|
Compared to other forms of media such as music and film, game developers during 2007 released a much higher number of quality titles than their competitors. Over the past year we have seen so many great titles released across the board it's almost hard to wrap one's mind around: Bioshock, The Orange Box, Call of Duty 4, Assassin's Creed (perhaps), Mass Effect, Super Mario Galaxy, Heavenly Sword, God of War 2, and Uncharted: Drakes Fortune. Without even including handhelds the list is extensive.
2008 looks to be a similar year; already a number of great titles have been released and many more are on the way. But can this in some ways be a bad thing? It certainly strains one's wallet; at often around sixty dollars a piece most of the current generation console games can be quite an expenditure when purchased en masse. As well, many gamers who are growing up and entering the adult world might themselves be hard-pressed to find enough time to finish all the wonderful titles coming out. Then again most people wouldn't exactly describe a surplus of high quality entertainment as a real problem, though the reviewers of RPGamer might be able to tell you a thing or two about how great a burden it can be.
The problem I see is the fact that with so many great titles coming out, the expectations of a number of gamers are becoming unrealistically high. After all, why play a game with a 7.5 or even 8.0 rating when for the same price you can play a game that received a 9.5? With so many high ranked titles being released a number of fine games are going to be disregarded in the process. It's not unusual to read a gaming forum and hear people discount a game because it got less than 9 out of 10, or the equivalent score.
But at first glance this might not be an issue, after all why should gamers waste their hard earned money on anything but the best? But then again, what is the best can be a very subjective thing. Reviewers are gamers like everyone else with personal preferences and outside influences that can sway their opinions. Hype, likes and dislikes, even corruption can effect how a reviewer rates a game and the way they feel may not necessarily be how everyone feels. The issues that a reviewer has with a particular title might be trivial to a player. There have been more than a few cases recently where for all the hype and high scores a game received (cough Halo 3 cough) when it finally made it into the hands of actual gamers the faults that weren't recognized or might even have been ignored were more than apparent to less than happy players.
So while the recent flux of highly regarded games is obviously a good thing, I still look with tentativeness. If I am interested in a game, I will not forget it because some person I have never met gives it a 7 (which is still good on most scales) instead of a 9. When I skim through the various game related forums that populate the web and come across someone talking about how poor a game must be because it only received an "average" score I can't help but roll my eyes. So many wiser people know that not every classic got a 10 out of 10, and not every game that scores so high is destined to be great.
This is not to knock reviewers. They play an important roll in almost every medium. Consumers deserve to know ahead of time, if they can, about the quality of a product, but gamers shouldn't rely on reviews alone and they are in no way the lone factor that determines the worth of a game. If a game gets 1 out of 10 across the board, it's probably trash. But in that hazier range, further up the ladder, sometimes it is good just to trust one's gut. There were lot of great games this year with some great scores, but out of all the titles I purchased and played my favorite was Conan. It's a blatant God of War clone; derivative, over the top and awarded only average scores, but it was fun and I enjoyed it thoroughly. That is what should count.
|
RSS feed
iTunes
