I was just reading through the thread about Spore, and noticed a theme I’ve seen in many other video game/computer game threads: buying decisions based on whether the game is “overhyped” or whether it can possibly “live up to the hype.”
Why is the level of hype important to anyone?
If it’s a good game, I’ll buy it and play it. If it’s a good movie, I’ll enjoy it. I don’t really care whether there was too much hype, too little hype, stupid commercials (okay, that does influence me a little), everybody else loves it, everybody else hates it, or the main developer once co-wrote a web comic that really sucked.
Is this “living up to the hype” thing related to the mindset that leads people to change the brand of shoes they wear because “everybody else started wearing them” or not watch a movie because “I’m sick of the previews everywhere”?
The problem with hype is that games are becoming more like Hollywood movies every day.
Development costs are so astronomical for “next-gen” platforms that game companies have become extremely risk-adverse - the marketing model is now nearly identical to big-budget films in that sales at launch at the principle target, and the media is whipped into subsequent frenzies every time a big name title comes out. Hype is designed, for the same reason that opening weekends get so much attention.
Of course the main issue is that a significantly fraction of these titles completely suck, but the developer-reviewer complex ensures that only companies that give consistently good reviews are given games to test - so everything is the Next Amazing Game with scores of perfect scores and self-wanking espose’s on how revolutionary everything’s going to be. Even sites like Metacritic fail to give realistic expectations when the 30% of the reviews are perfect scores before the title’s even launched, and you pretty much have to write off travesties like IGN and Gamespot entirely.
An approach like Steam is much more gamer-friendly and I think Valve made an excellent decision in implementing their digital distribution to the extent that it is. I’ve certainly purchased more from their online library than electronic stores, recently.
That’s why I prefer to read reviews after a game is released. I know the reviewer got the exact same game I’ll be getting, and that they aren’t dependent on a flow of free pre-release stuff to write their reviews (making them more impartial).
I understand that some people just have to have the game the day it comes out. Heck, I know I’m installing World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King on release day. But in that case, the reviews don’t really matter, do they? When I install WofLK, I won’t be thinking about whether it lives up to its hype; I’ll be playing it and deciding whether it’s fun.
Man - I had no idea how prolific my typos and pathetic my constant repetition of words was. I should really preview more.
I concur that reviews after release are probably going to be more reliable, I’ve often charted with amusement the steady decline of scores reported by Metacritic. Some travesties like Bioshock remain extremely high, but I suppose there’s no accounting for taste, and, of course, as a gigantic dork I’m pretty good at determining game quality from existing media.
Of course there’s the issue, as well, that the game industry has also become similar to movies in that successful titles are likely to be mined for sequels and milked for all they’re worth. With MMORPG games, maybe you can’t blame them considering content is the whole selling point, but I get the suspicion that enjoyable content is often withheld, simultaneously trimming production costs and promising easy follow-up titles.
/remove tinfoil hat.
You are no longer wearing a Tinfoil Hat.
There is a conspiracy here.
I simply never judge by the numbers. Actually reading the reviews helps more, but the most important thing is a demo so i can decide for myself. I won’t buy a game that doesn’t have a demo anymore, unless i happen to be able to play it some other way. Though there is a short list of franchises/developers that will get my dime based solely on me seeing the name.
I’d modify this to “the less I’m likely to buy it as soon as it comes out and wait to see what the general consensus is a little later on.”
I don’t think hype is automatically a bad thing, but there are times when you can tell a game site is saying a game is going to rock because the developer has told them so, not because they have any experience to back it up. Also you start to look for clues like “We only had five minutes to play with the game and it was a very early build, but we had a great time!”. Sorry but I don’t believe you can judge a game based on that kind of exposure to it.
There is also the (annoying) habit of game sites buying into the hype they themselves have created. You hear for weeks and months of a game that they’re talking about and how it’s going to be brilliant and then they review it and say it’s a bit lacklustre and disappointing. I’m getting quite good at spotting those games coming.
Spore is a good example of this where everything the media were saying about this game indicated to me that it was going to be interesting but potentially quite shallow as a game, and lo and behold that’s what I’ve been hearing from people here and other parts of the net.
