10 is the same as 0

Reviewers have always been influenced by the producers of goods and have been enticed with gifts to influence their reviews. Bribed, in other words. It’s an open secret how this happens all the time, though social media and how current reviews, especially with movies and games, are being influenced is laughably transparently covered. For example, back in 2014 when Watchdogs was about to come out, Steve Hogarty admitted how Ubisoft had put up an exclusive preview event for the game in Paris, where they gifted reviewers with Nexus 7 tablets. While this one event got some coverage, it’s far from being a rarity, though a normal consumer who doesn’t have any access or ties to any media houses wouldn’t know. Press kits for game journalists in events like this, and outside, tended to be rather expensive. Kotaku may be one of the worst sites around when it comes to objective news and articles, but a post from twelve years ago about Capcom sending them a three hundred dollar chess kit, while mentioning off-hand how EA offered to give them Porsche driving lessons so they’d get to play more of then upcoming new Need for Speed, shows how much the publishers and developers want to influence the media. It isn’t surprising that for each one who declines, there are at least two who say yes. This is an old topic in itself, and this sort of lack of independency between media and providers is always an issue. Sometimes kicking off consumer revolts. If you look up video game press kits on eBay, you can find journalists selling their gifts away. It should make you question why these kits include statues, backpacks and other goodies. If these bribes didn’t work, they wouldn’t be made.

Social media has changed the game quite a bit, especially with Youtubers. The providers don’t work with just media houses any more, but have tied single content creators around their pinky fingers as well. With Star Wars we saw large amount of media applauding the new movies, but after few years these reviews look suspect when the same writers repeat criticism consumers had with the movies in the first place. You can always argue that the reviewers bought the hype and had more objective lens after some time had passed, though that just means these people are terrible reviewers who let their own feelings and views influence their work. Youtubers often are fans making content. Fans’ love towards something is traditionally strong and can be easily exploited. They feel like they’re doing something right for the community and the brand by promoting it, and more often than not the big hits are hanging off from the companies’ strings. If you’re connected to the provider and manage to get exclusive behind the scene views or clips, the more views you manage to rack up. If you get on their bad side, this lifeline will be cut. These are fans hyping up other fans. That’s their job, in effect, and it’s not even a real one. They’re doing these companies’ PR and advertising, hyping titles up to high heavens, and they don’t even get properly paid for it. There is no self-respect at play here. Let’s not get into how Youtubers, influencers and press often get pre-release review copies, sometimes to own, sometimes with a bunch of the merch. You scratch their back, they scratch yours.

We of course come back to The Last of Us 2 and it being review bombed all the while the gaming media is praising it. Oh there are proper review scores all around for sure. It’s just telling how screwed up the system is when customer reviews are being bombed to the ground with zeroes while similarly the official side is hitting it with perfect tens. An old joke in video game reviews is that it’s really just a three-star system, or the range of score goes from 70 to 100, but that’s sort of the reality of it. The more you find popular Youtubers and press media repeating the same points in almost the same wordings and ways, the more reasons we have to ignore them. The modern review system is bust and completely tied to the providers. Social media might be completely screwed with this, outside the ones that are truly independent, but the Internet also allows us to completely ignore content creators who are just marketing, shilling, products to your face. Give all channels and sources you use a hard look. If they’re championing something that’s transparently false or hyping something overtly, they don’t have your best interests in mind. They might be fanboys hyping, they might’ve lost their independence as content creators, the end result is the same nonetheless.

I have to admit that I did go overboard with the Muv-Luv stuff when the Kickstarter was on, but none of that was from the company’s side. I’ve got only friends in the translation team, no connections to the company proper per se, and it’s highly probably nobody at âge is even aware of this blog.

Nevertheless, the Internet has given us the chance to review everything we want on multiple sites, aggregate or not, and voice our own experiences. The onus is put on the consumer in this, which is why aggregates exist to make going through reviews easier, but as you probably know, that’s not exactly a system without faults. Still, if you look at item reviews on e.g. Amazon and read through them, you notice a pattern of mid-range star reviews usually having the best pros and cons. Top and bottom reviews can often be just one word and be left that. That’s pretty much what all these 0 and full score reviews are, empty hate and hype with no value. Not many want to do the legwork themselves, going through review histories and search up opinions from people who haven’t written reviews, resorting to these Youtubers they like and find likeminded to deliver the condensed version. There’s also something about wanting to enforce your own believes and sticking with the group mentality. It’s either cool to like or hate something, join the mob, despite the mob being driven and created by providers for profits. Nothing is more profitable for providers than zealots and true believers, as dropping something that they agree with can get you nice profits. However, bet on the wrong horse, and you’ll alienate the rest of the consumers. If you bet worse and the horse gets injured behind a bush like Silence Suzuka in 1998 Tenno Sho, it’s not hard to find yourself with diminishing revenues on the long run despite all the influencing and hyping.

As stupid as it sounds, stealth marketing has crept into every area of media we consume. It’s tiresome to take everything as suspect and wage through dozens of options and reviews just to find if something like headphones work for you. The amount of reviews and opinions will ultimately always overwhelm you, and in the end, the only proper way is to educate yourself on the subject to some extent base your decisions on that. A bit hard for video games and movies, but just like with everything else, having experience and foreknowledge about the subject helps you a long way. In the end, intuition is learned through experience. The good ol’ argument of giving something a go before you make a decision or the like doesn’t really apply with games and movies, or any entertainment media, as the provider gets your money even if you didn’t end up liking the product. Movie trailers rarely do any justice to the movies, as they’re made to market it. Game demos on the other hand almost died out completely, because they ended up representing the games a bit too well and impacted sales negatively. Piracy of course is the great controversy, as it’s claimed to negatively impact sales even when in reality people tend to use it as a method to test drive movies and games before committing to a purchase.

Any time you see someone holding a torch to something, giving it higher quarter score, go through it with extreme criticism. Reviews on Disney Star Wars, Marvel movies, The Last of Us 2 or any other high-profile piece, including Star Trek Picard, are under suspect, and through them, every other reviews these content creators have. If their standards and level of criticism yields 10/10 with only minor issues here or there, there’s something amiss. Look for authenticity in the reviews you look for.

The Big N Creation Myth

One of the best marketing tactics a corporation in the creative industries can employ is to represent their product as something completely unique and new, or as something that has evolved the formula beyond the competition. The whole This game/genre has evolved! schtick is especially common with sequels, and was rather common in the Japanese ad media during the first decade of the 2000’s. You don’t see Japanese developers mentioning their sources of inspirations much outside few notable exceptions like Hideki Kamiya, who has been vocal about his love towards arcade games. Western developers often do the opposite, citing examples what their game is like. The difference between cultures here is rather contrasting to the point of American audiences preferring to refer their games ‘as like something’ even in genres, like Doomclone, Soulslike, Metroidvania and such.

Japanese like to invent new genres for specific games though, though this is in order to endorse the whole idea of these games being something completely unique. Shenmue‘s FREE, Full Reactive Eyes Entertainment and Mega Man Legends‘ Free-Running RPG are the ones I cite the most as examples, mostly because both of them are full of bullshit. Sometimes you can find these redefining genre names as a game’s subtitle as well, with Metal Gear Solid‘s Stealth Espionage Action being a prime example. By introducing something as new and wholly created by oneself or one’s own team, prestige, reputation and face can be gained. A culture most of the credit, if not even all of it, can be credited to one person alone while putting all the faults and mistakes unto lower staff members, it becomes understandable why Nintendo wants their customers to believe that they have created their games in a bubble of creativity, free of whatever is around them.

Staff at Nintendo have always been aware what’s around them. They have always been as much trendchasers as they have been trendsetters. With their pre-Famicom era Pong clones to the very early era of making Hanafuda cards, they’ve always taken something that exist and given it a whirl of their own. What I mean by this is that Nintendo, especially with their video games, have always taken a game and looked at it how it could be given a different spin. This sometimes improves the formula, sometimes it doesn’t. Devil World is a great example of a failed attempt at improving the Pac-Man formula.

The game is actually pretty bad. It has one nice tune, but overall you just wish you were playing real Pac-Man

The Legend of Zelda and the Action Role Playing Game myth is probably the biggest one out there. As touted by Nintendo Power during the game’s release, it was the first game of its kind. In reality, it of course wasn’t. Even Link’s Adventure, a game which is considered to be an outlier, adheres to pre-existing games to a large degree, trying to improve on mechanics and ideas that already established. However, it must be said that The Legend of Zelda was the first true mainstream success of its genre in the United States, as the closest relative the game had at the time was Ultima games. There are links missing between Ultima and The Legend of Zelda, though not many.

First of the links is Falcom’s 1984 Dragon Slayer, which more or less takes the Ultima formula and simplifies it down to one massive dungeon.

Zelda would adopt this same top view perspective. All the base building blocks are here that would be seen in The Legend of Zelda down the line, though battling is still done with statistics. You can expect a hard defeat if you don’t have proper stats or magic. Dragon Slayer wasn’t the only game in town to get inspired by Western RPG or use an early version of bump combat that year.

Hydlide has become a sort of punching bag on the Internet for being terrible, but in reality it’s no worse than other RPGs of the time. Visually there are similarities that we’d see in later games like Dragon Quest, which in itself is a combination of Ultima’s top-down view and Wizardry‘s in-window battles. The way both these games hit the scene in 1984 is telling how much impact early Ultima and Wizardry had on the Japanese PC gaming. Falcom’s influence on Nintendo wouldn’t stop with Dragon Slayer, as 1985’s Xanadu‘s battle mode very much like Zelda‘s overall play.

The difference of course being that all of the games still use statistics and experience as a play basis, not removing them from Ultima too much. The Legend of Zelda changes the formula by removing experience and the need to grind for experience points to item statistics. While Link doesn’t gain any visible statistics during the game, the player progression and curbing is done by gaining stat growth via weapons. This makes the game easier to approach and opens all of the game map to the player from the start, and encourages the player to wander around to adventure even more. Falcom’s influence on the series can also be seen in Link’s Adventure, which more or less uses Xanadu‘s changing battle-mode to shake things up, but keeps things viewed from the side. While not exactly new at the time. While Link’s Adventure is seen as a kind of black sheep of the series, despite historically it outselling its stock and being an excellent title on its own rights, Falcom released their own game using the same side-view concept Link’s Adventure had in Sorcerian.

The two games were developed about the same time, though Sorcerian sticks to the side-view throughout its whole game without changing perspectives. The play itself is dramatically different, structuring the game on particular quests and scenarios. Combat itself is surprisingly downplayed, though player has to directly attack enemies in similar fashion to Link’s Adventure. Having four party members means you can have mages shooting fireballs while melee characters hack with their swords. Sorcerian can be traced as one of the ancestors of Wanderers from Ys rather than be coined as a Link’s Adventure clone. Influenced without a doubt, just like Falcom’s and other companies games influenced Zelda overall.

Zelda just happens to be one of the better examples, where most of the influences never arrived to US. European micro-computers had their own games depending on the countries, with Sabrewulf being the most popular example. Another would be F-Zero, in which Nintendo can’t really deny influences of other racing games. The game was developed as a tech-demo for SNES’ Mode 7, which largely explains why the series has been left on the side. F-Zero X showed how fast and furious games can be on the N64 and improved the concept leaps and bounds, but Nintendo never really knew what to do after that. For them, the lower revenues and lack of ideas how to introduce a new kind of gimmick to the game has left the series dormant. AM2’s F-Zero GX is effectively just an improved version of F-Zero X, but the genre doesn’t exactly offer the best chances of installing new gimmicks without breaking the purity of play. Mario Kart on the other hand does, and gets all the attention instead.

In the absence of new futuristic racing games, Wipeout hit the scene of fill the empty niche. Games like Redshift have continued this sort of tradition, but more games in the genre are being inspired by Wipeout rather than F-Zero, similarly how Nintendo’s games inspire other titles rather the original sources

Not all influences are in the open or traceable. Argonaut Software’s Croc: Legend of the Gobbos was stated to be a primary inspiration for Super Mario 64 according to the studio’s founder Jez San. In an interview with Eurogamer, San goes over how they had a completed Star Fox 2 and had made a pitch for a 3D Yoshi game to Nintendo, but appropriated much of their Star Fox 2 code into Star Fox 64, and have people would never see royalties from Star Fox 2‘s release on the Super Nintendo Mini or through Switch’s online service. Super Mario 64 is very similar to what their pitched prototype was. Despite Croc released year later than Super Mario 64, these similarities they carried from their original pitch are evident, even having similar movesets. It’s easy to see Croc as an alternative skin to Yoshi, changed enough not to infringe copyrights. Shigeru Miyamoto has effectively admitted lifting the 3D game idea from Argonauts to San despite their close relationship.

“Miyamoto-san came up to me at a show afterwards and apologised for not doing the Yoshi game with us and thanked us for the idea to do a 3D platform game. He also said that we would make enough royalties from our existing deal to make up for it. That felt hollow to me, as I’m of the opinion that Nintendo ended our agreement without fully realising it. They canned Star Fox 2 even though it was finished and used much of our code in Star Fox 64 without paying us a penny.

Super Mario 64 would go cited as the first ‘true’ 3D game, which in itself is patently untrue. Despite the hype around Mario 64, 1980’s already saw games like Star Wars and Battlezone, which used wireframe models to create a 3D environment. We can cite Ultima Underworld as one of the earliest examples of 3D game that didn’t use wireframe models. Alone in the Dark can be cited as an example as well. The distinction of course becomes whether or not all the environment is modelled in polygonal 3D or not, in which case we need to give the first ‘true’ 3D distinction to Quake. We shouldn’t forget Sega’s Virtual-On series either, which offered full 360-degrees of free range of controls via its twin stick control scheme. Ultimately, the pretty much everything Super Mario 64 did, from its 3D nature to having game designed to be controlled via a stick, can be traced to numerous other titles and sources.

 I fully admit, I never liked Quake

However, cultivating the idea Nintendo, and every other company out there, is some kind of single creative force makes good money. It’s a PR dream to have a product that stands apart from the rest of the shelf, but is familiar enough for the consumer to understand at first sight. One you manage to gain a position as the one who defined a type of product, yours is the standard that is compared against. The Legend of Zelda doesn’t have much direct competition any more, though games like Nier: Automata are effectively in the same Action RPG genre, but a distinction is made between the two to make a separation for marketing reasons. It’s all about the money and position at the end of the day, and if you can claim to be at the top, you’ll get the most fame and money.

Rebooting the honeymoon period

Before a franchise becomes a running success, it goes through golden days of sheer creativity. This lasts until certain unwritten rules become commonplace, which are largely determined by both success of entries in the franchise itself. Take Mobile Suit Gundam for example, where this period of exploring what Gundam as a franchise could be and how it was to be depicted lasted about a decade and arguably ended with Gaia Gear, a series of novels and audiodramas set into the far future of the original’s timeline. While the story and setting is very much what we could expect from a Gundam entry, it separated itself from the series by not having the title Gundam anywhere and its titular mech Gaia Gear had only a passing resemblance to mainline designs in the series.

On the left you can visually identify the mech as a Gundam-type. It has the distinct white-blue-yellow colours, the right type of structure with the cockpit in the chest/stomach region, vents on either side of the chest, a pronounced cockpiece and now-iconic Gundam head. Gaia Gear breaks basically every rule outside the vents on the chest. It could be argued that because it’s not a Gundam in name it doesn’t need to follow the conventions. However, most Mobile Suits in Gundam follow similar structure in body designs with only special cases deviating heavily from them. That is not to say that Gaia Gear didn’t get a repaint later on that matches with Gundam colours, but that’s really neither here or there. As a whole Gaia Gear was one of the last entries that broke with decade long exploration what Gundam was and what it could be, until Mobile Fighter G Gundam would present with the first alternative timeline on television, but the designs would still stick to the already established mould.

Sometimes this period lasts only one entry. Take the Halloween film franchise as an example, where the third movie veered off from the first two movies’ setting and characters in attempt to make the series different with each entry. With the backlash the movie got, the period of experimentation ended and all future films would stick to the first movie’ shtick, exploring only its characters and set-ups while not entertaining the idea of an anthology series. It could be argued that the two first movies already set the what the franchise as a whole would be in stone, and isn’t exactly comparable to changing designs in Gundam, but the gist is the same; Something is made in multiple entries and tries to find its sweet spot, and once it does, it sticks to it like glue.

When the honeymoon period with the franchise’s golden days ends, it leads to formulaic entries one after another. This doesn’t mean the quality drops automatically. Rather it means the consumers have certain expectations of the brand and creators behind the brand are expected to deliver. They can improve the formula bit by bit and explore it to some extent without majorly changing elements. Usually turning things completely on their sides of changing the core concepts massively is reserved for spin-offs, and ultimately for reboots when a franchise is considered to be too heavy on history and pre-established lore.

The Gold Key comics followed, or perhaps enforced, the standard Trek formula that DC and Marvel would break a bit more later down the line in manners TV couldn’t

Star Trek is probably a common example here, where majorly affected spin-offs were relegated to comics and games, while small but major tweaks to the formula were represented in Voyager and Deep Space Nine. With the J.J. Abram’s rebooting the franchise, and requesting only his take on Trek to maintain any presence, we’ve gone through the whole period of exploring the franchise again in the comics, while the movies stuck to the formula right after. We can see the reaction the studio and creators had to the receptions of the Abram’s Trek take in Discovery and Picard, where this new take on the series followed the modern action line it was restructured to be in place of exploring the human condition though guise of science fiction. Sometimes reboots are used as a way to gain a recognizable property to make business with while ignoring the existing wants and needs.

A franchise that has established itself builds up expectations with each successive entry, especially if there’s a series of entries that improve the core concepts one after another. This is best seen in video games, where styles of play and elements that exist in a franchise often are built up, and about just as often began to fall apart at some point for multitude of reasons. Take the Splinter Cell franchise as an example.

Those three green dots became a well recognised during the golden days of Splinter Cell. Not so much now

The Splinter Cell franchise was Ubisoft’s golden cow at one point with receptions like no other. Sure it came in the wake of Thief and Metal Gear Solid, but the franchise is most well known for its three first games, nowadays titled as the Splinter Cell Trilogy, while the rets of the games are more or less pushed aside. This mostly is because the first three games emphasised stealth as a play mechanics, especially using the shadows as the main point of play much like Thief did before it. The first three games expanded on the whole (relatively) open stages and ways the player could tackle mission specific targets in a stealthy manner. The first three games in the series build up the mechanics and laid down the core structure what could be expected of the franchise, but after that the most common criticism has been the franchise moving away from stealth and becoming a more generic action play with less freedom players has per stage, relying on a linear design. With lacklustre entries that fall between the cracks and not meeting with the expectations the franchise had already built up, UIbisoft hasn’t put out a new entry in a while.

Not that many teams would like to tackle Splinter Cell all that eagerly, as each new title is expected to return to the glory days of the franchise that would stand to the original tagline of the Splinter Cell, Stealth Action Redefined. It wouldn’t be surprising if Ubisoft would simply reboot the whole franchise, effectively nullifying expectations the franchise has, cleaning the slate for developers and riding a recognisable name all the while.

Remakes appease the creators, not the audience

Discussing remakes, reboots and reimaginings seems to be relevant again with Final Fantasy VII Remake and Digimon Adventure (2020) hitting the streets. The two are splitting opinions, just like any other remake or reboot, soft or hard, that have been coming out way for the last decade and then some. In an old post that I can’t remember title of I questioned the value of these kind of works, if there was any real reason to push forwards of remaking a successful game or series over a title that could benefit from being remade into a superior form. Both the aforementioned titles didn’t need to be remade in the fashion that they were, the titles were still making money through nostalgia and new exposure

To generally cover what sort of remakes these are, FFVII Remake is effectively what the original game would be if Square Enix were making the game now. That includes changes in the battle system and story. The new Digimon Adventure has been called a reboot, but it might as well be a reimagining, using elements from original cartoon, like characters, settings and certain story elements, to make something new and original. Both of the titles are remakes in similar vain that they do not replace the original, but are a different, modern take on them. Whether or not that’s great thing will be left to each personal view, but how much money either one will make will give us indication how the audience have reacted. This being the seventh Final Fantasy game remade, I can assure that’s it is going to make bonkers amount of money despite whatever its weaknesses end up being. The fandom the game has garnered around itself will keep it profitable, though the later instalments might see a hit. In similar manner, the new Digimon Adventure cartoon tries to give new breath to the old Adventure moniker in an attempt to garner new fans for the franchise. Again, too early to say as the show’s only in its second episode and there isn’t much merch out there yet, but if end up being a successful show, they might start the Adventure cycle again like they did in the later part of the 90’s, before all the other sequels that weren’t sequels hit around. Seriously, Digimon Adventure 02 might be a bit hated, but that’s a show that should get be remade to be better.

All remakes and reboots inherit an audience, and they’re the ones that bring in the initial count of cash. Whatever there was first, a TV-series like Charlie’s Angels or a game like Final Fantasy VII, the fans of the original product already exist and they can be used like a safety net. If relaunching the IP fails, you can always turn right around and rely on the build-in audience. There’s of course an exception if the relaunch, reboot, remake etc. is opposing this audience from the beginning and violently opposes them. A relaunch can do this in multiple ways, from killing off previous cast of characters in favour of new ones for no real reason, changing the dynamics of the setting completely,  changing the setting and the story either enough to be it its original work or mangling up the perceived positives with further negatives or just making something that’s directly attacking the audience itself either in the work or around the work in the media. The latest Charlie’s Angels was an absolute box office bomb as it wasn’t made for the franchise’s fans, and media specifically stated that this movie was made specifically to certain kind of audience, men need not to apply. After the box office disaster was apparent, the same media outlets cried out loud asking why didn’t the audience members they shunned see the movie. The movie itself enforced this narrative as well, something that bit in their ass hard. Well, the same thing happened with Ghostbusters 2016 and now with Ghostbusters: Afterlife around the corner, the same voices who rebooted Ghostbusters in the first place were crying out and asking do they not matter? That’s the thing really. A build in audience can offer great long-term profit, but in terms of creativity it isn’t the most glamorous job if it’s not a high-profile IP. Star Wars was a high-profile IP, the most massive entertainment train on the planet, but under Disney it was ran to the ground with its soft reboot approach and lack of respect towards the franchise and fans themselves.

The audience and the creators have completely different view what a franchise is all about. Sometimes they coincide and a fan may get into position to create for a franchise they love, but this rarely results in something that’s well received by the rest of the audience out there. J.J. Abrams may have been a self-proclaimed fan of Star Wars, yet the results he put on film were less than stellar. It can also go the other way, with someone who doesn’t get a franchise gets into position to make a new entry to a long-loved franchise, like how J.J. Abrams with Star Trek 2009. It’s as if most of these modern incarnations of long-lasting IPs that turn terrible have something to do with Abrams’ Bad Robot and Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout. Enough with me being prickly about this, but that shouldn’t detract the point; creators perceive these franchises and IP in a different light from the consumers. This should be a given, otherwise there would be no reason for companies to make research into consumer behaviour, wants and needs. Creator working on an original product doesn’t necessary need to concern themselves with the heft of history. If they’re working with a franchise, especially with a reboot of any sort, they need to be aware of the audience expectations. While a work can’t be slaved to those expectations, walking the line between breaking them altogether and appeasing them is necessary. The lack of grass root level knowledge in entertainment industries makes this harder, especially in a time when media is writing for the industry rather than for the customers.

The perception of creators isn’t what we can deliver for the fans and general audience, that’s the PR talk they want you to believe in order to enforce the emotional attachment to the brand. Creators who work on reboots, especially if its someone who worked on the original piece, consider this as their material. Technically speaking, it is. Nobody can touch or decide what they do with it, except the person who pays their salary. In the real world, you have to appease the customer. Even if the customer is paying you to do whatever the fuck you want, you still have to keep in mind the customer’s wants and needs, because if you don’t, it’ll be shown down the line with less money flowing in. Money shouldn’t be the end-all objective, but as far as these are products created by corporations aiming to make profit with products you have to pay for with money you’ve made through your own means, money can’t be divorced from this. That’s the inherit value of kicking off something like a remake or reboot off the ground; the inherited audience should bring in money. Unless you manage to poison the relationship with that audience, after which it is extremely hard to win them back.

What’s the point of remakes, reboots etc? It’s not to make them better. At its core level, the business decision to remake something is to use that emotional attachment customers have made to rake in relatively easy money. If it’s done well, there’s lot more money to be made, while the opposite will damage the IP, but it’s easily fixed by abandoning the remake and returning to the old, if possible. Otherwise something has to be done to salvage the IP for the time being, or let it cool down and reset. FFVII Remake might see the usual cycle of somewhat split opinions, and only later we’ll see people objectively assessing pros and cons of the game. It’s an easy sell title for the generation that didn’t have prior experience with gaming and RPGs overall as their emotional attachment is through the roof. It’s easy to say that remakes etc exist to make the original work better with modern tools and that’s how they’re often sold as. Reality is, however, that they’re mostly creator vehicles to fulfil whatever goals the creator has in mind without any care for the IP or for the audience with intentions of raking in some money on the side. All that money that go into reboots and remakes could go into making new content.

Digital takeover?

With nations going to lockdown modes, travelling being restricted and products unable to move from place A to place B, the world faces changes. Some of the changes will be long lasting, while others will be temporary at best. In a way, we’re faced with a moment in time, where only the essentials should matter. If you’re not directly in relation of producing foods or essential services, or are able to work from home, chances are you’re going to miss some work. Entertainment is, to be brutally honest, is probably the least important part of life. While the modern society is mostly used to have content provided via whatever screen we choose, numerous places that offer entertainment outside your home environment. For example, the movie theatres are effectively closed for the time being, hurting their income and their workers’ pay. With the theatres closed, some of the studios have opted to stream their movies in much faster order than usual.

The discussion of digital superseding over physical is often only about the media, how games, music and movies are going to vanish from the store shelves in the future and be replaced with digital-only counterparts. While this is extremely rosy view of the future, this discussion should also include automatisation as an essential part of it. Some types of work will be replaced with their digital and automated, and on the long run, most work from medical care to translation can be automated. It’ll just take long time to get there, improvements in special kind of AI and automatisation, but nothing’s really out of question. At some point we are going to have discussions whether or not we are going to allow digitalisation of work to replace human workers in some particular fields. Futurism.com has an article about Artificial Intelligence that is able to make more accurate diagnoses as a doctor than a human one. In time, digitalisation will take things to the point that consumers will be taking goods and be served by automatons. Digitalisation promises offers of superior experience every which way. It is already spilling out from factories and whatnot to digital environment, where 3D models are already used to entice viewers to enjoy video contents more.

Though who needs mp3 players or whatnot when you can have a non-digital automaton playing tunes for you

The whole Virtual Youtuber thing is digitalisation at its best. Sure, you have someone acting behind the character, but the 3D model removes all the needs for the actors to change their body structures or put make up. Chaturbate users experienced what it means to compete with automated content, when Projekt Melody shot to the top and displaced most of the top models and was raking in money like no other. Projekt Melody is effectively a VTuber for porn and offers the exact same benefits that other automation offers; Better results in less time, and end result that will entice more customers. It’s more efficient and with the provider being able to deliver whatever visual designs and flavours the customers want, Projekt Melody is able deliver harder and faster the same experience live model have to work hard for. This lead many of the models on the site rioting, of course, resorting to name calling Projekt Melody’s viewers and fans (despite these exact same people are their potential customers) as well as claiming this was unfair competition. In reality, they are now facing the first steps in having digitalisation and automatisation entering their field of profession.

Digitalisation doesn’t straight up mean that robots and automatisation replaces someone’s work. Well, in practice it does, as rarely the same person is trained to maintain the automation. At least one human has to be behind automated work to keep it in check, to ensure that it runs well. A welder would do good by aiming to move from manual welding to become a robot operator, if possible, as in time welding in factory conditions will slowly but surely replace the human worker. The companies themselves might be against this, be it trusting human worker more or due to sociopolitical issues, but robots will always end up being more efficient than the humans, be it in the factory, in the doctor’s office or something you want to jerk off to. We are already happily using platforms that are supplanting physical environs. Netflix may be new television, but it has been said to be the reason why movie theatres are dying, online shopping has been replacing physical stores (which is a terrific example of its implementation as the customer feels like their doing something significant and non-automated), especially now that you can order your foodstuff to be delivered to your door. I wouldn’t put it past the post offices around the world to aim replacing their postmen with drones, like how Amazon is testing their drones. It all might have a high up-front cost, yet on the long run it’ll be that much cheaper. This is one of those things where companies may not want to prioritise short-term gains over permanent long-term gains and begin automation. Current structures may not support automated environments straight up, but all that is easy to change.

While digital media has not phased physical media out, there is a possibility that the infrastructure for that is being implemented at this moment in time. After that, there really isn’t a need to go back. Digitalisation and automatisation go hand in hand, and while customers are now inconvenienced by the epidemic, the most inconvenient and easier way to consume and explore entertainment is digitally. The discussions about consumer rights and ownership is not even thought about, something this blog has been discussing to a major extent in the past. Consumer behaviour has been drastically altered now and it is possible we are seeing a strong paradigm shift. Not only customers are going for the digital option, either because of fears or convenience, the companies have to make due with whatever production methods they have at hand. China’s factories being closed means everything has to be postponed or other forms of delivery (i.e. digital) have to take priority. Local production may be emphasised and thoughts about becoming more independent from foreign produce. Of course, some nations can’t really match up the sheer volume in production others can achieve, which will lead into local produce being costlier than imported. Whether or not this would be a chance to increase local production, or if people will simply change their habits of consumption, is open in the air. It’ll be interesting to look back few years from now to see how both customers and industries have changed.

Unmade money with old games and consoles

Masayuki Uemura was interviewed by Nintendolife recently. He was the main engineer of the Nintendo Family Computer, as well as the guy who lead Super Famicom development. Naturally, he also was behind the workings of their American and Western equivalents. The interview covers decent ground and has some interesting factoids spread around. For example, all the innards of the FC was to cost give thousand yen and then sold for fifteen. Taking inflation into count, that five thousand is about six and half thousand yen, or about fifty five euro. The FC wasn’t exactly cutting edge for its time either, and the initial FC games are a whole another world from what the Western world came to know with the NES. You could even say that the split between the games, sort of, is pre and post Super Mario Bros., as that game was build to be the ultimate cartridge game before the disk system hit the corner. After SMB‘s success, the quality of the games on the system skyrocketed in number and begun yielding classic titles after another. I still maintain that the NES’ US launch line-up was one of the best a console has seen, as Nintendo of America had the chance to hand pick all the most fitting titles from the Japanese releases to fit the American taste. The Wii also had a relatively low-cost innards, which didn’t hamper its success. Nintendo’s lack of support after few years though, and Wii’s sales were still top notch.The Wii’s Virtual Console on the other hand, that sold the system to so many people.

Uemura mentions costs to be one of the driving elements in the design, and this is something the common consumer doesn’t tend to think. Certainly you know that better materials cost more money, but that’s only part of the equation. Shapes and colour add to the cost as well. For example, pink plastic has a higher melting point than blue plastic, requiring more time and energy to melt the plastic into the moulds. The colours themselves are also a factor, as mixing and making different colours cost different sums. Of course, you also have consider what that colour can do to plastic on the long run and if it’s worth it. For example, Beast Wars era Transformers toys have Gold Plastic Syndrome, where the colour and flakes added to the plastic have chemically interacted with each other and brittled the plastic, making it prone to break very easily. Some examples were found on the store shelves during the 1990’s already, and the issues has only become more pressing with time. Let’s not forget the shape. The more complex the shape, the more time and money it takes to develop needed production methods and finding the proper material to work with those shapes. Machining and maintenance are the key factors, and sometimes shapes need to be simplified due to either needing excess amount of parts or corners and loops that simply wouldn’t fill. Uemura mentioning that they went through numerous different variations for the controller is nothing surprising, but something that hasn’t been recorded and archived anywhere. If NES would’ve had the same kind of joystick as the Atari 2600, it would not have been the same success. The choice to try out Game & Watch Directional Pad appears to have been a somewhat desperate attempt to cull costs and prevent breakage if a child steps on the controller, and it worked.

The most interesting, and perhaps even most important section in the interview, is Uemura talking about the Famicom Mini;

Why make it mini? I think they could still develop a regular Famicom and people would still buy it.

Uemura’s hitting the nail with this, and it’s not just Nintendo that this applies to. Unlike what the industry wants to tell you, a console has no true life cycle or end of it. A system lives as long as the parent company decides to support it. However, the practice currently is to support one home console and one handheld at a time, thought the Switch really does both. All these reproduction consoles that are going about are an example how there is a market that’s untapped by the original companies. If Nintendo decided to develop and official GameBoy with a backlit screen, it would sell not only to the collectors, but to all interested parties. Reproducing cartridges nowadays is much simpler and cost effective. I’ve discussed this topic previously in a review. While it would increase the cost of the mini-consoles to add a port where consumers could use their own old cartridges, it is something these companies should have strongly considered. The games and their players have not gone anywhere. These same games are being published time and time again either as individual games or as parts of compilations. The game industry is almost schizophrenic in this. Something is supposed to have a limited lifetime, and yet people pirate ROMs to play these games and purchase compilations. Developers try to push for the new titles and games with high budgets and production values, and it’s the small side-game that’s more true to the older games that sells like hotcakes. We are still playing the same board and card games from hundreds if not thousands of years ago, and the could apply to electronic gaming if the industry wouldn’t treat them as one-time consumables. Yes, old cartridges and consoles will yield to time, to wear and tear, but the question really is why isn’t any of these companies willing to address this? There is a market that Sega, Konami, Sony, Nintendo etc. could go and tap.

Of course, developing a new console that would be planned to run old games would be time off from the more modern and current projects. Where’s the prestige in that? It would take some time and effort to see what made the original systems tick, if we’re to avoid emulation, and then expand what they can do. Using HDMI would be the first step, though if fans have created modifications to add HDMI output to old systems, so can the parent companies themselves. That is, if there is know-how and skill to do yet. Just like in the film industry, where colour and digitalisation effectively killed old skills (nobody knows how to make a true black and white movie anymore or how to properly run a reel, everything’s just a guess) the video game industry is in the process of forgetting how to develop for analogue platforms. Only the enthusiasts and retro-game programmers are keeping these skills alive. Hell, most big developers don’t even develop their engines any more, opting to use pre-existing engines. Capcom is one of the few developers that do their own in-house R&D, and it shows. Perhaps the kind of sameness games nowadays exhibit is partially because of this, and partially because games don’t develop as fast any more. In the 1980’s and early-to-mid 1990’s the industry kept developing fast and weren’t defined to the point of being set to stone. You had separation what kind of game was on what kind of system (PC, console or arcade) yet now more games are more the same. I’m ranting again about this, aren’t I?

There is money to be made with games and consoles, even if the industry perception is that they wouldn’t be much worth. The NES Mini outsold itself twice, the SNES Mini sold itself out about as fast, the Mega Drive Mini has been hailed from left to right as the best Mini system to date with excellent choice in games and the PlayStation Mini is still sitting on the shelves for being shit. There needs to be quality of course, as not even the hardest of the core customers will stand for lack of proper effort and lacklustre products. This market isn’t just for the small percentage of people stuck in the past. Old games, as long as they are available, will sell. A game is an ever-green product you can press again and again and sell it over and over again. They don’t grow old, playing games is an ageless pastime. They are mass consumer entertainment, and if you were to present them in their proper, original form with somewhat updated hardware for the new times, you’d have a new pillar to support your business with. Then again, we’ll always be an impasse, as that’d be looking back into the past and not trying to push the latest newfangled stuff.

What drives hardware if the same software is available everywhere?

Business Insider recently published an article in which they interviewed a number of game developers for the Google Stadia. They went without their names attached to their words, and perhaps better for that. Without a criticism they’re offering about Stadia and its misgivings, the very same I went on about, wouldn’t reflect too well in their business relations. The main contest is incentives from Google, the benefits that the developer and publisher would gain for putting their title on Stadia. Or rather, the lack of them. Usually the audience would be an incentive on itself, the ones the Big Three currently hold, and Switch as the one with relatively unique and mixed amounts of users, while Stadia effectively has none to contest with. Google can’t compete with the amount of users they have compared to any other gaming platform out there, and they probably know just as well.

There is no reason for any outsider to put their meat on Google’s platter. They’ve done the exact same error so many other companies have before them when it comes to running a gaming platform, console or otherwise; you need to do the initial legwork yourself. To use Nintendo as an example, consumers purchase Nintendo’s consoles not because of gimmicks or whatnot, but because of the software Nintendo themselves are providing. That already offers a default installed consumers base, which can be easily expanded if new and proper software is presented on their platform. Without saying this also means the consoles with the most sales always had the most software on the system. Shovelware is rather important for the ecosystem to balance things out, but it can only balance if there are enough games on a platform. Otherwise it’ll just gather handful of games and they’re all junk. Not even shovelware, but just collection of ports and few exclusive titles worth jack shit. Atari Jaguar or CDi should be an example in of themselves enough.

If Google can’t offer that initial batch of games that would incentivise the customers to pick up their handy dandy controller, what are they using? Software sells hardware, and Google doesn’t have anything that would wake a customer interest. It’s as if they were expecting to come into the play on the backs of other developers and publishers without putting much of their own in there themselves. The few exclusive titles Stadia has seen have been less than stellar, and the whole of idea not having the baggage of prior culture of video games was absurd to begin with. Whether or not Google wants it to, Stadia is relying on pre-existing software that’s heavily ported from other platforms, and that brings the culture of those games and platforms with it. Not that there is a huge dividing lines between different consoles, though PC mindset is very much a different thing. Stadia, however, is very far from PC as a platform. Then again, so is Steam in its nature as a digital console, so maybe modern PC user’s mindset is far too eager to appease closed environments rather than open to controlling their system by themselves.

While other platforms can offer stability, especially the Big Three, Google can’t. You’d think that if Google is putting all this show, razzle and dazzle up to grab customers’ attention, surely they have a long-term plan for Stadia and see it through at least for the next six years. That probably isn’t the case. Google has a tendency to nix products and services that don’t succeed as well as expected, and Stadia is no different to them in terms of business. If it doesn’t rake in the expected revenue, it’ll be written off and they’ll move on. They don’t have the history of putting their best efforts to make a product or a service like Stadia succeed. Stadia, as it stands now, would need a soft-relaunch in terms of service and what products it has. This is similar how Nintendo had to relaunch the Nintendo DS through software and how to market the device. Rather than sell it as a portable N64, a pocket version of a system that was never a success to begin with and has a lousy software library, Nintendo turned the boat around and started to deliver its library closer as a portable Super Nintendo. From there the NDS went to success. Inversely, the Wii was marketed and sold very much like the NES was, but the moment they abandoned that mindset, which was directly reflected in the software library and how Nintendo moved to develop both the 3DS and the Wii U, its sales dropped. Still outsold the other Big Three consoles, but what also failed to carry over the new install base they had from both NDS and Wii.

Google is against all this and they haven’t really done anything to deal with it. Whatever fame Google has at the moment, it isn’t helping them with their gaming department. If all the reports of their customer service practically failing on the first day, some being completely in the dark Stadia was even a thing to begin with, and Day One delivers were multiple weeks late, it could almost be assumed Google was self-aware how things would end up going and had already given up internally. This wouldn’t be a surprise in itself, as at times corporations do put out big projects that might not go anywhere. Often it’s a project that’s been languishing in development hell for years on end and time has already passed it, like with CED, and other times a project is perceived as groundbreaking or making disturbing ways in the industry, but the technology turns out to be half-baked and barely functional. As much as VR has made its strives, in recent years, it has a thirty years history of numerous failed attempts and products. Well, VR will be a true hit when the headset becomes cordless and light enough to shove into basic goggles without the massive plastic housing.

Whether or not Google was unprepared or didn’t have their realities in check with Stadia is academic at best now. Stadia has been around few months now and the wakes it was supposed to make have been rather anemic. Still, let’s wait the first two quarters until we can say whether or not the direction Google has chosen is worth it, but if developers and publishers are willing to coin in and effectively show their distrust not only towards the system itself, but also towards the parent company, something very much askew. Google, as it stands now, really has nothing to compete with in Stadia, and whatever promises and statements they made about fast play anywhere you want without any baggage has turned out to be less fulfilling. If this really was Google trying to offer a way to play games to those who didn’t want to play games because of they hobby has its smears, they bet on the wrong horse.

The power of the Customer

The customer chooses whether or not you succeed or if you fail. This can’t be overstated, but what has been understated that not all customers are one group. Take a sample of any consumer group, be it fans of a franchise, soda drinkers, candy eaters or whisky juggers, you’ll always find that they have something in common and something very much uncommon with each other. Within your target audience, you can’t appease everyone. You can hit different parts of your target audience with multiple products that appease different varieties of tastes, even if those tastes might clash harshly against each other. There’s a reason one of my random banners at the top is quote from Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, stating the there’s only one boss, the customer. Money moves almost everything in our daily lives, from the power you’re getting from your wall outlet to the clothes you’re probably wearing. Simple change in spending habits, like going to another chain’s store than your usual one, can affect things rather strongly. While the Internet has made campaigning against and for something so much easier, compared to letter campaigning or phone calling, the best form of stance taking is still hitting where it hurts the most; the wallet. However, wallet voting has taken hit on how effectively it is. The Internet has allowed movements to become louder and more obtuse, especially with the advent of social media. This has obfuscated the real amount of consumers doing anything, as majority of consumers are still silent. That is to say, most companies hear the voice of the minority of their customers, which leads only small sects sometimes impacting production, sales and whatnot of products that would otherwise have normal sales. Reasons vary, from mother’s campaigning to pull out GTA V from Target’s store shelves in Australia or some animal awareness group pointing out how Pokémon is animal abuse, you can take your pick from whatever ideological and political spectrum and you’ll find a group that’s making noise.

The creative industries have a hard time dealing with consumer wants and demands from time to time. Individual entrepreneurs have probably the hardest time finding and keeping a customer base. Individuals have to do everything on their own, and very few realise early on that having sensible finances and being able to keep your own book is highly important. Nowadays it is easier to find your own niche, though competition is even fiercer. Despite the rosy image of an artist giving his heart and soul to the piece and sees the world celebrating it, the reality is that artists still work in a service industry and their work needs to reflect the consumers. While art is culture, it is also a consumable. Only a fraction of a fraction of works that get cited as art will enter the cultural lexicon, something that’s becoming ever increasingly difficult as out 24/7 cycle of everything sees everything getting old within a matter of days. Fifteen minutes of fame has been reduced to closer to five.

The net’s full of comparisons like this

This has lead some to question if fans, a.k.a. consumers, have too much power over the products they consume. Or to put it like BBC Culture did, are fans too entitled? To touch the opinion piece a little bit, it mostly covers history of fans able to change and influence creators, citing examples like Sir Conan Doyle resurrecting Sherlock Holmes ten years after killing him off due to an intense reaction from the readers. For 1893, maybe ten years was long enough time for the books to spread. That, or in reality the considerable large sums of money ultimately changed his mind. After all, that made him one of the most well paid writers of his time. Stephen Kelly, the aforementioned piece’s writer, considers the change of Sonic’s model change in Sonic the Hedgehog unprecedented in modern relationship between artist and fan, something that is false. Video game characters have seen redesigns from time to time for numerous reasons after fans backlash, or have the perceived atmosphere has directly impacted the designs. This most notably has affected female characters, while the male characters have been left mostly alone. From Final Fantasy VII Remake‘s Tifa being more toned down compared to her original design (despite still getting riled by some) to something minor like a win pose being changed in Overwatch. While changing how Sonic looks in his movie resulted in tons of good PR, and the staff have been saying the fan feedback was invaluable. Whether or not this is a positive example is really up to you. Whether or not you prefer the original movie Sonic design compared to the current one.

The point of the piece is whether or not fans have entitlement over the things they buy. One example she cites where a minority of fans hammered down a movie despite critics and other fans liking it is The Last Jedi, though now that we’re two years after the fact looking at the results of the film, and how it affected the franchise as a whole, it wasn’t exactly a minority that rejected the movie. Sure it has its core fans, but the culture and general consumers at large simply for numerous reasons, which all can ultimately be bogged down as They didn’t like it. The franchise is feeling and reeling from the after shakes still, and will be for the foreseeable future. Kelly tying identity politics with Star Wars and the 2016 Ghostbusters is false, as the 2016 Ghostbusters is simply a terrible movie that failed to launch a new franchise for Sony to bank on. Then again, #GG is used as a boogyman in the piece and represented highly inaccurately, and really has nothing to do with anything aforementioned. There is no true conclusion to Kelly’s writing outside Fans are the problem, but fans are also the solution, which really means jack shit.

Let’s take a recent case about fans being split about a character redesign. A Japanese illustrator and character designer named Ban was employed by Flame Toys to redesign a Transformers character named Windblade for their Furai Model line of model kits. Flame Toys is known to redesign characters while working under Hasbro’s license, and these redesigns can be drastically different from the original works. If you check Ban’s Pixiv, you will notice at least two things; clean and smooth style, and that a lot of his works are Adult Only. His works are hard to represent in plastic due to him employing some shading and linework that works only in 2D. After Flame Toys revealed Windblade’s physical prototype in New York Toys Fare, there was a backlash against the design, forcing them to take down their posts on social media. The designer, Ban, still retained the prototype images on his Twitter.

Arguments about this design were conflicted. While a portion disliked it, a larger portion seems to like it. Difference is, most of the detractors on social media were English speaking customers, while the customers with positive feedback shared both English and Japanese. Unsurprisingly, few different posts explaining the backlash to the Japanese fans popped up, to which some Japanese laughed at and some thought the situation was unfortunate. Criticism ranged from it not being aligned with the original design of the character, which should have been a given seeing this is a Flame Toys product and that The Transformers toyline is full of redesigns of all sorts, to all the way how Ban’s design gave the character bikini, despite Wingblade’s bust and crotch always had red accents, as seen on the right. The wings where a sticking point to some, as they seem to be clipped in Ban’s redesign. This is of course natural, as Ban emphasized their nature as the bow in obi, the sash Japanese use with kimonos. I didn’t hear anything about the head crest’s size, but some issues with the second proto photo’s pose, and some were asking why the other, masculine models weren’t put in the same position. This is an example of false equivalency though, as what attracts men and women, and what shows their best sides, is different between the two sexes. The two sexes also value each other in different ways, emphasizing regions of body in altogether different manner, which is very much apparent in most more designed Transformers toys, where masculine emphasizes can be seen on broad shoulders, well defined chest and flat, sixpack stomach regions. Let’s not forget strong chins.

If I’m honest, I never liked Windblade’s design. The head crest is silly, the wings looked dull and generic, turbines everywhere, they manage to make the face look terrible, not much unique body definition after seeing what sort of design Animated series had. Personally, I don’t think Transformers as a whole needed sex, the species is mechanical in nature and could’ve been treated as one-sex or sexless

The fans were split, and not evenly even. This is an example where smaller sections of the target consumer group was split on a character design. You had a section that disliked it, you had a section that was as vocal about liking it, and then you have those who don’t really care. This is a gross simplification, as the reality is that there are thousands of small fractured groups working under similar umbrellas. Some have echo chambers, some don’t even interact with the rest of the fandom, and some simply had no interest on the topic as it was about a model and not about a transforming toy. Considering Furai Model kits are targeted at adult collectors, the niche audience this model was targeting most likely already excluded a lot of voices on both sides. A French Youtuber put many peoples’ thoughts rather well; There is a store package version for children, and this model kit is clearly not for them, but one of the many adult collector’s figurines. It’s pretty funny to use the term “objective” about a machine… Last bit of course refers to the complaint that Ban’s design is sexist and makes women sex objects. It considering this is a robot toy, objectification of a fictional robot is expected, as that’s what making a toy is. The design is sexy without a doubt, with expected curves, but as a friend so elegantly put it, You’re telling me Ban draws something else than boys with dicks? the design is rather held back from what it could have been.

If we are to consider the creative industries, or just arts, as something untouchable by external forces, why shouldn’t Flame Toys celebrate Ban’s redesign of Windblade and sell it to the customers? Or should they listen to the part of their broader possible customers and cancel it, losing whatever money they’ve had thus far in the production? If we were to stick with the idea that art should be independent and ignore both positive and negative feedback, Sonic’s designs wouldn’t have changed and Flame Toys would still have their New York Toys Fare posts up just fine. Some might see this as false equivalency due to supposed ideologies and whatnot, but stripping all the excess fat off and getting to the point, it’s all about customers voicing their opinion on a revealed character design.

Every kind of design and form of media has its customers. One thing has more than other, I doubt anyone really contests that in a serious discussion. However, not all products require to sell high numbers. Prestige and deluxe products are intended to be produced in relatively low quantities but in high quality. Their price tag represents this, often tacking more than few zeros at the end. The main difference between the two main examples in this post, Sonic the Hedgehog is intended for all audiences at an open marketplace. Furai Model Windblade on the other hand is (maybe was at this point) targeted at a niche of a niche market, an adult collector who builds robot models. The two markets are at rather opposite ends in popular culture media landspace, but not quite.

There’s no real stance here regarding the blog. While one of the stances this blog has is pro-consumer, it also supports the idea of companies looking at the cold data over customer response. The reason for this is that the customer doesn’t know what they want. We as customer think what we want, but when we’re given options to choose from, we often find ourselves picking something completely new, something we didn’t expect we’d want further down the line. Despite customers voicing their disagreement at times, offering variety of products is as important to hit all the niches in your targeted customers. This of course leads into juggling with the PR, both positive and negative such move creates, but that’s business as usual, as this is a chance to use both positive and negative attention for net positive gain.

One review needs two plus points of views

The opinion on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have been rather divided ever since they became a staple how consumers could voice their opinion. In principle, aggregate cites like them are best way to convey and give a median on hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers’ view on a given product. By having the experiences and musings of all these people, you should get an overall accurate image on the product, of its strengths and flaws. At the same time we all are aware how easily such things are swayed to a direction or to another. This is something these aggregate sites have had to struggle with since day one, and there really isn’t a good way to get around it. Every major “faction” tries to sway the ratings of the more visible titles, be it the industry, marketing powers, the consumers themselves or whatever sect’s having shit and giggles for that day, on the long run the aggregate sites will end up giving a decent idea on two different kind of score; the reviewer score and the audience score. The problem is, neither of them are reliable.

If we don’t beat around the bush, most modern professional reviewers are mostly paid and have an agenda. What that agenda ultimately doesn’t matter, as the end goal is to keep their job and not get the power that be mad at them. Shoot down a game or a movie that’s cost big bucks to make and piss off the right people, and you’re cut off from the circles. Ubisoft won’t invite you to press-only events to give you iPads and merch after you gave a 7 to their latest Rabbids game. I noticed during the last few Star Wars movies how the review narrative on the movies always started at the height of the hype. but after two years it petered out and to something that tried to cater to both overall consumer reception and view, and the what the marketing was pushing for. The Last Jedi probably being the best example with how it was sold as subversive and how the consumers simply didn’t get it, and with the arrival of Rise of Skywalker the same bits and bops the same people praised at first, were now called problematic and having quality issues in the storytelling. These distort the aggregate results rather strongly, especially when these industry reviewers have a small pool where to draw from.

At the same time, consumer reviews can range anywhere from thousand-page long essays to one sentence and maybe even word. While the reviewers who get paid to review have to meet some kind of deadline and word count, the general audience doesn’t. It’s easy to give short five cents and click how many stars you give something and be off. While consumers generally don’t get catered in special events like reviewers do, consumers are far more eager to drop extreme citing. It’s not rare to see someone dropping 0 or 1 due to whatever single stupid reason or because something else surrounding the product is not to their liking. At the same time you often get people who are, to quote a friend, ‘hype as fuck 10/10 bought three pieces and one extra for their dog.’ You know the type, people who will give a good review for the exact same reasons someone would give a bad review, yet have nothing to do with the product itself. Hell, positive or negative, there are Youtubers going through Steam reviews and making fun of how bad some of the reviews are.

Both are capable of using bots and campaigns to drive the aggregate numbers to whatever direction, so the point is rather moot. With high-profile movies and games it’s more an issue which one will be doing it more visibly and who will get caught first. Tweaking review numbers is silently accepted as part of the whole deal, and in the end nobody really trusts any number a reviewer givers. Which is why I don’t use a rating scale.

The Internet has made the profession of a reviewer rather moot. Everybody has something to say. Some people come across and are more educated on subjects they discuss, perhaps even have worked on projects or are still working in the industry itself. Some have jackshit knowledge where the chicken pisses but naturally can pin point positives and negatives like no other all the while bringing something new to the table. It’s rather common to become blind to your own industry the more you’re with it, how the eyes of a professional may make things sheen in pig grease and swoop down like a striking lightning, but have lost the touch to the grass root level end-consumer who just wanted a anime tiddies and a not a shitty metaphor. Nothing’s fool proof, and often it takes a fool to point out all the flaws the highest levels of professionals missed. The same applies to any industry and it can be seen on these aggregate sites, where individual consumers have far better points, plus and con, just by intuition over people who are used to analyse everything in Shakespearean terms.

There are numerous Internet reviewer sites and individuals who do both entertainment reviews and serious reviews. James Rolfe would count as both depending on what show he is doing. If his views or tastes aren’t to your liking, there are a whole lot more people that probably do. That’s one beauty the Internet has brought is; we are able to find like-minded people who may know more media we might enjoy. You might find fellow fans to share your fun with. However, at the same time we should consider outside views and what others are valuing in their media. After all, the only way to mock someone properly is to first understand what they’re saying.

Very few works of art and entertainment can claim to have objective categories in which to review and evaluate a work under. Because most of the entertainment, art and media overall is an expression of one or many, we often get something that intentionally breaks the set rules. We’re forced to evaluate outside the given parameters. Even with objective rules in which we are to evaluate something, every person will get slightly different result either due to personal experience with past productions of similar kind, or simply understanding the basic set of rules every so slightly. It is rather uncommon to see two people agreeing that, for example, some movie is absolutely fantastic, but for completely different reason. In discussions like this

Aggregate sites have acknowledged the divide between professionals and consumers, and how their world views differ. In some cases this has come to a point where the reviewers end up doing reviews that are more aimed at the industry, this being part of the whole losing-touch-with-consumers thing you always want to avoid. At the same time fellow consumers mostly likely know what at least part of the rest of people who need to pay for these products want and value. There’s a divide between the two roughly-made factions and it will not go away as long as anything like the Internet exists. In many ways, the professional reviewer is an obsolete beast, relegated to exist in certain circles in some manner, but eclipsed by a Joe Everybody with his own Youtube channel. Take the Australian electronic channel EEVblog as an example. Not only you can find reviews, but reviews that will tear down into the electronics and how they work. EEVblog is bit of a cheat, as the Aussieguy who runs it has a history with electronics industry, and it shows. However, at the same time is also a consumer. When the two worlds collide like this, magic happens. The fact that the Internet is full of people like this, and in ever increasing numbers, the traditional outlets are in a losing battle. Hell, if we manage to get into a situation where most reviewers are independent of the industry and its systems, the companies’ leverage could be almost ignored.

With some of the latest movies and TV shows Rotten Tomatoes has taken their stance to change how the calculate the scores as well as have been resetting the scores. While it’d be easy to credit malice and intentional skullfuckery with the score, like with the recent case where a ResetEra user went and review bombed a game, there are more cases where the user score simply tanks because the general consumer really does not like something and deems a movie or game to be low quality. Recently Dr. Who‘s latest season hit a record 0% audience score, but the score got reset and now sits somewhere in the thirties. Often a low score or a tanking score gets people suspicious, but nobody seems to talk about how a quickly rising score is just as weird. While aggregators do have a requirement to test methods to seek out bomber bots and the like, when aggregates begin to curate any submitted results, the whole point of aggregation becomes moot and the end-score won’t reflect the actual score.

Rarely a site or a news source providers you with more than view in a review. Some gaming magazines used to do this, and Japanese Famitsu still has multiple people reviewing the same game. The amount of text they cram into the page may be short, but the fact five different people can give some kind of points of comparisons at the same time is commendable. It’s like in Interspecies Reviewers, same thing really. Perhaps it’s cultural, perhaps it’s that most outlets don’t exactly have the time and money to have five people watching or playing something at the same time and separately submitting a review.

You know what I personally expect from reviews? Different approaches. The best reviews I’ve ever read and watched approach same point from three different angles, often utilising knowledge gained from surrounding matters, first-hand experience and what I call wildcard vectors. This way of examining something from multiple points of views should give more insight on hows and whys, as well as compound all the positives and negatives in proper manner. A negative point may still be negative, but at least one of the three approaches can understand and even appreciate that negative element.

The Virtual Console still lingers in Nintendo’s memory

Let’s not beat around the bush, the Virtual Console was one of the best decisions Nintendo made with the Wii and its subsequent iterations. The amount of sales they made across all the three platforms the VC was on was pretty impressive, and the Wii itself even sold with the VC itself. I’ve said it before and I will say it in the future; if I were a game developer and/or publisher that had to put their game on a console where Super Mario Bros 3. was available, I’d be scared of the quality of the competition. We can’t deny its quality and impact. It would appear that VC made Nintendo, especially Shigeru Miyamoto, realise that people were still interested in thirty years old games. This isn’t exactly rare with game industry, but a well made game does not age. Well technically it does, but it ages like a fine whisky. Wine be damned.

In a recent Investors’ Q&A, Shigsy mentions how their old software are active even after thirty years, and that they have no choice but to port these titles to new platforms. Funnily enough, there are tons of games that never got ported to modern platforms nor did Nintendo see fit to port these games to some other platforms. Nevertheless, he began to think if Nintendo could combine their evergreen library with video and use that in a similar, years-on fashion. Hence why the new Super Mario Bros. movie is being produced. What’s interesting, and perhaps even comedic about this, is Shigsy claiming that he didn’t exactly want to make a Mario movie, but that it would be a great vehicle to have more people exposed to the brand.

Effectively, what Shigsy is talking about is repeating already tested method of Nintendo IPs spreading across the media.

This has been an age old topic for the blog. During the Third and Fourth Generation of consoles, Nintendo’s intellectual property and branding was everywhere. Television, breakfast cereals, waffles, comics, clothing, music, they were everywhere. Especially in the US, European markets weren’t assaulted as much due to completely different market dynamics. Japan experienced its own multimedia of Nintendo products, and it never really stopped. However, maybe they didn’t have the cartoons, those were very much an American product to the American audience. The Super Mario Super Show was spread rather wide elsewhere, but quick lookup gives up little sources in Japanese, videos or otherwise.

Italians always outdid others with their songs, for better or worse

It has been the standard for Nintendo spread their IPs across the media table as an advertisement for their game and console line-up. While it is possible that Nintendo of Japan has forgotten about all the media that got branded with Nintendo’s labels, I doubt that is the case. Even if it were, the success of Virtual Console’s success clearly left a serious impact on Shigsy. It must be hard to realise the big budget games you love to make were beaten by thirty years old titles. Is he thinking that they don’t have a large customer base to go by, that their titles are not selling to new, younger audiences because the lack of multimedia exposure? This should be business as usual for everyone involved, but for whatever reason Shigsy treats it as some kind judgment on him, that he just realised how a movie can market their main merchandise and that he has to see it done. That doesn’t sounds like the Shigsy we’ve seen throughout the years. We’re talking about the man who would rather have his game development seem like a fun school project and doesn’t want to work on 2D Mario games because directing and designing them takes so much effort. As disingenuous as it may sound, this sounds load of bullshit and a way to bed a path to save face if needed. Despite it being an investors’ Q&A, the corporate way of putting things is still the standard.

Nintendo, especially Shigsy and his team, has a habit of not doing what seems sensible to most, like developing a new F-Zero game for motion controls. That was saved for Mario Kart. Things are only done if they find a new way to doing things, innovating on some significant aspects or otherwise “surprise” the player somehow. That’s why you have 3D Marios trying to reinvent the wheel with FLUDD, planets and throwing hats around. Nintendo doesn’t exactly push forwards their IPs as much as they want to give it tricks and polish. If we’re being uncharitably here, it could be said that Shigsy wants to do a new Mario movie now, because there’s something he wants to do with it. Though it probably is more that Nintendo is coming around about spreading their IP again, through they’ve been relatively slow with the progress. There’s a clear and tight control when it comes to games on mobile platforms and series, though toys seem to be no issue for them. Japan still has running Mario comics and all that, but nothing that would appear on Western markets to the same extent.

Super Mario-kun is 25 years old by this point and only few countries have translated any of it.

The 1993 Super Mario Bros. movie probably soured Nintendo’s wishes to make movies based on their IPs, especially based on Mario (though they already had animated OVAs at that point.) It’s not that the upcoming movie is treading any new ground in any fashion, but that for whatever reason VC made Nintendo realise that almost all of their old games still hold value. Especially the big names ones. Hell, even with The Legend of Zelda we saw how much success Nintendo had by bringing Breath of the Wild closer to the original Zelda model and play. Did it really take the VC for Shigsy to realise how much the history of their media matters? It would appear so, but at the same time, what a way to screw of the VC with the subscription service. I guess that was part of renewing the way these games were brought to the customers, or maybe the whole issue of licenses was too much a bother. Whether or not keeping the VC as it were around would have been more beneficial than whatever the current form Nintendo has for its subscription service, but the memory of VC and all those thirty plus years of products still loom over them. Nintendo shares a lot with Sega in this, with both of them having to chase past glory all the while needing to push the envelope. Obsoleting evergreen classics is incredibly hard.