I was reading through the Super Mario Galaxy thread (over in the headlines section) and the topic of "media blackouts" caught my attention. That is, individuals choosing to avoid previews, screenshots, videos, etc of an upcoming title in the expectation that it would make for a more interesting playthrough once they get their own hands on the game.
I can sort of see the rationale in this - its nice to sometimes come across surprises in games; some things that may have been revealed in videos or written impressions well before we get the opportunity to discover these things for ourselves. But on the other hand, is it practical, given how much more time game development takes up now - translating into longer "blackouts"? Not to mention the much greater coverage that we are now exposed to, making it ever more difficult to avoid any tantalising new details?
Perhaps more importantly is the question of value behind this decision. Is it even worth it? Barring spoiler-ridden articles and movies, are we really learning anything crucial - knowledge that might somehow tarnish the final game experience for us?
I know that I can't resist the temptation of scanning through most of the media on the games that I'm interested in. If anything, it helps build hype for a title - something that can often lead to disappointment, but can also have the wonderful effect of elevating your appreciation for a game. You get psyched for it, knowing that it is coming, and it looks/sounds just like you wanted it (if not better).
And yet, the more "fresh" a game feels, the greater the chance that it will amaze you. This idea isn't too far removed from the following scenario, one to which we have grown accustomed to in this industry. This involves the release of a groundbreaking new game that gives us new perspectives on the genre and/or gaming itself, followed by a sequel two years later which did nothing new, only carried on from the predecessor's established formula. Which one would have (or at the very least is likelier to have) the stronger impact on the player? The one that provided a "fresh" experience from the start. Can we make the same assumption for the topic of this thread?
So having considered all of this, where do you stand on "media blackouts"? Where would you draw the line between getting up to speed on your most anticipated title and hiding under a rock?
I can sort of see the rationale in this - its nice to sometimes come across surprises in games; some things that may have been revealed in videos or written impressions well before we get the opportunity to discover these things for ourselves. But on the other hand, is it practical, given how much more time game development takes up now - translating into longer "blackouts"? Not to mention the much greater coverage that we are now exposed to, making it ever more difficult to avoid any tantalising new details?
Perhaps more importantly is the question of value behind this decision. Is it even worth it? Barring spoiler-ridden articles and movies, are we really learning anything crucial - knowledge that might somehow tarnish the final game experience for us?
I know that I can't resist the temptation of scanning through most of the media on the games that I'm interested in. If anything, it helps build hype for a title - something that can often lead to disappointment, but can also have the wonderful effect of elevating your appreciation for a game. You get psyched for it, knowing that it is coming, and it looks/sounds just like you wanted it (if not better).
And yet, the more "fresh" a game feels, the greater the chance that it will amaze you. This idea isn't too far removed from the following scenario, one to which we have grown accustomed to in this industry. This involves the release of a groundbreaking new game that gives us new perspectives on the genre and/or gaming itself, followed by a sequel two years later which did nothing new, only carried on from the predecessor's established formula. Which one would have (or at the very least is likelier to have) the stronger impact on the player? The one that provided a "fresh" experience from the start. Can we make the same assumption for the topic of this thread?
So having considered all of this, where do you stand on "media blackouts"? Where would you draw the line between getting up to speed on your most anticipated title and hiding under a rock?
) as I believe the experience is so much better when you don't know what you're expecting. I know some people that did everything they possibly could to get into the BC beta and experienced most of the game in all it's buggy and laggy glory. I, however, saved myself some cash and had the "complete" experience with almost no technical issues to mar my enjoyment.
Comment