I was under the impression that games were meant to be fun, and the idea was to enjoy them. If you manage to get some friends out of this, it is great, as is the same with some people getting rich, or attention is drawn to games that need to draw attention. Yes, we have seen the videogame industry grow huge, and with it we have drawn in supposed "experts" into this area to pontficate and guide the suits.
However, I am seeing a possible trend going on here, I am finding troubling. If not a trend, it just is here and has been. I have been reading this forum for awhile and have posted, so I wil speak about what I see posts here, and what is written in articles people post. They make me wonder if people are talking themselves far too seriously and find themselves to be far more important to things than they actually are. While I appreciate insights some give, I am seeing some of this stuff:
* Individuals who set up blogs and pronounce themselves as "serious" game journalists and industry experts. They post something no more on target than what I would see a raving fanboy on a forum would post, but somehow we are supposed to take it seriously. Somehow in this puffery on their part, they make individuals who cheer on what they have to say, and use it as ammo in forums like this, as if what they write is gospel truth. Oh, I will say I have enjoyed Malstrom's articles and found insight into them, but there are others (*cough couch* Bruce on Games *cough cough*) that are just downright extreme fanboyism, and you wonder if they are writing to be a lapdog to a certain company. Maybe they are hoping they can land a job with that company.
* Industry "experts" that make some of the worst predictions EVER. They don't pan out, or most people here who read these predictions can see they are going to be way off. There is an individuals I shall not name (MP), who is in my mind is a posterboy for this. He is made out to be a celebrity of some sort, because some website has him on for episodes. Anyone have any idea how he landed that gig? Apparently it makes for a big deal.
* The Wii. Well, when I write this, I am referring to every single aspect of it that generates buzz on here. You know the details: motion-control, Nintendo first-party dominanting everything, casual gamers who happen to not like core games, the fact that a non-high def system is leading in sales showing the world accepts a system not having high def, and other bits of stuff. All these issues have resulted in what now looks like the latest fanboy war of the Wii vs the World. Apparently the Wii is being persecuted and fans of it are all bitter and stuck up. The Wii has changed the nature of videogames, but now we have to watch people screaming and believing their screaming will change things. Like the world will no longer want motion control (and be forced to use joypads for ALL gaming) or that somehow Natal is the future, and screaming about it will change everything.
* People posting that developers are lazy. Sitting on their chairs and typing, such individuals pontificate on the wonders of hard work, and how if only they would just "dig a little deeper" they could come up with something new and different. They feel that they are going to whip the industry into shape like a drill sargeant and somehow get them to do more. The concept of deadlines and meeting market demand, and providing what people want to play is foreign. Apparently providing people they want, like a multiplayer version of Mario is "lazy" even if it is what people want.
* The desire that videogames be seen as some medium for the best storytelling EVER. MGS4 being hyped as better than all movies ever made being an example (same with videogame critics calling GTA4 excellent storytelling). You see an attitude of literary critic popping up in regards to videogames. I see games as games, and yes it is good to see if we can get them to be better at telling stories. But do we really need them to be the BEST way to tell a story? If this is seen as everyone saying no, then consider this question as a line to not be crossed and a measure of people taking things too seriously.
* Hype mobs forming to back this game or that, all believing their game of choice will shake up the industry, doing things like causing the PS3 to become the choice of consoles for FPS titles, or single-handedly propelling a system to number one in console sales. These individuals cause a manic state behind a game, that results in (months later) people wondering why a game didn't do all that. Killzone 2 is an example of the hype mob. The game was elevated on here to be something that would be a huge seller, rivalling even Gears of War. The buzz was large. Now, looking back, the game did fine, and is an excellent game. But, people have the hangover wondering why it didn't even top the original Resistance, even after having a great opening week. The game suddenly gets ripped to shreads, as did Resistance 2, because reality didn't live up to the expecations the hype mob had.
* Post on here and then ending it with: DISCUSS! Seriously dude, either what you wrote is worth commenting on or not. If it is, it will generate discussion. If it isn't, then it won't. Your ordering people to discuss it doesn't make a bit of difference. Ok, you do want people to discuss it, then try a bit more manners, and post your thoughts and then ASK other people what they think.
Maybe the fact that the videogame industry has grown huge has fed into this. I can't say this. But apparently sales numbers have driven large numbers of people to care about things, so maybe we get that.
