All Hands on Deck:
It has come to my attention that the ice cream machine in the galley is broken. This is unacceptable.
Take care of your equipment, and it will take care of you.
Sincerely,
Captain Wm Redbot
Yesterday I took a trip to GameStop to acquire a couple of PSP items for my summer trip overseas. As I scoured my games collection for anything that might have redeeming value, I gave extra consideration to the games that - well, to be frank - no one else played as much. Games that has lost their luster a bit.
First-person shooters fall under that category very, very quickly. Once you’ve gotten your soldier halfway leveled up another FPS game hits shelves, and the new hotness takes over. That may sound a little extreme, but for a primarily social gamer like myself the fact is that very few games have a truly lasting draw. Enough of a contingent of players sticks around to make keeping the game worthwhile...but if your own friends aren’t playing them, it’s almost a moot idea.
"Follow the leader! I'm right behind yoooooou!"
The conversation comes up often: why do people keep buying generic shooter games? To be honest, it’s because of the crowd mentality that news blogs, fansites, and the developers themselves drum up - it’s business. Consumers want to be on the cutting edge, which means that anything marketed as an improvement gets their hype. The non-lemmings are then left to make a decision: stick with the game in hand, or migrate with the crowds? Very few of us have that rare, unwavering personality that places game substance over social integration, I’d surmise.
So every time I check my collection to inventory what’s worth keeping and what’s gone the way of the thirty-second adrenaline rush, I weigh tangible value against social and entertainment value. One series that remains secure in its position on the shelf is the Halo lineup. There are very few video games that have such a well-rounded set of gameplay options or modes - Halo: Reach is one of them. Straightforward and interesting single player campaign, classic versus multiplayer, classic campaign co-op, co-op survival, and a heavy dose of customization of maps and modes. Throw on top of that the ability to view your games in replay mode and capture the once-in-a-lifetime moments.
Here’s the conundrum: a game that supports just about anything a cooperative or competitive gamer could want becomes the game that waits patiently for that gamer to return from “new game bliss”. And waits. And waits.
New games, for all their flaws, attract the masses. They are enjoyed for what they are: a fleeting, fun blast of adrenaline. The games that last the test of time provide backup. That’s just the nature of the flow of video games in this generation. And so when I fired up Halo: Reach for the first time in probably two months, the result was nothing short of hamburger.
I sucked. I mean, I really got it handed to me. Made me realize just how much my attention had been split among games since Reach was released. Made me want to get back into a game that I had once raved about.
Two frames later: hamburger.
Of course, there is no such thing as “the perfect game”. As long as games strive to be unique and innovative, there never will be. But the games that are most polished are the ones that don’t get the attention that they really deserve. They’re too dependable. They’ll be there when you get back from Call of Duty and Brink.
They’re the games for which you keep your old consoles; which...also...don’t get...played...
Hrm.