Character Creators Kill Characters

This is an awkward time in game development. It’s a moment where more people than ever before are playing video games. No longer is it realistic to claim that any one group, gender, race, religion, or country makes up the majority of gamers. The gaming community now contains people from all walks of life from just about every country in the world. There are arguments about which markets matter the most based on size, but as far as actual gaming audience is concerned, it’s pretty much everybody.

This diverse array of gamers is a good thing for many reasons. But because of the selfish narcissism of most people, especially gamers, we’re also seeing some terrible repercussions because of this diversity. Today, more than ever before, people (not just gamers) have gotten it into their head that they matter a majority of the time. Things like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube have given everyone a voice and for some reason that has led every asshole with a smartphone into believing that their opinions matter and that all works of entertainment should be tailor made for them specifically. And when it’s not made for them they whine, organize, riot, and literally destroy people’s careers and lives.

Your Opinion Big

I’m not talking about any one particular group here. Because so many groups are guilty of this new brand of arrogance. White men, homosexuals, racial minorities, women, and so on. All these groups and many more have on numerous recent occasions complained about a specific game or the industry as a whole simply because it did something they didn’t like or didn’t focus on their identifying group. Even not including a particular group in a game can cause an uproar. The problem with all this is that it has led many developers to try to work around the problem in ways that are easy and shown to be effective for basically all types of gamers. For me one of the worst ways this is being done today is with character creators.

Character creators are an interesting problem because they come from the best intentions. In many ways they’re the perfect form of escapism. When a game has a good character creator, you can literally put yourself in the game or be whoever you want to be. The problem is that this is mostly superficial. Let me clarify that moving forward, all mention of games in this post will refer to plot based campaigns. Multiplayer PVP scenarios are pretty much irrelevant to this particular discussion other than in the fact that they only add to the problem I’ll be addressing in a roundabout way. Multiplayer plot based campaigns are completely relevant though and definitely should be considered when thinking about this topic.

TLoU

Arguably the most important thing about a plot based campaign is the story. I said story there instead of plot because there is a difference. A game can have an amazing plot but if the story isn’t told right then the experience of the campaign will ultimately fail. The way a story is told, the way the characters interact, and the reasons behind why things happen in a story are all important parts of the experience. Think about any game with a good story and imagine if things where presented differently. Let’s use The Last of Us as an example. A game that’s often championed for having such an amazing story. Now imagine for a second if the game had done just a few things differently. All other things being equal, how would people have responded to the story if Joel had lost a son instead of a daughter, it’s revealed that Ellie will have to die to save the world at the beginning of the game, and/or Joel was Asian instead of Caucasian? I think most people would agree that while the gameplay would still be good and the plot would still be interesting, the overall experience of the story would be much less powerful if even just one of those three proposed changes had taken effect. The drama of the story comes from the fact that Joel and Ellie connect on a familial level because she reminds him of his deceased daughter. And the fact that he believes the world can be saved without her having to die from the beginning is what allows that connection to form by the end, literally sacrificing the rest of the world as a consequence of that connection. But in a scenario where you could create your own character, that story would be considerably less powerful.

Joels Daughter Dying

Joel and Ellie aren’t blood relatives. It would have been completely believable and possible for a Black, Asian, Latino or member of any other ethnic group, man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual to be put in the scenario of Joel. The story is that random survivor is tasked with escorting a random girl across the country. Either character could have been any mixture of identifiers and the story would still make perfect sense. But any significant change of profile could drastically reduce the impact of their relationship and by extension story. Therein lays the problem with character creators. They hurt the story in a game. Because no matter much effort a developer tries to make a character neutral story, it will never be as good as a targeted narrative. It’s literally impossible to do.

Modern Tomb Raider games are so powerful because of the vulnerability assumed by a young Lara Croft, a Caucasian female from a wealthy family whose biggest problem was losing her father at a young age. Imagine how much less impressive the character would be if she was a South American boy from Brazil who grew up in the slums of Rio de Janeiro. Now I’m not saying that a great story couldn’t be told starring a Brazilian male from humble beginnings. I’m just saying that the impact of the story in moments where men trapped on an island capture the character and threaten various physical abuses wouldn’t be nearly as powerful if he was the protagonist. That’s what storytelling is: Putting characters in situations that are impactful for them, not you. You as the audience are supposed to put yourself in the shoes of the character. Not the other way around.

Lara Captured

The problem with plot based games using character creators is that either the game is written for a specific character/audience, usually a heterosexual Caucasian male, and then blanket applied to all created characters regardless of important details like race, gender, and sexuality, or the game is written in such a way that nothing personal ever happens. Take Far Cry 5, which I can’t wait to play. The story of a deputy going into rural Montana to stop a predominantly, if not exclusively, White cult that is literally kidnapping and sacrificing people to their image of God. The game will have a character creator that will allow for male and female characters of any race. Now I don’t think it’s ridiculous to assume that if I, an African American male, walked into rural Montana today that I would probably be treated differently than either a Caucasian or Latino male and even more differently than a female of any race. And if that part of Montana was being run by a redneck cult, I believe that would be even more noticeable. Unless of course the cult genuinely has no preferences for their victims because their god told them that all people who aren’t in the cult need to be equally discriminated against and they were all pure and true believers/followers. But let’s be honest and admit that all people would not have the exact same experience walking into rural Montana. Having not yet played the game, I cannot say for sure if Ubisoft has done anything to differentiate the experiences of created avatars based on race and gender among other identifiers in this newest Far Cry. But I can say that in general most games don’t. Especially those from Ubisoft. I played The Division as a Black male. I didn’t experience anything that called attention to the race of my character. Sure the game is set in a post-apocalyptic virus state but it’s still New York City. Someone would say something about race at some point. They wrote the story as if all people are exactly the same. For the most part, that’s what happens in games with character creators. And it’s the least effective means of storytelling a majority of the time.

cover

Some companies do put in the time to at least try to differentiate characters you create in their games. BioWare, specifically with Dragon Age, is a good example of this. The ability to choose things like origin, species (which is different from race in reality), and sexual preference all help to differentiate the gameplay experience of each player and try to tailor an experience relevant to their avatar. And they do a decent job. But part of the reason they get away with it is that they create games with scenarios where human differentiation doesn’t really make sense. In both Dragon Age and Mass Effect, you have multiple species of people living among each other. There are prejudices. There are questions about species mixing and sexuality. There are ethical and moral issues that players are forced to make decisions about and then hear the opinions about these choices from various NPCs. But none of these moments take into account current real life human experiences, because they don’t really have to. People today may differentiate based on skin color, but I can guarantee you that if tomorrow five other sentient species of alien races started living on this planet basically all people would stop seeing human race as an issue. You’re not gonna think twice about the Black guy down the block endangering your neighborhood when your next door neighbor is a giant walking lizard that can lift you off the ground and rip you in half. Human racism makes no sense in these scenarios. Hell, it barely makes sense in current real life scenarios. The games still have racism, but it’s never between members of the same species.

DAI Character Creator

That’s how BioWare chose to deal with the problem of balancing out character creators and narrative. It works, but not every game has aliens and sentient non-human races. That trick won’t work in Far Cry 5. That game will most likely just suffer from bland character experiences and rely heavily on the enemies being so interesting that you ignore the fact that your own character is having a pretty much vanilla experience. What’s sad though is that people are happily championing the spread of character creators in games. All these minority groups are happily accepting White male characters with coats of paint rather than demanding games with plots written for their group. For me that’s a problem, not only because I do want to see more actual games starring Black protagonists but also because I play games for the story. And I don’t like bland plots that aren’t personal. In a PVP scenario I love creating my own character. In a game that pretty much has no real story like Dark Souls, character creators are fine because that’s pretty much all gameplay anyway. But when a company is trying to sell me a plot as the main selling point of the game, I expect a well written, personal, and realistic story. That story doesn’t have to be about someone I personally identify with, but it needs to be good. But there’s the rub. Most people today don’t seem to have my open minded tolerance for games that aren’t made for them specifically. They would prefer superficial experiences where they can take screenshots of their avatar looking the way they want so they can post them on Twitter rather than experiencing an Oscar worthy narrative. For me that’s a problem.

Dark Souls Character

The issue of diversity in video games is definitely an important one. But I would never agree that it’s so important that general quality of single player campaigns should go down as a result of trying to fix that issue. Instead I think this should be seen as an opportunity for developers of all sizes to make more games with more variation between them. Rather than try to make a game for everyone that no one will love. Make everyone their own game and everyone should be happy with their one game (a year). Not every game needs to be for everyone and not every group needs to be represented in every game. Instead when groups are represented in games it should be done to the highest possible quality and realism. That’s why for me the modern proliferation of character creators in games isn’t a good thing. I’ll take one well written game starring a Black guy over five empty games where I can pretend the character is a Black guy any day. Thoughts?

Blog Logo
As always, thanks for reading. Please take the time to follow my blog, leave a comment, and check out some of my other channels and Patreon if you enjoyed what you read.
Advertisements

Change Up the Anime Games on Gaming Rebellion

One of the biggest announcements at E3 this year has to be Dragon Ball FighterZ. It looks awesome but at the same time I’m underwhelmed by the prospect of yet another anime fighting game. I wrote about my thoughts on this problem with anime game development on Gaming Rebellion this week. Here’s the introduction:

final bout

I really like anime. At one point in my life I would have said I loved it. I grew up during the first generation Toonami era. This was a time when anime had just started to become normalized in the United States. Up until then we had it but it was considered niche. Most people who called themselves anime fans only watched a handful of shows such as Dragon Ball Z. Toonami was one of the first places, maybe even the first place, where American kids could watch anime on cable easily. They started showing flagship anime like Dragon Ball Z, Ronin Warriors, and Sailor Moon. As it got bigger, they created a nighttime program where they could show more mature anime such as Cowboy Bebop and Ghost in the Shell. This was the origin of Adult Swim. Now Adult Swim is mostly American cartoons but in the heyday it was basically all now classic anime.

The beginning isn’t really games focused, but the rest of the post is all about the anime games. You can read the rest right here on Gaming Rebellion.

Blog Logo
As always, thanks for reading. Please take the time to follow my blog, leave a comment, and check out some of my other channels and Patreon if you enjoyed what you read.

E3 Not For Me

If you’ve been reading my blog for a long time then you know that I am no fan of E3. But really that’s a half truth. I’m actually a huge fan of E3 as an idea. I just genuinely hate the modern E3 model. I grew up in the 90s. The first E3 was in 1995. America Online, which I would consider the start of the commonly used internet we have today, started in 1991. I remember a time before the internet. I remember a life before we had it and then after. I remember the shitty dial up connection and the scratchy noises. This is important to this discussion because there was a time when E3 existed, but it wasn’t the over hyped, social media/YouTube driven fanboy party it is today. For me E3 is outdated, but sadly it’s only outdated because of the way E3 is now handled. It’s much different from the way it was in what I consider the golden age of E3.

When I was a kid there were no gamers like me today who genuinely don’t care for E3. That was unheard of. The reason was because it truly was a necessary thing. It was a time when all gaming news was distributed to normal gamers who didn’t work in the industry, via either print media or word of mouth. There were no Reddit leaks. There were no YouTube trailers. Twitch streamers weren’t getting their asses kissed by publishers for a mention. There were no developers tweeting out tidbits about their games. IGN wasn’t a big thing yet that you just automatically went to. I don’t even know what actually happened at E3 back in those days. All I ever knew about E3 was what I read about in the magazines like Nintendo Power and Electronic Gaming Monthly. And I wasn’t a special case. That was everybody.

EGM

E3 was a moment during the year where you literally got gaming news for the year. And when I say news I mean “new”. You didn’t know about it before E3 unless you had some unheard of connections or worked in the industry. There was never a time where someone would say “I knew about that way before E3”. Because you couldn’t. It wasn’t really possible for normal people. Especially for minors. That’s the E3 I grew up with and that’s why I don’t like E3 today.

My three biggest issues with modern E3 are it’s a waste of time, it’s a waste of money, and the bulk of the content shown is no longer news. If anything it should be called “olds”.

Shredded_solid_waste
Waste!

E3 is a waste of time in a world where the internet is as big, powerful, and widely used as it is today. In a time where people couldn’t quickly pull up live streams, videos, and articles on their phones while riding the bus to work/school, it made perfect sense to put on a huge event once a year to distribute a year’s worth of gaming news. That was the most affordable and efficient way to get the word out to the largest number of people. But today that’s not at all the case. EA can tweet out a video of a trailer with gameplay footage, a release date, and the name of the development studio and there’s a good chance more people will see it or a reference to it than actually watched the EA presentation live. That’s just the nature of social media. And if they had that tweet sent out by the right account the reach could be way more effective than any official E3 account.

The official E3 Twitter account has 1.87M followers. The official EA Twitter account has 4.91M followers. The official Justin Bieber Twitter account has 96.4M followers. He has publicly stated that he’s a Call of Duty: Black Ops fan among other games. If the name of the game is hype, reach, and ultimately sales, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense just to get someone like Justin Bieber to help promote or even just tweet about a game than take the time to set up a huge, inefficient press conference that most people won’t even get to see live because of time zone differences and region locked content? I’m not personally saying I’ll be following Justin Bieber anytime soon, but clearly E3 isn’t the sensible way to try to promote games in 2017. There’s just no need for it when you have the internets.

bieber cod
I did not create this image but I wish I had of.

E3 is a huge waste of money. Most trade shows not open to the public are. I may not have been to E3 but I have been to and worked at a number of trade shows such as just recently Computex 2017 in Taipei. These events are sinks for companies. They waste time, money, labor, energy, and basically every other resource a company has for a very limited number of overall sales because of it. Really the same amount of attention for any company could be obtained by sending out some PR samples to the right members of the press and/or fake press like YouTubers for a fraction of the cost. These shows really only benefit the press because they get extra traffic and excuses to travel and party while other people are doing actual work hosting those tradeshows. The consumers and the companies get very little out of it in the grand scheme of things. They’re done more for tradition than anything else. They’re also admittedly fun at certain times. But that’s not enough of a reason to spend millions of dollars collectively to have them.

One of the biggest problems right now in game development is inflated budgets. The cost to actually make a game is often a drop in the bucket compared to what publishers are now spending to promote them. E3 is a part of that. Extravagant stage shows with paid influencers and preposterous props all cost lots of money. Don’t think for a second that those costs don’t ultimately come out of your wallet as a consumer. The increasing use of and increased pricing of paid DLC and season passes is all done as a way to pay for this useless marketing that isn’t even necessary most of the time. Especially when we’re talking about games that don’t even really need any serious marketing.

Anthem
Anthem

When it comes to marketing there are only four types of games: new IPs, long standing guaranteed successful IPs, indies, and bad games. New IPs require a lot of marketing because there are so many games coming out all the time now that the only way for a new IP to make a profit is to stand out from the rest of the crowd. In that situation, ballooned marketing budgets may ultimately suck for everyone but they’re necessary.

Long standing guaranteed successful IPs don’t need any serious marketing. There are very few new customers when it comes to old IPs. 10+ year old franchises do not rely on new markets to turn a profit. They rely on repeat business and everyone knows that. The people who bought Madden, COD, and FIFA last year will buy Madden, COD, and FIFA this year. The people who bought God of War I, II, III, Ascension, Ghost of Sparta, and Chains of Olympus will buy Dad of War IV. That’s just the way things work. I am not at all excited about this new GOW and I was genuinely unhappy about the announcement when they made it last year. But you can be damn sure that I’ll end up buying it because I’ve been playing them since 2005. No one just tosses away a plot they’ve been actively following for 12 years. People just aren’t like that. I’d be willing to bet a larger percentage of married couples will get divorced this year than people who bought COD last year won’t buy it this year. That may be dark, but tell me it’s not true. These sorts of franchises have guaranteed profits. That’s why Ubisoft keeps making Assassin’s Creed games. Because we’re stupid and keep buying them. Because we’ve been buying them since 2007. We can’t help ourselves. And we always say we’re gonna quit every year. Yet when the next title roles around we’ll ultimately end up buying it. Maybe not on release day, but come Black Friday we all end up running back to bad habits. Thus is the nature of gamers. So there’s no reason for Sony Santa Monica Studios to pay to put up a giant God of War IV sign in the middle of LA. That’s a waste of money.

gow4 billboard

Indies need marketing. I’ve reviewed tons of indie games and I’ve spoken to countless indie developers. The number one problem most of them face is attention. Getting people to learn about their game is the hardest part of the process for most of them. It’s the reason they’re much more willing to give out review copies. It’s the reason they sell their games for cents on the dollar compared to AAA titles. They would charge $60 if they could. Just look at No Man’s Sky. They had that Sony marketing so they charged full price. And people paid it. Marketing is everything when nobody’s heard of you. That’s why it makes perfect sense for XBOX to get behind titles like Cuphead and push them heavily. Otherwise even if people would probably want to try it, they most likely wouldn’t ever hear about to make the decision to try it. Indies and new IPs are the only games that genuinely should be shown at E3 for sensible business reasons.

Finally we have bad games. The funny thing about bad games is that they can still make tons of money. I won’t cite any specific ones so as not to offend, but I’m sure we can all think of at least one game in the last five years that we’ve purchased that was objectively bad and a complete waste of our hard earned money. Some of them have already been mentioned in this post. These are an example of why companies throw so much into marketing. With the right packaging and hype, even a pile of crap can look like gold. But that’s the worst way to make and sell games. Publishers and developers should just work on making high quality games with less releases than throwing away millions into selling turds. The reality is that if marketing was done more realistically, the cost of releasing games overall would shrink considerably without profits, of deserving games, dipping by a noticeable amount.

The Witcher 3
Proof that quality trumps marketing.

My biggest peeve about E3 is rightfully the lack of actual news. As I said before, when I was a kid everything shown at E3 was news to me. There were no moments where they were talking about stuff I’d already known about. There weren’t lists of remakes, DLC, and games that had already been shown multiple years past. Everything at E3 really was gaming news. Today many people joke about the fact that E3 is mostly not news. And that’s sad. Only further proving that E3 has become a redundant and obsolete tradition.

I did not watch the conferences this year, nor did I last year. But I always check the highlights later. Just looking at the Kotaku round-up is pretty depressing for me. Without taking the time to do any research about what has already been shown before this E3, let me just list off the games I didn’t already know about or absolutely expect that were shown during this year’s farce of an expo. I’ll only do home consoles and PC because I don’t really track handhelds so it’s mostly news to me at any time. I’ll only be considering titles shown during the presentations that actually got more than just sizzle reel time because there are lots of indies that most of us won’t remember or know about even after they finally get released that will be on the floor at E3. No, I won’t be including remasters or rereleases because why would I? I will not even dignify DLC announcements by as being a legitimate part of E3 reveals.

nintendo news fixed
The sad part being that the only thing in this image we didn’t already know about was BotW Amiibo. Great job GameSpot.
  1. Sony
    1. Monster Hunter World (Actually surprised, impressed, and excited about this one)
    2. Shadows of the Colossus Remake (Great game that I already own 2 copies of and have beaten countless times. Remakes rarely impress me and they rarely count as news)
    3. Bravo Team (Put that in the VR bin where it belongs)
    4. Star Child (Put that in the VR bin where it belongs)
    5. The Inpatient (Put that in the VR bin where it belongs)
    6. Moss (Put that in the VR bin where it belongs)
  2. Microsoft
    1. Metro Exodus (Didn’t expect it but wasn’t surprised)
    2. Deep Rock Galactic
    3. Dragon Ball FighterZ (Didn’t expect it but wasn’t surprised)
    4. The Darwin Project
    5. The Last Night
    6. The Artful Escape
    7. Code Vein
    8. Tacoma
    9. Ori and the Will Of The Wisps (Actually surprised and interested in this one)
  3. Ubisoft
    1. The Crew 2 (Didn’t expect it but wasn’t surprised)
    2. Transference (Put that in the VR bin where it belongs)
    3. Skull & Bones
    4. Starlink: Battle of Atlus
  4. EA
    1. Anthem
    2. A Way Out
    3. Need For Speed Payback (Wasn’t thinking about it but also wasn’t surprised)
  5. Bethesda
    1. The Evil Within 2 (Didn’t expect it but wasn’t surprised)
    2. Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (Wasn’t thinking about it but also wasn’t surprised)
  6. Nintendo
    1. Kirby Switch (Yay!)
    2. Another Pokemon Game but for Switch (You can’t truly be surprised when you’ve been demanding something for literally a decade)
    3. Metroid Prime 4
    4. Yoshi Switch (Yay!)

Sorry I didn’t include Devolver Digital’s list, but I can’t seem to find a single semi-reputable source that actually lists off what they showed this year. Instead every gaming journalism firm is just talking about how crazy their presentation was. The honest truth is that I’m still personally trying to find out exactly what they showed without having to actually sit through their presentation or read through a dramatic piece about the art of making E3 presentations. I just want to know about the games, because that’s what E3 is actually supposed to be about.

who won e3
Going by the numbers it was Microsoft. For actual purchases I’ll make before E3 2018 it was probably Nintendo.

Of the about 60 notable titles that were shown at E3, give or take what does and doesn’t technically count (Didn’t count Horizon this year as an example), I was only unaware of or not fully expecting announcements for 28 of them. That’s less than 50% of the total games presented. Of those 28, only 15 are new IPs and could actually justify the marketing need for being presented during E3 stage shows. Of those 15 new IPs only 10 aren’t VR trash and should actually be taken seriously. That literally means that this entire farce of an event was done to show me, and I am not nearly as up on my gaming news as many other people, a measly 10 games. That’s not news and it’s certainly not worth throwing an entire trade show over. That could have easily been announced at many of the various other events throughout the year that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft already host on their own. This entire expo is laughable when you look at the numbers realistically. The gamers don’t win. This is all just a pointless hype train which isn’t even that effective by Twitter standards.

nintendo spotlight b
The only presentation I took the time to go back and watch in full.

 

I commend Nintendo for doing Nintendo Directs for E3 now. It’s smart, more cost effective, and is another example of Nintendo actively choosing not to play by the status quo of the gaming industry. And I think it’s hilarious that E3 doesn’t even complain about it. They very well could have told Nintendo to screw off when they said they weren’t doing a real stage show the first time a few years back. They could have stood their ground and held another presentation during the same time frame. Instead they play the video on the big screen for Nintendo and probably don’t even charge them to do it.

I like the idea of E3. I believe that it’s important for there to be a special time of year where gamers can come together and celebrate gaming by looking forward to the next year of great adventures to be had. But modern E3 is not that. This tradeshow is a big waste of time and money. It gives very little actual news and has gotten bogged down with titles that were announced years prior, DLC announcements, and remakes. Or games that won’t even be out before the next E3. As long as this trend continues, I will continue to not waste my time watching E3.

Blog Logo
As always, thanks for reading. Please take the time to follow my blog, leave a comment, and check out some of my other channels and Patreon if you enjoyed what you read.

 

That Monitor Is So Not “Gaming”

Last week was COMPUTEX. For those or you that aren’t familiar with the event, it’s basically CES Asia, but bigger and with many more models. This was my second year in a row attending. Last year I went as press and this year I worked a booth as a member of the PC DIY industry. I don’t want to do a full write up of the show, but I’ll just say a few words. It was an interesting show this year, but not nearly as spectacular as last year. This year I saw much of the same from the heavy hitters like MSI, Zotac, and ASUS. The most impressive things I personally saw came from smaller companies I hadn’t heard of before.

One thing that really stood out to me was the number of companies selling “gaming monitors.” If you google the term “gaming monitor” no definitive link comes up. Instead what you get is a bunch of articles ranking and reviewing “gaming monitors” and stores like Best Buy trying to sell them. The issue here is that there is no official definition or set of standardized guidelines for how to determine what actually is a gaming monitor. What this has led to is a flooded market of wannabes misusing the phrase to try to sell subpar pieces of equipment at higher prices. Of course a gaming monitor must be a monitor that a PC gamer would purchase for the purpose of gaming, but technically you can game on any modern monitor. I think it’s interesting that the term “gaming TV” isn’t actually a thing while “gaming monitor” is. When you google “gaming TV” similar search results come up, with mostly ranked lists and reviews, but in general it’s not a widely used term. To drive the point home: searching “gaming monitor” on Best Buy brings up a list of options while searching “gaming tv” brings up a list of random products, many of which are not even TVs at the beginning of the list.

Computex

What I noticed at COMPUTEX was that most of these smaller companies were selling “gaming monitors” as any monitor that’s curved and has at least 144Hz. In my opinion, the curve is not an adequate qualifier for a gaming monitor. Plenty of people purchase curved monitors and TVs for use outside of gaming. A curved monitor in no way provides an experience required by or exclusive to the needs of gamers. Arguably, a curved monitor doesn’t even necessarily improve the gaming experience. I think the 144Hz definition is a little bit closer because there are very few if any serious applications outside of gaming that require or even seriously make use of that much output frequency. Yet I still would argue that just having that high a frequency alone doesn’t necessarily qualify as a gaming monitor. Imagine, for the purposes of argument, that someone offered a 144Hz monitor that could only run a maximum of 720p. In 2017 would that be considered a gaming monitor? Again, it could definitely be used for gaming but would anyone seriously consider buying it? Most likely not. 1080p has become the standard minimum screen resolution for both TV’s and monitors and has been for a number of years, gaming or otherwise.

ASUS No 1

ASUS defines gaming monitors with a less than technical approach. They instead focus on the practical applications when defining their monitors as/for gaming. They refer to themselves as the “No.1 Gaming Monitor Brand”. Their main justification for that isn’t focused on specs or features though. Instead they list off game genres and how their monitors perform when playing them. They state that they are the “best gaming monitors for Cinematic Games” listing MOBA, RPG, RTS genres with some generic details about performance such as “immersive life-like visuals”. They do similar things with “Fast Games” listing FPS and racing, and “Console Games” listing no specific genres. This means of defining gaming monitors may be a little more specific and provides some practical examples for why gamers would want their monitors, but it in no way gives specific reasons for why these monitors perform better at playing these games. It’s important to note that ASUS’ gaming monitors do have a number of technical features that I believe do actually make them “gaming monitors” as opposed to just monitors that you can play games on, but those features aren’t being used by the company to define them as such in their marketing.

ASUS site

I think Best Buy does the best job of genuinely trying to define what gaming monitors are in an objective, spec focused manner. If you search “gaming monitors” on Best Buy’s site you will get a list of five features/categories: 1ms Response Time, 144Hz, IPS, G-Sync, and FreeSync. I like this list of features a lot. I don’t necessarily agree with the inclusion of IPS, but in general I like the idea that they have defined gaming monitors based on technical specs that fall outside of visual aesthetics of the monitor itself and at least 4/5 of the categories are features that only gamers would actually care about. I think G-Sync and FreeSync are the most important features for a gaming monitor and response time comes in at third. Hz frequency is at fourth. My personal priorities and preferences when picking a monitor are irrelevant though. What’s important here is that all of these monitors, with possibly the exception of the IPS section, are categorized by things that only gamers would take the time to care about and really consider as deal breakers when picking a monitor. I especially like that resolution isn’t part of the list. A 4K monitor is not definitively a gaming monitor. Plenty of people use 4K for watching TV and for work based applications like graphic design. Many if not most games still aren’t even capable of running in 4K.

Best Buy Gaming Monitors

As I’ve been trying to pick a monitor for my own rig recently, I posed the question to Reddit. I had an overwhelming percentage of people say that G-Sync/FreeSync and 144Hz were the most important thing when picking a monitor for the purpose of gaming. They even went on to say that if you have to choose between 4K and G-Sync/FreeSync that the Sync option was hands down more important for gaming 100% of the time. That feedback and my own research made me opt to buy an ASUS ROG Swift PG278QR. With my 1080 GPU, that monitor will give me the best gaming experience I can afford at a size that works for my needs, based on my research.

Personally, I think this is a really important issue. The industry should create a set of minimum standards and guideline when defining a gaming monitor to prevent companies from arbitrarily raising prices without delivering any technical/performance based justification for calling their product(s) “gaming monitors”. I saw so many nice looking, but ultimately non-performing monitors at COMPUTEX this year. Sure they would have given you at least 1080p at 60Hz, which is technically good enough. But that’s pretty much a standard monitor these days, whether you’re gaming or not. In the same way that mechanical keyboards must use mechanical switches, monitors should have some sort of defining quality based on the specs/features that objectively categorize them as “gaming” or not. Otherwise less experienced and unknowledgeable consumers will continue to be tricked into buying lower priced third party and first party units that ultimately deliver less than the current standard in high end gaming.

*Just wanted to take the time to mention that I finally started a Patreon page. I don’t expect to get rich, but after nearly four years of dedicated gaming content creation I thought it was time. Anything helps so even if you aren’t able to donate, please consider sharing the page.

Blog Logo
As always, thanks for reading. Please take the time to follow my blog, leave a comment, and check out some of my other channels if you enjoyed what you read.