Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising (also known as Operation Flashpoint 2) is a “military simulation” first person shooter game released in October 2009 that was advertised as being a game that is “as close to war as you ever want to get.” Developers boasted of its assortment of real-life weaponry and vehicles, advanced combat system, and it’s extremely large island battleground.
The main premise of the game is a war between modern day superpowers in a fight over the island north of Japan, named Skira. The United States has teamed up with Russia to overtake the island from China. China has claimed the land as their own to hoard the natural resources that the island has to offer. The player finds themselves as a leader of a special operations marine squad on Skira. This game strives for realism, and is very unlike other common first person shooter war games, such as Call of Duty 4. In Operation Flashpoint, military style tactics are required for advancing in the game. The player needs to go slow, listen to commands being ordered via the radio, and think about where they are in their environment and where they need to go. Running around with your gun or knife, quickly amassing head shots does not work in this game. There is a very steep learning curve for players who are used to the popular first person shooter games.
One of the areas where Operation Flashpoint really shines is its environment. The sheer size of the maps is impressive, and the game’s graphics have a sort of dark, dingy look to them. The buildings are also able to be destroyed, which makes it satisfying to call in a howitzer cannon to demolish a small section of a town.
Other small details add to the realism of the game, making it feel like the player is actually fighting in a war. Just as in a real war, one shot can kill you making it that much more important to be aware of your surroundings. The trajectory of the bullets also adds to the realism. In the game, when shooting from a long distance, the player must shoot above the target so that the arc of the bullet is accounted for. The missions are well designed in that the route that is given to you, and commanding a squad adds an interesting element to the game that other first person shooters don’t usually have. Since strategy plays a key role in this game, every move needs to be given thought and be well executed.
Unfortunately, the features that could make this a great game do not work the way they were most likely intended. This review is for the PC version of the game, and one of the most frustrating problems is that the squad controls seem to be built for a console. Whenever the player opens the quick command menu to give their squad orders, it stops you in your tracks. The player is unable to move at all while fumbling through the menu trying to find the command they want. The same is true for even switching weapons. There is also yet another menu separate from the quick command, which is specifically for calling in air strikes and howitzer cannon shots, and is by default the right shift bar. It is obvious that the two menus were intended for a controller, because to navigate through these menus, the player must press the W, A, S, and D keys for up, down, left, and right; something that would be much easier with a joystick.
Another major problem that Operation Flashpoint has is a lack of useful artificial intelligence in the player’s computer controlled squad mates. The computer controlled military men are supposed to be able to follow commands given by the player, but often, they do not. This poses a huge problem, simply because the game’s main focus is using teamwork and strategies in order to accomplish missions. For example, if a player takes too much damage, they will become incapacitated on the ground, unable to do anything other than call out for help. Eventually they will die if a medic doesn’t come to their aid. The dying process can take quite awhile, leaving the player to yell out “medic!” over and over again, while the nearby medic obliviously carries on whatever task they were doing. This can be very frustrating, not only because the player can see the medic plainly ignoring a team mates urgent cries for help, but because it takes forever for the player to finally die. When you do die, you are re-spawned at a point in the game an hour or so earlier.
As mentioned earlier, this game has a huge environment, which really adds to the realism. The only problem with this is that the player spends most of their time running everywhere. Vehicles are hard to come by, which forces the player to spend the majority of their gameplay time running around. The game’s many weapons were also hyped up by the previews, but after the first few missions, the weapons that are given to the player are the same for a lot of the levels. Actually, one of the hardest parts of the game is trying not to run out of ammunition. Also, a few levels require you to use your best stealth to advance through the game, but it seems like the enemy can spot you no matter if you are hiding behind a tree or a brick wall. When using smoke grenades to hide your position, it actually does the opposite, because you can no longer see the enemies but they can somehow see you. They shoot you through the smoke, and you quickly die.
This game strives for realism, and the voice acting seems very authentic, at least to someone who has never been in an actual war. While adding to the realism of the game, it also makes the objectives of each level extremely confusing. Most of your orders are quickly barked over a crackling radio, using all sorts of military abbreviations and code words, most of which sound like Latin to a common civilian who has never experienced a real war. There are no translations of these words in the instruction manual, so the player either figures out what they are supposed to be doing via trial and error over several hours, or pauses the game to decipher a random word or phrase using Google.
Overall, Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising has a lot of good things going for it. The attention paid to every small detail with the focus of making this a war simulation game is obvious. It is also obvious that so much time was spent on the small details that many key game play elements are broken or missing. The computer artificial intelligence is lacking, the controls are clunky and obviously made to be used with a console controller, and were later quickly modified to work with a keyboard and mouse. The island environment is huge and impressive, but a pain to traverse. The online play had so much lag that it was impossible to move. There are a wide variety of weapons, but most of them are revealed at the very beginning of the game, with nothing new or exciting to look forward to later. The gameplay in general has a very steep learning curve for someone who is used to playing first person shooter war games such as Call of Duty 4. The tactics required for Operation Flashpoint are totally different and take a lot of getting used to. After many hours of playing, the game did eventually start to make sense and objectives of each level became clearer, but it was not clear whether the amount of time and energy it took to figure the game out was worth it. Perhaps this game will appeal to a section of gamers who are looking for a realistic war simulation game, but for the average player who wants to run around and quickly kill other players, this game will be too confusing and slow.
Final Verdict: 6 out of 10.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
New Games Journalism
We’ve all agreed that videogames should be considered forms of art, and with any form of art, there are many different approaches to explaining them. Since videogames are still developing as an art medium, new approaches are still being taken to describe them. The article "The New Games Journalism" stated that "The sign of a healthy artistic medium is not that it can be easily explained by one approach, but that it takes several and sometimes even dozens to really properly explain all the amazing things that a piece of art is doing. When it comes to New Games Journalism, it’s hopefully only the first of many."
Now, I’m not saying that New Games Journalism is better than the standard games journalism piece, but depending on the type of game it is used for, New Games Journalism can be more beneficial. Kieron Gillen said, "Part of the problem with games is that they contain everything. As such, what critical approach works best varies from game to game. Some games, taking primarily from film theory is pretty well justified. Others, a more music-inspired approach works." For some games, New Game Journalism is arguably the best approach to describing a game.
New Games Journalism is best used to portray (in first person) a unique experience of the reviewer, which goes beyond simply describing the mechanics of a game and instead placing the reader in that experience. This is best used for multiplayer experiences or games that are nonlinear in which no experience will be the same. New Games Journalism also provides a description of the gameplay a game has, but in first person narrative. "The New Games Journalism" article made a good point by saying: "Rattling off the details of your special powers in a game and claiming this is enough to describe what a game is about is just as absurd as describing the effect that a real gun will have on a live target: talking about it is not the same thing as being there." New Games Journalism gives you that feeling of "being there" with the use of first person narrative, which in my opinion is more interesting to read. This could also be a good approach to helping games journalism appeal to the non-gaming community.
Now, I’m not saying that New Games Journalism is better than the standard games journalism piece, but depending on the type of game it is used for, New Games Journalism can be more beneficial. Kieron Gillen said, "Part of the problem with games is that they contain everything. As such, what critical approach works best varies from game to game. Some games, taking primarily from film theory is pretty well justified. Others, a more music-inspired approach works." For some games, New Game Journalism is arguably the best approach to describing a game.
New Games Journalism is best used to portray (in first person) a unique experience of the reviewer, which goes beyond simply describing the mechanics of a game and instead placing the reader in that experience. This is best used for multiplayer experiences or games that are nonlinear in which no experience will be the same. New Games Journalism also provides a description of the gameplay a game has, but in first person narrative. "The New Games Journalism" article made a good point by saying: "Rattling off the details of your special powers in a game and claiming this is enough to describe what a game is about is just as absurd as describing the effect that a real gun will have on a live target: talking about it is not the same thing as being there." New Games Journalism gives you that feeling of "being there" with the use of first person narrative, which in my opinion is more interesting to read. This could also be a good approach to helping games journalism appeal to the non-gaming community.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Global Videogames
Technology has come a long way, and videogames have changed and grown with the technology. When I first started playing videogames, they were just a way for me to escape reality and relax. I hid by myself in my room in the basement, content with my single player games. A few years after that, I began playing with my friend Bryce, who lived down the road from me. Videogames became a social activity for me as well, as we would spend hours killing each other playing Super Smash Brothers. A few years after that, I finally was able to enter the 21st century, and I bought a computer and DSL, and was able to play with people all over the world. The new technology opened up a lot of doors for me, helping me to get a lot better. I was able to interact with people who were a lot better than me, and learned from them as they killed me.
My first real experience with a “global” game was World of Warcraft, a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG). Playing an MMO is an entirely different experience than playing a videogame alone in your basement. There are add-on programs that people download and use in order to talk to each other on headsets, so that they can coordinate their attacks, or just casually chat. People form and join large guilds of players, so that at any given time, there are people online, playing, chatting, and available.
World of Warcraft is very similar to MySpace or Facebook in a lot of ways. There is a huge emphasis on community, teamwork, and interaction. Some quests or events in World of Warcraft require that you be in a group of people in order to complete them, and your group has to work together in a coordinated way to accomplish a goal. In some ways, it is strange to be playing a game in my basement, and run across some mage from Australia, killing boars in the woods.
Computer technology is advancing at an incredible rate. We really do have a global community through the internet. It is crazy to think of all of the millions of people across the world that you might accidentally run into while playing a game in your home. For me, videogames have gone from being a solitary activity to being something I did with my friend at his house, to something that I can do with a person from Japan that I have never met before. The ability to play with people anywhere, at any time adds a lot of interesting aspects to videogames. Being in a “global” videogame means that there is always someone to interact with, always someone to help you accomplish a difficult task, or always someone lurking around the corner, waiting to kill you. One thing that I have noticed is that playing first person shooter games online is a very different experience than playing against the computer, even on the game’s hardest settings. Artificial intelligence technology is growing better each year, but it does not compare to the “real” intelligence of a seasoned player sneaking up behind you to shank you in the back. Playing games online with real people is the best way to get really good at a game really fast. The technology of being able to interact with people from all over the world has changed the ways people play games.
My first real experience with a “global” game was World of Warcraft, a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG). Playing an MMO is an entirely different experience than playing a videogame alone in your basement. There are add-on programs that people download and use in order to talk to each other on headsets, so that they can coordinate their attacks, or just casually chat. People form and join large guilds of players, so that at any given time, there are people online, playing, chatting, and available.
World of Warcraft is very similar to MySpace or Facebook in a lot of ways. There is a huge emphasis on community, teamwork, and interaction. Some quests or events in World of Warcraft require that you be in a group of people in order to complete them, and your group has to work together in a coordinated way to accomplish a goal. In some ways, it is strange to be playing a game in my basement, and run across some mage from Australia, killing boars in the woods.
Computer technology is advancing at an incredible rate. We really do have a global community through the internet. It is crazy to think of all of the millions of people across the world that you might accidentally run into while playing a game in your home. For me, videogames have gone from being a solitary activity to being something I did with my friend at his house, to something that I can do with a person from Japan that I have never met before. The ability to play with people anywhere, at any time adds a lot of interesting aspects to videogames. Being in a “global” videogame means that there is always someone to interact with, always someone to help you accomplish a difficult task, or always someone lurking around the corner, waiting to kill you. One thing that I have noticed is that playing first person shooter games online is a very different experience than playing against the computer, even on the game’s hardest settings. Artificial intelligence technology is growing better each year, but it does not compare to the “real” intelligence of a seasoned player sneaking up behind you to shank you in the back. Playing games online with real people is the best way to get really good at a game really fast. The technology of being able to interact with people from all over the world has changed the ways people play games.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Sims 3
I didn’t really know what videogame to do for my first review. I play games all the time, but I don’t have very many brand new (less than six month old) games. As in, zero. I haven’t bought a console game in long time, so none of those games would work. The only game that could possibly work for this assignment was a game I bought for my girlfriend over the summer: The Sims 3. The only other “sim” game I have played is an old SimCity game, which was pretty fun. I know the general idea of The Sims, and I watched my girlfriend, Laura, play it when she first got it. I wasn’t totally sure what to expect, but I figured that since I didn’t have an extra wad of money to go buy a new game, The Sims 3 was the only good option for a videogame review.
I tried out The Sims 3 on my computer. The general idea of the game is that you create a person (or family), choosing how they look, their personality, and even their life goals. The level of customization available is pretty impressive. It took me a good forty-five minutes to create characters for myself, Laura, and my best friend Bryce. I did a pretty good job of making my characters look like the real thing, and their personalities are pretty spot on. I made myself friendly, attractive, and a hard worker (just like in real life), my girlfriend a shy and neurotic artist, and my best friend Bryce a goofy, lazy musician who doesn’t take anything seriously (I mean that in the best way possible Bryce).
Next I had to pick a house for us to live in, and I settled for a middle of the road two-bedroom house. I figured that if Bryce could find a job, it would be extra income for the family, so we all moved in together. I bought some snazzy accessories with the little money I had left, but only the necessities: a chess table so that I could get smarter, a bookcase so Laura could learn how to cook for all of us, a guitar for Bryce so that eventually he could make money playing outside our house for strangers, and a computer so that I could play videogames when I got home from work.
After the life necessities were purchased, I looked in the newspaper, and luck was on my side. There was an opening in the health care field, which I promptly accepted. I was well on my way of having a happy, successful family.
I played The Sims 3 for a good chunk of time. I am not sure how long it was, maybe six hours or so, but eventually, Bryce became a rock star celebrity, and was playing concerts at the theater. I got pretty high in the medical career ladder, and was making pretty good money. Laura did have a decent job, but one of her character traits was that she hated being around people, and her job required her to socialize all day long. After her work shift, she would come home a crazy mess, and yell at my character and complain that Bryce sat around all day flirting with women and playing his guitar, and I was afraid she might have some sort of nervous breakdown. So I ended up having her quit her job and proposed to her. We had a small wedding with a birthday cake and balloons, and Bryce was telling stupid jokes and making faces at us. Then she got pregnant and had twins. I did what any good sim-“father” would do, and named my daughters after my two real life pet turtles: Slimer and Lipstick. This was the beginning of the end for my little alternate reality.
Maybe I was not totally prepared for how much of a pain in the butt having a baby would be. In the Sims 3, for me, it brings the fun factor WAY down. Having two babies made it almost non-existent. Before, it was fun, having Bryce wander into town with his guitar and pick up ladies to bring home, flirt with, and eventually get slapped by. Or throwing a party after work where all of my closest sim-friends came over to eat my food and watch me play videogames. Or the close, sweet hugs between me and my girlfriend after she cooked me dinner. Once you have a baby (or two), the whole game become changing their nasty diapers (which put my sim-self in the most awful moods), giving them bottles, giving them “social interaction”, teaching them to talk, teaching them to walk, and so on and so on and so on. There was no longer any time for Bryce to pick up women in the town, I was always tired and grumpy when I went to work because I never got enough sleep, and Laura was behind on her housework.
The game was no longer any fun for me. Before, I got to mess around, do what I wanted, and potentially ruin Bryce’s life by the stupid things I made him do. Now, there was Slimer and Listick, two young babies that needed around the clock care. I heard somewhere that if you neglect your babies in The Sims 3 long enough, a social worker would come and take them away. No social worker came for mine. Eventually, I turned off the game. It was fun while the party lasted, but once “real life” set in my alternate reality, the fun was gone for me. I can see how this game would appeal to Laura, because she likes tedious, repetitive things. Maybe I will make new characters, and start over, back in the good old days without responsibility. Sort of like perpetual high school. Until then, I’ll stick to shooting zombies.
PROS: You are able to make highly customized Sims of yourself and your friends, and then control their lives, making them do really funny things. There is a wide range of jobs, skills, household items, and character interactions to play around with. High replay value, because you can make several Sims and ruin their lives as well.
CONS: Once you have kids, life goes downhill fast. The game play can be very tedious.
GRADE: 8/10 at first, dropping to 5/10 after your Sim has a baby.
I tried out The Sims 3 on my computer. The general idea of the game is that you create a person (or family), choosing how they look, their personality, and even their life goals. The level of customization available is pretty impressive. It took me a good forty-five minutes to create characters for myself, Laura, and my best friend Bryce. I did a pretty good job of making my characters look like the real thing, and their personalities are pretty spot on. I made myself friendly, attractive, and a hard worker (just like in real life), my girlfriend a shy and neurotic artist, and my best friend Bryce a goofy, lazy musician who doesn’t take anything seriously (I mean that in the best way possible Bryce).
Next I had to pick a house for us to live in, and I settled for a middle of the road two-bedroom house. I figured that if Bryce could find a job, it would be extra income for the family, so we all moved in together. I bought some snazzy accessories with the little money I had left, but only the necessities: a chess table so that I could get smarter, a bookcase so Laura could learn how to cook for all of us, a guitar for Bryce so that eventually he could make money playing outside our house for strangers, and a computer so that I could play videogames when I got home from work.
After the life necessities were purchased, I looked in the newspaper, and luck was on my side. There was an opening in the health care field, which I promptly accepted. I was well on my way of having a happy, successful family.
I played The Sims 3 for a good chunk of time. I am not sure how long it was, maybe six hours or so, but eventually, Bryce became a rock star celebrity, and was playing concerts at the theater. I got pretty high in the medical career ladder, and was making pretty good money. Laura did have a decent job, but one of her character traits was that she hated being around people, and her job required her to socialize all day long. After her work shift, she would come home a crazy mess, and yell at my character and complain that Bryce sat around all day flirting with women and playing his guitar, and I was afraid she might have some sort of nervous breakdown. So I ended up having her quit her job and proposed to her. We had a small wedding with a birthday cake and balloons, and Bryce was telling stupid jokes and making faces at us. Then she got pregnant and had twins. I did what any good sim-“father” would do, and named my daughters after my two real life pet turtles: Slimer and Lipstick. This was the beginning of the end for my little alternate reality.
Maybe I was not totally prepared for how much of a pain in the butt having a baby would be. In the Sims 3, for me, it brings the fun factor WAY down. Having two babies made it almost non-existent. Before, it was fun, having Bryce wander into town with his guitar and pick up ladies to bring home, flirt with, and eventually get slapped by. Or throwing a party after work where all of my closest sim-friends came over to eat my food and watch me play videogames. Or the close, sweet hugs between me and my girlfriend after she cooked me dinner. Once you have a baby (or two), the whole game become changing their nasty diapers (which put my sim-self in the most awful moods), giving them bottles, giving them “social interaction”, teaching them to talk, teaching them to walk, and so on and so on and so on. There was no longer any time for Bryce to pick up women in the town, I was always tired and grumpy when I went to work because I never got enough sleep, and Laura was behind on her housework.
The game was no longer any fun for me. Before, I got to mess around, do what I wanted, and potentially ruin Bryce’s life by the stupid things I made him do. Now, there was Slimer and Listick, two young babies that needed around the clock care. I heard somewhere that if you neglect your babies in The Sims 3 long enough, a social worker would come and take them away. No social worker came for mine. Eventually, I turned off the game. It was fun while the party lasted, but once “real life” set in my alternate reality, the fun was gone for me. I can see how this game would appeal to Laura, because she likes tedious, repetitive things. Maybe I will make new characters, and start over, back in the good old days without responsibility. Sort of like perpetual high school. Until then, I’ll stick to shooting zombies.
PROS: You are able to make highly customized Sims of yourself and your friends, and then control their lives, making them do really funny things. There is a wide range of jobs, skills, household items, and character interactions to play around with. High replay value, because you can make several Sims and ruin their lives as well.
CONS: Once you have kids, life goes downhill fast. The game play can be very tedious.
GRADE: 8/10 at first, dropping to 5/10 after your Sim has a baby.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Example of Art in Videogames
Spending the last 30 minutes playing Crayon Physics, I would have to say that this is a good example of art in videgames. The gameplay in Crayon Physics is simple: you draw lines and boxes to make a ball roll into a star. Different levels give you a new puzzle to solve, and the key to solving the puzzle is to use physics to your advantage. This game demonstrates how artistic it is in the gameplay and music. The music is calm and relaxing, and complements the game very well.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Yes, Videogames ARE Art, Actually
The very first videogame, Pong, was nothing more than a pixel moving across a bland, blank screen, while two thin rectangular paddles moved up and down to bounce it back and forth. It was not particularly interesting to look at, but it didn’t have to be. The whole point of the game was that an actual person was controlling the little vertical rectangle in real time, interacting with their television (and possibly another person at the same time). It was revolutionary at the time, and it didn’t really have to look good in order to be good.
Since then, videogame graphics have come a long, long way. Thirty seven years after Pong’s big debut, videogame graphics are almost lifelike in their realism, and a player comes to expect incredible, immersive graphics when a game is released. With such high expectations, videogame companies put a lot of effort into making their graphics, characters, and environments stunning- essentially elevating videogames to a high art form.
Art can be described as a way to express emotions or ideas in a creative way. Using this definition, it is hard to argue that videogames are not “art”. Music, literature, film, and visual art are all elements commonly found in videogames. A composer is hired to create a moving soundtrack for the game, which is performed by musicians. A writer is hired to write a moving story which takes the characters in the game on exciting adventures. A film maker is hired to direct and edit cut scenes, which may involve real actors, or may just use voices of real actors recorded over an animation. An artist is hired to create lush environments, exciting weapons and outfits, design sweeping cityscapes, or terrifying monsters. All of the main areas of “fine art” are incorporated into most videogames. With so many artists adding to the creative “soup”, it is hard to argue that the final videogame itself should not be considered a work of art.
Art is also used to make the viewer feel a certain emotion. Many artists pour their own emotions into their art in order to try to convey how they are feeling. Videogames can do this too. Some videogames may be all about shooting the zombies, or hijacking the car, or figuring out a puzzle, but some games also try to create an environment that the player can lose themselves in, and forget about their real lives. The game lets the player believe that they truly are the main character, exploring new worlds or saving the world. When things go right, the player truly feels proud and good. When things go bad, the player may feel like a failure, and it might hurt a little. By making a videogame totally immersive, on a visual and emotional level, videogames have elevated themselves to a high art form. They might not be something that a millionaire and his wife might enjoy at a museum, but videogames are something that the players can connect to on an emotional level, just as the artists who made them intended. With that fact, it is hard to argue that videogames should not be considered art.
Since then, videogame graphics have come a long, long way. Thirty seven years after Pong’s big debut, videogame graphics are almost lifelike in their realism, and a player comes to expect incredible, immersive graphics when a game is released. With such high expectations, videogame companies put a lot of effort into making their graphics, characters, and environments stunning- essentially elevating videogames to a high art form.
Art can be described as a way to express emotions or ideas in a creative way. Using this definition, it is hard to argue that videogames are not “art”. Music, literature, film, and visual art are all elements commonly found in videogames. A composer is hired to create a moving soundtrack for the game, which is performed by musicians. A writer is hired to write a moving story which takes the characters in the game on exciting adventures. A film maker is hired to direct and edit cut scenes, which may involve real actors, or may just use voices of real actors recorded over an animation. An artist is hired to create lush environments, exciting weapons and outfits, design sweeping cityscapes, or terrifying monsters. All of the main areas of “fine art” are incorporated into most videogames. With so many artists adding to the creative “soup”, it is hard to argue that the final videogame itself should not be considered a work of art.
Art is also used to make the viewer feel a certain emotion. Many artists pour their own emotions into their art in order to try to convey how they are feeling. Videogames can do this too. Some videogames may be all about shooting the zombies, or hijacking the car, or figuring out a puzzle, but some games also try to create an environment that the player can lose themselves in, and forget about their real lives. The game lets the player believe that they truly are the main character, exploring new worlds or saving the world. When things go right, the player truly feels proud and good. When things go bad, the player may feel like a failure, and it might hurt a little. By making a videogame totally immersive, on a visual and emotional level, videogames have elevated themselves to a high art form. They might not be something that a millionaire and his wife might enjoy at a museum, but videogames are something that the players can connect to on an emotional level, just as the artists who made them intended. With that fact, it is hard to argue that videogames should not be considered art.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The War Between Consoles Continues...
I knew that fanboys/girls are people that favor one videgame company’s consoles and games over another, such as Sony’s Playstation 3 and Microsoft’s Xbox 360. What I didn’t know is that they throw common sense out the window when arguing with each other. Reading comments on reviews of Killzone 2 was appalling. Some people were accusing reviewers of being biased toward Sony or Microsoft, and even went as far as accusing them of being bribed to lean one way or another. For me, this really takes the term “fanboy/girl” to a whole new level.
The people writing these comments spoke highly of their favored company, and insulted anyone who didn’t agree with them- for no apparent reason. If the reviews of Killzone 2 weren’t a perfect score, Sony fanboys and fangirls would insult the reviewer’s credibility. Likewise, if the game did have a perfect score, you would have Microsoft fanboys/girls claiming that the reviewers were “paid off” by Sony. To my amusement, Adam Sessler from X-play read some of the comments the show received after their review of Killzone 2. One angry fanboy commented that even though X-play gave Killzone 2 a perfect score, the tone in Adam’s voice made clear that he didn’t believe the game deserved the score; obviously a subliminal message.
There was a lot of heated (and ridiculously stupid) debate over the reviews of Killzone 2, but one stood out in particular. The review “Killzone 2: The Edge Verdict,” gave the game a mediocre score of 7/10. Other reviewers pointed out that Edge purposely rated the game low to start controversy and bring traffic to their site, which is exactly what happened. There were people commenting like crazy in an all out war against each other. It’s things like this that make us look bad as a community.
As for fanboys/girls, companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo probably aren’t bothered by them. The fanboys or fangirls will buy just about all of the major games that are exclusive to their company’s console. The quality of the actual game doesn't matter. All that matters is that there is a logo on the box. It is this concept that I have a hard time understanding. What is it that makes fanboys/girls exist? Why do they blindly follow these companies? Just because Sony made it doesn’t mean it is better than something Microsoft made. There are pros and cons to every videogame or console which can be debated intelligently. Unless you are a fanboy, then you just whine and cry when someone says something mean about your precious console, and then point out how much of a dumb-dumb head they are. So there!
The people writing these comments spoke highly of their favored company, and insulted anyone who didn’t agree with them- for no apparent reason. If the reviews of Killzone 2 weren’t a perfect score, Sony fanboys and fangirls would insult the reviewer’s credibility. Likewise, if the game did have a perfect score, you would have Microsoft fanboys/girls claiming that the reviewers were “paid off” by Sony. To my amusement, Adam Sessler from X-play read some of the comments the show received after their review of Killzone 2. One angry fanboy commented that even though X-play gave Killzone 2 a perfect score, the tone in Adam’s voice made clear that he didn’t believe the game deserved the score; obviously a subliminal message.
There was a lot of heated (and ridiculously stupid) debate over the reviews of Killzone 2, but one stood out in particular. The review “Killzone 2: The Edge Verdict,” gave the game a mediocre score of 7/10. Other reviewers pointed out that Edge purposely rated the game low to start controversy and bring traffic to their site, which is exactly what happened. There were people commenting like crazy in an all out war against each other. It’s things like this that make us look bad as a community.
As for fanboys/girls, companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo probably aren’t bothered by them. The fanboys or fangirls will buy just about all of the major games that are exclusive to their company’s console. The quality of the actual game doesn't matter. All that matters is that there is a logo on the box. It is this concept that I have a hard time understanding. What is it that makes fanboys/girls exist? Why do they blindly follow these companies? Just because Sony made it doesn’t mean it is better than something Microsoft made. There are pros and cons to every videogame or console which can be debated intelligently. Unless you are a fanboy, then you just whine and cry when someone says something mean about your precious console, and then point out how much of a dumb-dumb head they are. So there!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
