Who the HELL is the audience for a console review?

First let me clarify that I have no intention to shit on people who're excited for the PS4, who've been hyping it for weeks and are maybe even lining up for a midnight launch. I get that. People get pumped for the technology, but more importantly, for being on the forefront of the new wave. Getting a console at launch is like seeing a band live or catching a movie in the theater - it's a once-in-a-lifetime experience, a chance to be part of history. You get to say "I was the first" and "I was there". That's certainly been overdone in recent years (what doesn't have a midnight launch these days - it's pretty embarrassing that people are lining up for phones that they replace after just a few months), but console launches are still a deservedly big deal. Whether or not there's reason to be excited for this generation, it's still the first new dedicated home gaming hardware to arrive in seven years (sorry Wii U, but... well, Wii U is the one that should be apologizing to me). It's like, even if the movie is A Good Day to Die Hard, there's still an experience to be had going to see Die Hard in the theater. So the community buzz over PS4 (and to a much lesser extent, Xbox One) doesn't bug me one bit. In fact, it somewhat hearkens back to the days when I was actually excited for Gamecube and Wii.

But is it really necessary for the mainstream gaming media to rape that excitement by "reviewing" the PS4 and every last console, device, operating system, interface update, and portable on the market? Does the word "platform" mean anything to anyone anymore? I understand the point of reviewing something like an iPad SG-1, as the core functionality of the device is going to be essentially identical to every other tablet, as every tablet is essentially identical, as tablets are essentially pointless. For electronic devices like phones, tablets, phonelets (hey, I learned recently that's a real thing and totally not a joke word), MP3 players, USB sticks, watches, and coffee cups that come with a defined, boxed functionality, the devil is in the details. Reviews make sense. They are based around the fact that all of those devices support the same software and functionality, differing only in form factor, performance, and interfaces. Want to use Facebook and play MP3s? Any smartphone can, but a review can tell you which can do so best.

A console is a platform for video game software. It plays only video games specific to it. Therefore, its entire worth is derived by what video games are available for it - none of the details are comparable to the details of other consoles, because - unless you're totally game-agnostic - the platforms support different core functionality. SNES and PS4 do not play the same games, so alllllllllllllllll of the other elements of the two systems are incomparable. PS4 has better online? Sweet, doesn't mean I can buy a PS4 and play Super Mario Kart on PSN. SNES has better load times? Awesome! I still can't pop Assassin's Creed 4 into my SNES to take advantage of those lightning-fast cartridge loads.

When an electronic device is reviewed, it's generally done so that the reviewer can provide a purchasing recommendation. "You need this type of device because you don't have anything else that does what it does", or, more often, "buy this particular device over this other similar one". The former really only appears in rare circumstances like the dire tablet outbreak of 2010, when the iPad arrived and performed a role that many felt personal computers had simply been doing too well. So one would expect the same from a console review. It's just that both of these types of evaluations are absurd to perform on day one of a platform's release. The people that want to be on board with the next generation, who are willing to believe this video game console is new and original and more necessary than the last, are the ones I described in my first paragraph - they're in line already. Those waiting to see if the hardware is truly a full generational leap are going to have to wait for software that fully utilizes it. The type that are trying to make a smart PS4 vs. One decision don't even have One reviews for comparison yet, not to mention won't be able to make an informed decision for, oh, say another two or three years, when these platforms actually have any semblance of software libraries. Anyone remember back to 2004 when PSP was declared to be the indisputable champion of the new handheld war? Yeah. Think about how worthwhile console reviews are after that one.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around what kind of person is SO on the fence about getting a new console that they need someone to tell them "go buy it today". If you're that unsure, sounds like you aren't that desperately in need of new games to play. And in that case, why not wait for the inevitable hardware revision and a more expansive software selection? Being unsure about a platform has to be a definitive "no", right? If there's no game you want to play on it, what about the hardware could possibly change your mind? But here comes the gaming media with a product to sell and a paradigm to perpetuate.

Here's a delightful little snippet of sales propaganda that epitomizes everything I detest about the consumerist mentality of the modern gaming medium. GamesRadar, at the end of their review, surmise that despite the lack of recommendable software, Yes, you should go out and buy a PS4, concluding that: "Even if you don't plan on picking up many PS4 games at launch, the system feels like an affordable and worthwhile investment that will do right by early adopters." Let me translate that: "even if there are no games to play on your PS4 and thus it will simply be an expensive paperweight, you should go buy it because you have money, money which would be better off in Sony's wallet than in yours". I mean, seriously - "investment"? Could they have picked a word more diametric to the reality of a video game console? There is NO REASON to buy a console before it has games worth playing - it doesn't accumulate value, it precipitously degrades. This is a marketplace where yearly redesigns are an absolute expectation, price-cuts are bi- or at worst tri-annual, and resale value is virtually null. Recommending consumers buy a console because it'll probably turn out for the best is like telling them to grab the latest iPhone because you're sure Apple's got some great features rolling out in 2016. Like being an "early adopter" possibly could confer any advantage to a console owner. 

What a shining example of the ongoing obsession with boiling everything down to a score or a yes-or-no answer. I understand that we trust journalists to inform us about subjects that we ourselves have not yet touched or cannot reasonably afford to try. But don't we need to draw a line at some point? Aren't we willing to take some risk, have some faith? Trust our own experience a little bit? Have patience, let things pan out? We've been through a lot of rounds of consoles, and there are really only two choices here. If you reach deep down, all the way into your heart's brain's deepest desires, I think you'll find that you're either ready to make the jump or you're not, and that not only will no reviewer change that readiness, but no reviewer is ready to decide for you between PS4 and Xbox One. 

Vitriolic E3 rant #427: Everything still sucks except Mega Man in Smash

The only thing that confuses me is that people are like really happy with Sony and think they're doing a fantastic job. 50% of voters in GameFAQs' daily poll said Sony's conference was "amazing". I won't lie, they're certainly upstaging Microsoft, but I haven't seen a single enticing thing about the PS4 either. I can't even tell how it's different from PS3. That's basically how they're "winning". They stand there and do nothing while MS completely implodes. And they still have a shitty uncomfortable controller with analog sticks in the wrong place. There's no arguing that it's top-notch PR work, but once I get a computer box in my house and plugged into my TV, I'm no longer actively comparing it to the other options on the market - I need to know what it does. It's funny how informed gamers think they are when they can't manage to process information outside of this fallacious "us vs. them" framework. Yes Sony looks a lot better than Microsoft... but take Microsoft out of the picture, then try to tell me what Sony is selling. It's not a fucking war! You don't have to buy any of them! Or you can buy all three! Can we stop acting like "better" == "good"? It's all derived from this must-buy consumerist/addict mentality that defines the "core" (dumb) gamer.

Sony nutshelled: a bland blue background, but at least it isn't Xbox One

I guess dumb-gamers are probably excited over the likes of Final Fantasy XV and Kingdom Hearts 3, but I have some pretty incisive questions about those. Like, when was the last FF game anyone liked? While opinions vary on XII, X was the last classic worth mentioning outside of the "which Final Fantasy doesn't suck" framework - and that came out over a decade ago. Same question for Kingdom Hearts. Since the first one - again, over a decade ago - the series has been treading water. And then there's the exciting thing where a bunch of the indie games I had just assumed were current gen are actually being shuffled to PS4, like Transistor (successor to Bastion) and Klei's Don't Starve. There's no hardware justification driving this, it's completely a marketing ploy. Luckily, they're all coming to PC too, so there's no apparent reason to get a PS4. And don't even get me started on how much I don't care about Elder Scrolls Online. Read lore books in real-time with your friends! "Online" sounds like a good excuse to make a much smaller game than Skyrim or Oblivion and then bank on iterative content delivery. And again, it's not like there's any point crediting it to PS4 - we all know it'll be on PC too.

As for the much-lampooned Xbox One Doritos Dew promotion, free giveaways with junk food have been part of the fabric of consumerism since 1993, so it feels silly to act disgusted. For instance, a quick Google search reveals a Fast Five PlayStation 3 giveaway from 2011. On the other hand, it's weird to see Microsoft advertising this kind of schlocky promotion at the biggest gaming conference of the year (instead of with a TV commercial). Normally such contests are meant to move Gushers or Coke Soda en masse by tying a lottery factor to an expensive and popular reward... this time it seems that MS is acknowledging that cheese-flavored snack chips have a stronger market position with gamers than their hardware, and thus they need to leverage junk food addiction to drive console enthusiasm.

Microsoft nutshelled: now with chips and tiny

Looking at things from an honest, game-oriented, non-competitive perspective, I have to say that Nintendo was the only one of the three to deliver a successful presentation. Maybe they aren't turning the most heads (being that Wii U is old hat), but they're the only company that has news, and any offering of a unique experience. Wii U is the only next-gen console that used E3 to increase the odds I'll buy it. If you were already sold on PS4 or had already damned One, their respective press conferences must've seemed thrilling, adding fuel to the fire of your pre-existing bias. But to a prospective customer who hasn't committed to buying a next gen console at all, they all have ground to gain, more than "we aren't destroying video games as you know it". Nintendo is the only company directly addressing their shortcomings: they need software. And they're showing software. Software that I want to buy. A new co-op Mario that lets us play as the long-dormant SMB2 lineup. Fucking Mega Man in Smash (come on, who wasn't pumping their fist when the Wily's Castle music kicked in - that's the kind of moment that makes me love games). Not a bunch of cross-platform already-on-PC junk. I don't want to sound too optimistic here: Wii U is still a long way from closing the gap. But it's making positive progress. By the same token, PS4 went from "couldn't care less" to "yeah I should get a PS3" and Xbox One went from "laughing stock" to "laughing stock with a few new jokes". Unless you feel morally obligated to buy one of these devices, there's no way to say that Nintendo didn't "win".

Nintendo nutshelled: you can't beat a surprise appearance by one of gaming's greatest heroes

I can't think of a less exciting time to be a gamer. Maybe it's because I'm 24 and I just don't have that youthful exuberance anymore, but I'm gonna be honest with you guys: I've always been a bit of a downer. I [would like to believe I] stopped being a naive fanboy around age 17, which didn't stop me from getting a kick from many E3s following. I had optimism. 2013 does not inspire a lot of it. Except I guess that if gaming goes back to a low-budget niche thing, that'll be pretty much exactly everything I could ever dream of. So in that sense maybe I am excited.

That being said, it [Xbox One] looks to be a complete travesty

I'm not going to reiterate news coverage for no one to read, but One is everything that has been feared by the gaming public in the last few months and years. All I can say is that unless Microsoft does a complete 180 and contradicts what they've said today and yesterday, they have officially lost me as a customer. The only real reason I have to buy a console is convenience and exclusives. As One will not play my 360 games, will not allow me to play used games, and will not allow me to have shitty Comcast internet, it has completely lost its convenience advantage over PS4 or PC. And since exclusives are a three-way game, I'm not that bothered by what I'll be missing. I'm not so sure 360 really beat out PS3 in that department; it just remained competitive enough that I didn't feel the need to get a PlayStation. And Nintendo tends to have the best exclusives anyway - especially if they get Platinum in their pocket, as a successful Bayonetta 2 might permit.

"Xbox One" is a pretty good name for a console

Sometimes I'm truly baffled by the insane reactivity of the insular, narrow-minded gaming community, as I was yesterday after Microsoft's Xbox One presentation. I'm not interested in speculating on the prospects of One's future or whether I'll buy one, I just want to talk about the name. What is a product name supposed to convey? The raison d'etre of the product, or more specifically, the reason you should buy it. Microsoft is trying to sell a box (for the third time around) that is supposed to be the sole multi-functional device sitting in your TV cabinet. It is supposed to be the one box that does it all. Which "Xbox One" pretty succinctly conveys. When I heard the name, before I even read on, I immediately knew what their marketing focus was going to be.

As for the "but it's not the first Xbox!", who cares? Is there seriously a concern that your grandma is going to accidentally buy you an original Xbox when you ask her for a One at Christmas? Was the Xbox 360 frequently mistaken for the 360th Xbox? The Nintendo 64 the 64th machine from Nintendo? Let's not forget that Sony is the only manufacturer to have latched onto the iterative numerical scheme, which seems dumber each and every time they reuse it. What am I supposed to derive from the name "PlayStation 4"? It's not even clear that it's the newest one.

Think in advertising terms for just one fucking second. "PlayStation" is a place to play games. "Wii", setting aside the silly spelling and urine jokes, is intended to bring people together around games. "Super NES" is a souped-up Nintendo entertainment system. These names are concise, identifiable, and communicate purpose. I know what they are with zero explanation. "Wii U", despite its awkward sound and failure to achieve its promise, indicates a move toward universality (similar to "One"). It should've been called the "Nintendo U", but Nintendo mistakenly overestimated the strength of the "Wii" brand (which was is fact more an albatross than a boon).

On the flipside, "Dreamcast" sounds like a fishing rod. "Gamecube" describes the shape of the physical device, which is good for identifiability, but fails to clarify a market position - what made it different from Nintendo 64. "Wonderswan" probably knocks it out of the park for weirdest and most nonsensical - then again, it wasn't really destined for English-speaking markets. "Turbo-Graphx 16" is too direct and hard to spell. It sounds more like a graphics chip or processor.

Ah yes, the Dreamcast

I could do more one-sentence reviews of console names if there's a lot of demand for that, but suffice to say that some are good and others are bad. If you have Asperger's or other diseases that make it hard to perceive the world from a generalized social standpoint, you may have trouble identifying which are which. Just wanted to get in a quick jab at the mentally unbalanced. But you're probably an idiot in one way or another if you made a forum post or comment about what a "terrible" name "Xbox One" is.