What Kids Really Think About Kids' Games

marcellizot writes "For a hobby that's supposedly childish, real child gamers have quite a hard time of it. When they're not having every avenue of fun scrutinized for nasties and bad influences, they're often being sold game ideas that are boring and old even when the adults of today were young. Pocket Gamer asks, what do kids really make of today's kids games? 'Both Polly and Andrew both agreed that there were more good games for kids than bad overall, but most of the games they showed weren't just for kids at all. This betrays the difference in perception between parents and their children. Most of them aren't looking for the same old killing - instead, they want something that genuinely entertains them.'"

No Way.

Kids enjoy fun things more than boring ones? Get outta here.

Nah, the story is actually...

Kids enjoy fun things more than boring ones? Get outta here.

Nah, that much is obvious to everyone.

The story is actually that what grown ups think as a fun kid game, isn't actually fun for kids. The story isn't kids dislike boring game. The story is, basically, "yeah, but some grown ups thought that those boring games would be the apex of entertainment for junior." If you will, the story is about the disconnect between (A) what kids really _are_ like, and (B) how their parents imagine them.

Imagine, if you will, being 10 years old and basically someone coming over and telling you, "I just painted the fence. Wanna come watch the paint dry? I bet it'll be hours of fun for someone your age." Worse yet, they actually believe that.

The problem is, almost everyone grows up and proceeds to forget that they were children too, and what it really was like. They flip to some imaginary world where kids are stupid simpletons. Which just isn't true.

Yes, especially in the 3-4 years of life the kid doesn't even have all neurons yet, and later doesn't have all the data yet. Yes, they're still wired until puberty to follow mommy around and learn by playing. But they're not brain-dead. (And not half as blissfully care-free as most adults think, either, btw.) And learning by playing is slightly more complex than just being entertained by _any_ simplistic stuff.

Playing with dolls is pretty much enacting "what if" scenarios with those props. They're not the most intricate scenarios, but they do involve some neurons firing. They involve some creativity, at the very least. (You have to think up the script in real time.) They also exercise the memory (what did I see mommy/Buggs Bunny/whatever doing in that situation?) and some critical thinking (would it really go that way?). It's more like playing chess against yourself for practice, than just being entertained by anything whatsoever that involves dolls.

That's what most people who come up with kid games have forgot. They think that just dropping some cartoon character or franchise doll in a game is all that's needed to make a game fun for kids, and that it has to be stripped of anything that involves any thinking at that.

And then there are the games for little _girls_, which actually go one step further in dumbing it down. Everyone seems to be dead sure that little girls are too stupid to even understand more complex stuff than dressing up Barbie or becoming prom queen in 5 dialogues. Or if not too stupid, surely girls don't have other interests and can't be motivated to follow any other plots, right?

Well, actually, wrong. Even in the countries where they do eventually flip to pretending to be an airhead, it happens at puberty. Girls in elementary school still dream of being a chemist, a teacher, an astronaut, whatever, just like boys do. Only in high school the culture becomes distorted into, basically, "being popular is everything, being smart is outright uncool".

And it does so for both genders, anyway, so no need to single one out as the simpletons. Just as girls flip into trying to be the popular airhead, boys flip into trying to be the popular dumb jock.

At any rate, making a game for a 10 year old girl based on how you perceive 16 year old girls, is just a dud for both. It's missing what the 10 year old is actually interested in (she's still wired as a kid, i.e., to follow mommy and to learn), and it's too dumbed down for the 16 year old. Heck, most are too dumbed down even for the 10 year old.

Briefly: people would do well to actually ask the kids if they find a game fun, instead of basing the whole design and testing on adults and their mis-conceptions about kids.

Nethack.....

Kids these days need nethack it shows just unfair the world can be..... and why you should not kick the kitty

Re:Nethack.....

So instead of kicking the kitty, nethack teaches kids to send the kitty into stores to steal items.

-matthew

The Problem

The problem is that these games are marketed to the parents, who play the game little, if at all. A sale's a sale!

News!?

How is this news?

"Kids like to play the same games adults do" and "Not all games are about violence and beating hookers" is not news. Any real gamer (aka not some FPS kiddy who thinks Nintendo is for kids) can tell you that violence doesn't make a game fun. It can be part of a fun game, but senseless violence without a good system behind it will suck for all age groups.

I doubt there are many people who would argue that Tetris is one of those all time greats that everyone has played at some point. Yet the most violent thing in Tetris is a line of bricks (blocks, tertites or whatever you call them) disappearing.

So why the hell are we acting like games can only be fun if they are rated 15/18 (or whatever Americans use as their adult oriented entertainment label).

Re:News!?

Mario teaches typing was probably the best educational game I have ever played. Totally education, but it was manufactured slickly and did a good job at its primary goal.

You've obviously never played The Typing of the Dead [wikipedia.org].

Nephews

While not new games, my nephews (3, 5 & 6 years old) love the Freddi Fish series. It's the only time I've ever seen the 5 year old sit still & concentrate for longer than 10 minutes at a time.

Developer Perspective

I'm an artist and designer in the industry, and I've wanted to make kids games for some time (I currently work on Teen/Mature "next-gen" titles).
I'd prefer to make really simple, but quality titles that have solid stories and are morally enriching for the audience. i.e. the kind of entertainment that I remember being provided as a kid by public broadcasting, Fred Rogers, Shel Silverstein etc.
The problem I'm having is that the level of commercialism in today's kids entertainment is just as bad, if not worse, than most mainstream software. Usually involving other products so the parent company can tie in other potential sales to it (Barbie, et al). Just the kinds of things kids should absolutely not be faced with at young ages.
The only solution I can foresee is either finding funding from an independant source who shares my personal goals, or hoping somewhere along the way the genre manages to break the stigmas associated with "kids" and "educational" entertainment softwa Kids games are seen by publishers as "simpler", and therefore thought to be quicker to develop, receive lower budgets, and are treated as discardable products. Educational titles often have difficulty pushing away from boring gameplay. (I still think Oregon Trail is one of the only "educational" pieces of software that ever provided any sense of reward or fun for the audience - and it's over 30 years old! that's the timeline of the industry!)

I guess I typed up this rant hoping someone could point out a good childrens game developer that actually cared about it's audience, and treated their product in a responsible and respectful way. Any ideas?

Re:Developer Perspective

That's only because those games are conveniently disconnected from matters of everyday life. Try any adventure game, and immediately moral issues start to crop up.

Re:Developer Perspective

Have you ever checked out a Barbie movie?

I'm a dad of a 6 year old girl, and I have to tell you- I'm surprised.

These [amazon.com] Barbie [amazon.co.uk] movies [amazon.com] are intensely moral, and advocate for girls to develop an interest in science, delight in learning, sacrifice, strive, and struggle courageously for what is right and true. By my read, it's all straight out of Aristotle. [adelaide.edu.au] Check out the Amazon reviews, especially this one, if you're a guy. [amazon.com]

I don't know what bizarre turn of fate made it such that great talent should go to work on Barbie movies, but I can't deny what I've clearly seen: They're good movies, with positive message, and I now have absolutely no qualms buying Barbie toys for my daughter.

I recognize this is an odd bit of news to hear, but there it is; I can't deny what my own two eyes have seen.

Re:Developer Perspective

I don't remember He-Man and Thundercat sermons, but I do remember something of GI Joe sermons. There'd be a section at the end, where they'd say, very directly, (This is what's right, this is what's wrong, "And knowing is half the battle.") ... and I assume He-Man and Thundercat sermons were similar?

No; The Barbie movies don't work like that. The moral messages are integrated into the movie themselves. Like most any movie that adults watch.

There's a lot of role modeling: Princess Anneliese loves to study science, but she never says anything like, "You should study science!" Rather, it's just her favorite thing to do, and it's mostly background. Of the 12 dancing princesses, there's a daughter who loves to collect bugs, a daughter who loves to read all the time, a pair that love to do oddball things, and so on. This is not to the exclusion of traditional female role models -- singing, sewing, and so on. But it's all woven together, they're all co-present. What is not present in any of the modeling, is a lack of courage, or inability to take action. Taking initiative, putting yourself out there, not just emotionally but physically as well, striving, exertion, it's all there. These are role models for pro-active kids.

There's also a lot of explaining. In Princess and the Pauper, you'll see how class works; One of the main characters is an indentured servant, and she explains how that "works," and what it means. I don't remember seeing anything half as complicated in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles stories that I love(d) as a kid.

As for "moral," (as opposed to cultural,) there's a lot of struggle, sacrifice, and duty. Commitment to duty is very high in all of these stories, as well as sacrifice, though the story makes it clear that the characters have other things they'd think would be more fun or pleasurable. Ultimately, though, these characters realize that there's something more important to them, that they want, and they do what it takes to get there, even though it doesn't benefit them personally.

From a philosophical analytical perspective, these are "Virtue Ethic" stories, rather then, say, studies of intentions, argument from consequences, or absolute moral rules. These stories advocate (by demonstration of internal debates, and then choices made, rather than lecture,) for the cultivation of virtues (honesty, courage, fairness, pride, intelligence,) and living a full life, [wikipedia.org] with beauty, pleasure, and fun. So I classify this as "Nichomachean." [wikipedia.org] I'm only a lay philosopher, but this is what I see, and this is how I call it.

They're actually good, and, you might get a kick out of watching them. (Serious.) I've lent one of the movies to a couple who doesn't (well, didn't) have kids, and they returned it with the note, "Surprisingly good!" (None of my other friends will watch though. No surprises there..!)

My spirits are lifted after seeing them, and that's enough for me.

If kids think they're being lectured at, they'll turn off. (their ears, not the TV)

Quite.

But the kids do not turn off. Rather, they enact the scenes and the struggles and the arguments in the movies. It's quite clear to me that these movies are effective, and that that is good.

If you buy it, they will play it

But it doesn't mean they'll like it.

Seriously, anyone in any age group doesn't want a 'game' thats 'not fun'. The lower the age group, the lower the tolerance.

LucasArts Adventure Games

They should bring back the old LucasArts Adventure games, like my favorite Monkey Island and Sam and Max. The Indy Jones games weren't bad either. Fun adventures, puzzles to work out the brain and great story lines and best of all, no gore or any 'hooker beatings'...unless you get Max angry.

Sure, most kids won't like the graphics since they are used to modern game engines, but if these games could be redone with someone modern graphics while retaining the same fun factor I'm sure many kids would love it.

Yes, they have MI4 with 3D engine, but I still liked the way they did MI3 better. Grim Fandango was fantastic, and the Dig was good too. Too bad many kids nowadays prefer brainless shoot-kill games.

What kids really think about '80s games

Anybody remember these [1up.com] features [1up.com] from 1UP, with commentary from sarcastic elementary school kids?

Trivial Games

Well, apparently most of these 'Games for Kids' are simply too trivial.
Kids have quite a bit more brains than a lot of people seem to think. For example, the 1985 Mac-game "ChipWits" was for rated for "Kids from 12 years and up".
Well, I wrote a (free) Windoze-Version of ChipWits, and know two seven-year old kids who really like it (it teaches them how to program using a funny bot and a bunch of command icons).

Thus: don't make these games too darn simplistic.

Where's The Learning Company when you need them?

We need more kids games like Rocky's Boots [abandonia.com] and Robot Odyssey! [abandonia.com]