here is the email i sent morris.
I am writing concerning your column on 19Dec01. I will address this quote from your column first:
"I've read a lot this year about how the PC gaming industry has explored new boundaries. "
Ahh. This tells me you are not a "gamer". You have read about the "innovations" of this year but not actually experienced them for yourself. Innovations are all well and good, but these are innovations for GAMES. If the game itself is not fun, then it will fail. A good example of this is Anarchy Online. At the time of its launch, it was not fun because of horrible glaring technical issues, and then when Funcom fixed most of those (not all of them are fixed, still) many of the players left anyway, because there was no sense of purpose to play. I did not play the Majestic myself, so I took the liberty of visiting a well known game site www.bluesnews.com and looked at some of the comments on Majestic. Begin comment excerpt:
However, none of this was the problem. The problem was it was touted to be a challenging conspiracy game where you'd have to muddle through clues and check with other people to try and figure it all out. If they had done that, not only would it have been innovative, but probably EXTREMELY interesting and addictive. The truth is that you would play for about 15 minutes, and then be put "on hold" for 24 hours so you couldn't get ahead of the meager clues they dropped. The truth is that the game was the same for everyone at the same point. On day 5 of Episode 1? Then you know everything, and have seen all the same clues, in exactly the same manner as everyone else at the same point. No reason to talk to other people, because even if you forgot a clue, you were spoon fed the next clue. Even the "tough" clues where you were supposed to "hack" a fictional website was nothing more than entering in a password they they had just given you.
End comment excerpt.
So basically Majestic was good in concept but poor in execution. PC gamers are not fickle as you said in your column. PC gamers have higher standards than console gamers, most PC gamers grew up playing all manner of video games since age 5, have seen it all, and must be offered at least something resembling quality of production, challenge in gameplay, and immersion factor. I could rant on and on, but I will close with, I think you should know something about a PC game, and something about PC games in general, before slamming the PC gamer population on being "fickle". Sure you could probably sell the console population something like Majestic, for no other reason than they are stupid enough to buy idiotic Japanese style arcade games like Dance Dance Revolution. Anyway play some good and bad PC games before offering your opinion on PC games and PC gamers. I would be more than happy to suggest some games.
"Think for yourself. Question authority."
-- Timothy Leary