Time For Wild Speculation!

The big N had a "leak" this week and it was a biggin. Provided all the information (from multiple sources, mind you) is true we will be getting a glimpse of a brand new Nintendo System at this years E3. This seems like a bit of a shock following so closely to the release of the 3DS, but with Nintendo's financial dominace the last few years this new platform has me curious.

Details are sketchy at best but preliminary reports indicate that this will indeed be a fully HD system, set to possibly even give the PS3 and 360 a run for their collective money... again. Also, while some reports are saying it will be backward compatible to the Wii, the primary focus of this console will be to grasp the "core demographic" once again. One leak has stated that the controller, as of now, features two analog sticks and a built in LED screen, which could possibly be a touch screen.

The code name for the project is "Cafe" which is odd, but hey, does anyone else remember the "Dolphin"? If I had to make a wild guess, which of course I will, I would say that "Cafe" is a good indicator that this system will be more focused on the social side. Nintendo has had issues with this before, the Wii was a bit of a disaster online, but the 3DS is certainly moving toward a social market and appeal. In addition, there will almost assuredly be 3DS interconnectivity.

Now that you have all the facts allow me to gush about how awesome this move is on Nintendo's part (please note I am in no way, shape, or form a Nintendo fanboy).

The Wii was a powerful force that took many by surprise. It was accessible but not to the point of alienating its core fans too much. While I do think the motion controls were gimmicky, it still managed to put out a fairly solid library of games, mountains of shovel ware excluded. Simply put, the Wii managed to put Nintendo in a very good position financially. You have to remember, Microsoft and Sony took a huge hit to the wallet the first several years of production while Nintendo was making a profit.

Now it is about 5 years later, the "average" cycle for a system, and Nintendo is ready to launch a new one... but where is the competition? Sony and Microsoft are both trying to stretch out the life of their respective systems for another 3, 4 or possibly even 5 years. That's why they introduced the Move and Kinect. That means Nintendo is going to be first to the market with a shiny new toy, and be the best on the market to beat.

Simply put, Nintendo is poised to dominate once again; core demographic, casual, social. Word is that Nintendo is already showing the build to third party developers, which could even mean a solid launch with good titles. Granted this is all just conjecture at this point. but the big N always seems to be a step ahead lately. There is a small, and I mean minute chance, that this system could go the way of the Dreamcast. There could be a gap in development between the established 360/PS3 crowd and developers might not be willing to take a chance on it. That said, however, this is a Nintendo console, so the majority of "must have" titles will be first party.

I don't know what will happen come 2012, but what I do know is that I am darn excited for E3 this year... maybe I'll try to get a press pass. I'm sure they wouldn't mind giving full press access to a nerd with a blog!

You Should Trust Me When I Say You Shouldn't Trust Me: A Meta-Review

A fair warning, this is probably the most pretentious thing I've ever written. That said, it is written out of love, not for the sake of hearing my pretentious opinions. Now then, on to today's topic: Fact vs Opinion.

I really like video games, but you probably already knew that. You probably also know that I like to talk about games. I will be absolutely honest with you; my opinion doesn't mean much. That's not to say it's worthless, it holds value to me and a handful of friends, but overall it's not very valuable to anyone who isn't me. Why bring this up? Well to be honest, and this is a big one, I feel that the game industry as a whole has lost a lot of journalistic integrity. That is not wholly the fault of the industry, far from it, it is simply the fact that there is no monitor for what is put on the Internet. From sites like IGN who present themselves as a professional source to Blistered Thumbs as the "indy scene" reviews and even previews are being presented in mind numbing fashion. That is to say, they are being presented with a heavy slant on personal opinion.

Opinions must be presented delicately when in a journalistic fashion because the people reading might not be able to separate fact from fiction. The unfortunate part being when someone mistakes opinion for fact and misses out on an experience because of it. It is all to common to see on message boards below a review "Yeh dis gai wus totaly rite, dis gaem lookd like it SUCKD". Granted, such jargon would usually be found under a video review, as the writer probably isn't to fond of reading. It is for this reason that when I review a game I never give it a final score or grade. There is simply no such thing as a universal grading system for games because Video Games are in themselves unique experiences and as such each person will have differences in approaching, playing, and reviewing them.

An Example: Let's say two people played Minecraft for about 20 minutes each. Your character begins life in a randomly generated world with nothing to his name but his fists and a penchant for punching trees. Player 1 immediately beings experimenting and discovers how to use the wood to build a work bench, tools and so on. Before long Player 1 has secured a cave home with a few torches to keep him safe. Player 2, on the other hand, spends the entire time harassing chickens and pigs until the sun sets, where upon he is killed by several zombies, a spider, and perhaps a Creeper for good measure. At this point Player 2 would likely comment how lame this game is and move on to something more stimulating to their own tastes. Meanwhile Player 1 is busy mining and building a new home and having a great time.

It is easy to see how these vastly different experiences will relate to vastly different reviews. Even to the point where the player's individual past experiences would make a difference. I know that my childhood spent playing with Legos and my love of the Harvest Moon franchise greatly contributed to my pleasant experience with Minecraft. Personally, I find that I disagree with the "professional reviewers" quite often. To the point where I have to wonder if some of them even have fun playing games. Again, this is all just opinion.

Just recently I saw a preview by Greg Miller, one of the foremost editors on IGN, declaring that he was not impressed with the current build of Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One. He didn't have a lot of fun playing it, fair enough, but that isn't true for everyone. Instead of just presenting the facts he is putting his own personal feelings into the mix. The same goes for Bennett the Sage from Blistered Thumbs. In a recent review he lamented how boring a game was and the tedium of "gaming now-a-days" (which by the way sparked that awesome rebuttal by Benzaie 'Gaming in the 90s Sucked'). As I said before I don't have a problem with opinion. What I have a problem with is personal opinion presented as fact.

Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation fame is just about the best reviewer I can think of. He makes it clear exactly what he is bias toward and against. Lets think about this though, Yahtzee will review a game, say, one that you really liked, and will tear it a new one. When asked why you didn't take his opinion it's easy to dismiss because hey, it's Yahtzee right? So why then would we defend the opinion of someone like Bennett the Sage, Angry Joe, or [insert IGN employee here]. What really grinds my gears is when a person presents opinion as fact, and it happens all the time. Every time a review professional uses relative terms like "boring" or my least favorite "repetitive" he is petitioning his subjective opinion under the guise of an objective review.

The fact of the matter is this simply isn't going to change, what needs to change is our perspective of reviews. It is, and will continue to be, simply one persons opinion, and it must be taken as that, just an opinion. The only person who will be able to tell you whether or not you will like a game is you.

Through our own individual experiences, prejudices and bias' we shape an entirely unique opinion. it would be a million to one shot to find a person to appropriately represent your opinion. You can find people with relatively similar opinions to latch onto, but relying on reviews, professional or otherwise, is a mistake. It's almost disheartening to think of how many people have passed on games they might have greatly enjoyed just because of a review.

Sorry for the rant, it's just my opinion.

TL;DR: Take reviews with a grain of salt