Games and the 'Geek Stereotype' 454
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Games and the 'Geek Stereotype'
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
no offense.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Games of today (Score:3, Interesting)
buying tampons for your girlfriend unpopular (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Myst With Action (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously (Score:2, Interesting)
I currently have a level 8 male gnomish wizard on Level 5 and 6 (I go back and forth, the last (and currently only) merchant is on 5). I'm kinda stuck on 6 because there are no secret doors to be found (searched the walls of every room four times over already) and now way further down.
BTW, Nethack 3.4.2 [nethack.org] is out!
Perhaps fun == easy and non-threatening? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It's not just the "fun factor (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:They've got it backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
come on now.... (Score:2, Interesting)
"When people talk about 'it's only a game', they're cheapening the value of games. It trivialises the time people spend playing a game and time is the most precious thing people have."
but it IS only a game, so why waste what precious little time we have on this mortal coil staring at some screen having our "adventures"."People need drama in their lives. Games fulfil emotional and mental needs that cannot be fulfilled any other way,"
sure they do... like oh, i dunno... killing, raping, torture, and vehicular hommicide to name a few....got humerus? - me
Gameplay and money... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Games are aimed at hard core gamers for a reason.. (Score:2, Interesting)
there's more money in them. If you have a casual gamer, they may buy one or two games a year- hardly enought to make up for the loss many companies take on the hardware. Your hardcore gamer will buy a ton of games, plus spend money on extra controllers, memory cards, online services like XBox live, ect. So it makes sense to concentrate on the hardcore gamers.
Evolution of the Game (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Terrifying truth? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not necessarily (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Games of today (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple, fast paced? BF1942 has a ton of weapons and vehicles and HUGE maps. The system requirements are higher, network lag is profound, and I have yet to see actual proper teamplay, especially on a public server. Yes, the game is SO simple that most of the time players run around on their own, oblivious to map objectives. BF1942 is meant to be played for the simulation aspect (hence historical maps) NOT playability and simplicity.
For a better WW2 themed team FPS, play Wolfenstein Enemy Territory. Objectives are easily understandable, maps are smaller with less places to wander, and the weapon configurations are less confusing. Teamwork is more essential, and the different classes actually mean something (especially with the introduction of experience-earned skills). In short, it's closer to a sport, not a simulation.
And this is coming from someone who was a die-hard BF1942 fan.
Article's Only 1/2 Right. (Score:3, Interesting)
Take Tron 2.0, for example. I loved the game, but I nearly threw it out the window once I got to the blasted moving platform, timed jumping puzzle, and the extra annoying moving platform, flip switches that make platforms disappear and reappear jumping puzzle.
What the hell?! These puzzles make the game hard, but they don't make it fun. Sure you can brag about how you beat it later, like it's some feat of bravado, but actually, it's just bad game design. Games should be difficult...games should be challenging, but they shouldn't just be hard because the developers were feeling spiteful, and/or they are retarded.
You have to make some new puzzles. The only reason jumping puzzles still exist is so people can throw them in once they've run out of switch and fetch quests. Jumping puzzles in 2D sucked, in 3D they suck even more...especially when you have no camera control, and yet....every FPS game has them. Utter idiocy.
Re:no offense.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
New != Better (Score:2, Interesting)
A great site for old games that you can't find anymore is The Underdogs [the-underdogs.org]. I found their site about two years ago, I think, and am amazed at how many good games there are that no one talks about anymore. Check it out.
What's really sad though is that many games are vanishing because companies refuse to give up the rights to their products, even though any chance of making money on them has long since passed. Hopefully they will not be lost to time.
Re:no offense.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Drama ? (Score:2, Interesting)
The experience of living and interacting (trying to) with other
humans are already drama. Well, I know what kind of drama
she reffers, but she ought to consult a dictionarie before
giving press interviews.
Since when en games are the ONLY way to fill emotional and mental needs ?
I am wondering if have already asked to Ms Fryer if she knows books, good music, or just a good and real game
(chess i.e.).
I there are some good games, that make you think and make
you a better person, indeed, but most of them are just crap.
And look who is talking about the "Human Natural" need for
gamming, a XBox seller. A drug dealer would say that coke
is good for your brain too.
Re:What the?! (Score:2, Interesting)
The writers weren't brilliant, but they were extremely competant. I don't think the story would have the same value if you didn't have to experiance the gameplay.
Three years after my roommate introduced me I still play like a newb. Oh well.
And yes, the cinematic sequences were great.
And no, I havn't read the starcraft novels. Then I would really feel like a loser.
Re:no offense.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I couldn't agree with you more, I had almost suceeded in getting my wife into gaming, I started her off on console RPGs (which I loved on the NES , Super NES, etc.) Moving her into the likes of Gran Turismo and even Quake II on the Playstation. Then the games of of Ueber-Anal-Retentiveness really started to make an appearence. Games like some of the new Final Fantasies. Where you have to have all your charaters leveled up to a quarter zillion, have the special sword of complete stupidity, 40 Arachnid Legs, 80 Chimera tails and more money than Bill Gates to complete some little pseudo quest where you have to keep using the same attacks by the same 3 characters in some predetermined sequence for 45 minutes a whack and you win about 1/3 of the time. Oh yay fun.
,etc. Great! Now in addition to learning a mind numbingly fast FPS, they have to be a Tekken 3 whiz at the same time to enjoy a decent shooter and not become cannon fodder? Give me a break.
Quite frankly there are WAY too many games out there like that too. Its truely unfortunate. Alot of games have 1 difficulty level, some have 3, every game made should have at least 5. This would entitle the superzealots to get their ass beat however much they choose while enabling those who weren't born with a 2600 joystick in their hands to compete and have fun. Who cares if its a 60 hour game if you can see a whopping 45 minutes of it before the difficulty level ramps up into nothing but sheer frustration? The relative ease of playing Quake 2 on the PS gave way to mind numbing speed and complexity of Quake III and Unreal 2003 with the 50 different macros for invisibility, boost, etc, etc
Gran Turismo III, great game, good graphics. Only those with a year of freetime will ever see 100%, not because they wouldnt normally do it, but because the effort required in learning the game from scratch so that you can actually play through it to see 100% has to be played at a single difficulty level. Some people might balk at this as being n00bish or a pussy, but if you really want to bring games to the masses, grandpa is going to have be able to play it too. Somehow I just don't see him sitting down to a 7 race series where all of the rounds are 10-15 laps long. Hell most grandpas I know can't hold it that long without a bathroom trip.
I think another problem is that time and time again people have seen that console systems by and large just dont live up to their expected potential. Look at the current crop of consoles (and I mention consoles because they are what *most* gamers game on), The PS2/XBOX CD-ROM/DVD nightmares (I had 2 PS2s die on me in the first 4 months). The PS2 hard drive that never was, The X-BOX USB ports that *aren't*. Wow, wouldn't HALO be great with a keyboard/mouse? Too bad! Sure you can mod your X-BOX to actually have the advertised USB ports if you want Gates and the DCMA thugs booting in your door and snagging your hardware.
The gaming gurus that be (both hardware and software) need to start getting in gear and realizing not everyone out there is a gaming geek will
ok let me translate (Score:3, Interesting)
I dont think that will work because: I differ from your average entertainment industry exec. i dont think that most people are that stupid after all. Also i am pretty damn sure that if all games are stupid i will stop playing them.
Of course we should all know that the nice Xbox people do not want to make games popular in order to improve peoples lives. They just want to make money. Which is perfectly ok, but they should try to make money by giving people what they want.
What entertainment company execs essentially want for video games is the television model. That means a couple of games that everyone plays, so development cost can be spread out and most of the $50 price can come in as profit.
And of course in order for that model to work you have to sink to the lowest common denominator. So essentially you have to make the game stupid.
Luckily the television model will never again work (cross fingers). It worked until recently, because people had very few other sources of easy brain stimulation (especially when they are tired from work and are too tired to read). So they settled TV no matter how stupid it was.
Of course the large entertainment companies can make video games liked by most people. But dumbing down games wont do it. All they have to do is make a system where creative people are able to think up new and exciting games that can potentially interest different people.
That is already happening to certain extent. Witness all the bass fishing and deerhunting games. God knows i have never wanted to play one, but i hear they are popular and with people that are not really computer nerds.
Unfortunately the entertainment companies are doing the opposite. The kep bying up developers and then gutting development budgets for all games other than a couple of already established "money maker" titles. Well they can never expect to get new clients this way.