The Point - Is Marketing Killing the Wonder of Games?
Do we know too much about games before they're released? Danny investigates the idea that over-marketing and the internet is killing the wonder in games. Also, he waves a flag.
I think this is happening in gaming way to much for a long time, I learnt this was a problem back with halo 2. I'd watched every bit of news I could on it before it came out and by time I played the game I knew almost everything that was new about it. Games like destiny and fable legends, I've decide I'm sold on the concept alone and have since refused to look at any new trailers or news about them.
I love your sunglasses at the end of the video! 'Murica and Danish beer! The last bit was the better one.
Another great "the point". I can only imagine the amount of time it takes to shoot the footage, edit it all down, find all those clips of games and shows, old and new, and string it all together in such an entertaining and thought-provoking episode. I for one hope that this kind of _imaginative_ reporting helps keep this particular gaming site _up_. Kudos.
I remember being so excited for Uncharted 3 and going to pre-launch event at AMC theaters. They showed so much of the game that it took some surprises away when I finally played it.
Ever since then, I try to avoid all trailers and videos for games I'm already sold on.
It's possible. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide whether to pay attention to the marketing, whether you're a patient person, and when you want to experience those Wow! moments.
I didn't know a thing about Far Cry 1 until I picked up the box in store. I bought it and was blown away. The Trigen plot twist was genuinely unexpected and awesome. Same thing with Half-Life 1 and Mass Effect 1. Those games may have had a decent amount of marketing but I wouldn't know...I wasn't anticipating and obsessing over them.
Half-Life 2 on the other hand, I pored over every detail I could scavenge off the internet, for a year, and in the end spoiled a lot of the surprise. I knew who the enemy was. I knew what it looked like graphically. That Wow! moment of stepping out of the train station and seeing the Citadel for the first time came to me while reading the article about it in PC Gamer. It was exciting but I would have rather saved it for when I had the game.
Absolutely... I understand games are made for profit. But I'm getting awfully tired of having DLC thrown at me before I game is even out. I mean they are finding every opportunity to pull money from me. Also games are so overhyped these days that very few of them deliver on the promises of their highly doctored up and edited trailer that you rarely get your money's worth in play hours. And of course the mediocre DLC that follows. Gaming is too big of a business now a days.
Exposure's not the problem. It's the summer blockbuster marketing that tries to cover up bad games or the 5th iteration of a game that hasn't changed that much. Annual releases like Madden, CoD and AC is the problem.
This the same problem with movies, music and books too. It'It's stating the obvious within an industry that has become main stream and faves the same challenges that every other entertainment Industry has dealt with for far longer.
I gotta admit I ruined Dark Souls 2 for myself with the hype and all the gameplay videos during the delay between the console and PC versions. I would have enjoyed that game a lot more if I hadn't already known where to go, what to do and how to get items before I even laid my hands on a copy
Back in my day we had Nintendo Power magazine that would preview some of the games that were coming out. *shakes cane*
Honestly though, I think things might have a bit too much exposure nowadays, but that's because game publishers treat video games like McDonalds treats hamburgers and want them shoved in the faces of every person out there, aficionado or not. I mean hell, Activision dumped half a million into Destiny just for advertising.
I miss the days when video games were for enthusiasts, but who knows, maybe this market would have crashed and burned by now had they not tried to attract every person with a TV/Smartphone.
Why do we keep referring to games with high budgets as "AAA" when most of them are "predictable and boring?"
You see, to me, "AAA" means excellence and quality. It means a game that is as close to perfection as it can be.
A game that I will have fun playing and re-playing because of the value and depth of its gameplay.
We all very clearly know that a high budget does NOT equal quality right?
So why do we call those games "AAA"?
For me, "AAA" = quality. And I've only played a handful of games like that in my life.
Spot on Danny. Awesome as always.
I've thought of stepping away from GS just to preserve those "wow" moments in gaming. Even reading the comments section has become detrimental. Seeing a bunch of people hate a game that I might like will inevitably affect my opinion of it. I don't like to admit it but it's true.
I remember playing the original Zelda on NES and discovering the master sword for the first time. My friend, his brother, and I tried and tried to get it but we didn't have enough heart containers. But the beautiful part was, we didn't know that's what we needed. We had no internet to tell us. I think fondly of my friend's brother postulating that we had to approach the sword at an angle because that's how it was displayed (compared to the other swords that were displayed vertically). It's that type of discovery that we're missing.
Sometimes I wonder if that's why I play so many video games today. Am I doing it in hopes of reliving those moments?
Wow this video nails it. This is exactly what is wrong with the state of gaming at the moment. Well done Danny!
Marketing might be a problem, but balance for the sake of balance is killing the wonder of games. Most games are so scripted that it's like being on a roller coaster, you strap in, you get on the ride, there are some thrills and you get off.
There is so much wasted in gaming development. Multiplayer for the sake of multiplayer is a great waste of resources. Or weapons / armor that you only get to use on the last level. It's become tedious and boring to see the lack of
Marketing is necessary in the competitive Triple A space. The only difference between when I was growing up and now is the immediacy of available information. Now I can get comments within minutes instead of monthly in a space-limited magazine.
I think a more accurate question/headline would read, "Is the INTERNET Killing the Wonder of Games?". And more specifically, gaming sites. Every single column, video, and comment section is just one big spoiler, really.
It really depends on how it's done.
On one side, they can overdo it so much that the real game ends up being tainted and mediocre, like Duke Nukem Forever
On the other side, they can make the game hugely noticable and help it with sales, like Nintendo and Mario kart 8
Alien Isolation already spoiled. Dint want to know how many Aliens there is, killed of a lot of suspense and drama for me. Think only info about game mechanics should be released and not much.
The games are now huge investments from the developers etc that they cannot risk losing money so we get shed loads of information about a game before it comes out because it's all 'look at me' stuff so that your more likley to buy it as all you have to do it look at October and work out how much money you will need to spend to buy all of the games coming out
Well marketing didn't then but is now. That however is two fold that boils down to one thing. Power. Power over the title that has you excited. We want to be spoiled. We want to be over saturated. I want them to throw me convincing reasons to play the game.
It's up to us to unplug the info and keep ourselves in the dark because in this day and age. EVERYTHING is oversaturated. Mainly because we want our excitement ruined and spoiled. I mean really how much of GTAV was exposed before it came out?
Kinda reminds me of a drug user miserable in the corner who lost their connection with friends, family and life; no job or relationships and keeps asking why when all they need to do is look in the damn mirror. Want answers to why your life is the way it is? Look in the mirror. We have two legs. We need to start using them to run, walk hell; crawl our way to something new and different.
Interesting and nostalgic point(up until the air humping the American flag anyway lol) my friends still believe there is a magic pink chocobo in FF7 that can do everything the gold chocobo can do and all the others as well as dive under the ocean and fly into space we had all kinds of theories about games we told each other tell they seemed real lol.
However I think it kinda ends up being a player problem we can chose how much exposure we have to most games save the ones shoving ads in our face in which case it's their own fault well some games I want to go into blind others I want to know so we don't go back to the era of everyone and their mom made games like Colgate total adventures for a console near you!
In fact I almost never per-order games now, since I use to know which ones I'd like pretty well I always would but now that companies know that they over hype them to oblivion put things in trailers that never make it into the final game and have places like GameStop(not spot, stop) shove it down my throat literally telling me "if you don't per-order it we won't have a copy" and so I have all but stopped shopping there after being a customer for years.
I guess what I'm trying to say is people need to think about how much exposure they want which will differ from person to person and for the love of god companies need to just save the money they spend over hyping games and put it into the game then let it stand on it's own it may sell less copies on day one like minecraft but more in the long run where as right now 90% of all sales tend to be in the first week that's pretty telltale that it might not be as amazing as they said it was.....
All marketing does is raise consumer expectations to a level that most publishers and developers can not meet in order to create buzz and hype, so that they can sell product. Marketing does not destroy the wonder of games, or kill it at all beyond what i stated.
The wonder of games is being killed or basically comes out DOA in games like Watch Dog's, bioshock infinite, dead island and many others is the fact that in the world of Multi-million dollar productions, no risk can be taken and creativity and innovation are basically told to take a hike and have no input into the overall product beyond the basics. Wonder can be put into games, but it requires more then just taking the standard pre-packaged concepts that were used in the previous similar titles and shoving them into the latest and greatest newest game which is coming soon to a store near you.
There are enough games out there, that have wonder, and innovation, and are worth playing, its just a matter of finding them. The only real difference is, that very few of those games, are coming from the established publishers and developers that normally control the AAA sector of the gaming industry.
Yes, there is over marketing, but as said, that is to be expected with the AAA games. However, this article also misses one issue that is linked to this, which is illuminated by Minecraft. Gaming has an off-set. I see it as freedom versus story. Minecraft does not have any story, but it counters this with an amazing amount of freedom. as freedom moves away (like towards a call of duty), the story becomes more and more important. Some get it right (Mass effect series and the last of us), many get it decent (Far Cry & tomb raider) and some lose out a little (Call of Duty and Halo). against this are the open games like Oblivion, Fallout, Skyrim, where there is a decent story, yet the openness of the game makes a massive impact.
There are a few that lose massive points, because they got the story kind of right, but then the game-play, linearity and the lack of insight suddenly made what could be a massive hit, and they turned it mediocre like the games Thief and Second Son (infamous3).
Second Son is the strongest in that regard. It was over-hyped, over marketed, it starts really nice, then the designer gets sloppy. Evidence? Consider that you cleaned the first Island, at some point you get the 3rd power (video), in stead of reopening the first island, adding additional challenges and added missions, maximising the power of video, you continue on the linear path to the conclusion of the game. In addition, instead of actually giving added powers to the concrete power, cleaning the city or removing the concrete power out of the soldiers, the game pretty much ends and the concrete power becomes kind of 'lame'
It is that lack that is also killing the wonder in games and gaming. It is a sloppy side.
I mentioned Halo and Call of Duty. These games survive on the challenge of multi-player and that is fine, but I think that these gamers could get a boost of gaming if the story was something you could get through, or even explore a little, in stead of run through to the end. Perhaps that is not what they want, which is fair enough, but the reception that Far Cry 3 got (including from me), gives a little strength to the view I personally have. I admit that not all gamers will agree here.
I can understand where you're coming from but I have to disagree. If you can negate the wonderment of a game simply by looking at a couple of trailers and interviews then how much substance can that game possible have? I would say games with yearly releases are more of a detriment than marketing. When a game releases in such frequency what sort of wonderment can a gamer get from that???
Is this games journalism at it's most self-aware? This is why The Point rules. Gaming journalism that could actually persuade someone to not pay attention to games journalism. It's hard not to watch and read everything that is provided when you're trying to make an informed decision as to whether or not to buy a game.
I like that guy Sean Murray. He really seems to personify the joyful side of gaming. Yeah that may sound lame, but I've said it now. ;o)
@amdreallyfast You guys should share a Jaeger
@oroelf Half a million for advertising...? Probably for billboards in ONE city... I'm sure they've (or will) spent tens of millions more than that!
@MegaPhilX2 I share your views but sadly AAA just means they threw too much money at it, and therefore I generally stay away from "AAA" games because they are just about the most over-hyped under-developed garbage in the gaming industry today since companys cant afford to be too risky with a new AAA IP and have it Flop and bankrupt the company. (Which I would love to see happen to EA and Activision)
@MegaPhilX2 AAA has literally nothing to do with quality of gameplay. AAA is merely a label for games that are developed on a generous budget, which are expected to make a proportionally large amount of money in sales and are marketed to a broad demographic.
Just because AAA means something different to you doesn't mean that is relevant in this conversation. What's wrong with simply saying that you aren't impressed by big budget glitz, but instead judge games on their artistic merits?
@MegaPhilX2 The same reason why we refer to high budget action movies as blockbusters I suppose
@Stepn2myworld yes, the degree of possible manipulations are limitless
@Dresden05 It sucks
@Kinguard73 I agree. If there's a title I want to play really badly I refrain from watching any footage regarding said game. I'll see how it's generally received after release, get a list of the basic pros and cons and then decide whether or not to buy it. I know some of these marketing tactics are questionable, but the tendency to completely disregard one's own responsibility is pretty ridiculous.
I thought the same thing! Doesn't make up for some of the obvious cry for attention articles but he is a wonderful personality
@blackothh @MegaPhilX2 Personally I don't wish to see any game company flop, but I would like to see them evolve rather than pump out mediocre sequels and DLC. To that end I will express my views for them to see and vote with my $$. Hopefully they will pay attention and right the ship. But... let me say this as one who has helped produce some small budget games in the past, it is remarkably difficult to produce a game that a majority of people will love and be different from every other game out there. Until one actually attempts to create one themselves, it's hard to truly understand the effort that goes into it. As you stated, the risk is huge!
@gaiusoctavian You sir need to rethink your definition. In every way, triple A (AAA) denotes high quality. Size, whether budget or number of programmers and artists, does not automatically make high quality. Your attempt to redefine a common standard for quality to mean size, is a fail.
@MegaPhilX2 @gaiusoctavian You might want to save your thanks Mega. My comment was targeted specifically at gaiustavian's comment "Just because AAA means something different to you doesn't mean that is relevant in this conversation." to point out that your definition is not different and does have relevancy for the conversation. His attempt to exclude your comment's relevancy was what prompted me to comment. He is however correct in how the game industry press is currently using the term.
I do feel that the term AAA is misused by the industry press, much as they use other terms loosely and inappropriately to try and pin a label on everything. At one time, the term may have been appropriate for a game produced by a dev studio or producer, but IMO was not necessarily meant to confer that to every game produced by them.