The Gamers vs The Critics

I had the pleasure of spending my winter vacation playing a really awesome game. This past weekend, one of my online friends and I got into a heated argument about the game I played. I personally think that it's silly to argue about games, because we all have different tastes, but because he's a guy, and I'm not, he insists that he's right about it being a crappy game and I'm wrong, because the majority thinks the story on the campaign mode sucks balls. Just because the majority might think that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 sucks, it does not really mean it does. Infact, it won game of the year by several critics and received higher markings than the first Modern Warfare game. When it comes to games, I don't believe the cynical gamers who complain about sequels when there are so many damn games out there to try. When one looks at the history of videogames, we can see that there are patterns of sagas, sequels, series and franchises. I like to compare it to a Twilight fan talking about how bad Anne Rice's books are, when this fan only read about two or three chapters of the books. I noticed this alot, especially with the people who are fans of the Halo series or anyother series.

I'm a huge fan of the Halo series, but I acknowlegde that Halo: ODST was killed by Modern Warfare 2. Two different genres...I know, but if you're a Halo fan and you're defending ODST, just because you don't like one or two part of the Modern Warfare 2 storyline or level design, then you need your head examined. The game critics found it to be a good game for a reason. They know what a good game is. They also know what poorly designed videogames look like. I would go as far as if you want to know what game you should buy, read the reviews with caution, some may end up saying "well, the reviewers are paid by the designers to promote their games". Yeah, that's a possibility, which is why I say also to see the game for yourself. If you want to do so without buying a game, there is always Blockbuster, Gamefly or your friend next door. Rent or borrow the game to determine if you think it's a good game. If you want to read reviews, I know that GameSpot and GameFaqs are good, they are reviewed by fans. Just make sure you find a review that is not biased. When I review games, I have my favorites, but I try not to judge a game just because the developers changed something that I liked in the original game, unless it does work in the new game.

I would honestly say that I liked the second Modern Warfare game more. It "feels" better than the first game. When I played MW2 it does not feel like Call of Duty. I was glad it didn't feel that way, because I was getting pretty tired of a worn down series. I noticed that when it comes to videogames, gamers are "jaded" but they tend to hate change so much. I was reading an Amazon.com review on Splinter Cell: Conviction by a customer, and one of the commenters complained that the game "turned into a third person shooter". Well, yeah, Sam is not part of the agency anymore, what do you expect him to do? Go by all the Echelon rules? It would not have made sense if Sam Fisher went rogue, and still going through the game as though it 's first installment.

I think it's pointless to argue with those who turn out to be cynical about everything, and not take into consideration that the gamers are the ones who determine the industry, not so much the designers. When I played Halo: ODST, I knew that it wasn't going to be as great of a game as the three previously. When I played it, I was seriously disappointed, because expected more from Bungie. It seemed like an expansion pack instead of a new prequel between the second and third games. But then again, it's the pressure by the fans and the industry. I think it's more important to turn up an excellent game that was 5 yrs on the making than turn up a crappy game that was made in a year.