Viewing Thread:
"All hail mass-market mediocrity."

As I lay in bed last night having played Ikaruga some time earlier, I thought about why quality games like that aren’t seen in the all-formats charts. Then I remembered that in general, the games buying public is stupid.
There is no finer an example than Enter the Matrix.
Some say it’s great, some say it’s crap, but no matter your opinion, the game is currently flying off the shelves and will sit proudly atop the charts for some considerable time no doubt.
But the common consensus is that the game is poor (I don’t know about you, but no reviews available before launch smelt pretty fishy to me), so why is it number 1? Hype and the gullibility of blinded mass-market zealots are the number one suspects.

I’m looking forward to Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines as I’m a big fan of the series and of the Austrian Oak himself, but will I buy the game if it looks crap? No, no I won’t. So why so many people are buying a crap game baffles me.
-“But it’s the Matrix, you can do kung fu.” Never heard of Street Fighter or its modern successors?
-“There’s two cool characters whose levels intertwine with the film.” So, two uninteresting characters adding depth to a highly overrated film, big deal.
-“You can do hacking.” So, buy a crummy flat and a load of computer equipment and try the real thing.
-“It’s fun.” So is Zelda: The Wind Waker, so is Ico, so is Rez. They are fun beyond belief, but did they sell shed load of copies? Nope.
-“It’s cool.” The killer line. What does “cool” have to do with the quality of the game? Absolutely nothing, it’s the thing most people are influenced by. It’s definitely *not* cool. In fact, it’s so bad I’d call it uncool.

In the end, the mass buying of a poor product like Enter the Matrix will ruin the games industry. Think of it; you have enough money for one game. You browse the shelves and see two games: Enter the Matrix and SOS: The Final Escape on PS2.
Which do you choose, the hyped up film conversion that relies on the movie to influence geeky zealots, or a highly original, though pretty much unheard of title?
It seems the majority like their healthy dose of mass-market mediocrity and are willing to ignore little gaming gems.
The problem with this is money. Eventually, smaller games companies *will* go out of business because of this sort of ignorant buying. It has already happened with a number of veteran games companies, and will happen more and more when people favour games like Enter the Matrix over better, more original games. Just by the fact that Nintendo, undoubtedly the greatest developer, is struggling proves that the majority of gamers don’t favour great games but mass-market rubbish instead.

The success of Enter the Matrix will also prove that instead of spending time and huge effort in creating an amazing piece of software, games companies can just get a movie license and churn out a poor rushed game to coincide with the film’s release and that will sell due to the name of the movie alone. This will happen more and more leading to plenty more mediocrity instead of well-made titles.

At the end of the day, you’re not just going to ruin the games industry for yourselves, but you’ll ruin it for me too, someone who doesn’t buy into the hype of your Enter the Matrix, FIFA or Lord of the Rings cash-ins, someone who favours SOS: The Final Escape over generic shallow crap pumped out for healthy profit. But that’s the way the games industry will go.

I can just imagine the games industry in 5 years time, with the charts filled up with crap sequels and movie tie-ins, and no Nintendo or other sparks of flair or originality to be seen, still, if that’s the way you want it. In 5 years time when you realise the poor state of the industry, just remember that it was the success of Enter the Matrix that planted the seeds of mediocrity and that whoever was foolish enough to buy it was partly responsible.

*slow hand clap for blinded zealots*

Enjoy playing Enter the Matrix, and enjoy the downward spiral in quality it represents.

Goatboy wrote:

> My point is that liking a game is about personal preference. I like
> Enter The Matrix, yet the inane insistence from others that I
> shouldn't like it is boring, pointless, repetitive and marks those
> that make these claims as underdeveloped spack-handed witches.

I'm not crticising people for liking these games, it's up to them what they buy.

I just find it sad that games like these can sell so well because of a license, when games that have had a hell of a lot more effort put into them, that actually try to do something new and bring the industry forward, go completly unnoticed.

Goatboy wrote:
> Yes it does.
>
> And Domo, you're dullness is exceeded only by your evasiveness

You don't abuse Domo! He am having connections!

But only with Nurseries.

I blame djerrud.

He am liking horses.

And my evasiveness is only exceeded by the amount of times I change my name.

Tiltawhirl wrote:
> On the other hand, using Lesbians to market games I have no problem
> with.
--

Eeeexactly.
Lesbian snogging. In full, glorious shot-for-the-game movie footage.
They kiss, Monica Belluci says "That's it? I'm disappointed, you can do better"
And they do.

It's the best game evah

Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Something like Mario 64, Halo, Metroid Prime, Goldeneye etc etc
--

???
Mario 64??
Jump, run, jump, run, jump, run jump.
That Mario 64?

Halo rules, as did Goldeneye but at the heart of it they're still *just* FPS.
Forward, shoot, reload, forward, shoot reload.

My point is that liking a game is about personal preference. I like Enter The Matrix, yet the inane insistence from others that I shouldn't like it is boring, pointless, repetitive and marks those that make these claims as underdeveloped spack-handed witches.

On the other hand, using Lesbians to market games I have no problem with.

Goatboy wrote:
> Ok then.
>
> You people that are saying it's repetitive, boring etc.
> Tell me what game you think defines "serious gameplay"
> Go on.

Something like Mario 64, Halo, Metroid Prime, Goldeneye etc etc

Something the developers have actually put a little time into making, somehting with variety. There's no doubt that the basics of a good game where present in Enter the Matrix, it just wasn't polished enough and not enough was spent on making the game enjoyable. I'm sure that was partly to do with Atari rushing Shiny into releasing the game for the film release date.

I like games that don't use big film licenses and some pretty FMV sequences to disguise what is in fact a very lacklustre game.

Yes it does.

And Domo, you're dullness is exceeded only by your evasiveness

Matrix has lesbians!?

Goatboy wrote:
> Ok then.
>
> You people that are saying it's repetitive, boring etc.
> Tell me what game you think defines "serious gameplay"
> Go on.

You define a beautiful woman to us?

Everybody has there own opinion on what is and what isn't good gameplay, and for us to define it could take many hours.

So shut it.

Or I'll get Ros to admit she really is a man.

Ok then.

You people that are saying it's repetitive, boring etc.
Tell me what game you think defines "serious gameplay"
Go on.