Sure there's a lot of crap - interestingly enough it's usually the mass ware like The Sims, movie tie-ins or sequel nr. 500 - but a good one can easily make up more than 50 hours of entertainment. In one play through. EG Baldurs Gate 2 lasted about 150 h or so if you did next to everything possible, then there are alternate solutions that come down to what decisions you make (Fallout or Planescape would be good examples there).
Weeding out bad ones with the traditional media means ignoring TV and major radio stations and rarely going to the movies.
And agreed, there's still good music out there, just not on the major radio stations. TV doesn't exactly help promote good music either with their umpteenth incarnation of Idol/Superstar.
My guess is that games generate more attention currently because the masses only recently discovered them as an alternative to TV. So traditional media has only 2 choices: slam them as they are rivals and take away attention from the latest celebrity gossib and Idol shows or report about them and try to get the kids and young adult males (20-35ish) back infront of the shining sleeping pill.
Also, it's *new* and that Hilton critter apparently was paid to *buy* some console or other (forgot whether it was a 360, Wii or PS3), so all the fans of course also have to get one. Not to mention that the trash media had to report it.
> but, to be fair, you have to mention that theres the same
> amount of crappy games as is of crappy music/films. (Or
> maybe not, Im not an expert in this, but they're is
> definitely a load of crap out there, just dont know about
> the numbers)
> It's just that you, naturally, point your attention only
> to the good stuff. There are as well still good movies and
> good music out there, it's just that you have to search a
> bit.
> Why the good games get more attention than good movies? No
> idea.
|
