Games and the 'Geek Stereotype'

ChinoH81 writes "Video games are never going to be as popular as films or music unless the people who make them concentrate on making them fun, says a leading game expert."

no offense..

[The Other White Boy (626206)]

but is it a slow news day or what? =)

to make this somewhat on topic, i'd actually say that i have to disagree with the article. i think if you concentrate and try to push it out to a demographic thats not familiar with gaming, they'll just resist it more than they normally would. i think to spread there just needs to be more 'killer apps,' for lack of a better term.

Re:no offense..

[Trolling4Dollars (627073)]

Great point. But what would the "killer app" be? Different games appeal to different people for different reasons. However, there are always going to be people who just don't "get" games. For example, I love mystery/puzzle games like Myst, but I also enjoy a FPS like Quake or Unreal. I can't stand strategy or sim type games though. To me those games lack any appeal because of the involvment and complexity but the interface is piss poor. Now, if we were at a point where a sim or strategy game could be a fully immersive experience with VR, I would be more intrigued. We're just not there yet. I mean think about it. Wouldn't life really suck if you have to click on people and type in order to interact with them all the time? I'm sure some of you have eventually tolkd the person you were IMing to give you a call on the phone because it's much easier to communicate verbally rather than textually. SO I would argue that what needs to change to make games more appealing is to essentially move them into the realm of being alternate reality with very well rendered spaces and avatars. Until then, the only really fun games are same-gnome, tetris the puzzle game and Chicken Invaders (which runs well under WINE BTW...) :)

Re:no offense..

[Fnkmaster (89084)]

Well, some of us are experimenting with the concept of games as art/entertainment and looking at ways to extend the appeal of 3D graphical entertainment apps outside of the classic "gamer market" (my company is one of those). There are opportunities for computer entertainment that doesn't involve semi-clad women writhing around or spewing blood and guts, though you wouldn't know it from going to SIGGRAPH, E3 or other such industry conferences.

I don't quite know if video-game-as-3D-avatar-chat is _the_ killer app to bring 3D to the masses, but I think one of the keys is simpler modes of interactivity. The controls and interactions of many games, as you rightly point out, are just too complex for Joe Average. A combination of new control mechanisms with a shift in thinking about games and use of realtime 3D graphics will certainly be required to make the real crossover to mainstream.

Re:no offense..

[dknight (202308)]

You prefer the phone over IM/Text?

I hate the phone. When people call me, I tell them to try IMing me if they actually want a conversation. I can say more, faster, over IMs than the phone, plus I am not so limited in how many people I can talk to at once.

I have a cell phone, but you know how often I actually talk on it? Almost never. You can be sure I more than use my monthly allotment of text messages though.

I am looking forward to the day when I wont have to pick up a phone ever again.

Re:no offense..

[vsprintf (579676)]

I am looking forward to the day when I wont have to pick up a phone ever again.

So you prefer short-hand glyphs to actually talking to someone where you can hear the tonal inflections? I gotta say, I think that's strange. There are so many flame wars started just because people mistake the intent behind text messages.

Re:no offense..

[r (13067)]

but is it a slow news day or what? =)

heh, yes, that has to be one of the worst bbc taglines i've seen. :) but what the article is trying to say is quite worthwhile: that people who make video games need to concentrate on making them fun for people who won't put up with the broken affordances of today's products. and in doing so, they'll have to fix them. :)

to make this somewhat on topic, i'd actually say that i have to disagree with the article. i think if you concentrate and try to push it out to a demographic thats not familiar with gaming, they'll just resist it more than they normally would.

if you push present products onto an unsuspecting populace, then yes, they will, as they should. but what about if you start fixing games, so they actually appeal to more than the standard asocial obsessive-compulsive type? :)

video games are often broken. for example, time investment. games often require sinking several continuous hours at a time, and not many people can afford that (students excluded :). developers that want to target working adults need to fit games into their lives, not the other way around.

another example are broken reward/punishment schedules: negative conditioning cycles are commonly hidden in mundane game elements, such as in having to reload a level until you get it right. pavlov would be proud. :)

and then there's juvenile storytelling, which is a huge turn-off. most people don't bother with pulp fantasy because it's puerile; why should they bother with even worse RPGs? :)

there are, of course, more problems than that, and they are complex, and without easy fixes. and maybe they will get addressed eventually, if hardcore gamers only stopped touting them as features... :)

Re:no offense..

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

That article was utterly without redemption. PHB on games... oh, lets take notes!

The viewpoint that games are solely a product to be sold, and not an art form is the sort of attitude that will ruin gaming the way it has pretty much ruined movies and music.

If a game has integrity and vision, it will be good.

If it is produced by a well-oiled, hollywood-style machine, it will be uninspired, fun for a few moments in the exact same fashion the last game you played was fun.

If it is caught between those two worlds, it will be garbage, with left-over complexity from the smashed vision but no integrity.

A fine example of a great game that appeals across demographics is the Baldurs Gate series. It requires significant time investment... my GF and I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours over several years playing them, and we're not quite done. It is challenging... you often need to repeat challenges to achieve victory, or to talk to everyone in the town for the third time before you find the one you're looking for. And it is, of course, fantasy, which is why we and so many others like it...

You want to know what key feature Baldurs Gate has that allows me to play it with my GF and loan it to my parents to play? It's one simple thing: You don't need fast reflexes to excel at it.

That's what I think differentiates a game for boys and young men from a game for everyone. If you need razor reflexes to play, most women and older ppl won't ever be good at it, so they won't like it. Hell, "The Sims" became successful using this key feature; I'd say that pretty much demonstrates it's effectiveness... the game didn't exactly have anything else going for it, did it? :)

Huh?

[feyhunde (700477)]

Games are suppose to be fun? Since when?

Re:Huh?

[Smallpond (221300)]

Games are suppose to be fun? Since when?

Note who is saying this. "Laura Fryer, director of the Xbox Advanced Technology Group". It means the XBox folks have just figured this out.

Gosh

[pilotofficerprune (682802)]

Speaking as a industry veteran, a games designer of some years, I now understand what I've been doing wrong all these years. Fun. Damnit! Why didn't I think of that before?
This observation is, of course, like unto a thing made entirely of poo. I find it particularly offensive coming from the Redmond crowd, whom I've had some dealings with. I am no longer inclined to take advice from a bunch of middle-aged cardigan-wearing preppy types who know everything about project management and zip about gameplay, other than what's been fed them by their Usability department focus-testers.
MS Usability have a lot of influence over people who are commissioning. They have their act honed and appear to be doing their best to reduce gameplay to a science - to quantify fun. I've been through some of their reports and it's not easy reading. It sums up their attitude to games: clinical, rationalized, objectified, sanitized, blah. They think too hard about it.
What a difference it is talking to Nintendo. Right from the off they tell you gameplay is king. Everything comes back to the control system. They pound this into you again and again, but it's good. Because they have not made this a science; they treat games design as an artform and know how subjective a thing it is. They understand fun. They know their stuff.

Re:Gosh

[by Anonymous Coward]

Woohoo, I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm currently playing Zelda The Wind Waker on the Nintendo Gamecube, along with a few of their other flagship products and their focus on FUN! is apparent. After years of playing X-box, PS2, and PC games that have almost unanimously been dark (visually and thematically) I finally buckled down and bought the Gamecube. I feel refreshed. Playing The Wind Waker is like popping The Princess Bride into your VCR after months of formulaic Hollywood blockbusters. The game not only plays like a dream, it has an original style, is well executed, and in my opinion borders on true art. Maybe in the end that's what gaming will boil down to... Redmond/Hollywood Formula vs Independent/Creative game developers.

What the?!

[CGP314 (672613)]

Video games are never going to be as popular as films or music unless the people who make them concentrate on making them fun.

All right, show of hands. Who is a geek and exclusively plays non-fun video games?

Re:What the?!

[El (94934)]

Take note of this, Id Software: Doom will never be as popular as the movie Gigli unless you make it more fun!

Re:What the?!

[jellomizer (103300)]

Actually a lot of people. When asked why they like game X they explain all the technical details like the graphics, sound, detail. A lot of them never say it is a fun game. These people play games so they can get to the next cinematic scene. It it wasn't for the cinematic reward after hours of boring game-play the games would never be played. The many of the old games of the 80s did not have any cool graphics and many of them did not have any defined ending, if they did it was some small text with The End or You Win. The reward for playing the game for hours was playing the game itself not winning or the grand diversions in the middle.

Re:What the?!

[isomeme (177414)]

I think it's a fairer comment than you're giving her credit for. Geeks tend to like games that involve a huge commitment in learning and practice before you begin to succeed. And they like lots of fine control. My wife calls my favorite computer game (Space Empires IV) "Spreadsheets in Spaaaaace!" because it's mostly about economic and logistical management rather than intense combat or stunning visuals. I can play it for hours at a time, but I'm well aware that I'm far from normal in this regard. For most people, it would be like doing tax returns as recreation.

Re:What the?!

[miu (626917)]

I hear SWG's up to 275,000 players :)

I'd reply to your implication that SWG is a "non-fun" game, but I have to get back to work killing the swarms of butterflies and prairie dogs that seem to infest every planet in the known universe.

15 more hours and I'll grind enough experience to qualify for the elite puppy stomper profession.... and some storm trooper armor.

Duped?

[Malicious (567158)]

What this gentleman didn't consider is that most of us would prefer to spend $20-$40 on a videogame we would play for weeks, than $20-$40 to go to a movie for 2 hours and have a bag of popcorn.

Re:Duped?

[FurryFeet (562847)]

Ah, but have you ever made out while playing a video game?

Hmmmm

[mao che minh (611166)]

A lot of games (Metroid Prime, any Pokemon game, Grand Theft Auto 3/Vice City, Zelda: The Wind Waker, etc) sell more copies than major motion pictures sell tickets.

But, whatever.

Re:Hmmmm

[selderrr (523988)]

err.. if you start counting, go all the way, and count the budgets spent in hollywood vs. the budgets spent in gamestudios. Hollywood HAS to pump out a dozen hits every season to keep the machinery running. It's a dinosaur that has to stay alive because it feeds the homes of a few 10.000 people.

That, plus the fact that most folks go see a movie just once, whereas some games... well... you're the counting freak...

Games and Dorks

[Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286)]

I think that to a certain extent Games create dorks. Those dorks go on to create more games which create even more dorks who create even more games that create still more dorks that create still more games...... and slashdot.

I think the big hold back is the media.

[pecosdave (536896)]

How is a game going to become a long lasting classic if the hardware meant to run it stopped being manufactured 20+ years ago and the publishers were pricks about their property and wouldn't release it into the public domain or allow it to be ported? Emulators may take up some of the slack but don't count on those doing the job.

buying tampons for your girlfriend unpopular

[bugnuts (94678)]

There are plenty of things that are not as popular as films or TV or music. Some of them are even entertaining such as skiing or going to hockey games.

This comparison isn't especially enlightening, since it doesn't actually describe the relationship between film and games, other than "entertainment". To compare, you must have quantifyable things to measure. The only thing quantifyable they provided was cash outlay... which seemed to contradict the point of the article.

Games just need good advertising.

[pheared (446683)]

Santa: So tell your folks, "Buy me Bonestorm or go to Hell!"

Troll of the year.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Is this a joke ?!

'Leading experts agree, fun should be pleasurable.'

I nominate this article troll of the year.

Movie Cost

[CGP314 (672613)]

But this is largely due to the high price of a game, around 40. compared to the cost of video rentals or a cinema ticket

I went to see Tomb Raider this week with my girlfriend, including soda and popcorn that came out to be about 35 pounds. The price is about the same, but the movie only lasted 2 hours. A good game can last for months.

Re:Movie Cost

[MarcoAtWork (28889)]

that's not a 'movie cost' that's a 'girlfriend cost', a good game can last for months, but if you spend your money on videogames instead of on taking your g/f out, you know what you're gonna get (or, actually, what you are POSITIVELY NOT gonna get ;)

Damn! That's what we've been doing wrong!

[Brad Cossette (319687)]

Can you believe it? For the last 20+ years we've only really had BORING and FRUSTRATING games! That's why! D'oh!

To quote: "One of the main obstacles was the complicated controls of many of today's games, as well as tough levels which left many players frustrated. "You want a game that is challenging but never frustrating," said Ms Fryer.

Didn't they make the "Deer Hunter" games for those people?

They've got it backwards

[Jason1729 (561790)]

Companies are concentrating on mass-appeal over fun. In the early 90's, a game was a huge hit if it sold 100,000 copies. Today, with numbers like that it would be considered a flop. Because of that, the newer games are dumbed-down to appeal more to the masses. Eye-Candy is considered more important than playability.

It's the same situation in the board game industry. Everyone's played monopoly (which is a lousy game), but who here has even heard of Puerto Rico or Settlers of Catan which are two of the best games on the market now.

Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]

Re:They've got it backwards

[neglige (641101)]

monopoly (which is a lousy game)
No, sir, if you win, the game really rocks! ;)

Settlers of Catan
A nice game, really. And there are several (!) expansions available to make the game more fun.

Re:They've got it backwards

[DaveJay (133437)]

You make an excellent point here, and it really drives home the idea that Video Games are the new Movies.

After all, who hasn't complained that good movies can't be profitable any more, and so the big blockbuster hits are really, really dumbed down? Video games might be headed in the same direction.

How depressing.

Oh, and mad props for mentioning Settlers of Catan, which is indeed one of the best games out there right now.

And in other news....

[Tebriel (192168)]

So games won't be fun unless they're designed to be fun? What will they realize next? Software won't be easy to use unless they put some thought into the interface.

This is why older games are still popular, with less graphics and sound to work with, the hook had to be the game itself. You had to play it because you wanted to play it, not because it looked pretty.

Game play

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

And this is a surprise? Cripes. In 1986 I worked for some of the (then) major PC and arcade game companies. Even then, the focus was always on making the game as visually impressive as possible. That's fine, but somehow another important aspect of any game, playability, was lost in the shuffle. The programmers (I was one) and designers would complain about this regularly, but the response was usually something to the effect, "You can work on that while the game is in QC" or "Don't worry, you'll have a whole week before we ship to add playability." Utter cluelessness. And I see it in the current crop of video products: games using OpenGL and DirectX can be visually stunning, it's true, but most are simply not interesting to play after the first hour or two. Not a good return on your fifty dollar investment. Some of the older DOS-based texture-mapped products, such as Duke Nukem 3D, Shadow Warrior, Blood and others written using Ken Silverman's BUILD engine had more emphasis on game play. While those games didn't have the graphic quality of modern products rendered using 3D chipsets, they were just phenomenally fun to play. So I agree ... game makes have pretty much exhausted the sex appeal of the fancy graphical environment, now they better start focusing on why people play games: for FUN!

Perhaps fun == easy and non-threatening?

[DaveJay (133437)]

Perhaps Ms Fryer meant 'easy and non-threatening' when she said "fun". Presumably, every developer is trying to make enjoyable games, but if the barrier to entry is too high (complex controls, steep learning curve) -- or appears to be high -- fewer people will take the time to play them, and so fewer will find out how much fun they (hopefully) are.

Case in point: when I bought my GameCube, I bought some games that I thought my wife would like, and Tony Hawk 3 for me. I convinced her to play Tony Hawk (and it took a lot of convincing at first) and got her through the initial tricks, and now it's her favorite game, hands-down. She kicks my ass in it more days then not, too.

If I hadn't been around to urge her to play, and if I hadn't helped her through the initial stages, she wouldn't be enjoying it now. That doesn't mean that she couldn't have figured it out on her own; it's just that she WOULDN'T have.

Wow! 'Fun'...So that's been my problem...

[ErnstKompressor (193799)]

I guess I have to scrap my 'Europe-during-the-black-plague-simulator."

It's not just the "fun factor

[indulgenc (694929)]

What about games that don't require bleeding edge technology to run?

I to play video games, but I don't love having to upgrade my system every 2 months in order to play a new game. It seems like everytime a great new game is annouced, the recommended system specs seem to coincide with the latest processor and video cards released that week.

-i

A call to developers

[ChozCunningham (698051)]

I've often wondered why a 90 minute film or a 60 minute album could move me in ways a 3 day game-fest couldn't. I've longed for games that actually were stimulating and educational. Edu-tainment is a poisonous word to put on a piece of interactive software, but the exact same concepts sell other enetertainment mediums. David Byrne's Latin Jazz Compilations and Akira Kirasawa's Films both educate me on new visions and draw from events and styles existing already to entertain. Perhaps the coders could code, the graphic designers could do graphics and the developers need to develop the game, rather than oversee the technical..There are few "Directors" in the developer/designer position. The rest are juggling some premise with the needs of marketing and limits of hardware....

Hell, even retarded Ahnold movies, like Terminator and The 6th Day, bring up relevent settings and illuminate moral questions? Only a handful of the finest games, like Romance of the 3 Kingdoms and Civ explore the awy the world works (worked) outside my limitied experience. Well, I guess Black and White was worth something; a failed game, but it brought that morality and consequences to the table, showing the strengths and weaknesses of each...

Maybe if Warcraft had actually let me choose if the Palladin went bad, and made me struggle with the choice.

The only place in gaming I've seen this sort of development is in the small brand traditional (pen& paper) RPG companies. But they have their own geek-factor by nature of the format.

Popularity

[EverDense (575518)]

ChinoH81 writes "Video games are never going to be as popular as films or music unless the
people who make them concentrate on making them fun, says a leading game expert."

Never going to be as popular?
Funny that the Games Industry makes WAY more money than the Hollywood.

Re:Popularity

[scot4875 (542869)]

This is just wrong. Lots of articles have mentioned how games make more money than Hollywood, but usually they're talking about a) the worldwide video game industry vs b) US box office sales. So we've got the entire video game industry vs one part of one market of the entire movie industry.

Yeah, the video game industry has grown, but it's still nowhere near the size of the motion picture industry.

--Jeremy

Gameplay and money...

[Genjurosan (601032)]

I think one of the most interesting aspects of gaming today is the fact that we are dealing with a large number of game producers that are following the Hollywood business model. That being, game play is determined by what is proven to work moderately well and that appearances are everything. Everything that is, except money.

Keep in mind that good game play usually requires code that allows for new and exciting physics, game play angles, modes, etc... What really makes a great game is diversity or elements and the ability to interface with these elements in such a manner that it doesn't clip the camera, crash the game, make it confusing for the player, etc... All these game play bonus items take R&D. These R&D items are then 'software' patented which in turn makes it more difficult for someone else to 'license' these for use in their game.

So this leads me back to money. That fact is, 3D and texture artists are cheaper in the short term than a really kick ass programmer that can write code to make the cheesy models come alive in the game engine. Also, it costs SOOOO much more money to write your own game engine, which in turn leaves the game developers with little money at the mercy of what they could afford to license.

The stereotype that games are for geeks is wrong if you ask me. I know many 'jocks' that play video games like they are going out of style. The thing is, they don't admit it or speak of it freely.

So what's the problem with the game industry? I think it's the fact that female population of the earth doesn't play games nearly as much as the male population.

Thoughts?

Article is wrong about sales figures

[tomhudson (43916)]

Video games are already MORE popular than movies, and neck-and-neck w. music. For the last couple of years, video-game sales has beaten movie box-office totals and are competing dollar-for-dollar with music sales

figures for 2002 (US)

• US games revenue: $10.3 billion [gamemarketwatch.com] video game hardware & software
• Movie boxoffice: $9.135 billion [boxofficemojo.com]
• Music sales - all forms: $12.6 billion, [com.com]

Evolution of the Game

[thatguywhoiam (524290)]

I figure game development is in a stage of creativity right now somewhat akin to that of film in the 1940s. It needs time to evolve beyond that first blush of commercial success and acceptance.

Some basic structures, or 'language' of the medium has been worked out now, and has proven to be popular with the masses as an accepted entertainment medium, especially ever since someone noticed that games revenue had outpaced that of the film industry. So naturally there is some rabid capitalism going on insofar as people know a few formulas that work... i.e.

- the first person shooter
- the role-playing game (which is generally not really roleplaying, but whatever)
- the racer
- the fight game
- the simulators (and all derivations thereof)

.. and so on. We can name them just like that. And yeah it gets pretty boring. (For instance I've pretty much given up on all FPS shooters until they do something different. They're all Quake to me.)

I want a game like Memento. Or Jacob's Ladder. Or imagine some game that used one of those realtime 3D shaders like grayscale pencil-sketch throughout, in some kind of Poe-inspired adaptation... We will see these kinds of things someday but it'll take 'Directors' (do we still call them that?) to do daring things with the medium and push the boundaries of the game's narratives.

Interactive storytelling is a real bitch to get your head around in any appreciable way. Currently I lean towards really open-ended titles like GTA as leading the way in that sort of gameplay, that tries new mixtures of nonlinear play with prescripted events. Or Molyneux's stuff - damn him for going all Xboxy on me - those guys are really thinking about new kinds of games.

Mwa ha ha

[VAXGeek (3443)]

You don't KNOW fun until you've done the same flipping kick move in Enter the Matrix 4,000 times or kicked the crap out of an agent for 20 minutes, only to have him get up and kill you.

Pointless Pontification by "Expert"

[raytracer (51035)]

I'm always faintly amused when an "expert" takes the time out his/her busy schedule to tell us something so obvious and/or useless.

In the practical matters, video games are already on a par with television and Hollywood. Major game releases can expect to have revenues which approach those of major feature films. In their target demographic (teenage and older males) they are already occupying a greater portion of their conciousness than other media. To argue that they aren't going to be as popular as films is pointless: they already are.

But what really seems silly to me is the following quote:

She told her audience that games had the potential to change people's lives, offering them the chance to experience a wide range of emotions in a safe environment.

To this I would merely counter with a question: "What movie have you seen recently that changed your life?" C'mon, let's get real. Even if movies do have that power, most of them fall way short of that standard, and yet they remain popular and engaging. Frankly, I don't need movies to tell me how to feel, or to teach me about myself: I have a real life with real family and real experiences to teach me that.

But what I do not have is the ability to pilot a light-speed fighter against impossible odds!

It's not exactly earth-shattering to claim that games should be better. They should be. It doesn't take an expert to observe that video gaming still remains a male-dominated activity. But the simple fact is that video games and movies have made a pretty good living out of catering to their audience, and it seems strange to argue that some revolution needs to occur before it will really take off.

Challenging? Bad idea.

[DdJ (10790)]

I don't actually agree that games should be challenging.

They should seem challenging, without actually having to be challenging.

A drooling moron with no motor skills should be able to beat a game. But whenever anybody beats it, it should feel to them like it took skill, like they accomplished something.

You need to create the illusion that the game is challenging, but without denying the rewarding experience of overcoming the challenge to any of your players.

If a game is too hard for me, I'll get frustrated with it and won't play it. If a game seems too easy for me, I'll get bored with it and won't play it. But if I beat every challenge and don't realize that there's almost no way to lose, I'll have fun.

This is my opinion regarding computer games, D&D, card games, pretty much any game. Everyone should be able to have fun playing. Everyone should have the illusion that they just barely had enough skill to win.

(I think Warcraft 3 probably nails this perfectly. It felt to me like I only overcame it through skill. But personally, I totally suck at RTS games -- I mostly just have fun pushing the buttons and watching the little blinkenlights. However, all sorts of people who are more skilled than me at RTS games also enjoyed it. I conclude that they must have gotten the illusion down right.)

So true

[JustAnotherReader (470464)]

I use to work for the company Software Sorcery. One of our early titles was "Sea Rogue" A simple little game that was a blast to play.

Then came Jutland, a WW1 navy simulation. It was much more intense and beautiful. It had streaming video cut scenes, awesome graphics (for the time) and complex game play. But was it fun? Well, unless you knew the cheat code to show the proper the angle of your guns it was a lesson in frustration. Great looking game that was almost impossible to win.

Next was Aegis: Guardian of the Fleet. This was a serious game. It simulated an entire Aegis class battle cruiser in modern day warfare. It tended to be long and boring. Again, lots of detail and great graphics, but terrible game play. Not fun.

Fast Attack was another beautiful looking game with tons of detail and gameplay that closely followed the targeting and tracking routines of a real Fast Attack submaringe. But was it fun? Well, maybe if you're a navy simulatin buff. But I got the game for free and could play test it while I worked tech support and I wouldn't even finish it. Boring and impossibly complex to play.

Then came Conqueror 1086 (which we use to refer to as Conqueror 1286, Conqueror 1386, Conqueror Pentium!) The graphics were still good, but they put much more work into the gameplay and story line. And guess what? It was fun to play. I wish we wrote better code to control the game speed. It's impossible to play on today's fast computers. The screens scroll by so fast that you can't controll it. Too bad, it's a great game.

Now we have games like Uplink that have almost no graphics to speak of and yet are really fun to play. Do you see a trend here? The 3D graphics and surround sound do not make a game fun. The STORY makes a game fun, the GAMEPLAY makes a game fun. You'd think this wouldn't be news by now, but people are still surprised to learn that lesson.

Re:Games of today

[LMCBoy (185365)]

I remember those games fondly also...however, I think we have different expectations today. Would you really buy "Moon Patrol" if it was available at Best Buy today? Would you play it for more than 5 minutes? I don't think I would.

I recently had the chance to play "Roadblasters" at an airport arcade, which was one of my favorite games as a wee lad. Here's the thing: It was Lame. Just totally unredeemable.

Re:Games of today

[BrynM (217883)]

playing games like 1942

As a long time 1942 fan (I can spend about an hour with 1 credit, longer on Galaga), I'd have to say that Battlefield 1942 [plantebattlefield.com] is my new fix. Yes, it's more complicated than 1942 was, but it's addictive and fun especially once you get the hang of flying. I can run around bombing tanks, dogfighting, sinking ships and even landing without having to deal with all of the controls of a flight sim. The best part is that I can get out and just shoot at stuff too.

I don't know if 1942 and Battlefield 1942 are actually related branding wise, but BF1942 has definately carried on the 1942 tradition of simple, fast paced games for me. It's simple enough that my roommate was able to start playing right away and still have lots to explore play wise (he's learning to dive bomb and strafe now).

Not necessarily

[Ethelred Unraed (32954)]

I too remember fondly games like Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Tetris, Battlezone, even good ole Space Invaders as being horrendously addicting. (Though I always had problems with Missile Command because I kept getting my fingers pinched by the rollerball...)

An arcade that I went to in those days, back in the early 80s, offered free quarters for good grades. And in those days I got straight As. Then we moved to a new area with no such arcade, and my grades plummeted. Coincidence? ;-)

But there are good games today as well. Madden 200x, the Myst series, the Civilization series, Tekken, Myth, and so on are all great games for me (though Myth and Civ are admittedly a little complicated for the average person and not really mainstream). True, these are a lot more complex than, say, Pac-Man, but still very playable and fun.

There are plenty of really sucky games as well -- further evidence that quantity does not mean quality. I've never understood the hoopla about Final Fantasy -- I got FF X and was thoroughly bored by it. Onimusha Warlords was gorgeous, but lousy gameplay. Metal Gear Solid 2 was just atrocious IMO. Most fight games like Mortal Kombat also got to be *way* too complex (who the hell remembers all the special moves?) -- Tekken isn't as bad as MK in this regard IMO, but getting there.

At the same time, there were plenty 1980s-era arcade games that stunk, as well as plenty of console games as well -- Haunted House for the Atari 2600, anyone?

So I think the overall proportion of good to bad is more or less the same, just that the sheer number of games these days makes the mind boggle with all the crap that comes out. But once in a while a real gem comes out -- Oni, Myst, Civ, etc. -- that more than outweighs the stinkers -- Darkseed, ST:TNG "A Final Unity", Daikatana, etc.

(Though I still like to play little whippersnappers on the PS2 in stores or at the CeBIT and clobber them...they see this 30ish guy and think "I'm gonna kick his ass", then I open up a can o' whoopass on them. Ah, those days in the arcades paid off after all... :-) )

As to the article: I'd say the byline should be "from the no-shit dept."...

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Support group: geeks who don't play computer ga

[pommiekiwifruit (570416)]

I thought that group was called "linux users".