It's all in the games
To determine whether or not everyone in the ring of console vide games is
biased, we have to first look at the definition:
biased adj 1: favoring one person or side over another; "a biased account of
the trial"; "a decision that was partial to the defendant" [syn: colored,
one-sided, slanted] 2: excessively devoted to one faction [syn: one-sided]
I think that in relation to most arguments about bias in video games, we are
arguing about the second definition (hence the bold text). Now,
can you truly say that everyone is "excessively devoted" to one system or
company? I think not. Case in point. My first system ever was a Sega master
system (yes, I owned one), which I received as a Christmas present at the
tender age of five. I played it and enjoyed it, however I soon wanted a NES.
2 years later, me wishes were answered, and a NES was hooked up to my TV.
For the next few years I enjoyed my NES more then my master system; all the
way until 1991, the year in which the Snes was launched. However, I did not
buy a Snes based on my previous experience with Nintendo. I looked at the
games, I rented the systems, and decided that a Genesis was a better bet. So
I enjoyed my genesis for many years (I did eventually get a Snes too, but
that was a few years later). Then came the dawn of the 32-bit era. Sony and
Sega came up to bat, and again I threw out all preconceptions about the
systems and looked at the facts. Come September, I had decided that a
Playstation was a better choice.
What's my point you ask? Well, the point is two fold. First, it is
possible to buy a system with a clear mind. You can "switch sides" rather
easily. We buy systems to play games, not to see a logo on the top of the
unit. I will buy a Dreamcast because it has a very impressive line up of
games, right now I am not convinced to buy a PS2, regardless of my pleasant
experience with the PS, because I have yet to see any games for the system.
My second point deals with cold, hard facts. IF everyone bought systems
based on bias, the Genesis would have failed, due to the failure of the
Master system, and the Playstation would have failed, due to the fact that
Sony had never launched a system before. Obviously this didn't happen. But
these systems didn't fail because casual gamers hopped on the boat later and
they hadn't owned a previous system, you say? Well, look at the launch
statistics. The Saturn had a poor launch, despite many Genesis fans, and the
PS had a good launch, despite the fact that there was no previous Sony
system. As you can see, the bottom line is games.
Does that mean a companies past has nothing to due with its future
success? No, people will look into purchasing a system based on their past
relationship with "X" company, but that won't be the deciding factor in any
case. We all have biases when it comes to games, but not extreme ones that
will drastically effect whether or not we purchase a certain system.