Editor's note: Andrew takes a look at the desire gamers have to, if not play everything, play as many different (good) games as possible. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to start Resident Evil 5. -Demian
Good or bad, as gamers, a constant stream of new titles vie for our attention -- whether due to lack of time, money, or interest in a particular game, most enthusiasts could not hope to consume all of these experiences. However, I believe this desire to try is fairly unique to our industry.
When you compare gaming enthusiasts with fans of other forms of entertainment, I think you'll see what I mean. It's entirely possible to watch every blockbuster movie in a year. In fact, you could probably watch every blockbuster and every critically acclaimed film for a given year and still have plenty of time on your hands for the more important things in life.
Pretty sure you saw this movie.
Music aficionados, however, are a different breed. Certainly, they're always looking to find the next band or artist, but I don't believe that they want to try to consume all great music. I would even argue that defining "great music" is harder -- somehow even more subjective -- than in other forms of entertainment.
Avid readers also tend to stick to particular genres, bestseller lists, or book clubs. Readers that venture beyond these methods of finding new books surely still do not have the time or desire to take in every great book in a year across multiple genres.
The Lost Symbol was the best-selling book of 2009. Did you read it?
But many gamers I know constantly complain about their backlogs or the nearly constant avalanche of new titles that they must play. I strongly believe that in the gaming industry, many enthusiasts care less about genre and more about if a game is the it game -- we're constantly trying to be in the moment and play what everyone is talking about.
Should you feel left out if you didn't play this? Probably.
This has many ramifications. I'd guess that we complete fewer games nowadays than ten or 20 years ago. This supposition is interesting to me, because many of the people playing then are still playing now. Sure, some of this has to do with growing up and having less time due to other responsibilities. But certainly, this is also due in part to the fact that gamers now have many, many more games to play.
An interesting subgroup of gamers run contrary to this trend: achievement/trophy hunters. These players try to get everything out of game, at least as defined by a list of goals. However, these gamers often play titles that they wouldn't otherwise bother with in order to boost their scores with easy achievements/trophies.
It's scary how many people have played this one.
The overall result: I think the way that we play games has changed. We used to play fewer games for longer, but as the industry evolves and grows and more quality titles come out, hardcore gamers often feel like they're playing catch up. Is this just the new reality, or is there a problem with the way gaming enthusiasts try to take in their favorite entertainment?
It's certainly a good point. I can honestly say that their are a few games I've picked up just to see what all the fuss is about. I personally end up skipping plenty that are 'must plays' even so though. I think this is a particular problem for gamers who want to be games journalists and critics. Always looking for the next thing to review and get the review done as fast as possible.
I think it has something to do with the overall size of the gaming community compared to music and books and movies, and also with the way press treats games.
For one, the community, though it comprises tens of millions of people, is smaller than the community of readers or movie goers. So we all tend to know what everyone else is playing. Furthermore, press is not as segmented like music press is. I mean, you can find Jazz and Guitar and Rap magazines right next to each other; since there is so much music and so huge an audience, that is possible. But not with games. All writers write about the same games and, in the interest of knowledge and me-first-ness, they do so in a timely manner. This cycles around to the small size of the community which allows everyone to stay abreast of new games with the press, and so on.
But I agree, gamers -- me included -- are kind of rabid about completing every freaking game they can afford, and then some.
I think one of the main problems is that games are possibly the most time-consuming entertainment medium of all.
Most movies can be finished in two hours at most. Most games on the other hand take at least as long to finish as most books, and that's not including the hundreds of hours one might spend on a single multiplayer game.
Great can opener of a subject. But I would argue movies, books and music have a greater backlog of great works that one only hopes to enjoy a small percent of it. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but the inclusion of a Dan Brown an author that is highly regarded mediocre when compare to past writers. There may be a mentally, that you have to play them all in the video games medium, but actually the sales figures shows not every game is being bought in droves. It is a small percentage of these 'AAA' games that have the notireity of needing to be played. These are the GTAs, MSGs, GoW and others, but not all games break a million sold, like our dear writer Dan Brown.
@Juan Dan Brown was absolutely intentional. The point was he authored the best selling book of the last year, so many people obviously felt the need to read his work. It really didn't have much to do with his quality, as there are many, many better authors.
@Andrew, I saw your point and I just wanted to take it a step further. Many of the so called "AAA" video games are the equivalent in quality of a Dan Brown book and the movies they are based on. Not sure if you agree with my statement, but I do feel there is rather poor quality of titles that video gamers must feel they need to play.
@Juan, I agree. I've found much more enjoyment in the likes of Dark Sector and Tales of Vesperia than I ever did with Modern Warfare 2 or Fallout 3.
This is a pretty interesting article, and I think you're quite right. Though it's not applicable to me, I can't think of many of my gaming friends that don't just go out and buy the 'big' thing. I've said it for a while, but it doesn't matter if a game sucks, if the community are told to like it, they will.
Great read. I just wanted to add that nowadays I find myself digging deeper in into more "under the radar games". I use podcast to live vicariously through the hot games of the moment. And I find myself enjoying more of the small games that I discover. Maybe I am becoming the videogame version of a music snob.
So do most of you really try to play every "great" game out there? I generally keep to my preferred genres, branching out from time to time. For example, no matter how many great reviews Starcraft 2 or World of Warcraft get, I'm going to pass on them because I'm not interested in RTSes or MMOs.
While I am trying to play more and more games these days, I'm with Brett in that there are certain genres that will likely never interest me. I want to be able to contribute to as many gaming conversations as possible just as much as the next guy, but not enough to slog 10+ hours into a game that I'm certain I won't have a good time with.