Video Games: Death By Hype
Hype, huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Hype is generally considered to be testament to how good a game really is. So, for example, the more column inches a game receives leading up to its release, and the more buzz that surrounds it or the bigger the marketing campaign, the better the game is expected to be. However, I’ve always subscribed to the train of thought that hype can typically be the downfall of what is actually a decent game. For that reason I’ve never bought into hype. I generally approach any game with a lack of expectation, and for that reason I’m rarely disappointed.
Leading up to the release of a game I’m particularly interested in, I’ll deliberately avoid previews and development reports of how the game is panning out. I’ll inevitably hear or see tidbits as I’m scanning Twitter and perusing my feeds, not to mention I’ll obviously know the basic premise to be interested in the first place, but I never actively seek out information or spoilers. I leave any surprises ’till I have a controller firmly in hand, and this even includes the story, which generally means I’m rarely disappointed due to initial expectations not being met, because I haven’t had an opportunity to form any.
Tomorrow, Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising hits the European market. I’ll be buying it based on… Well, I don’t actually know, because other than it being a tactical shooter known for its realism, I don’t know anything about it. This is how I approach gaming, because I believe conforming to the buzz media places around certain games can actually affect your enjoyment of them.
The perfect example is Assassin’s Creed, a game that was wildly praised by 50% of critics, and horribly berated by the other 50%. Opinion was split down the middle, and that even extended to gamer’s opinions as well. After much dissuasion from friends to avoid the game, I played Assassin’s Creed knowing little about the plot and any aspects gamers were particularly excited about (and subsequently ‘let down’ by), and expected nothing more than an average game solely judging by the reaction. Because of this indifference the game actually over delivered. Zero expectations meant that when Assassin’s Creed threw something at me that seemed a little out of place, I didn’t scoff, berate or condemn the game, I just went with it.
The truth is, if Assassin’s Creed had little attention payed to it leading up to its release, I believe it would have been one hell of a sleeper hit. MetaCritic’s average rating would have rocketed well above 80. It’s just a shame that such hype leading up to its release caused every aspect of the game to be overly scrutinised (which is a natural effect of hype). And to further cement what I’m talking about, I quote a gamer on MetaCritic as writing “…After all the talk about this game I wasted my money.” All the talk about this game caused every insignificant flaw to be harshly emphasised. If there hadn’t been much talk about this game I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have rated it a 1 out of 10. Regardless of whether you felt let down by Assassin’s Creed, you can’t argue it wasn’t a well made game.
Fable is another victim, though that was more so self imposed. While I’ve never played the original, I have heard all about the drama regarding its release; about how Molyneux talked it up big style and over promised things, got gamers ridiculously excited, then disappointed them by under delivering on a game that had spent 4 years in development. Molyneux admitted he overhyped Fable, and he did a massive disservice to the game by doing so. Naturally, expectation goes hand in hand with hype, and the buzz that Molyneux had created meant gamers were playing Fable with a very specific idea of what to expect - they were then surprised when it didn’t meet their expectation. In a nutshell, hype was arguably the downfall of Fable.
There are of course exceptions to the rule, Bioshock being one of them. Bioshock was hugely anticipated, and for good reason. I remember on release day most people on my Friends List had booked the day off work and were underwater in Rapture (where as I was prancing around Talta Village as a 16 year old boy in Blue Dragon). Bioshock didn’t disappoint. It was a true 10 out of 10 game, and while perfection doesn’t exist, it was as close to perfect as a game can get. Every ounce of hysteria surrounding Bioshock was well deserved, and while hype generally means every aspect of a game is harshly criticized, Bioshock pulled it off by being a flat out amazing game.
I believe games should be approached with a fresh slate and an uninfluenced mind, even if it’s the latest addition to a popular franchise a la Grand Theft Auto IV. It’s natural for benchmarks to be set and expectations for a game to conform to that, but I personally try and shake any preconceived notions. This approach to gaming serves me well. The next time you hear of a game that may pique your interest, avoid all news and reviews until after you’ve played it and formed your own opinion, which hasn’t been influenced by the media’s buzz.
The bottom line is, hype leaves little room for even the smallest of flaws in a game, and thus unfairly damages the reception to generally well made games. It also strips away the element of surprise that should very well be prominent when losing yourself in a fictitous environment. I believe hype can be the downfall of most games, and for this reason I approach games from an unbiased place. I encourage you to do the same.
Are you the opposite to myself in that you devour all previews/trailers/reviews beforehand? Or do you approach video games in the sense that I do, with surprise being at the heart of your experience?
After playing Dragon Age: Origins, Bioware’s latest Role Playing Game, for just under a month, I’m only 30% odd complete. There’s sex, there’s violence, there’s a question of morals, there’s a meaty story. With real-time gory combat and big swords, it’s what every action RPG fan wants, right?
Skar