The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I’ve spent the last weekend playing Advance Wars for the GBA far too much. It’s a bloody great game that’s managed to launch in the US very quietly, and no one here seems to know that such a fabulous slice of gaming goodness is on the way. On the other hand, everybody knows that Mario Advance 2 is on the way, yet all we know about it is that it a) exists and b) is a conversion of Super Mario World. Why is this? Why ignore the brilliant game that is actually finished and playable for a game that all we know is the name? Franchises, we can claim that they’re not a good thing, yet we all fall for them.
The GBA is a strange beast. In equal quantities you’ll have people slavering over the prospect of retro gaming, and others who’d rather forget sprites and Mode 7. However, look at the sales figures – what’s sold well? F-Zero, Mario Advance and Tony Hawk (the latter of which I’ll come back to). One of those games is 13 years old for goodness sake. Oh, we can go on about how we want “innovation” and “progression”, but sales figures and reviews say we’re all liars – okay, maybe too strong a word, we simply don’t know what we want. Back to Tony Hawk – the newest uber franchise. Real gamers are supposed to hate franchises. Turn to the back pages of Edge and you’ll see pompous little prigs on the letter pages going on about how the casual gamer and his yearly FIFA and Tomb Raider purchase is killing the “industry”. Yet we still all buy Tony Hawk 2 as it is a bloody good game – though at the end of the day it is still one of those industry-killing franchises that we’re supposed to hate. So, what makes us hate one big franchise, but support another. Something as simple as it being a good game?
Well, that doesn’t really work either. Look back to the GBA – Kuru Kuru Kururin launched in Japan to huge praise, yet didn’t sell. In fact, they didn’t even bother launching it in the States, though importing reviewers had praised it to high heaven. UK launch was the same as the Japanese one – everyone, without exception, named it as one of the choices of the GBA launch line up and a must have game, but it sold really poorly. Back to Advance Wars, given 9.9/10 by IGN, but sold really poorly. I can testify that it is a simply fantastic game – best game I’ve played in a long time. That’s not best handheld game, just the best game. However, after talking to a few people about it, only one had heard of it, and that’s because he reads launch lists and is generally strangely obsessive.
What’s the connection between those two games – everyone praised them and no one bought them. Other connection? Neither are big name games. They don’t feature a Mario or Sonic and don’t follow on in a franchise. I guarantee that if you’d slapped Mario into Advance Wars as some sort of bit-part character it would have sold ten times better. Slap his mug on the box and sales soar. If Metal Gear Solid 2 launched and turned out to be rubbish, we’d still all buy it because it is a Metal Gear Solid game.
People frequently claim to hate franchises, but its rubbish. We are all suckers for a sequel or big name character (no one knowing this better than Nintendo). However, it is passé to admit that. We’re supposed to be hack-the-system, capitalist hating net geeks or proudly, arrogantly, yet totally blindly discuss the merits of sequels versus innovation. It’s all a waste of time, as we love a familiar face.
So what’s the point? I don’t know, I’m just trying to kill time before bed. Giving myself something to do while listening to some music and drinking my tea. Maybe in a round about way I’m say what’s the point is sitting writing pointless reflective posts like this – trying to think about gaming and treat it as some worthy of real thought. This is just one example where we’ll happily say one thing - quietly thinking how clever we are for our amazing insights into the games player’s mind – yet do another. Forget that. Why waste time partaking is attempts at pomposity that ultimately we don’t even agree with ourselves when there are all those good games no one’s buying waiting to be played?
Time for a fresh cuppa.
The GBA is a strange beast. In equal quantities you’ll have people slavering over the prospect of retro gaming, and others who’d rather forget sprites and Mode 7. However, look at the sales figures – what’s sold well? F-Zero, Mario Advance and Tony Hawk (the latter of which I’ll come back to). One of those games is 13 years old for goodness sake. Oh, we can go on about how we want “innovation” and “progression”, but sales figures and reviews say we’re all liars – okay, maybe too strong a word, we simply don’t know what we want. Back to Tony Hawk – the newest uber franchise. Real gamers are supposed to hate franchises. Turn to the back pages of Edge and you’ll see pompous little prigs on the letter pages going on about how the casual gamer and his yearly FIFA and Tomb Raider purchase is killing the “industry”. Yet we still all buy Tony Hawk 2 as it is a bloody good game – though at the end of the day it is still one of those industry-killing franchises that we’re supposed to hate. So, what makes us hate one big franchise, but support another. Something as simple as it being a good game?
Well, that doesn’t really work either. Look back to the GBA – Kuru Kuru Kururin launched in Japan to huge praise, yet didn’t sell. In fact, they didn’t even bother launching it in the States, though importing reviewers had praised it to high heaven. UK launch was the same as the Japanese one – everyone, without exception, named it as one of the choices of the GBA launch line up and a must have game, but it sold really poorly. Back to Advance Wars, given 9.9/10 by IGN, but sold really poorly. I can testify that it is a simply fantastic game – best game I’ve played in a long time. That’s not best handheld game, just the best game. However, after talking to a few people about it, only one had heard of it, and that’s because he reads launch lists and is generally strangely obsessive.
What’s the connection between those two games – everyone praised them and no one bought them. Other connection? Neither are big name games. They don’t feature a Mario or Sonic and don’t follow on in a franchise. I guarantee that if you’d slapped Mario into Advance Wars as some sort of bit-part character it would have sold ten times better. Slap his mug on the box and sales soar. If Metal Gear Solid 2 launched and turned out to be rubbish, we’d still all buy it because it is a Metal Gear Solid game.
People frequently claim to hate franchises, but its rubbish. We are all suckers for a sequel or big name character (no one knowing this better than Nintendo). However, it is passé to admit that. We’re supposed to be hack-the-system, capitalist hating net geeks or proudly, arrogantly, yet totally blindly discuss the merits of sequels versus innovation. It’s all a waste of time, as we love a familiar face.
So what’s the point? I don’t know, I’m just trying to kill time before bed. Giving myself something to do while listening to some music and drinking my tea. Maybe in a round about way I’m say what’s the point is sitting writing pointless reflective posts like this – trying to think about gaming and treat it as some worthy of real thought. This is just one example where we’ll happily say one thing - quietly thinking how clever we are for our amazing insights into the games player’s mind – yet do another. Forget that. Why waste time partaking is attempts at pomposity that ultimately we don’t even agree with ourselves when there are all those good games no one’s buying waiting to be played?
Time for a fresh cuppa.
Well I think you just sound angry to me, the industry is an important part of gaming and is a perfectly viable topic for discussion. Your post is about how some games are swept under the carpet because they lack big names, which means that your post is about the industry of games rather than specific games. Most things can be linked to the industry, for example, advances in technology, new genre blurring games and the length of time a game takes to reach us. Games and the gaming industry can't be seperated and both contribute to the future of gaming, which is what this forum is about. Discussing things in a technical manner is just as enjoyable for some as going at topics in a jocular way. If you don't like reading topics which concentrate on fact or idea then avoid them and stick to the ones that use humour and wit to get their point across. Just try to avoid suggesting that only one type of topic is any good for everyone because there are those that prefer technical and factual topics and there are those who have no preference.
As far as the games swept under the rug syndrome is concerned, I'm not sure you understood what I meant. If a game is not seen in magazines, etc. then people can't be told off for not finding out about them because they will have no way of knowing said games exist. You can't say "hey why didn't anyone buy Giants?" because people will have their reasons. Yes maybe games with Mario in will be more likely to appear in magazines or on websites but that is because established names in production and games have an image built up about them. People expect quality when they see the name Rare on the side of a box, they expect a good game when they see that Mario is in it because that is the consistant image that has been displayed by these things. Just as this can be positive it can also be negative, for example Origin was a bastion of quality for some time but on the release of Ultima 9 that image was destroyed and people would cautiously approach anything from Origin from there on. As it happens Origin has closed down I believe which is usually the fate of developers with a bad image and this is probably the reason that it is hard to realise that reputations work both ways.
As far as defining a good game goes that is up to the player, that was the point I was trying to make. Yes there are a lot of games that have great potential to be well liked but never get their chance, but such is the way of things. Sometimes you just have to accept that a game may not be noticed by the gaming media or public even if it could be good. As you said in your own post, however, a game which is well praised by the media may never be accepted by the public. It's mostly just a matter of chance and we can't really do anything about it, so why worry? Enjoy your game even if others are "missing out" and hope that there will be enough sales that the company can make more high quality games.
As far as the games swept under the rug syndrome is concerned, I'm not sure you understood what I meant. If a game is not seen in magazines, etc. then people can't be told off for not finding out about them because they will have no way of knowing said games exist. You can't say "hey why didn't anyone buy Giants?" because people will have their reasons. Yes maybe games with Mario in will be more likely to appear in magazines or on websites but that is because established names in production and games have an image built up about them. People expect quality when they see the name Rare on the side of a box, they expect a good game when they see that Mario is in it because that is the consistant image that has been displayed by these things. Just as this can be positive it can also be negative, for example Origin was a bastion of quality for some time but on the release of Ultima 9 that image was destroyed and people would cautiously approach anything from Origin from there on. As it happens Origin has closed down I believe which is usually the fate of developers with a bad image and this is probably the reason that it is hard to realise that reputations work both ways.
As far as defining a good game goes that is up to the player, that was the point I was trying to make. Yes there are a lot of games that have great potential to be well liked but never get their chance, but such is the way of things. Sometimes you just have to accept that a game may not be noticed by the gaming media or public even if it could be good. As you said in your own post, however, a game which is well praised by the media may never be accepted by the public. It's mostly just a matter of chance and we can't really do anything about it, so why worry? Enjoy your game even if others are "missing out" and hope that there will be enough sales that the company can make more high quality games.
You've kind of missed the point - epically in trying to define "good game" in the sentence: "Why waste time partaking is attempts at pomposity that ultimately we don’t even agree with ourselves when there are all those good games no one’s buying waiting to be played?”
What I'm saying is people are far too keen to harp on about "the industry" in self-glorifying, look-at-how-clever-I-am posts. Instead, why not go play some games? Not to point fingers, but Ali Boy's GAD winning post yesterday. Am I the only person to find this leg-chewingly dull? Fair enough, it is long and comprehensive, but also simply says stuff we all know. Why and type/read all that? It's more like a test in endurance - and there's loads of posts like that here - and I stress I'm not just getting at Ali Boy here, only mentioning him as I know he's big enough to understand this is simply my opinion and I don't mean anything personal by it. However I wish it was a little more like it was back in the summer round here, you know, fun posts. Since people have gone back to school/Uni/work have they only time to write clerical GAD attempts?
Back to what the initial posts started off about - you totally miss the point about why titles like Advance Wars are looked over. Why don't you know about this great game? Why, on the other hand, do you know about a Mario title in development? Because we seek out and demand information on franchises/big characters. Again, you totally miss the point (worried that I'm sounding like a broken record - where's my thesaurus?) when I said more people would know about Advance Wars if Mario were in it. It would have been covered in all the magazines from the moment it was announced to be in development and we would have continually searched out information on it. However, as simply "Advance Wars" it is just another game on a long release list, another press release in a huge pile of e-mail. In short, if Mario was in it, it wouldn't have been swept under the carpet.
What I'm saying is people are far too keen to harp on about "the industry" in self-glorifying, look-at-how-clever-I-am posts. Instead, why not go play some games? Not to point fingers, but Ali Boy's GAD winning post yesterday. Am I the only person to find this leg-chewingly dull? Fair enough, it is long and comprehensive, but also simply says stuff we all know. Why and type/read all that? It's more like a test in endurance - and there's loads of posts like that here - and I stress I'm not just getting at Ali Boy here, only mentioning him as I know he's big enough to understand this is simply my opinion and I don't mean anything personal by it. However I wish it was a little more like it was back in the summer round here, you know, fun posts. Since people have gone back to school/Uni/work have they only time to write clerical GAD attempts?
Back to what the initial posts started off about - you totally miss the point about why titles like Advance Wars are looked over. Why don't you know about this great game? Why, on the other hand, do you know about a Mario title in development? Because we seek out and demand information on franchises/big characters. Again, you totally miss the point (worried that I'm sounding like a broken record - where's my thesaurus?) when I said more people would know about Advance Wars if Mario were in it. It would have been covered in all the magazines from the moment it was announced to be in development and we would have continually searched out information on it. However, as simply "Advance Wars" it is just another game on a long release list, another press release in a huge pile of e-mail. In short, if Mario was in it, it wouldn't have been swept under the carpet.
I'm not sure that I agree entirely with what you say but maybe there is some sense to it. First off then, you say that we buy games because they have familiarity and are thrust into the public eye. In a way you are right, we can only buy games we know of, if we don't see them or hear about them then how will we know if they are worthwhile or even that they exist? Of course the problem with this is that you suggest that the reason we don't buy these games is because they lack big names but that's not strictly true. We can't be blamed for not finding out about them, if a game isn't mentioned in a magazine we read, in a site we visit or by a friend then we will never know how good or bad it looks/sounds and if it's worth a try or not. This is where established companies and series' come in. If a game is made by Rare, chances are it will be heavily advertised because Rare have become a big name in games, this means that it will be easier for the general public to find out about the game and make a decision based on a wealth of information. Whereas if the game is made by a smaller company or a newer one then there is a chance that it will be overlooked by the media and hence the majority of the gaming public. Chances are you will be more likely to buy a sequel to a game which was good but the reason will be that you expect it to be good because the last one was and in the same way you can begin to trust companies to bring good quality games. That's it right there though, because you will have an idea that the game has a better chance of being good, rather than just because it is familiar. So really you are buying on the basis of quality, it's just that an established series or company will have a pre-built reliability factor that a new company will have to make for itself.
"Why waste time partaking is attempts at pomposity that ultimately we don’t even agree with ourselves when there are all those good games no one’s buying waiting to be played?"
The problem with this sentence is, "What is a good game?". Everyone has different opinions, Half-Life was a massively hyped well recieved game but some people didn't like it and some people didn't think it was worth the hype even if it was an allright game. You mention Kuru Kuru Kururin getting a lot of praise but not making many sales, when I saw pictures of this game and read about it I never heard or saw a thing that interested me. It looked like virtual stick and ball mover or something, I had no idea what was supposed to be good about it. I still don't so that's why I never bought it, praise is as praise be but none of it means ought to me. Kuru Kuru Kururin was built up and praised as a good game but people didn't buy it because hype or familiarity with a bad game doesn't make sales, some people may have liked it but others were not interested so it did not sell well. You also mentioned Advance Wars, yes I've never heard of it but isn't that the point? If it scored so well and was well recieved by "everyone" then why haven't I read about it or heard about it until now? If people don't know about it then can they be blamed for not buying it regardless of whether it is good or not? I would say that would be a little unfair but you insist on doing so. You say that if Mario had been in Advance Wars it would have sold ten times as much, well I have serious doubts about this, for one thing if people didn't know about it then how could they know that Mario was in it? Now, you say that we would all buy the next Metal Gear Solid game regardless of how good it is but this is far too much of an assumption. Most people would just be disappointed and leave it on the shelf if all they had heard about it was that it was rubbish. Dungeon Keeper was a great game but many people didn't buy the sequel because they had heard that it was too similar to the original. Personally, I bought it because I thought it looked worth a try and I was happy with it but I could see how people might think there wasn't enough extra so as I said it is a matter of opinion.
Familiarity is not the be all and end all of our decisions to buy games, everyone loves originality and we are not all fooling ourselves. Your post would have us believe otherwise Dr Gonzo but when you think about it it's not quite right. A good game will sell, a poor one will not and while familiarity and hype may affect our decision by giving us opinions and knowledge of the game it does not make us buy games regardless of how good they are. I haven't played a Mario game I haven't enjoyed, if I don't think I'll enjoy the new one then I wont get it and if I do buy it it will be becaues I expect it to be entertaining rather than the fact it has Mario in it. There will always be games that some people believe are very good and deserve to make good sales but then fail to do well, this doesn't mean we are all slaves to familiarity it just means that the game was not as well recieved by others. I bought Giants, a great game and I think it should have been sold to everyone but it barely even made a mark. Who knows why, probably most people just weren't interested but this doesn't mean they didn't buy it because it lacked any familiar characters or company. Remember, everything has to start somewhere before it can be familiar so is this alone not proof that we buy things for quality not familiarity.
"Why waste time partaking is attempts at pomposity that ultimately we don’t even agree with ourselves when there are all those good games no one’s buying waiting to be played?"
The problem with this sentence is, "What is a good game?". Everyone has different opinions, Half-Life was a massively hyped well recieved game but some people didn't like it and some people didn't think it was worth the hype even if it was an allright game. You mention Kuru Kuru Kururin getting a lot of praise but not making many sales, when I saw pictures of this game and read about it I never heard or saw a thing that interested me. It looked like virtual stick and ball mover or something, I had no idea what was supposed to be good about it. I still don't so that's why I never bought it, praise is as praise be but none of it means ought to me. Kuru Kuru Kururin was built up and praised as a good game but people didn't buy it because hype or familiarity with a bad game doesn't make sales, some people may have liked it but others were not interested so it did not sell well. You also mentioned Advance Wars, yes I've never heard of it but isn't that the point? If it scored so well and was well recieved by "everyone" then why haven't I read about it or heard about it until now? If people don't know about it then can they be blamed for not buying it regardless of whether it is good or not? I would say that would be a little unfair but you insist on doing so. You say that if Mario had been in Advance Wars it would have sold ten times as much, well I have serious doubts about this, for one thing if people didn't know about it then how could they know that Mario was in it? Now, you say that we would all buy the next Metal Gear Solid game regardless of how good it is but this is far too much of an assumption. Most people would just be disappointed and leave it on the shelf if all they had heard about it was that it was rubbish. Dungeon Keeper was a great game but many people didn't buy the sequel because they had heard that it was too similar to the original. Personally, I bought it because I thought it looked worth a try and I was happy with it but I could see how people might think there wasn't enough extra so as I said it is a matter of opinion.
Familiarity is not the be all and end all of our decisions to buy games, everyone loves originality and we are not all fooling ourselves. Your post would have us believe otherwise Dr Gonzo but when you think about it it's not quite right. A good game will sell, a poor one will not and while familiarity and hype may affect our decision by giving us opinions and knowledge of the game it does not make us buy games regardless of how good they are. I haven't played a Mario game I haven't enjoyed, if I don't think I'll enjoy the new one then I wont get it and if I do buy it it will be becaues I expect it to be entertaining rather than the fact it has Mario in it. There will always be games that some people believe are very good and deserve to make good sales but then fail to do well, this doesn't mean we are all slaves to familiarity it just means that the game was not as well recieved by others. I bought Giants, a great game and I think it should have been sold to everyone but it barely even made a mark. Who knows why, probably most people just weren't interested but this doesn't mean they didn't buy it because it lacked any familiar characters or company. Remember, everything has to start somewhere before it can be familiar so is this alone not proof that we buy things for quality not familiarity.
That last paragraph seems strangely relevant today...
To say I am a little confuesd would be an understatement. Its too late for me to fully understand your point. I shall give it anothe read tomorrow.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I’ve spent the last weekend playing Advance Wars for the GBA far too much. It’s a bloody great game that’s managed to launch in the US very quietly, and no one here seems to know that such a fabulous slice of gaming goodness is on the way. On the other hand, everybody knows that Mario Advance 2 is on the way, yet all we know about it is that it a) exists and b) is a conversion of Super Mario World. Why is this? Why ignore the brilliant game that is actually finished and playable for a game that all we know is the name? Franchises, we can claim that they’re not a good thing, yet we all fall for them.
The GBA is a strange beast. In equal quantities you’ll have people slavering over the prospect of retro gaming, and others who’d rather forget sprites and Mode 7. However, look at the sales figures – what’s sold well? F-Zero, Mario Advance and Tony Hawk (the latter of which I’ll come back to). One of those games is 13 years old for goodness sake. Oh, we can go on about how we want “innovation” and “progression”, but sales figures and reviews say we’re all liars – okay, maybe too strong a word, we simply don’t know what we want. Back to Tony Hawk – the newest uber franchise. Real gamers are supposed to hate franchises. Turn to the back pages of Edge and you’ll see pompous little prigs on the letter pages going on about how the casual gamer and his yearly FIFA and Tomb Raider purchase is killing the “industry”. Yet we still all buy Tony Hawk 2 as it is a bloody good game – though at the end of the day it is still one of those industry-killing franchises that we’re supposed to hate. So, what makes us hate one big franchise, but support another. Something as simple as it being a good game?
Well, that doesn’t really work either. Look back to the GBA – Kuru Kuru Kururin launched in Japan to huge praise, yet didn’t sell. In fact, they didn’t even bother launching it in the States, though importing reviewers had praised it to high heaven. UK launch was the same as the Japanese one – everyone, without exception, named it as one of the choices of the GBA launch line up and a must have game, but it sold really poorly. Back to Advance Wars, given 9.9/10 by IGN, but sold really poorly. I can testify that it is a simply fantastic game – best game I’ve played in a long time. That’s not best handheld game, just the best game. However, after talking to a few people about it, only one had heard of it, and that’s because he reads launch lists and is generally strangely obsessive.
What’s the connection between those two games – everyone praised them and no one bought them. Other connection? Neither are big name games. They don’t feature a Mario or Sonic and don’t follow on in a franchise. I guarantee that if you’d slapped Mario into Advance Wars as some sort of bit-part character it would have sold ten times better. Slap his mug on the box and sales soar. If Metal Gear Solid 2 launched and turned out to be rubbish, we’d still all buy it because it is a Metal Gear Solid game.
People frequently claim to hate franchises, but its rubbish. We are all suckers for a sequel or big name character (no one knowing this better than Nintendo). However, it is passé to admit that. We’re supposed to be hack-the-system, capitalist hating net geeks or proudly, arrogantly, yet totally blindly discuss the merits of sequels versus innovation. It’s all a waste of time, as we love a familiar face.
So what’s the point? I don’t know, I’m just trying to kill time before bed. Giving myself something to do while listening to some music and drinking my tea. Maybe in a round about way I’m say what’s the point is sitting writing pointless reflective posts like this – trying to think about gaming and treat it as some worthy of real thought. This is just one example where we’ll happily say one thing - quietly thinking how clever we are for our amazing insights into the games player’s mind – yet do another. Forget that. Why waste time partaking is attempts at pomposity that ultimately we don’t even agree with ourselves when there are all those good games no one’s buying waiting to be played?
Time for a fresh cuppa.
The GBA is a strange beast. In equal quantities you’ll have people slavering over the prospect of retro gaming, and others who’d rather forget sprites and Mode 7. However, look at the sales figures – what’s sold well? F-Zero, Mario Advance and Tony Hawk (the latter of which I’ll come back to). One of those games is 13 years old for goodness sake. Oh, we can go on about how we want “innovation” and “progression”, but sales figures and reviews say we’re all liars – okay, maybe too strong a word, we simply don’t know what we want. Back to Tony Hawk – the newest uber franchise. Real gamers are supposed to hate franchises. Turn to the back pages of Edge and you’ll see pompous little prigs on the letter pages going on about how the casual gamer and his yearly FIFA and Tomb Raider purchase is killing the “industry”. Yet we still all buy Tony Hawk 2 as it is a bloody good game – though at the end of the day it is still one of those industry-killing franchises that we’re supposed to hate. So, what makes us hate one big franchise, but support another. Something as simple as it being a good game?
Well, that doesn’t really work either. Look back to the GBA – Kuru Kuru Kururin launched in Japan to huge praise, yet didn’t sell. In fact, they didn’t even bother launching it in the States, though importing reviewers had praised it to high heaven. UK launch was the same as the Japanese one – everyone, without exception, named it as one of the choices of the GBA launch line up and a must have game, but it sold really poorly. Back to Advance Wars, given 9.9/10 by IGN, but sold really poorly. I can testify that it is a simply fantastic game – best game I’ve played in a long time. That’s not best handheld game, just the best game. However, after talking to a few people about it, only one had heard of it, and that’s because he reads launch lists and is generally strangely obsessive.
What’s the connection between those two games – everyone praised them and no one bought them. Other connection? Neither are big name games. They don’t feature a Mario or Sonic and don’t follow on in a franchise. I guarantee that if you’d slapped Mario into Advance Wars as some sort of bit-part character it would have sold ten times better. Slap his mug on the box and sales soar. If Metal Gear Solid 2 launched and turned out to be rubbish, we’d still all buy it because it is a Metal Gear Solid game.
People frequently claim to hate franchises, but its rubbish. We are all suckers for a sequel or big name character (no one knowing this better than Nintendo). However, it is passé to admit that. We’re supposed to be hack-the-system, capitalist hating net geeks or proudly, arrogantly, yet totally blindly discuss the merits of sequels versus innovation. It’s all a waste of time, as we love a familiar face.
So what’s the point? I don’t know, I’m just trying to kill time before bed. Giving myself something to do while listening to some music and drinking my tea. Maybe in a round about way I’m say what’s the point is sitting writing pointless reflective posts like this – trying to think about gaming and treat it as some worthy of real thought. This is just one example where we’ll happily say one thing - quietly thinking how clever we are for our amazing insights into the games player’s mind – yet do another. Forget that. Why waste time partaking is attempts at pomposity that ultimately we don’t even agree with ourselves when there are all those good games no one’s buying waiting to be played?
Time for a fresh cuppa.