So I'm reading an article today about Dead Space: Extraction not selling very well and everyone is saying "I told you so" because it's an on-rails shooter. Never mind the fact that it has only been out for two weeks as of this writing, but I guess that doesn't matter since this game has been unfairly derided since it was announced. It's no secret that I've been a big proponent of the game and think it offers an amazing experience. Anyway, I'm not really here to talk about Extraction per se, but rather the perception that any on-rails shooter is instantly not worth paying full price for. It's a mentality that could apply to any game genre, and one that I quite frankly do not understand.

Think if this same purchasing rule were applied to other genres. I can envision hearing this argument: "Oh, a 2-D platformer isn't worth full price, even if it is New Super Mario Bros. Wii and may be the absolute pinnacle of the genre and one of the best games ever made." Does that make a lot of sense? Not in my book. Another aspect of diminished value is the idea that a franchise entry that isn't of the same genre as the original is not a "REAL" game in the series. This has been levied at Dead Space: Extraction a number of times, but it doesn't hold water. I've got two words to refute that: Mario Kart! It's not a platformer, therefore not of the same genre the original Mario series. I suppose it's pretty worthless then and not a real Mario game.



Here's another timeless argument to belittle games of a certain genre. "They've been making 2-D platformers since the early 80s, and that's just not worth 50 dollars." Really? By that logic, a new Jazz album or even classical music isn't worth paying for because they're not of the popular genres of the present day. For so many gamers now, if it's not a first or third person shooter, then it's hardly worth their time, and certainly not worth their money. What really matters is how good the product actually is, and a lot of great games are being overlooked because they're not exactly what the fans expected. It seems that many gamers never get over the supposed slight of their opinion being ignored for artistic or commercial reasons. I've made this statement many times and I stand by it: Judge a game for what it is, not for what it isn't.

So what if Dead Space for Wii had been a third person survival-horror game like the original? What would it be like? Chances are it would be pretty much exactly like the first game, but not as pretty. That's not exactly a great incentive for fans to buy it. So why when we get something fresh and original is it verbally trashed as well? I know I said I wasn't going to talk Dead Space, but it is a very frustrating example. It isn't the first game this has happened to, and it won't be the last. In the end I suppose that the publisher's can't force us to like what they make, but when it really is a quality game and not shovelware, one has to wonder why it gets ignored. I think that wiping away our preconceived notions and judging every game on its own merit would be a great start.