Can Too Much Hype For Good Games Kill The Buzz?

I got a call from an Electronic Arts representative yesterday asking me about my coverage plans for Battlefield: Bad Company. I'm busy, and, right now I don't have any.

Honestly, it's possible that seeing so much of the game at so many press events played a part in that.

I try to be curious about everything, but seeing a game — even a good one — so many times can kill the buzz for me.

I've heard other reporters say the same thing about the long-hyped Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway. To be fair, I'd grown weary of the many Spore demos, but I've re-warmed to the game after recent showings (two private demos in the last month — I'm not bragging, just making a point about how it gets around to the press.)

On the other hand, I was asked by a Microsoft representative yesterday what I was most interested in seeing at E3. I said, from a reporter's standpoint: Nintendo's line-up. Because I don't know anything about it.

Nintendo's been shortening its hype cycle. Some developers have called for a shortened cycle too. We gaming reporters certainly need to ask ourselves if long hype cycles are affecting our coverage. My question is if it's affecting gamers as well.

Would you rather know about a game for a shorter period of time?


    Personally I help organise a console events through a Melbourne based group here, and the extra time helps us figure out what people will want to play ahead of time, and what sort of consoles people will be playing etc. Mostly fighters for us anyway.

    As far personal stuff goes, if it's something I really dig then the more info the better (starcraft 2) but if it's something I don't care about I just kinda phase it out or scroll on.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now