The Gaming Intelligentsia #2: The Gamer's Appetite

As we approach the dawn of a new generation in the console gaming industry, I'm forced to sit back and ponder a newly-discovered statistic: it takes, on average, 4 years to get a game from its planning stages to completion. I heard this fact when someone referenced the Xbox and its upcoming successor, out after only 4 years on the market.

That means, if this statistic is true (and I don't doubt that the number could have been distorted by the chain of hearsay that always occurs), then those games that were planned in the initial year of the Xbox's existence have just seen the light of day. The same goes for the GameCube, while the PS2 has had a year's head start on its competition.

This statistic gains more relevance when one considers that games on the current generation are reaching dizzying heights of quality and enjoyment, as one would expect with a maturing console. When one looks at the highs from last year, like Resident Evil 4 and Paper Mario , one cannot help but appreciate how different they are from games like Luigi's Mansion , which appeared at the beginning of the GameCube's development cycle.

This difference at this time just begs the question: if companies weren't racing to get to the next console and instead gave this current generation another 4 years worth of games, what wonders could we expect? Is the gaming industry disregarding the possibility of higher quality games that can only really come about with closer familiarity with the hardware, a familiarity that many would argue has only recently borne fruits, just to move to the next high-powered console and capitalize on the potential income from the "next best thing?"

I absolutely believe this is the case. Regardless of whether or not the quoted statistic is true, one must admit that these consoles are advancing rather quickly. Though gaming consoles seem to hold a lifetime of around 4-5 years, at least in the last two generations, one would expect that the greater complexity and power promised during this generation would extend each consoles' lifetime.

I also have not seen any real talk from the gaming press about how games are suffering due to hardware limitations like those that were had with the N64. What we DO see is only a few games on any given console described as fully utilizing a system or pushing its resources. That leaves a huge number of game publishers who could yet create an amazing game with just more time with the hardware. After all, why can't Resident Evil 5 come out for the GameCube and be even more amazing and astounding?

Perhaps the reason why these companies rush onward to the future is that they believe that they can compensate for lack of efficient programming by moving to a more powerful console. There is much to be said about this; after all, one can see how difficult it was to use FMV on the GBA in the case of Kingdom Hearts , and one can imagine how easy it would be to do such a thing on more powerful hardware like the PSP or even the DS. But as PC gamers know, this philosophy is increasingly expensive and increasingly bad for business.

I was going to buy F.E.A.R., a much-hyped FPS, until I found out that my friend, who had a much higher powered computer than my own (which is still pretty powerful), could only play it on its lowest graphical settings. While one may argue that this is an example of why more powerful consoles are needed, I see this as a need for more efficient programming.

But I think a larger reason for this rush to the next hardware is because of us, the gamers. You all know by now that I like to compare games to literature, so I will illustrate this concept using that comparison. A literary audience can generally be broken up into two types of people: the voracious readers and the more critical readers. The voracious reader generally focuses on plot-driven books of adequate literary value - fantasy books are good examples of this type of literature.

For them, because of plot carryover, books are consumed quickly and constantly, as quickly as Harry Potter books the night they are released. On the other hand, you have your critical readers, who read books like one sips a good wine, taking it in paragraph by paragraph, studying it, and often living with it far beyond the time it took the author to write the book. These readers are more patient, less eager to rush to the next book, and instead savor each literary experience slowly and thoughtfully. This is of course a massive generalization, but it does show that there are multiple types of readers.

Gamers, however, are quite different in that there is really only one type of gamer: the voracious. Gamers tend to grab games quickly and in groups, keeping their eyes out for the next big thing on the horizon and picking it up fairly close to its release date. While we gamers should perhaps be waiting patiently and getting the industry to slow down and maximize the potential of those consoles that have provided us with so many hours of entertainment, we instead jump into line and make preorders at each new iteration of a system. Even gamers who DO play a game for years, like Starcraft gamers, still keep up with other games at a similarly voracious pace.

I believe that we are like this because video games have traits of both literary media and technology. The techie always pushes the boundaries of his or her technological existence. That need for the next computer, new digital camera, more RAM or a new video card is already a well-established observation. And this constant drive towards something new seems to have carried itself over to gamers, who simply keep on lapping it up. This tendency also explains, in part, why there is little chance for amazing games to appear on the current generation of consoles once a new console is announced. Working hard on "outdated" technology is simply not profitable when the focus of both the gaming media and the older and younger gamer groups are fully placed on the "newest" thing.

This is not to say that we gamers will buy any game just because we want something more to play. I believe that quality is an important issue for gamers. Just look at Gamespot's video review of Gods and Generals to see how we gamers will joyously dance around a burning bonfire of bad games, singed with our sarcastic remarks. But what this does suggest is that quality is not as essential to a gamer's appetite as quantity is. Good gameplay makes a game playable, but does not prolong the life of a game nor keep one's attention on said game for long.

Replayability ensures that a game is played for a long time, but it does not preclude that one will stop buying games until one is tired of the current one. I've seen too many people buy games in batches, or buy a new game week after week to believe that gamers are not somehow affected by that techie need for more. This means that if a company can release a good group of adequate games, they will probably make a lot more money than a company who only releases one or two astoundingly good games.

So really, it is absolutely possible that we are not getting games of the highest caliber. We are also probably not seeing games that fully utilize their chosen console's abilities. But the truth of the matter is that we do not have anyone else to blame for this but ourselves - and I don't think that is necessarily something that needs to be changed, or even can be changed. This voraciousness is just part of gaming culture, a unique aspect of holding this hobby. This voraciousness also keeps down extreme enthusiasts and encourages cross-platform gaming, which is always a good thing. So keep on playing and keep on analyzing our culture, gaming intelligentsia.