On demanding better

Does this type of behaviour make one a "gaming snob?" After all, if the gaming industry relied on uptight, budget-conscious gamers like me, I'm pretty sure it would be a lot less profitable than it is right now. This is not a hard and fast rule that I apply to other forms of entertainment. I saw my fair share of disappointing summer blockbusters in the last couple of months (in fact, several people are probably sick of hearing my rant about exactly how terribly disappointing the new Transformers movie was), and I certainly have read bad books in the past.

So what is it about games that makes me particularly picky? I narrow it down to three factors: the price tag, the relatively large amount of time they require you to spend to fully enjoy them, and in the case of single-player games, the fact you have nobody to share your disappointment with.

When paying for a movie, you are, at most, springing $12 for a ticket. It is likely you are seeing it with at least one other person. If the film is truly horrible, you can get a certain amount of enjoyment out of quietly laughing at it with your friend, and it's all over in three hours at worst.

A full-length game will leave you approximately $50 poorer, and can suck up to an equivalent amount of hours of your time. For that amount of investment, I will not be suckered into purchasing an inferior product.

I find it particularly aggravating when a product is hyped up to no end by its developer and publisher, only to be completely pummelled by critics upon its release for a laundry list of incomplete features or bad controls. The publisher's excuse then usually turns toward some sort of unforgiving, draconian production deadline, and it promises to do better with the inevitable sequel.

Recent examples that come to mind include Ubi Soft's Assassin's Creed and Red Steel video games. Both these games were financial successes thanks to relatively large marketing campaigns, even though many reviewers noted they came up short on their promises. Now, from play tests we hear of upcoming sequels, it appears they will do exactly what their predecessors were supposed to.

But it pains me, Ubi, to point out I'm not too impressed with the fact Red Steel 2 will simulate cool sword and gunfights like I've never seen before on the Wii, because that's what you promised me…in November 2006.

I don't mean to single out one company, either. Nintendo spokespeople were quoted this week as being unable to explain why the recent, massively hyped (even by yours truly, I must admit) first-person shooter The Conduit was selling below expectations. Well I think there may be a rather simple explanation for this. The Conduit's reviews have all noted how it is a fairly competent shooter, but nothing extraordinary when compared to what is out in the genre on competing consoles and the PC.

The Wii has two types of users: casual gamers who would much rather spend their time

on fare like Wii Sports, and hardcore gamers who a game like The Conduit would be aimed at. But given the console is relatively inexpensive, "hardcore" gamers are likely to own at least one competing console as well, or a decent computer to enjoy meatier software on. In other words, a game aimed at this audience on the Wii that gets simple "good but not great" reviews will not move a lot of copies, because these gamers will wonder why they should bother with it when better stuff can be found elsewhere.

Hm. Perhaps "gaming snobs" are not such a rare phenomenon after all.