I have a dream, a dream where a "Console war" is a silly concept, and gamers don't suffer from having a market with 3 consoles, all with different online systems, and exclusives.
Now I realize this sounds a stupid, of course it does, we have lived with multiple consoles for as long as there have been consoles to play on.
And yet... When Sega Launched it's console, the "Sega Genesis" along side Nintendo's console the "Super Nintendo," there was a real difference in the games that came out on each console, and it was easy to decide which console you would rather have, due to this.
At that point, it was easy for a consumer to buy what console suited him, which lead to happier customers.
When the "Sony Playstation" came out, alongside the "Nintendo 64", the same suit followed, with Nintendo offering more colorful games, and strong first party games such as Mario, and Sony offering amazing RPGs, and action games, generally in different genres then what was found on the Nintendo 64.
What happened?
The next generation of home consoles included Sony's "Playstation 2", Nintendo's "Gamecube" and Microsoft's "Xbox." This generation, most games were found on all consoles, with minor differences in between consoles. Additionally a majority of the games could also be found on the PC.
Some of the same things could still be said, especially with the "Xbox" being the "Console of shooters" with more shooting games one it then the other consoles. Sony and Nintendo's consoles were more varying, but most games could be bought on all three.
Now comes the latest generation, with the three major consoles being Sony's "Playstation 3", Microsoft's "Xbox 360", and Nintendo's "Wii". this generation, Nintendo decided to go back to it's roots, and made a console that really defines itself, and is reminiscent of their older consoles, in the fact that it stands more to the side, and has it's own genres of games. Sony and Microsoft however, have their consoles sharing most of their games, making it harder to choose which console you want, also the fact that most of the games can also be played on the PC. Overall, the Xbox is still considered the "Console of Shooters," but less so this generation.
Differences between the "Xbox 360," and the "Playstation 3," include: Different controller, different online system, different price, different online stores, and different outputs. The "Playstation 3" and "Xbox 360's" controllers even have the same amount of buttons.
So what am I getting at?
Should consoles have more of an identity, with the "Xbox" having a "Console of Shooters" and such, so people can get the console that best matches them?
Maybe, but that probably wont be for a while.
So what then?
Not only have the consoles become similar, but the market has become so serious and so competitive, with companies putting each other down, and fans joining in to make fun of other consoles. Companies like "Electronic Arts" make money by making game after game, not caring about the quality, and just trying to make money.
Were consoles invented for this reason?
I think consoles and games were invented for people to have fun, not to have people arguing over what is better, or companies trying to just make money off of half-assed games.
So how did we end up here? I'm not sure, but hopefully things will only go up from here, leading to a more friendly console tomorrow.
As for today, people will still watch the monthly, or even weekly sales charts, to prove that their console is selling better, to accomplish nothing, people will mindlessly talk trash about games they have never played on other consoles, and people will talk about every thing that a company does wrong.
Sounds like fun huh? This is definitely not what consoles were invented for, and I say, if things want to change, there needs to be some major changes.
I guess we can all keep our fingers crossed for the future.
Monday, November 12, 2007
"Halo Killer"
Halo, wow, 7 or 8 years ago, if you said that very few gamers would know what you were talking about. Nowadays it's hard to find any gamer that hasn't at least heard of the game, with each game making record sales, and bringing less employes into the work place for a few days.
In general, the Halo series, is one of the most well known video game series, and has influenced many other games and pop culture. It can be found with Halloween pumpkins, machinima and various other areas.
Since the release of Halo: Combat Evolved, a phrase was invented by the press and gaming community, this phrase became increasingly popular towards the release of Halo 2, with the most famous game for receiving it was Killzone.
A number of months before it was released, Killzone was labeled by a gaming magazine as "The Halo Killer." The press for the game blew up considerably with people flocking to previews, trailers, and screenshots of the game. The game was finally released, and was met with lukewarm reviews, but was generally considered vastly inferior to Halo. With news of it's bad reviews, and public opinion, the game became regarded as somewhat of a joke to a lot of gamers.
But when looking at the game by itself, it's an amazing experience, it may have it's problems, but in general, deserves better scores then received, so then, perhaps it was the title "Halo Killer" that killed the game, rather then Halo, with expectations blow out of proportion with the hype the was gotten along with the title.
What did the company think of the title? "You can't buy that kind of publicity. Anyways, who is going to say their game is not as good as another game. That is a matter of opinion. "Killing" a game is a ridiculous concept and it is not possible."
So their game given a title that was not wanted, made the game meet lower reviews and public opinion. Not a "Halo Killer" indeed.
But then, what IS a "Halo Killer?"
What could "Halo Killer" mean? Does it mean superior gameplay? Does it mean more sales? Does it mean better story? Does it mean better review scores? Does it mean that everyone will drop Halo and buy the "Halo Killer" instead?
Let's break these down, in terms of gameplay, many PC users will say they've had their Halo Killers around for years, with games such as Half-Life, And a large number of people will agree that the 2 Nintendo64 smash hit titles from Rare, Perfect Dark, and Goldeneye, far surpass Halo.
In terms of Sales, Halo is not the best selling game ever with games like The Sims, Mario, Grand Theft Auto and more far outselling Halo. Also, what do sales have to do with a good game? A lot of the time it can be a guider, but with games such as DRIV3R, and Enter the Matrix, which sold well but were hated among critics and gamers, yet games like Psychonauts, and Beyond Good and Evil, which were both critically and publicly acclaimed, sold horribly. So do sales really mean all that much?
People talk about a better story often, and yet, what defines a better story? Mostly it's all up to personal opinion, but once again, there are first person shooters with much more in depth stories, like once again, Half-Life. But people have different opinions, and some people may find the story of Mario better then the story of Halo, and that is their opinion. So what are we left with?
A big point is review scores, but again, this boils down to opinion, with Halo 2, and Halo 3 scoring lower on review sites such as Gamespot. Yet many people believe them to be superior, leading back to the fact that reviews are opinions. Another problem with reviews, is that most of the time they are measured up against what is out at that time, not for the game to stand on it's own, with examples like, the PS3 version of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, coming out a year later, but with better loading times, more content, and better graphics, yet it received a lower score. This all leads to the fact that reviews are not solely the reason compare games.
Lastly some people expect a game to come out that makes everyone drop Halo and pick it up. This will not happen, even if the game IS better then Halo, because of the cost of a new game, or the having to learn new controls and gameplay, when you already know the game you play the most. Maybe it will be on a system that they down own, regardless, there will never be a game that will make people suddenly drop Halo.
So is Halo really that good that nothing will touch it?
I am not saying that, Halo is only as good as your opinion of it. And lots of people already have games that they have higher opinions then Halo, So does that mean we have found our "Halo Killers?"
Maybe, but that would mean that "Halo Killer" is a personal description rather then a general one, leaving the game Killzone to take the blunt of the blade, one of which it couldn't have defeated.
So what would people want a "Halo Killer" to be like?
Different people would give you different answers, and yet, most people would have it be a game like Halo, which leads to another problem, because in this world of video games, people would argue that it is a blatant rip off of Halo, even if it's better. But what if was made differently? Would it lead to a game so unlike Halo it wouldn't be in the same ballpark, and would that mean it still has a chance to be a "Halo Killer?" Or does it only apply to first person shooters? Even so, the first person shooter genre has multiple sub-genres, such as the amazing amount of World War II first person shooters, realistic modern first person shooters, Sci-Fi Shooters, and other categories.
Does that mean that in the first person shooter genre itself, the "Halo Killer" title can only be handed to certain genres of first person shooters, or can it even be given to non first person shooter games? And if it can what does it mean? Can you even compare a racing, or fighting game to a First Person Shooter? How could you ever decide what game is a "Halo Killer?"
At the end of the day, the best way to describe "Halo Killer" is a personal thing, because the only way for a game to "Kill" Halo, is to have it better your personal opinion of Halo, which is only defined by what you personally like to see in games.
The only "Halo Killer" that people will ever drop Halo for, is in fact another Halo game. This is true for other franchises also though, people will tend to stick with what they know, it doesn't matter if there is "better" things. People will only drop "Metal Gear Solid" for another "Metal Gear Solid", same with "Super Smash Brothers."
In general, the Halo series, is one of the most well known video game series, and has influenced many other games and pop culture. It can be found with Halloween pumpkins, machinima and various other areas.
Since the release of Halo: Combat Evolved, a phrase was invented by the press and gaming community, this phrase became increasingly popular towards the release of Halo 2, with the most famous game for receiving it was Killzone.
A number of months before it was released, Killzone was labeled by a gaming magazine as "The Halo Killer." The press for the game blew up considerably with people flocking to previews, trailers, and screenshots of the game. The game was finally released, and was met with lukewarm reviews, but was generally considered vastly inferior to Halo. With news of it's bad reviews, and public opinion, the game became regarded as somewhat of a joke to a lot of gamers.
But when looking at the game by itself, it's an amazing experience, it may have it's problems, but in general, deserves better scores then received, so then, perhaps it was the title "Halo Killer" that killed the game, rather then Halo, with expectations blow out of proportion with the hype the was gotten along with the title.
What did the company think of the title? "You can't buy that kind of publicity. Anyways, who is going to say their game is not as good as another game. That is a matter of opinion. "Killing" a game is a ridiculous concept and it is not possible."
So their game given a title that was not wanted, made the game meet lower reviews and public opinion. Not a "Halo Killer" indeed.
But then, what IS a "Halo Killer?"
What could "Halo Killer" mean? Does it mean superior gameplay? Does it mean more sales? Does it mean better story? Does it mean better review scores? Does it mean that everyone will drop Halo and buy the "Halo Killer" instead?
Let's break these down, in terms of gameplay, many PC users will say they've had their Halo Killers around for years, with games such as Half-Life, And a large number of people will agree that the 2 Nintendo64 smash hit titles from Rare, Perfect Dark, and Goldeneye, far surpass Halo.
In terms of Sales, Halo is not the best selling game ever with games like The Sims, Mario, Grand Theft Auto and more far outselling Halo. Also, what do sales have to do with a good game? A lot of the time it can be a guider, but with games such as DRIV3R, and Enter the Matrix, which sold well but were hated among critics and gamers, yet games like Psychonauts, and Beyond Good and Evil, which were both critically and publicly acclaimed, sold horribly. So do sales really mean all that much?
People talk about a better story often, and yet, what defines a better story? Mostly it's all up to personal opinion, but once again, there are first person shooters with much more in depth stories, like once again, Half-Life. But people have different opinions, and some people may find the story of Mario better then the story of Halo, and that is their opinion. So what are we left with?
A big point is review scores, but again, this boils down to opinion, with Halo 2, and Halo 3 scoring lower on review sites such as Gamespot. Yet many people believe them to be superior, leading back to the fact that reviews are opinions. Another problem with reviews, is that most of the time they are measured up against what is out at that time, not for the game to stand on it's own, with examples like, the PS3 version of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, coming out a year later, but with better loading times, more content, and better graphics, yet it received a lower score. This all leads to the fact that reviews are not solely the reason compare games.
Lastly some people expect a game to come out that makes everyone drop Halo and pick it up. This will not happen, even if the game IS better then Halo, because of the cost of a new game, or the having to learn new controls and gameplay, when you already know the game you play the most. Maybe it will be on a system that they down own, regardless, there will never be a game that will make people suddenly drop Halo.
So is Halo really that good that nothing will touch it?
I am not saying that, Halo is only as good as your opinion of it. And lots of people already have games that they have higher opinions then Halo, So does that mean we have found our "Halo Killers?"
Maybe, but that would mean that "Halo Killer" is a personal description rather then a general one, leaving the game Killzone to take the blunt of the blade, one of which it couldn't have defeated.
So what would people want a "Halo Killer" to be like?
Different people would give you different answers, and yet, most people would have it be a game like Halo, which leads to another problem, because in this world of video games, people would argue that it is a blatant rip off of Halo, even if it's better. But what if was made differently? Would it lead to a game so unlike Halo it wouldn't be in the same ballpark, and would that mean it still has a chance to be a "Halo Killer?" Or does it only apply to first person shooters? Even so, the first person shooter genre has multiple sub-genres, such as the amazing amount of World War II first person shooters, realistic modern first person shooters, Sci-Fi Shooters, and other categories.
Does that mean that in the first person shooter genre itself, the "Halo Killer" title can only be handed to certain genres of first person shooters, or can it even be given to non first person shooter games? And if it can what does it mean? Can you even compare a racing, or fighting game to a First Person Shooter? How could you ever decide what game is a "Halo Killer?"
At the end of the day, the best way to describe "Halo Killer" is a personal thing, because the only way for a game to "Kill" Halo, is to have it better your personal opinion of Halo, which is only defined by what you personally like to see in games.
The only "Halo Killer" that people will ever drop Halo for, is in fact another Halo game. This is true for other franchises also though, people will tend to stick with what they know, it doesn't matter if there is "better" things. People will only drop "Metal Gear Solid" for another "Metal Gear Solid", same with "Super Smash Brothers."
EDIT: A bunch of people are taking this as a big compliment, saying how nothing will ever touch Halo. That's what this article is about, it's about the term "Halo Killer" not how good or bad you think Halo is.
My Video Game Rants
Hello, this is alias "Jon God," the creator, and writer of "My Video Game Rants."
I decided to start this blog, due to me starting to rant about certain things that bother me about video games, the video game community, the video game industry, and what ever else I decide to throw in here.
If you have comments feel free to post them, I am not in the industry, so I am sure a lot of the stuff I say will just be plain stupid to someone who understands the industry better then I.
As for updates, i will update this when I feel like it, and no sooner, this blog was started from me ranting, I am not doing this to please people or anything, I just am expressing my opinion.
As for typos, I really don't care too much, it's the message I want to get across, not the lack of a comma, or period.
I decided to start this blog, due to me starting to rant about certain things that bother me about video games, the video game community, the video game industry, and what ever else I decide to throw in here.
If you have comments feel free to post them, I am not in the industry, so I am sure a lot of the stuff I say will just be plain stupid to someone who understands the industry better then I.
As for updates, i will update this when I feel like it, and no sooner, this blog was started from me ranting, I am not doing this to please people or anything, I just am expressing my opinion.
As for typos, I really don't care too much, it's the message I want to get across, not the lack of a comma, or period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
