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.
by Danny O'Dwyer on
It is really not that fair to blame only publishers when outlets like Gamespot also contribute in the saturation of exposure and overhype of several games.
I'm pretty sure mass market killed the wonder of gaming like it does most things. Mostly because it has to appeal and satisfy a much larger audience. Everything has to be toned down and simplified.
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
@amdreallyfast You guys should share a Jaeger
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.
@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!
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.
@MegaPhilX2 The same reason why we refer to high budget action movies as blockbusters I suppose
@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 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)
@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.
@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!
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.
@Stepn2myworld yes, the degree of possible manipulations are limitless
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
@Dresden05 It sucks
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.
@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.