most glorious, consequence free, and PG13 forms. 

Violence is an incredibly powerful and important dramatic tool.  Think of all the wonderful forms of entertainment that you enjoy that would simply not be the same without the level of violence that is relevant to the setting.  Hell, for example, my favorite book series -- GRRM's a Song of Ice and Fire -- would cease to exist without violence to drive the plot and contextualize actions.

Always depict the logical level of violence.  Place a violence filter for kids and parents.  Let adults chose what level of violence they perfer in a game. 

Games they wouldn't be intact without violence and gore -- at least "as not" intact.  For example, I absolutely hate when video games force plot devices down your throat in the form of barriers that could easily be overcome by violence or gore.

Ideas are vital to a game.  When you take out a vital aspect of those ideas -- violence and the gore that corrosponds to violent acts, an incredibly important aspect of the game dies out with it.  Less ideas become avaliable, the setting becomes full of contradictions and shallow limitations set by people like Jack Thompson, and gamers are forced deeper into the strange little box of values that we've developed over the years.

If a game merits violence, let it be violent.  That is all.  

Blue Dragon and Value: All dragons are dead (except Daenerys Targaryen's)

by on
But the problem is -- and it is shown so clearly in this thread -- that we value simple and mediocre games as if they were awesome forms of media that can rock the west; simply because we currently tolerate an industry that VERY VERY rarely provides us with decent, meaningful, and worthwhile content.

In my world, the format of a game is not relevant to the quality of its ideas. From personal observation of the game market, I have noticed that western RPG's have shown a higher probability to encorporate more meaningful, complex, and interesting ideas than JRPG's on average. Nothing about the JRPG format makes it intrinsically any better or worse than WRPG's -- JRPG's have simply shown a tendancy to regurgitate relatively similar content from in the most linear, shallow, childish, and extreme ways (there are certainly examples of good JRPG's). The structures format of the JRPG actually helps the delivery of a great plot or story some times.

Yes. Judging the ideas, premise, and concept of a game is an important (equally important, imo) process of establishing acceptable standards, expectations, and values. A franchise label beyond the third sequence in a series, this is a relative number, often indicates that the franchise has devolved into a continutation of tired ideas regurgitated simply because consumers will buy out of habit and loyality. A franchise label typically inflates the value of a game and should be approached with an amount of suspition porportionate to the age of the franchise.

But hell, I can't critcize Blue Dragon much on its non-existent franchise tag. Too bad it has a thousand other problems.

Many gamers have matured to a point where the absense of these tones detracts from the value of a work. Most give up on the industry and move on to other hobbies. But, hell, I love the interactive format of games too much to do that. A game like Blue Dragon may provide a base form of entertainment, but it doesn't provide the same amount (and type) of entertainment a really good book or film might provide. Gamers with logical standards do not inflate the value of these games beyond the type and amount of enertainment the game represents, but, then again, most gamers have anything but logical standards.

What is this industry and entertainment medium really about? I wasn't aware that its function was limited to SOLELY providing only the most basic, childish, and shallow forms of entertainment.

Your standards and expectations might be low enough to merit purchasing it, but they do not artifically inflate the value of the game beyond the limitations set by the quality of its ideas.

Pleasure and Gaming

by on

I. Pleasure and Gaming

Let us distinguish two forms of pleasure we frequently feel while playing video games.  Ask yourself before you read on, "is the type of pleasure I feel from eatting a delicious scoop of icecream the same as the pleasure I feel from reading an intellectually stimulating book?"   (For those of you familiar with JSM, this is the theory of qualatative pleasure).  You must understand the following concepts to understand the rest of this post.

Pleasure 1:  Some games present us with a natural and simple type of pleasure (gamers often refer to this as "fun.")  In other words, when you play a game like SSMB and Mario, you will most likely enjoy the game for its wacky gameplay the moment you pick up a controller.  This simple, but wonderful, form of pleasure is similar to what one might feel when devouring a scoop of ice cream.  Pleasure 1 usually sates a very immediate and simple desire for fun.

Pleasure 2:  Other games, let us say Civilization 4 and Morrowind for example, provide us with a different form of pleasure.  The games are not as flashy and fun when we first pick them up.  Instead we come to enjoy these games, which are often far more complex and "dull" in nature, because they provide us with interesting and pleasureable ideas (like a good book).

Which form of pleasure we should value and pursue more has dominated western thought since the time of the ancient Greeks.  I think we can all agree that both forms of pleasure are vauble and great for different purposes. 

II. Gaming and Pleasure

Today, video games are judged exclusively by how much pleasure 1 is provided within a game.  We place a higher value on "fun" because few people realize or respect the potential of gaming consoles as an artistic medium.  Some gamers cannot seem to distinguish between different types of pleasure, and their confusion often leads them to under value the importance of games that provide us with pleasure 2.

III. Why should we value games that provide us with pleasure 2?

For the same reason we value a good book or intellectually stimulating activity.  But more importantly, complex games that provide us with pleasure 2 promote innovation and technological progress within the industry. 

As I've stated above, developers provide us with pleasure 1 by providing quick and fun gameplay.  This gameplay can occur on almost any console (even hand-helds).  Technological innovation has increased quantatiy of this type of pleasure within any given game, but the sensations we derive from this form of pleasure remain somewhat similar.  Developers do not need cutting-edge graphics or other aspects of modern technology to provide us with pleasure 1.

Up until the last several years, pleasure 2 could not be effectively replicated on video game machines because of technological restraints.  Developers could not cram a novel-like plot, a sweeping and majestic adventure world, or a complex strat game on small disks.  When games that provided pleasure 2 entered the market, we did not judge them by how much pleasure 2 they evoked within us, instead, most gamers judged these games exclusively by how much pleasure 1 seeped through the complex nature of the game. 

The industry has placed blinders over our eyes that render many unable to appreciate the complexity and depth of gaming.  We see precisely what the industry wishes us to see -- instead of stepping back and saying, "you know (X) game needed a much better (Y=plot/setting/characters/etc)" most gamers simply nod their heads because the game provided an adequate amount of pleasure 1.

IV: Technology: Pleasure 2's Best Friend

As technology continues to progress we continue to observe a growth of pleasure 2 within games.  For the first time, developers are capable of providing us with epic and enormous ideas that were an impossibility before the advent of digital technology.  Pleasure 2 depends on the progress of technology far more than pleasure 1.  Immersion, outside of better forms of input, depends on the quality of game physics and graphics to a large extent.  If we simply judge games by pleasure 1 we neglect vital aspects of gameplay that could transform gaming into a legitimate art form.

New consumers, many call them casuals, explicitly limit the function of video games to that of a small and simple childish toy that can only hope to provide us with the simplist forms of pleausre 1.  For these consumers, video games present no great intellectual or complex forms of pleasure; the function of games is reduced to its most bruteish and simple form (simple tasks carried out through kenetic motions). 

Has it ever occured to you that video games could very well one day provide games that feature plots better than novels?  Games could very well replicate entire worlds in depth, or provide us with action titles that are more exciting than CGI sequences on primetime television. Games are fully capable of being a powerful and respected art form!  Pleasure 2 will be the key to unlock this door.

Please do not misunderstand, we all love forms of pleasure 1.  The problem we face does not involve the existence or success of pleasure 1.

The Great Threat Facing Pleasure 2

Our great problem arises when companies question the value and continued existence of pleasure 2 in gaming.  The amount of pleasure 2 a game can provide us with depends greatly on the power of hardware.  

Instead of giving developers powerful hardware to work with to create larger and larger forms of pleasure 2, some console developers believe that creating pleasure 1 should be the SOLE function of a video game console.

 Instead of paving the way for true innovation, by showing the public what video games are really capable of, these developers continue selling simple toys that play games that provide us with the same form of pleasure 1.  Such developers, I'll leave you to figure out who these developers are, limit the progession of games by viewing the industry in an economic light illuminates profit.  Feel free to check my profile for posts that address this topic.

Law of Porportional Decline in Game Complexity

by on

As many Nintendo fans point out, the Wii has achieved wonderful success both in the US and Japan.  Wii continues to sell strong throughout both countries while encorporating larger amounts of "new" fans into the video game market.  It is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that Wii does not stand a very strong chance to lead the generation sales -- if not dominate and alter the market itself. 

1.  In the past, gaming has been a relatively small compared to other forms of popular media.


2.  Nintendo produced a somewhat antiquated console at a low price.  An "innovative" new control system reinforced franchise loyalty, despite the shortcomings of the hardware itself.  Fans of the franchise retain their loyalty and purchase the console, ensuring, at the worst, marginal success.


3.  The new control system gained widespread attention.  Replicating physical motions as a means of input adds a new -- although arguably shallow, inefficient, and pointless -- dimension to gaming.  Members of society who had previously been uninterested in gaming begin see an obvious change in the functionality of controllers and take interest in the Wii.  Such members, we refer to them as casuals, are more likely to consider purchasing the console for its low cost (despite its limited hardware) and unique control format.


4.  Traditional fans of Nintendo enjoy, for the most part, franchises exclusively owned by Nintendo.


5.  Both first and third party developers produce games to make money.


6.  The task of every developer and publisher involves producing a game at the lowest cost possible and selling it for the highest profit possible.


7.  The exponential growth of casual gamers creates a high demand for simple games that reinforce and star the primary reason they took interest in the console: the Wiimote control scheme. Such games can be produced for a fraction of the cost of other games. 


8.  Nintendo controls most of its old franchises directly.  These franchises ensure the loyalty of the majority of their previous market for the next few years.


9.  Why should first party developers (Nintendo) continue supporting and producing new franchises that incorporate depth and meaning complexity when their new majority of consumer -- the casual gamer -- demands and purchases simple games?  A few new franchises might be needed occasionally to retain their traditional customer base, but the new base of the market demands simple games that compliment the Wiimote.  Demand has changed and so the product supplied.


10. I remind you, profit drives all phases of development.  Why should a third-party developer invest time, resources, and effort in the production of a complex, long, and expensive game when their new market demands and buys simple games for relatively the same price?  Such developers need not supply the few needed franchises that ensure the preservation of the old market -- Nintendo can do such at a lower cost.


11.  As the word spreads about the “fun” provided by your new console, your market will increase in proportion to the games and demands of consolers (which we've stated as increasingly casual).

12.  These consumers, as I’ve argued, will be drawn from casual segments of the market.  The vast majority of games will reflect their demands and standards (in order to maximize profit). 


13.  Nintendo’s traditional fan base could lose interest, lower their standards and enjoy the new standard of gaming, or take any other conceivable action.  Many will still support Nintendo and reach a compromise between the occasional meaningful franchise game and the endless swarm of simpler games.


14.  The loss of some of this fan base would have few consequences, however; because, Nintendo has acquired a sizably larger market which demands games that yield far more profit.


15.   In proportion with profit, the market for simple entertainment would continue along a growth curve and make complex games continually scarce.

Nintendo’s attempt to radicalize the industry is a potential and very real threat to the future of non-casual gaming (at least for Nintendo fans).  But it could be argued that other console manufactures might act upon these trends and utilize Nintendo’s model.  There will always be a market for non-casual gaming, but as casual gaming becomes more popular, the significance of the non-casual market will shrink. 

You might argue, “well Panda, you’ve assumed that casuals will not embrace complex games after exposure to casual games.”  I do assume that the vast majority of casual gamers will ignore complex games, which I believe will become increasingly scarce. But, point taken.  Some may very well embrace more complex forms of gaming, but how can the Wii, do to its constrained hardware, facilitate and maximize truly next-gen titles?  Why is it even needed when your market is growing exponentially?  How can we be so gullible and easily entertained that we do not demand different things from this industry with our dollars?

Nintendo’s Wii is an innovation.  It will be one of the most successful marketing ploys in the history of gaming – it is a true innovation in PROFIT, nothing more.  Stop voting with your dollars.  You should not have to purchase and antiquated console to enjoy franchises or use a controller that would function perfectly as a USB 2.0 device.

Arbitors of the Old Order (Part I) -- The Best Use of Wii-Mote

by on

This post begins a multi-volume work that will advise those who honor gaming of the correct course of action one must take to purge oneself of the horrible standards the industry has established over the last several years. Only when you understand how far the bar has been lowered, can you understand the truth behind my foresight. Brace yourself for the fall and herald doom with pride -- the industry has been corrupted beyond redemption.

Heed not the false joy gained by waving your arms to the blinking of pixels. The mind dies by the minute. Your standards and judgement dimishes with every meaningless thrust and chop of your wrist. Content and thought falls before simple kenetic transgressions of motion.

Realize the heresy of your actions. Hold the Wii-Mote tightly between your fingers. Clear your mind of all thoughts and swing the Wii-Mote down at the Wii console in a rage of fury and justice. Show your enemy no mercy. Do not stop until it lies broken below you.

You must strike down and smite the greatest defiler of the industry. Understand our hate for the current state of the industry extends to all franchises, developers, consoles, and gamers. The Wii presents only one of the few problems plauging the current industry, but its blasphemous hersey must not go unpunished. The childish toy before you wishes to destroy an artform you hold dear. It wishes to break down the standards and quality that have contextualized our understanding of progression within the industry. The Wii calls every fool to it with promises of child-like entertainment devoid of substance and meaning.

The very act of interfacing with the controller and the flashing pixels on your television has replaced the careful cultivation of a world different than our own. The Wii attempts to summon a numberless horde of consorts, fools, and children to our most cherished world. The ignorant masses will corrupt both artist and merchant alike; their cries for medocrity will drown out our already soft and echoing demands for substance, depth, and immersion.

You know what must be done. We face many enemies and a hopeless battle. Correct your mistakes while you still can identify them. Until we speak again.

Brave New World

by on

When will rabid fanboys realize that games and consoles have nothing in common in respect to the quality of a game.  Game quality only proves that developers have busted their ass making a great and entertaining game.  The fact any of you cite the number of good titles developed for a console in your support for your console of choice only exposes your gross misunderstanding of the industry.

We're being ripped off.  Console developers are not fighting to create the most powerful console at the lowest cost; they're simply monopolizing developer rights on a product that should be avaliable to any machine that has a strong enough GPU to process information stored on a disc.  Instead of judging a console on its power, cost-effectiveness, and utility, console developers force us to judge a console on its game libary (a facet of the monopoly mentioned above). 

Unfortunately, the rabid cult of gaming consumers are so addicted to games they'll buy virtually anything produced by this industry without question; but, at the least, please do not credit a console with AA-AAA games when you argue in favor of whatever corporate overlord you fancy. 

You're only telling people you enjoy being ripped off.

  • 13 results
  • 1
  • 2