Do you do Media Blackout for games?


#1

Ive been avoiding almost every feedback, suggestion, beta talk, story talk for battle chaser nightwar… I want to go in with the least amount of influence i can.

I found myself recently becoming cynical with games due to my time over at neogaf. Often skipping games due to a general dislike from others, only to finally pick it up and enjoy it. (Assassins creed unity for example, got blasted and even though im a huge AC fan, i skipped it for almost a year… When i DID play it, it turned out to be one of my favorite ac games (next to black flag)

Also Reading suggestion posts and pros and cons lists make me notice games flaws that i typically would never notice, which then lessens the experience for me.

So now i typically avoid all that, and never even read reviews anymore (no one should trust reviews anyway, stick to friends on forums for any suggestions though)

How about you guys? You like knowing everything about a game before trying it yourself? Or do you avoid all media until you can get your hands on it?


#2

It’s all preference at the end of the day. I could see the pros and cons of both approaches. Honestly though when I became a game developer it took away a lot of the magic I used to experience when I was a young gamer. Once you know a magician’s trick and how to recreate it, it will be harder to impress you with it once you see it again. Knowing what’s behind the curtain is both a gift and a curse. But I will say, I still get excited when even when I know how something was achieved, if it was done in an innovative, creative or fresh approach it’s commendable.

At the end of the day it will be very hard to avoid outside influence the longer you wait but at the end of the day you play your games your way, doesn’t mean you have to do things like everyone else. You may struggle more/less depending on your choices, but communities are there to add a helpful social aspect to the gaming experience, where if you like the solo route you may not care much for it.


#3

Generally speaking I will use actual reviewers to gauge whether a game is decent or not. I find truly polarizing games are rare. People who say “this game sucks don’t buy it” generally should be disregarded. Sure a game may not be great. But is AC Unity really so bad? Even Andromeda with all its faults is still a decent game. But to listen to NeoGaf you’d think the game sterlizises your while you play while simultaneously punching you in the face.

Ultimately I have to decide for myself and rarely has a game ever been THAT bad. I’ve played games that were ‘meh’, or maybe some games that were as they say ‘flawed’. Alpha Protocol has a lot of flaws, but you can see the bones of what they wanted to do, and see what their vision was. It didn’t work out 100% but honestly would anyone want to try to even tackle Alpha Protocol today and do it ‘right’? Probably not because it was ultra ambitious with what it wanted to do, and unfortuantely fell short on a few things that prevented it from being great.

Even if a game isn’t all that great, with a minimal amount of research, you can find that most games are not actually as ‘bad’ as people make them out to be. The problem with that I think is the “80% metacritic” problem. Where seemingly anything under 80% is ‘garbage’ while 90% is ‘ok maybe worth playing’. Like what? 90%+ should be “this is GOTY and you’d be stupid not to buy this”, 80%+ should be “sure the game isnt perfect but its really good and worht a buy”. 70% should be “pretty good game but has some few things that are holding it back”.

It feels like there isnt any spectrum of how much you can like a game anymore. its so binary. You must love it or hate it! But why? Cant’ a game just be ‘good but not awesome’. Or ‘meh but not terrible’. We’re losing so much nuance because echo chambers like NeoGaf cultivate the “us vs them” mentality without any grey area.