OddballGreg - Videogame Annualisation (Quantity Over Quality?)

Nothing says Videogame Terror like an Xbox controller right? No... not really, but at least it's vaguely related to the subject in some form no?

You remember Assassins Creed Black Flag? Unity? Rogue? 3? Brotherhood? Revelation? What about Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 1? 2? 3? Advanced Warfighter or even World At War? Videogame Annualisation is an interesting issue these days to consider, so I'm going to consider it for you guys. (Teehee)

Have you ever heard the old adage "Quality over Quantity"? Probably. The fact of the matter is that it feels like the mainstream videogame industry might be a little unsure of the finer nuances of that saying. Consider the fact that there are 3 Assassins Creed games coming out next year. Assassins Creed Identity, Assassins Creed Rogue, and the next-gen Assassins Creed Unity. There's also yet another Call Of Duty game coming out. Yet another Final Fantasy came out this year, (what is it now? over 20 or 30 games?), and there's another Battlefield game out. (Slightly older news, but still relevant.)

So lets argue for all these games right now. Consider the simple fact that these games, despite being released so frequently and making many around the web bemoan the saturation of the market with tired ideas, people still buy it. Why? Well, for those controversy and conspiracy seekers out there, the reasoning can be pointed at anything from brainwashing to the subjugation of people's will through the economy in order to prevent them from rising up against the world's governments. Or it could just simply be the fact that these games are fun. (I dunno about you, but the latter seems ever so slightly more likely. Maybe it's just me.) Consider this: Call Of Duty's multiplayer has been effectively the same ever since Call Of Duty 2, with the only real changes being aesthetic and class/killsteak/era/loadout changes over the course of each game. So why do people keep buying the same thing over and over?

Simple. It's fun! Ask anyone who's played Call Of Duty without taking it too seriously, and they'll point out that the gameplay has just the right mix of strategy, action, funniness and occasional badassery that it's sometimes difficult to stop playing. I myself recently completed several runthroughs of the "Extinction" mode in Call Of Duty Ghosts with a friend, and then promptly started playing the Nazi Zombies gamemode of Black Ops. Why change something that people obviously enjoy and like? "Ain't broke, Don't Fix It" is the literal attitude in this case, and rightly so. As long as the existing formula remains fun, there's no reason to do anything more to it than drop in some fun new side ideas to keep things fresh. 

So why is all this a bad thing then? (I know, after typing all that, I'm wondering myself.) Well, for starters, buying the same thing repeatedly doesn't exactly feel like value for money, especially when the latest Call Of Duty often sets a person back about $60 or R600 here in South Africa. Paying that much for a game that is mostly like the last give or take a couple features and a new but rather short and occasionally inconsequential story does feel a bit like a rip. Those kind of changes could be something simply given as a cheap downloadable DLC pack at a sixth of the price. Strangely enough, the average gamer doesn't seem to see it that way and simply shells out what is quickly becoming an exorbitant fee for the same rehashed content. (I will say in Call Of Duty's favour however that Advanced Warfighter is definitely looking far different from it's predecessors. Shall be interesting to keep and eye on that.)

The other thing to consider is that in terms of the Quantity over Quality argument, the games may be suffering. Perhaps not as a result of rushed development cycles as most of these games, despite being the same franchise, are made by different development teams, which means that there is no loss of focus on them, which is good. However, the games may be suffering from becoming something that people can take for granted due to it's over-availability. Consider something you've had all your life, perhaps even since your were born. Maybe you were lucky enough to always have a cellphone, or had the freedom to always go where you liked when you wanted to. Both are fantastic things, but many seem to take them for granted until they no longer have them, at which point they suddenly want them so much more.

That argument in terms of the games industry is that it effectively means that we appreciate every newly released title less and less because we come to expect that there will simply be another game to play later. Call Of Duty Ghosts was met with a lackluster reception for being more of the same and trying to get attention with gimmicks like fish AI and dog companions, yet when Diablo 3 was released a decade after Diablo 2, despite being incredibly controversial for many reasons ranging from it's always online DRM to it's real money auction house, the game sold TONS of copies, simply because the longtime nostalgia of Diablo 2 had many wanting to see just how much better their old favorite could have become. Which means in terms of marketing and the production of games, the questions really is, "is more actually better?" While the argument will likely continue for a long time to come, one can only decide for themselves if they like how the mainstream gaming industry is handling it's game franchises or not.

In any case, that bring this interesting soliloquy on the subject of game annualisation to a close. Do you have something to add to either argument or simply wish to voice your own opinion on the matter? If so, feel free to do so down in the comments section below, or via Facebook/Twitter as we here at TCSA love to hear your feedback. Of course, if you have friends that enjoy debating the fundamental aspects of marketing, economics and the game industry, maybe share this post with them. They might find the arguments I've posed here interesting. And if you yourself would like to read more interesting articles like this one, then do be sure to like the Official TCSA Facebook page and/or follow us on Twitter using the associated buttons on the bar to the left so that you can get the latest posts, as they're published. Regardless of what you do, I thank you for having taken the time to read this post; hope that you have/had an absolutely FANTASTIC day, and I will speak again soon.

Happy gaming my friends.

JovialJman - Stereotypes

"Irony is when you use a picture of a woman with a tattoo as your header image for a post about stereotypes." - OddballGreg

The Human brain likes to order information into groups of data which can potentially assist them in their endeavors. Unfortunately, this grouping of data can often lead to various negative social beliefs, most importantly being that of stereotyping which can lead to tension between racial and ethnic groups. Lets talk about that.

Stereotyping is defined as when you classify a group of people or things on certain characteristics or traits that they may have. These classifications are usually oversimplified and often a fixed notion in peoples minds. Stereotyping is very widespread and most of us contribute to it, usually without even realizing it. Consider the following cartoon from Cyanide and Happiness:

Taken from here, the original from here didn't want to load.

 If you laugh at it, then you likely know of the stereotype involving Jewish people and understand how ridiculous it is. Now Jewish people do not eat non-Kosher food and shellfish, in this case shrimp, is one of those non-Kosher foods that they are not allowed to eat. So the joke is on the person offering the shrimp, but he doesn't know that they do not eat it and thus thinks the Jew doesn't want to pay according to the widely known stereotype.

Stereotypes can help make sense of the world and can be classified as a way to categorize things. This helps to simplify and add structure to the information which thereby enables you to identify, recall, predict and react to new information a bit quicker which may potentially save your life in a threatening situation, or simply save time and energy. This way stereotypes are somewhat like a shortcut to make sense of one's social context, often at the cost of being judgmental of those you know nothing about yet.

Taken from here.

There are some stereotypes about nations like the belief that Africa is a country. It's also believed that we have lions and various other wild animals running around the streets that we build our mud huts around. (Hang on a sec while I go pet my pet lion and  feed my elephant which I ride to work each day). Then there are people who know we have cities but think that they will get robbed every 10 seconds if they ever visit them. While it is true that we have a fair amount of crime, it is merely one of our country specific social issues, such as those any other country like America or Britain have, that we have.

Then there are more widespread stereotypes like those involving gender. Men open up jars with tight lids and they think of sex constantly while women stay in the kitchen and take long to get ready when they are going anywhere. (The latter is frequently true, but it's often worth it for how AMAZING they look afterwards.) Then there are those involving specific characteristics like blonde and dumb or gingers having no souls.

This is a good representation on some stereotypes. Image taken from here.

I will admit that I knew less about the stereotypes pertaining to my own specific traits as I never really hear about them. I often hear those of other races and the other gender, as it's typical for people to discuss these stereotypes with those it does not pertain to. It was rather intriguing that  people tend to spread the stereotypes of the groups of people they do not relate to, perhaps as a way to promote their own stereotype. (This is likely driven by the human need to relate to other people. Food for thought).

People are not the only thing that gets stereotyped. For instance the "all rabbits eat carrots" stereotype originated from the popular cartoon character Bugs Bunny. At the time that Joseph Benson "Ben/Bugs" Hardaway was designing the art for Bugs Bunny, there was a film called It Happened One Night, in which a character was seen eating a carrot and talking nonchalantly while his mouth was still full. Joseph decided to mock that scene in his design of Bug Bunny, and at the time people would have understood the reference, but since then over the course of years it became common belief that all rabbits eat carrots. (Which is actually not that good for them.)

All in all, stereotypes are a common human psychological element that mostly everyone does as it is an effective strategy for self preservation on a subconscious level, despite the deplorable consequence of judging people you do not yet know anything about. If you enjoyed this post and found anything interesting or thought provoking, please let us know down in the comments or on Facebook/Twitter as we LOVE to hear from you. If you think any of your friends or relatives would like to read this post, please share it with them. Of course, if you enjoyed this post and would like to see more like it, please consider liking us on Facebook or for the twitters you can follow us on Twitter with the associated buttons on the bar to the left, so that you can read the latest blog posts as they are published. Thank you for reading today's post and I shall speak again soon.

Keep well friends.