Recently a bit of a stir has been caused in the video game community. This "controversy" was caused by the reboot of the Devil May Cry series. It's not the new location, or the new enemies, or the fact that the game is being rebooted. What people are all up in arms over is the fact that the main character, Dante, has had his look changed. Never mind the fact the entire game is being rebooted and changed. This goes to show that in video games, appearances are really everything. What people see on the outside is what they will judge first and foremost.
Recently another group of fans were in uproar over the change in Cole's look from inFamous. Everyone immediately dismissed it. Everything was wrong with it, and no real change to warm up to it was given. The same is happening with DmC. There has been one trailer for the game, not even any gameplay was shown.
In the debate between which is better, gameplay or story, people are always divided. But amazing graphics are always what people want most. If a game looks like "crap" people dismiss it and it disappears into the ether. Look at the Wii. Gamers are always complaining about how bad the Wii looks compared to the other systems. Games on the Wii are amazing, despite the fact they're not graphically equal with the PlayStation 3 or the Xbox 360. Look at Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, or Metroid: Other M, or in my opinion: Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. These games are well done on the Wii and yet people scoff at them because they don't look as good as other games.
Appearances also matter in why we buy games as well as how we play them. Games that aren't confident in their sales will more than likely put a hot girl in a tight outfit in easy view of a buyer to attract attention to itself. Other games don't need to do anything like that because they're confident in how their game will sell.
Looking at how people play games based on appearances, look no further than Bioware's RPGs. In Mass Effect and Dragon Age most people create characters in the image they would like to see themselves. They play the game according to the way they would be in that situation. That is after all, the point of a Role-Playing Game.
In non-RPG games appearance plays a role in how you react to the story. Take Uncharted 2 for example, Nathan Drake is a ruggedly handsome man who's charming and witty. His female sidekicks, Elena Fisher and Chloe Frazer are equally attractive. This is specifically done to make you feel as Drake does: torn between each woman.
So whether or not people want to believe it, appearances play a huge part in how we perceive our games. It's what we see first and nine out of ten times, it defines our experiences with the game.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Activision vs. EA (Let the Battle Begin)
I'll never understand why people can't simply get along. I mean, is it that hard to hold back snide remarks about someone else? What drives people to pick a fight with someone who never provoked anything in the first place?
As the title above states, I am talking about the comments made by Activision CEO Bobby Kotick about EA's company and developers. It all began during an interview with EDGE magazine with Kotick. He stated that they've had such success because Activision has let its internally owned studios retain their identity. Unlike EA he says who "will buy a developer and rename it EA whatever, EA Florida, EA New Jersey, etc."
Kotick says that they enjoy the fact that each of their studios have their own culture. This statement is interesting, considering how at the first sign of individuality from Infinity Ward, Activision turned on them. As said by EA's Jeff Brown, VP of Communications "Kotick's relationship with studio talent is well documented in litigation."
He goes on to say that Activision's success is based on three series: World of Warcraft, Guitar Hero, and Call of Duty. Continuing on, he says that Kotick had absolutely nothing to do with WoW and instead only reaped the benefits after merging with Blizzard's parent company Vivendi Games. This statement is in fact the truest of the bunch. Blizzard created WoW and championed its success. It is only by the merger that Activision has come to call it its own.
As for Guitar Hero, the franchise is collapsing in on itself, as Activision has no doubt realized, calling for a lesser number of GH games to be released this year. The only franchise that Activision has had a immense amount of success with is - of course - Call of Duty. Even the legal actions against IW can't stop the bullet train that is Call of Duty. The newest title, Call of Duty: Black Ops, looks to be even bigger than Modern Warfare 2.
In the interest of fairness, Activision has many other licenses that if treated properly could be given the level of success that its other franchises have. Recently the company released Spiderman: Shattered Dimensions which got decent reviews. The company is also preparing to release two James Bond games later in November (GoldenEye and Blood Stone).
Despite EA having many studios with the EA "Location" name tag, you don't hear nearly as much bad press about EA as you do Activision. Despite not having a unique name or something like that EA usually releases quality titles that sell relatively well and they don't have any of public opinion that Activision has. EA is respected by people a lot more than Activision is by both developers and gamers. They are wonderful publishing partners, stated such by high end developers such as Valve - who have released both Left 4 Dead games as well as the Orange Box under EA - and Bioware - who released Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age under EA.
In the end it seems like Kotick feels the need to brag about Activision's success so the company can seem better than it really is. If he were confident in how his company were doing he wouldn't feel the need to bring others down beneath him. In fact, by doing what he is doing now, he's doing the reverse: bringing himself down with unfounded statements while the other companies reply with the truth.
As the title above states, I am talking about the comments made by Activision CEO Bobby Kotick about EA's company and developers. It all began during an interview with EDGE magazine with Kotick. He stated that they've had such success because Activision has let its internally owned studios retain their identity. Unlike EA he says who "will buy a developer and rename it EA whatever, EA Florida, EA New Jersey, etc."
Kotick says that they enjoy the fact that each of their studios have their own culture. This statement is interesting, considering how at the first sign of individuality from Infinity Ward, Activision turned on them. As said by EA's Jeff Brown, VP of Communications "Kotick's relationship with studio talent is well documented in litigation."
He goes on to say that Activision's success is based on three series: World of Warcraft, Guitar Hero, and Call of Duty. Continuing on, he says that Kotick had absolutely nothing to do with WoW and instead only reaped the benefits after merging with Blizzard's parent company Vivendi Games. This statement is in fact the truest of the bunch. Blizzard created WoW and championed its success. It is only by the merger that Activision has come to call it its own.
As for Guitar Hero, the franchise is collapsing in on itself, as Activision has no doubt realized, calling for a lesser number of GH games to be released this year. The only franchise that Activision has had a immense amount of success with is - of course - Call of Duty. Even the legal actions against IW can't stop the bullet train that is Call of Duty. The newest title, Call of Duty: Black Ops, looks to be even bigger than Modern Warfare 2.
In the interest of fairness, Activision has many other licenses that if treated properly could be given the level of success that its other franchises have. Recently the company released Spiderman: Shattered Dimensions which got decent reviews. The company is also preparing to release two James Bond games later in November (GoldenEye and Blood Stone).
Despite EA having many studios with the EA "Location" name tag, you don't hear nearly as much bad press about EA as you do Activision. Despite not having a unique name or something like that EA usually releases quality titles that sell relatively well and they don't have any of public opinion that Activision has. EA is respected by people a lot more than Activision is by both developers and gamers. They are wonderful publishing partners, stated such by high end developers such as Valve - who have released both Left 4 Dead games as well as the Orange Box under EA - and Bioware - who released Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age under EA.
In the end it seems like Kotick feels the need to brag about Activision's success so the company can seem better than it really is. If he were confident in how his company were doing he wouldn't feel the need to bring others down beneath him. In fact, by doing what he is doing now, he's doing the reverse: bringing himself down with unfounded statements while the other companies reply with the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)