Sorry, but I haven't yet shared the information about myself that would typically display here. Check back later to see if that changes, or if I instead choose to remain an enigma.
So, after having gotten used to "despondent Sony", who doesn't care about customers, and just wants to do what artists want, and then push out the content. And then having gotten used to "eager Sony", who wants to employ 3rd parties to do PR blitzes for branding purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with actual practices.
I've always been like this. If a task was not a challenge in itself, or enjoyable and interesting along the way - then I never found the will to complete it.
Is it lazyness? To insist that the meaning of life should not be to die, but to live well for a number of years? Or perhaps that physical training should be engaging on it's own, with a good feeling of accomplishment - rather than be a chore you have to do in order not to become a disgusting wreck?
I suppose I feel the same way about games. I'm not playing games to complete them, but to enjoy the experience. Winning the game.. not really the point, is it. You don't win anything, after all.
So I like to play Killzone 2 online. I've never really liked shooters, though. But.. remembering back to the way the controls were at launch - before GG caved to the Call of Duty brigade in a fantastic display of fail - I always convince myself the game still has some charm to it. Besides, the graphics are good.
But it's really a lie. At the moment, cheaters are running rampant, and lag between regions is unmanageable. Meanwhile the subtle touches that made the original control scheme interesting, are all gone completely.
There are many things in life that makes me wonder about how mankind ever managed to avoid being the first thing to go when the evolution came. Food distribution problems, politics, console wars, game reviews.
Specially the last one. The task: write something descriptive about a fairly simple experience, designed by others to entertain, so that other people can understand your impressions as you played the game.
So the theory goes something like this: People wish to be catered for in a positive way, to be encouraged to buy a product. Hence critical buyer's recommendations don't succeed as well, nor cause more customer satisfaction. Instead of filling the subject with euphoria just from the thought of owning the product, the critical buyer will instead want more for less money, and will also fail to be impressed by gimmicks, coolness factor, peer- pressure and advertisements based on emotional attachment.
In other words, people only read reviews to enhance the product satisfaction of a product they've already decided they want (thanks to the advertisements that say nothing about the product).
And we have to start reinventing it, and all, and bla, bla.. What /is/ this?
An attempt at crushing the stereotype of video- game makers and players as being vicious children - by... turning them into stunted loners seeking meaningful romance in videogames? A softer, more searching child, I suppose..?
Ok, so my Rise of The Argonauts review is up.
Took me two days to write the first version. That was about 2000 words. Then it took another two weeks to eventually get it down to 1600 words.
Personally, I'm not sure if there's a particular point readers will start to snore and click away on something else. I've read reviews on 500 words that bored me to tears - but I managed to get through it because it was so short. And I've read large treatises on games like Planscape Torment and stopping naturally on the paragraphs to think a little bit before going on.
Should you really aim for short reviews like that, because your readers tend to struggle through a review in the first place?