Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

The Great Digital Hype 54

Posted by Zonk from the death-of-great-games dept.
The Escapist is running a piece looking at how over-hype can kill a game just as fast as a buggy build or bad gameplay. With certain titles, especially Massive games, the expectations of a community can become so out of step with reality that whatever is released will not live up to the image. Article author Dana Massey looks at this issue, with personal experience, through the failure of the MMOG Wish. From the article: "On January 1, 2005, we opened the doors to the 80,000-plus players who had signed up to participate in our open beta. It was during this time that the Half-Life 2 demo had released, and I remember being quite pleased when our beta dropped it down to second on the most active list over at FilePlanet. It looked like things were going well. Famous last words ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Great Digital Hype More

The Great Digital Hype

Comments Filter:
  • Just watching the demos I thought of a dozen things I'd expect that game to do which I'm sure it won't. Like a mix between asynchronous and synchronous multiplayer. Be great, seems like a no brainer, will Spore have it? I doubt it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ricree ( 969643 )
      I don't think that this would really be an example of problems caused by hype. From what I've seen, the only sort of "multiplayer" that has ever been mentioned for spore is the automatic distribution of user made content.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 )
        the expectations of a community can become so out of step with reality that whatever is released will not live up to the image.

        The gaming community currently believe that Spore will be a full ecological life simulation, real time strategy game, MMOG, flight simulator and SETI-at-home rival. This is the result of hype, and more specifically, the cultivation of spin. Maxis could be answering people's questions and saying "no, we won't have any synchronous multiplayer" but they aint. Why? Cause it will dem

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by ifrag ( 984323 )
          If you sit down and watch the spore demo on google video, the narrator clearly establishes what that 'asynchronous multiplayer' jargon is. So yes, they have come out and said exactly what it is for anyone who can be bothered to actually watch the video. I have no delusions about what it is and what it isn't, and I thought it very well established the scope of the game. When the game is released I'm sure plenty of review articles (such as in PC gamer, Gamespot, etc) will probably cover the topic yet again
          • >>Speculation will only result from people who don't even try to inform themselves.

            ah, but this is all that the rabid fanboy community needs - the 'hint' of something - before they jump to conclusions and start screaming from the hilltops (for joy or in pain, either effect is about as useful)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dr. Eggman ( 932300 )
      I think you might be a bit confused on hype. Hype is not really a couple demos explaining things you can do in a game and then your imagination building on top of it until your out of touch with reality. Its spastic advertising tricks like pre-rendered cinematics (ps2/ps3), over indulgent terms (emotion engine, umm...something not Sony...uh...oh! Revolution!) and just general streatching the truth. Then, fans minds run away with the distorted advertised image.

      I wouldn't really call Spore overhyped. I rarel
      • Spore brings up an interesting point. Yeah, Wil Wright demoed it and basically made the collective geek society cream itself. However he highlighted certain parts of gameplay, and we all know how gameplay is so much different when you are sitting there playing for a few hours on your own. So far I'm going to buy Spore, but I'm really curious to see if it can really hold my attention as long as I hope it will, and that the rest of the game is as polished as the parts he showed us.

        We've all seen what happe

  • Expectations and disappointment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @12:52PM (#16106557)
    Umm... duh.

    When a hype gets people worked up for something, they're expecting it to see that expectations met. When you promise something, people expect this to happen. When you don't deliver, people will be disappointed and, worse, they will start picking the product apart. It may be even good, hey, it may be great by "ordinary" standards, but it isn't what you promised, so it is invariably going to be received less favorable than a less hyped game would be.

    People start to nitpick at the tiniest problems. For a very simple reason: They are disappointed and they want others, who maybe didn't hear about the hype and think the game is great, to understand why. If for no other reason, then for the reason of being right. You can hardly argue that a game is crap when it isn't, by objective standards, so you have to find the dirt. That dirt is dragged to the surface then, so everyone can see it. You get compared to other games that may even fall behind in other parts but in THIS part your game sucks, so it sucks in general.

    If enough people repeat it, the game breaks down and is remembered as a hyped game that didn't make it. See Black and White for reference. Or Star Wars I-III.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kallisti ( 20737 )
      Yeah, It'd be a shame to be loser like the Star Wars I-III movies [supershadow.com]. Only 2.4 billion dollars in box office receipts. Sad.

      I seem to recall that Black & White sold pretty good for while as well, but I can't find any good references. Does snyone know of a webpage for checking game sales?
      • You said it. Only. Imagine how much it would have made if people didn't expect something that shook the earth (or space, rather). And imagine how merchandizing would've soared.

        They're not bad movies. But they didn't meet their expectations.

        The same can be said for B&W. Not a bad game, but not the gem it was announced to be.

        It may not affect the game itself too much (unless it's something like a MMORPG that relies on people that keep paying after buying it), but it does affect sequels. Simply because you

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mgblst ( 80109 )
          You said it. Only. Imagine how much it would have made if people didn't expect something that shook the earth (or space, rather). And imagine how merchandizing would've soared.

          Good point. And imagine how much it would have made, if it stated selling on a Tuesday instead of a Wednesday. This is not how logic world, if you run around spouting imagine this, imagine that then your argument has a few holes in it.

          Firstly, it can be argued that Star Wars movies hit their expectations. Part of the market (

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )
      This is precisely why 3D Realms is (supposedly) not saying word one about their development of Duke Nuke'm Forever - hype kills games. It's suicidal to release teasers throughout development, or early on in development, because people begin guessing and postulatin gamongst themselves in forums and newsgroups, and they get their expectations up.

      If you get their expectations up,

      This is why (amongst everyone I know, at least) Half-Life 2 was not such a great hit. Everyone basically knew what was coming when it
      • DNF is already overhyped and dead. I mean, you've been waiting for it for... 10 years? This HAS to be the only true shooter for generations to come, or it's a dud. DNF's hype is its delay.

  • Hype on a plane! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chroot_james ( 833654 )
    case and point
    • I think the difference there is that everyone considered it to be a joke from the beginning. Nobody I know had any expectations for it to actually be any good. At the same time, I also don't know anybody who actually took the time to see it (see point 1 above).

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      french benefits

  • I agree.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ConsumerOfMany ( 942944 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @01:09PM (#16106781)
    I am almost disappointed in the Wii price. For so many months now its been 220, 199, 229, that when they announced 250 I was like "That Sucks". Even though its a good deal, and I will get one its kind of a downer. And it has Wii sports even, I know. The damn hype just made me want to spooge at the 199 price that had been speculated.
    • and one as a gift, but now...
      • And they would have lost probably $30 on each. They arn't selling at a loss remember, but I doupt they could sell at 199 and still make a profit.
    • thats the price of ONE game. get over it. I think all things considered its a great price point to start at, especially since I'm sure a year later you'll see it for 200 or so. While I do wish they gave the option to buy it without coming with a sports game, since thats most definitely not on my list of games to get, I do understand that its such a negligable thing to worry about. Let the games decide how this new gig deals.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grumbel ( 592662 )

      Even though its a good deal

      From a pure hardware point of view it really doesn't sound like a good deal. The Gamecube cost $200 back then in 2001 when it was released and now we shall pay $250 for something that is just slightly improved? That just doesn't add up very well, especially when the far more powerfull XBox360 starts at $300. Now luckily hardware doesn't matter much for a console, games are what matters in the end, but it still feals like Nintendo is ripping us of a little bit, with PS3 at $500 t

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by whoop ( 194 )
        XBox360 starts at $300 ... except there is no disappointments when you realize the lesser Xbox360/PS3 doesn't do one feature you later find you want. I haven't kept up with those systems, but are they upgradeable at all?

        Now there'll be only one Wii. A few years from now, there won't be any of us crying that we should have bought the "full" version. It'll either have everything needed for games down the road, or one can buy some add-on piece of hardware to do the new stuff.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by timster ( 32400 )
        something that is just slightly improved

        This is a lie. Stop repeating it. If anything is "just slightly improved", it's the $300 XBox which lacks the hard drive of the previous version and has only marginally better graphics and an anemic idea of backwards compatibility.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by grumbel ( 592662 )

          This is a lie. Stop repeating it.

          Show me a single Wii game that proves that the Wii to be substantially more powerfull then the Gamecube, so far there simply are none, all are in the range of the Gamecube or just slightly above. Looking for example at MarioGalaxy one can see that they are however not very much above, the game suffers from horible aliasing artefacts, something that wouldn't be the case if the Wii really would be much more powerfull. A single look at Dead Rising on the other side easily pro

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by hkmwbz ( 531650 )
            You are a moron. Just because current games don't look all flashy doesn't mean that the system is incapable of better.

            Wii has eliminated huge bottlenecks that existed in GameCube, and the GPU is built from scratch. It isn't just a "slight" improvement at all.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by grumbel ( 592662 )
              The last comment I read about Wii's computing power came from Reggie himself and read like "If you want power, you're going to go somewhere else.". Sorry, but that doesn't sound exactly like the "redesigned" GPU will be able to do anything remotly impressive and as said, none of the current games does. If the Gamecube has shown as one thing it is that its easy enough to program that developers are able to use it to close to its maximum potential, right from the beginning (RougeLeader is still one of the bes
    • The funny thing is... Nintendo never confirmed or denied the $199 price point. History and "ANALysts" propagated that hype. All Nintendo said was "before Thanksgiving" and "No more than $250"

      Guess what... they kept their word on those two points!
      • Thats exactly my point though. It was hyped up in the media to a certain expectation, and now since it didn't meet that expectation I am disappointed, regardless of how cheap or a good deal it still is. If my expectation is to have wild hot monkey sex on the first date with some hot chick, and it turns out to be only a good oral sex session, I would be disappointed. If i was expecting nothing, it would have been a great first date.
        • Ok, I *think* I have your point now. You mean ANY hype from any source. Not specifically hype from the company whose product/service is in question. Probably should have RTFA while I was at it too...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )
        They should've lied and said $300. THen they'd have gotten bad press, and when they release it at $250 (or hell, $275, and drop it to $250 a month later), everyone would be saying, "ZOMG, what a great deal! Look what Nintendo managed to pull off!"

    • Even though its a good deal, and I will get one its kind of a downer
      When you say something like that, they see $$$'s. At the end of the day, Nintendo is a business. If you buy it at $250, why should they sell it for less?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Raenex ( 947668 )

        If you buy it at $250, why should they sell it for less?

        Because they're pushing away undecided people. At $200 I would have gotten a Wii for sure and felt good about it. Now I just don't know. I think the psychological advantage of $600 vs $400 vs $200 would have been huge. Now at $250, well hrmm, why'd they have to go and break with history? Especially considering that they're staking their claim as being the fun, affordable console, not the over-priced, bleeding edge console.

  • Many people have this attitude that a game that a sleeper hit is somehow better than a hit from a larger company.

    When people over-hype a game they ruin it for themselves.

    The best example of this is halo2.

    It was a good game with some bugs, not the best game ever. I enjoyed but i stopped playing after about 12 months, i go back for single player sometimes.

    IMHO it bungie can only be blamed for being fairly tight lipped.

    The fan base however took tiny bits and tried to extrapolate the entire game
    • I still enjoyed it. The only part of the hype that let me down was that intelligent AI that they talked about in all the magazines. I swear, every single action game since 1997 has boasted "revolutionary new AI!" and "the enemies work as squads to take you down!" and finally "the enemies will seek cover from incoming fire!" Yet they're never really as good as is said.

    • "When people over-hype a game they ruin it for themselves. The best example of this is halo2. It was a good game with some bugs, not the best game ever. I enjoyed but i stopped playing after about 12 months, i go back for single player sometimes."

      Wow, for a game that was 'over-hyped', and a let down for you, you sure did get your money's worth. My idea of over-hyped is when they say it's going to be totally awesome and you can't stand playing after five minutes. Like Brute Force. Or, what was that boat co

      • I'm speaking of fan based not marketing based hype. Marketing hype typically ends with a universily hated game. Fan hype leads to a fragmented and highly polarized fanbase, it gets worse with games that are part of a series. I think there are more good games ruined by lack of marketing than marketing hype.
    • A good counter-example is, ironically, Halo. It's a mediocre game in almost every respect, the least of which is its actual gameplay (it reminded me of Serious Sam). Yet, it's a huge hit. Why?

      Good advertising from Microsoft, and everyone saying it'd suck balls. It somehow managed to be the first really playable FPS on console, and MS did well for it.

  • Hype? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Yvan256 ( 722131 )
    Sony PS3.
  • The biggest let-down is that people are still pre-animating the gameplay for commercials, or otherwise using a TON of CGI that the game just could not duplicate during play. If you look back historically, games that have done well were advertised kinda like: "here's the graphics, why hide it, if you think it sucks, then screw you, the game's still good". I just want to see what it is I'm gonna be doing in the game, not a split-second clip of that and then some other random CGI B-reel from Star Wars Episode 3 or something.
    • According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Square has sold 9.72 million copies worldwide. If I remember correctly, the commercials SOLELY featured the 'good' CGI cut scenes (i.e. not the ones with the blocky-character models from normal, non-battle gameplay). Granted, FF VII was billed as a 'cinematic experience' (with the commercials stating 'the cinematic experience of the year will not be in theaters; it will only be on Playstation).
    • This is why I like Nintendo's ads on the whole. No, they don't show gameplay for the entire spot. Instead they try to capture the essence of the game with live actors (NOT people in Crash Bandicoot suits).

      So in one ad we have what looks like a class for new fathers, until the instructor puts helmets on the baby dolls and announces its time to practice some cannon loading. Then we find out, this is an ad [google.com] for Mario And Luigi: Partners in Time, a game where you treat baby Mario and Luigi pretty irresponsibl
  • They're working on GT5. Every release they say something like "We'd like to include feature X" and the community goes freaking nuts with it so they work even harder to make it work which delays the project until they decide it won't happen. Then they have a late product without the feature that everyone talked about for a year (or LONGER).

    Is it not possible to just wait until the product is in production before you start telling everyone about it? I understand they want to know if it's going to sell before
  • Wish *was* over-hyped, but not all of the hype was good.

    They tried to have only 1 "world" group of servers that would house at least 10K players online at one time, with no "zones". Many of us were openly skeptical of whether or not it could be pulled off by them, especially since they were a small company. Blizzard or SOE is one thing, but some small developer that nobody had really heard of before? Sorry, but many of us were waiting for it to fall.

    The bottom line is Hollywood and the music industry ove

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DingerX ( 847589 )
      I have to disagree.

      First, Fan-hype can be bad, really bad. Fanatics don't always share the same interests as the mainstream, and the things they find really, really cool may not be the same as the general public.

      Also, developers do not exactly have control over what their fans say. Consider some of the stuff I've seen:

      A) Fans for Team Fortress 2 posting on another in-development game forum how TF2 is gonna be far better than the other game, and getting into a flamefest. All those posts did was remind eve

  • yup (Score:1)

    by glen ( 19095 )
    This is exactly why I'm trying not to get too excited about Spore. It's still a year away.
  • Remember Half-Life 2? This is a game that was massively delayed and clearly over-hyped, but it turned out to be as critically acclaimed and joyfully accepted as the original Half-Life. Sometimes a game can be over-hyped, but the amount of hype is not inversely proportional to the quality of the game.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Raenex ( 947668 )
      Remember Half-Life 2?

      And specifically mentioned in TFA. They credit the Half-Life team with being able to deliver on what they promised, which is hard for a small company to do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

Close