My top 10 games of the generation

With the new generation of games consoles out in the wild now, I'd thought it would be great to look back on the last eight (yes, EIGHT) years from when the Xbox 360 launched in November 2005. This is my personal list of the best games from this period, though it probably changes on a daily basis. I'm not even sure that this is in order of preference anyway. Nevertheless, here's the list:

Assassin's Creed 2

The first Assassin's Creed was an interesting idea but was a flawed game. It was far too repetitive and suffered from other problems like being a total borefest. However, the first sequel fixed that (this was before the series was miked dry). Gone was the dull-as-dish-water Altair and stepped in Ezio Auditore da Firenze, a typically charming and cool Italian chap would charisma oozing out his digitally crafted ears. The gameplay mechanics fixed up and there was much more varitey to the game including building and fixing up the Auditore estate and buying weapons and items. Also new was the inventions that you got to use from Leonardo Da Vinci, including his flying device and dual-blades, which allowed for twice the stabbing simultaneously. Assassin's Creed 2 was so good that I got the Platinum Trophy on PS3. Though that's not saying much, Assassin's Creed 2 is the most 'Platinumed' game on PS3. Plenty liked the game then, I'm not alone there.

Mass Effect

Ah Mass Effect, the space opera RPG from Canada's finest at BioWare. Originally an Xbox 360 exclusive published by Microsoft before the developer was cursed bought by everyone's favourite videogame publisher EA. The game has since been released on PC and later (much later, think five years) came out on the PlayStation 3. Mass Effect saw take on the role of Commander Shepard but you could customise your character to suit your tastes like in most RPG games. Unlike most RPGs however Mass Effect focused on gun combat with some space-age magical nonsense thrown in, instead of melee fighting and also had an incredibly difficult to control vehicle to drive called the MAKO. Anyway, the best thing about Mass Effect was the world BioWare had built, along with the characters. The way you interacted with them dictated the story that was told and you made decisions, some of which weren't easy. I bet you're thinking why do I prefer this one to either of the two sequels that have released since? Well, it's the only one I've played. Before you eat me, I will say this, I do have Mass Effect 2 and 3 but they're deep within the abyss of my backlog and I did play the Mass Effect 2 demo that came out and it felt more like a shooter with RPG elements instead of the first game which is more of the opposite. I would take a trilogy re-release on PS4 I'll say that much.

Gears of War

Another Microsoft published game in the form of Gears of War. Everyone remembers the 'Mad World' advert that came out to promote the game, no sound effects just Gary Jules singing the lyrics which gave the game footage (not actually in-game) a rather bleak look and feel since that song is proper depressing. Many would go and say that Gears of War was the first 'next-gen' game when it released back in 2006 and I would happen to agree with that. The game looked fantastic and had sold gameplay to go with it. Fluid animations with an excellent cover system along with a wide range of weapons which felt great to use. Gears of War also innovated in the realm of the reload, normally a few seconds to catch your breath while you wait to kill more stuff. In Gears of War, this could be a bit of a roulette since Epic Games introduced what is called Active Reload, a bar would appear where you had to press RB on the 360 controller when the moving line went in the highlighted zone. Get it right and the reload would be faster which also gave you a temporary power boost. Get it wrong and you'd be waiting longer to get back in the killing stuff mayhem. The first Gears of War is the best one because it has better feeling weapons than the second one. The mulitplayer is also better, as Gears of War 2's was completely broken. Horde mode was nice though. The story in the series is a joke though, but that's not why you play these games.

MotorStorm: Pacific Rift

PlayStation 3 launch title (in Europe) MotorStorm was a fun game but was far from perfect. The direct sequel, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, fixed pretty much every problem that I had with the first game and is probably one of the most underrated games on the PS3. First improvement over the first game was the menus. In the first game they were slow and it took ages to do anything. The second one was the sometimes iffy track design. Some of the tracks in Pacific Rift aren't that good but the overall sum of them add up to more than what the original game offered. Another thing was more variety in vehicles, well the monster truck fixed that, it's glorious. There were other things but they were minor things. Pacific Rift had better graphics, sounds and added extra depth to the boost mechanic, with heat coming off volcanic rock increasing the speed of the gauge's meter, giving you less boost. Contrast to that, there was water on track which cooled the boost gauge. Pacific Rift also had Trophies and custom soundtracks so you could race along to your favourite tunes. The racing in MotorStorm is very arcade-y but it so much fun and crazy as hell with quad bikes squaring up against big rigs. A total mis-match but that is what is great about MotorStorm, complete and utter lunacy. I hope the series continues on PS4.

Batman: Arkham Asylum 

Batman: Arkham Asylum. This game came from nowhere. I remember hearing about it but because most superhero games have been absolutely terrible, I never gave it a second look. That is until the demo came out just before the game did and it was surprising, but in a good way. No one has ever captured the character of Batman like London-based Rocksteady did in Batman: Arkham Asylum. Many groaned at the thought of a Batman game made by a no-name studio and wrote it off as another licensed cash-in. However, Batman: Arkham Asylum broke the mould. Starring Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill as The Dark Knight and The Joker respectively, both of whom reprised their roles from the 90s cartoon Batman: The Animated Series, Batman: Arkham Asylum captured the essence of Batman in a game that hadn't been done before.You get the gadgets, Detective Mode, which is seemingly what the game was based around. You also get the characters, all of which that are in this game are well done and are true to their comic roots. Arkham does have more recognisable faces but that makes the game feel less focused and bloated. Not that Arkham City isn't a bad game of course. I just think it's prequel (not Arkham Origins I've heard mixed things about that) is better.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

Uncharted 2 is an amazing game, simple as that. It built upon the foundation set by the first game, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and took things further. With stunning visuals, top notch set-pieces and great gameplay of course, Uncharted 2 set the bar very high for the action adventure genre and there's a strong case for it still being at the summit. The reason why Uncharted 2 is so good is because it's a fast-paced and addicting to play game. It's not perfect but everything it does well it does better than anything that has come before it. I think to truly understand why it's here it has to be played. Another thing about Uncharted 2 is that the muliplayer modes no one asked for are actually quite good, which was a worry since many felt that Naughty Dog would comprimise the single player game but that wasn't the case. Never doubt Naughty Dog is what we learned from Uncharted 2 which is probably the best game they have produced since the Crash Bandicoot days. 

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Yes, a Call of Duty game made it onto my list and for good reason, Call of Duty 4 is a genuinely great game and is undoubtedly the best Call of Duty in the series. Of course, it's also partly responsible for the series being as it is as well but that's more down to Activision milking the cow (as well as firing the main people behind this one and Modern Warfare 2, read up on it if you want to know what happened). Anyway, Call of Duty 4 was a remarkable game when it launched in 2007. It had everything going for it, great looking (Call of Duty hasn't progressed much in this area but at the time, this was a looker), had great gameplay with best-in-class feel and was without the excessive perks and killstreak crap you find today and had the best map design which helped massively. It also had a great single player campaign too with one of the most iconic levels ever created in 'All ghillied up'. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the complete package that will never be beat by the shell that calls themselves Infinity Ward today.

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

Metal Gear Solid 4 was one of the main reasons I got the PS3 and it didn't disappoint this long-time fan of the MGS series. It was very ambitious and feature-packed and was full of nods and references to the past games. One whole part in particular did this, Act 4. In Act 4 you return to Shadow Moses and when you arrive once again the ending song from the first MGS 'The Best is Yet to Come' starts playing and soundbites from, well Twin Snakes the MGS1 remake, also make an appearance, making the memories flood back. For example, when you go up to the surveillance camera on the stairway the camera angle goes to the same as the original and the line 'A surveillance camera?' sounds off before the camera fall offs the wall and hits the floor. There are so many references that the series creator Hideo Kojima put in for fans that are just simply amazing and for that, it deserves recognition.

Fallout 3

The second RPG in this list is post-apocalyptic first/third person hybrid from Bethesda Softworks, known for their Elder Scrolls series and Fallout 3 was their first in the series since they bought it off Interplay. The fact that two RPGs made this list when I'm not much of an RPG player says a lot about these games. It also says how I've become more willing to try out different games. Fallout 3 is set in Washington DC and stars a vault-dweller (Vaults are basically shelters from when the nuclear apocalypse hit) who escapes and ventures into the wasteland and into all kings of wacky and incredible things. Fallout's success is with it's world building. The art is inspired by 1950s vision of the future with many pieces of artwork in and about the game harkening back to that time period of post-WW2 America. The game has many things in an RPG that you'd expect: XP. leveling up, perks dialog trees, choices to be made and companions that follow you on your quest. However, Fallout 3 can be played like an FPS game but the mechanics there aren't as strong as they could be. Luckily, there's the VATS (Vault-tec Assisted Targeting System). This was a system which paused gameplay and let you target a specific area of an enemy to hit. I felt it worked better for an RPG. There's much more to the game and that's why it's here, despite the bugginess, which it definitely was.

The Last of Us

Another Naughty Dog game and a game from the last year. The Last of Us is how you do story telling in video games, it has set the bar that high. With top-notch voice acting from everyone but special mention has to go to Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson who voice main characters Joel and Ellie, The Last of Us showed everyone that a new IP this late on into a console's life can succeed right before the next console hits. The Last of Us is the opposite of Uncharted in that is has a downbeat tone, slow guitar soundtrack and atmosphere, appropriate given the theme of the game is survival at all costs. The story is also about the bonding of Joel and Ellie since the latter is intially referred to as 'the package', an object, but as the game progresses they become like father and daughter which climaxes with the end of the game. I won't spoil it since it's still a recent game but if you have played it and got that far then you'll know what I'm on about. The Last of Us gets rid of the regenerating health and traversal mechanics of Uncharted and brings in a crafting system and a less mobile style of movement with a focus on sound and stealth. The crafting system in particular adds a layer of depth since the same materials that make a health pack also make a molotov cocktail. There's a lot that can be said for this game but it never beats playing it for yourself. The same goes for all of these games I've listed. 

That's the list of games I feel are the best from this last console generation. There are some honourable mentions: God of War 3, Grand Theft Auto 5, Gran Turismo 6, Killzone 2, Vanquish, Bayonetta, Halo 3, amongst others.

 

Different approach, same goal. Xbox One and PS4.

In case you didn't know somehow, Microsoft has finally lifted the lid on it's latest 'console', the Xbox One. Let's start by saying how much of a stupid name that is. Going from Xbox 360 to Xbox One just seems illogical and will cause confusion because people refer to the original Xbox as Xbox 1.

The Xbox One with the Kinect camera, which is mandatory to even function the damn thing.

Now, it was expected that Microsoft would take the 'own the living room' stance, which is focusing on media functionality as well as games. The problem with that is that you may end up focusing too much on things which no one cares about, or has limited availability. Guess what? Yep, many of the features Microsoft will be putting out will only be available to the US, at least initially. Things such as the Live TV, where you can see a TV guide or cable box, will only be able to be used in the US at launch. Also, something which wasn't mentioned was the fact that an HDMI supported receiver is needed to even use the functionality. Kind of shoots the Xbox One's mantra down doesn't it?

Most of the reveal conference was about TV, with the announcement of a Halo TV show with input from Steven Spielberg and a deal with the NFL, which I can't imagine will be huge deal outside of North America. Kinect was also a big focus and is coming with every system sold. With all the gesture and voice commands you can pull off, if the thing recognises them that is, then you will be able to control the Xbox One without pressing a single button. I guess Microsoft think that pressing buttons is hard.

Microsoft showcasing the Xbox One's interface, which looks very similar  to the one currently found on the Xbox 360.

Speaking of buttons, Microsoft did show the new controller which looks to be a cross between the original Xbox controller and the one including with the 360. It now has a rechargeable battery included and has 40 different features and changes. It can also be seen in the picture above.

There were games shown, but no live gameplay demos which is a bit odd. EA came on stage to announce a new game engine called Ignite and then proceed to show us footage of Madden, FIFA, NHL and UFC which I'm guessing very little was gameplay footage, if any at all. Also shown was Forza Motorsport 5, said to be representative of gameplay footage but I'm not so sure. Forza 5 is confirmed to be a launch title. Another game shown was Quantum Break, which is a new IP developed by Max Payne and Alan Wake creators Remedy. It was a teaser and more will be shown at E3 for sure.

Also unveiled was Call of Duty: Ghosts, which looks like Call of Duty. They talked about how the new consoles can bring the series forward but it looks eerily similar to what has come before. Activision did a comparison to Modern Warfare 3 and there are improvements but you have to remember that this game is coming out on the 360 and PS3 too so it won't be a massive improvement. It looks to be using the same old game engine too, which was first used with Quake 3 many moons ago.

To me, this looks like Microsoft trying to do something which is unnecessary since a lot of these features are novelties at best and don't improve the current products out there. Also, it's apparent that Microsoft are after an increasingly outdated vision, a vision where everyone and everything is surrounded by one large TV. Many households have multiple TVs, not to mention phones and tablets which can access the internet. It all seems a bit redundant.

Contrast this to the PS4 announcement, which didn't show a console but did show Sony's approach, games. It also showed that Sony has learned from the mistakes that it made with the PS3, with using much simpler architecture, the same as the Xbox One it should be pointed out, 8GB of GDDR 5 RAM, the Xbox One also has 8GB of RAM but it is the much slower GDDR 3 type.

It's clear Sony have focused on making the PS4 a games console, first and foremost. That might not seem much but when it's the gaming enthusiasts that are the first to buy your system this is important. Of course, Sony will have non-gaming features such as movie and TV streaming since the PS3 is the most used platform for Netflix and Blu-ray obviously. They sent out this message with live gameplay demos of new IPs Knack and DriveClub, a new Killzone in the form of Shadow Fall, inFamous Second Son. Third parties were represented with Watch_Dogs from Ubisoft, Destiny from Halo creators Bungie and a tech demo called Deep Down from Capcom, as well as appearances from Epic Games, Square Enix and Blizzard.

Killzone: Shadow Fall gameplay screenshot

No doubt both will show new games at E3 but it's the long game here. The 360 will have been out for around 8 years when the Xbox One launches and the PS3 will have been out for 7 years at the PS4 launch, or there about. It seems odd that Microsoft are focusing on something that is seemingly becoming less and less integral to how we consume media, whereas Sony is fulling embracing the multiplatform way of modern technology by bringing PlayStation to mobile devices through streaming by Gaikai, the company Sony acquired last year. At least, that's the vision. I mean, who wants to browse the internet in the corner of your TV screen when watching a movie? Microsoft thinks you do, while paying for Xbox Live Gold too no less, when you have a phone or tablet or even fridge (I'm not joking by the way) which connects to the internet already.

If all else fails, use this scientific graph to determine which is best. ;)

From Groundbreaking to Trend Following

Having been playing it recently on my PlayStation Vita, (a great piece of hardware but it's a shame about the sales), I want to talk about one of the biggest games of the 90s both in terms of quality and in regards to the immense popularity it garnered back then, Tomb Raider.

The box art for the first Tomb Raider game which first released in November 1996

The game was a huge phenomenon back then because of it's unique gameplay. Today, many see it as clunky and unresponsive but at the time it was fresh because 3D games were still in their infancy. Playing it today for me is still a very enjoyable experience. Yeah, the controls are heavy and archaic but they are consistent and any mistakes made are the player's fault and not anything to do with bugs or glitches unlike many games today. 

Tomb Raider was an unforgiving game. Any small mistake could lead to failure and losing quite a bit of progress due to the save crystal system the game used, unless you were playing on the PC then you could save anywhere but even that has it's risks. You had to think carefully about each jump and trap, making the game more tense and/or frustrating depending on the outcome of the attempt at the jump or whatever the game threw at you. The game's combat isn't very good, it wasn't back in 1996 either but that was never the focus of the game. Anyway, it made things more interesting and increased the tension due to the rubbishness.

The focus of Tomb Raider was always the levels. These levels which had big, overlapping puzzles and many opportunities to explore the landscape and discover every nook and cranny. Wonderful. No hand-holding either with the puzzles. These days, many games have glowing icons or objects, showing you what can be interacted with. That's fine but it isn't very challenging or fun, well to me anyway. 

It can't be understated how much I love this game. I'd love to see a new game in the vein of the original with excellent puzzles and lots of exploring and challenges. Sadly, it's increasingly looking like that will never happen. I'm talking about the reboot of Tomb Raider.

Box art for the 2013 reboot of Tomb Raider. HNNNNNNG.

When first announced, Crystal Dynamics, who replaced series creators Core Design (who have since gone defunct) after the mess that was Angel of Darkness back in 2004, wanted to redefine the series and take it in a new direction. Initially, that was interesting since they focused on survival and being lost on a deserted island off the coast of Japan. It sounded a bit like Metal Gear Solid 3 from what they were saying. Not classic Tomb Raider but it's a quality game and could work well if done right. However, after a long silence there has been a deluge of information but nothing shown sounds like nothing Crystal Dynamics said previously.

For a start off, for a so-called survival game, the game has regenerating health. No medipacks or anything. Just hide in cover for a few seconds and all wounds are healed. A popular feature of modern games which feels out of place in a Tomb Raider. Another thing out of place in a Tomb Raider is the excessive gore and violence. I know Tomb Raider has guns and Lara killing but in this manner, especially when this new Lara is made out to be inexperienced and vulnerable, yet can kill in cold blood like a seasoned veteran.

In this video, you see Lara kill some enemies in brutal fashion which completely goes against the theme that Crystal Dynamics were trying to portray. They are complete opposites and conflict with each other immensely. I know she is in danger but she looks so calculated and those finishers just top it off.

The Magical Shape-shifting Bow/Pickaxe combo...

Another feature brought over is the upgrade system found in RPGs and online First Person Shooters. This allows people to unlock abilities or useless stuff like cosmetic crap other ways to kill people. I'm not sure where this belongs in Tomb Raider. It seems like it's there to keep the OCD gamer who likes to unlock useless nonsense to keep them engaged because the gameplay itself is so drab and boring. 

Blow something up, earn some XP!!!!!!!1

Which brings me on the next point. The levels. In the original like I explained, the levels were the star of the show. In this new game, the focus is shifted on Lara and her growth as a character. The problem with this is that no one cares about Lara as a character. If you ask people who are aware of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider, pretty much no one will say Lara is best known for her personality. Why Crystal Dynamics insist on this, they tried it before deciding the reboot the franchise, is a mystery. A result of this is the increase in confrontation, the combat. This is one area where the reboot should beat the original to a pulp thanks to better technology. However, like Lara's character, this was never important and just served as a break from all of the puzzles. 

With this new-found emphasis on killing things to death, the challenging levels have been simply discarded, replaced by linear pathways which link the combat engagements together, as well as the 'cinematic set pieces'. Another one of those things brought in current gaming trends, used commonly in games such as Call of Duty and of course Uncharted, once referred to as 'Dude Raider', despite Uncharted and Tomb Raider not sharing very much in common... until now it seems. Uncharted has always focused on the characters and narrative instead of challenging gameplay but it works in that because the characters are interesting and have a good chemistry. The only thing Uncharted and the original Tomb Raider have in common  is having a globe-trotting protagonist who go in search of an ancient artifact. Both have similar influences, Indiana Jones being one, but ultimately take that influence and go in different directions. However, Tomb Raider seems to be going in that direction now with the highlighted pathways and objects as well as increasing emphasis on combat and story. I Think these two pictures show it well:

Says it all.

I like Uncharted, it's my favourite new game series from this console generation but that doesn't mean that I want every game to be just like it. Especially not Tomb Raider but I guess I must be in the minority because Square-Enix and Crystal Dynamics must think I do. It's as if there's a checklist for every popular feature in some of the most popular games and every one had to be ticked, including a Detective-like mode where objects and pathways glow to show where to go, as seen in the Batman Arkham games and Multiplayer. 

Yes, multiplayer in a Tomb Raider game. Not officially confirmed but it's as good as confirmed because GAME put up a description on their product page for it for then to remove it hours later. Luckily someone screengrabbed it because I didn't.

:(

I may be overreacting but the game so far looks to be one of the most cynical, uninspiring and creatively bankrupt game I have seen in some time. Since they've got all of these features they might as well go the whole way and shove in some multiplayer which will be forgotten about a few weeks after launch most likely. The game has its fans but so does everything no matter how terrible and this looks to be no exception. Most of the people interested have no prior experience with the franchise and don't care about it's history and what it was about. Some Tomb Raider fans support it too but they're the type who'll buy anything with the name Tomb Raider on it. 

Many fans, myself included, are immensely disappointed with the direction of this game. It's not what I want in a Tomb Raider game and I hope this games fails. That might sound harsh, given the number of people at Crystal Dynamics and Square-Enix who have dedicated lots of time and effort into it but there has to be a point where you have to say that it didn't work and it's not what is right for the series. Maybe a break is what's best. After a short while someone else takes the franchise and takes it back in the direction of the original Core Design games but makes them for the current day with little compromise. One can dream. 

Attachment to Objects

It's been a while since I last did a blog post but now I'm back and I have an interesting subject that I want to talk about. It comes after Instagram, the popular photo sharing network on iPhone, launched on rival Android smartphones earlier this week and many iPhone owning Instagram users were rather "ew" about it. It got me thinking, why are people so bothered that a popular service or product can be accessed by a larger number of people than before. Of course, this isn't the first time a group of people have become irrationally annoyed at the prospect of  other people enjoying something that was previously exclusive to them.

The Profile screen on Instagram (Android left, iPhone right)

Back in 2008 at the Electronic Entertainment Expo, better known as E3, Microsoft and Square-Enix announced that highly anticipated RPG Final Fantasy XIII would be released on the Xbox 360. Previously, Square-Enix had said that the game would only be released on the PlayStation 3. Why the uproar? Well Square-Enix maintained for some time that Final Fantasy XIII would be exclusive to the PS3 and going back on that was seen as a kind of betrayal.

However, many forgot that Final Fantasy wasn't always exclusive to the PlayStation. From its inception, Final Fantasy was exclusive to Nintendo platforms and Final  Fantasy VII itself was in development for the Super Nintendo and then the Nintendo 64. It was only when Nintendo decided that the N64 would be using cartridges instead of CD-ROM that Squaresoft (this was before Squaresoft merged with fellow Japanese developer Enix) decided that the game would be better suited to Sony's PlayStation and on the 12th January 1996 Square officially announced Final Fantasy VII for the PlayStation.

Why bring this up? Well, many Nintendo fans felt that Square betrayed them when Final Fantasy went to the PlayStation and then went onto the PC in 1998. Final Fantasy VII on the PlayStation propelled the Final Fantasy name, as well as the Japanese Role Plating Game genre into the mainstream, as FFVII sold over 10 million copies and remains the best selling Final Fantasy game to this day. FFXIII however, was met with much criticism from fans of the series, with some blaming Square-Enix's decision to put the game on the Xbox 360, though I believe the game would be no different either way, I'm not a fan, I haven't been a fan of Final Fantasy anyway truth be told. Therefore, it doesn't really matter what platform a game is on, if you want to play it, then get a platform that it's on. So why get so attached to one console then? I think it's because of the time invested with that product or company, that you feel compelled to support and in order to validate the support, they try to downplay the efforts of the opposition.

This brings me back to the beginning, why are people so attached to certain products? Also, why be so disgusted if a certain product or service is opened up to more people? In the case of Instagram, I think it was kind of a elitist thing that it was only available on iPhone's and it gave the users a reason as to why to support Apple and the iPhone. The same as Final Fantasy was for Nintendo and PlayStation fans respectively.

The fact is, the reason Instagram exists is because iOS doesn't give the user the custom filters Instagram does as well as a way to share them with ease. The creators of Instagram saw this and catered to a market. Android on the other hand, you can share a photo from most Android devices without installing a single app to: Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Picasa and Gmail, as well via a message, bluetooth or email. The latest version of Android, 4.0, also called Ice Cream Sandwich, has some filters similar to the ones Instagram has built in to the camera app. There are also third party apps that give you that functionality, and there has been for some time. On an iPhone, it's only Twitter, message, bluetooth or email. I don't want to turn this into an iPhone vs Android debate so I won't I'm just making a point. The point I'm trying to make is that Instagram exists because of iOS's shortcomings but people don't see that. Instead, they try to make out that Android is cheap and inferior when infact, when it comes to sharing photos, it's much the superior way to do so.

Same with Final Fantasy VII, Nintendo fans turned to Square and called them traitors when really they should have looked at Nintendo and the N64's shortcomings. As for Final Fantasy XIII, well I think that was down to money, Microsoft probably paid them a nice sum. It didn't hurt PS3 users anyway, since they could still play it, unlike N64 users with FFVII, unless they bought a PlayStation or had a PC capable in 1998.

Ultimately, people convince themselves that the products they buy are the best and do everything they can to try and find a way to convince themselves that they've made the right decision and feel "elitist".