Support NeoGAF

[Flynn]

I don't know if this was directed at my points or others, but if at mine I have to say that's a complete copout. I'm not saying these things about Nintendo and the Wii for any other reason than it's my honest opinion. I think it's good Nintendo is moving in a slightly different direction than MS and Sony. But, keyword there: "slightly." The hyperbole surrounding the DS and Wii is preposterous. These are still quite traditional video games they're making. There have been puppy simulators before, there have been games with alternate methods of control, there have been thousands upon thousands of games with simple control schemes and simple concepts. This is not anything new, and these things didn't light the non-gaming world on fire then just as they will not now.

I beg to differ. Games like Pac-Man and Ms. Pac Man did light the non-gaming world on fire. And sure, I think the Nintendo consoles are doing mostly traditional games, but they're doing tons of traditional old-school games -- the kinds that normal people can actually pick up and play without having to wrestle with two analog sticks.

I think the back to basics trend is going to do a lot to pick up new gamers and re-approach those who didn't dig the leap from 2D to 3D.

 

[kablooey]

We need to see a resurgence of LucasArts-esque adventure games.

 

[VALIS]

And for that developers shouldnt even try?

I didn't say that at all. Diversity in video games will always be welcome.

The Wii isnt suppose to make non-gamers play. All its trying to do is make an attempt at it, something that very few developers and publishers are trying to do.

That's where you lose me, when people start talking about this whole non-gamer thing. People need to stop worrying about (and talking about) non-gamers. Things achieve mass acceptance for many complex reasons, not because there isn't something that appeals to every taste.

Look at it this way. What can the needlepoint industry do to attract us non-needlepointers? Is there anything even remotely possible? And yes, before someone points it out, video games have a much wider appeal already than needlepoint does, but the analogy is still apt. Needlepoint to us = video games to many people of various ages. It's just not appealing. It's just not something I want to do.

What video gamers/game press/industry folks need to discuss is how to make make great games for a variety of styles and tastes. Stop worrying about people who don't play games - they're either going to come around or they won't.

 

[Flynn]

I'd like to show them Silent Hill 2, Psychonauts, Shenmue I+II, and a few others.

Those are all fantasy/genre games. Awesome though they may be.

 

[VALIS]

I beg to differ. Games like Pac-Man and Ms. Pac Man did light the non-gaming world on fire.

More so as cultural icons than as video games. Yes, a ton of people played Pac-Man when it was in the arcades, but mostly the same types and ages of people who play video games now. Arcades were not filled with women or 40-some year olds playing Pac-Man. (I'm not talking about Japan, before someone mentions it)

And sure, I think the Nintendo consoles are doing mostly traditional games, but they're doing tons of traditional old-school games -- the kinds that normal people can actually pick up and play without having to wrestle with two analog sticks.

I think the back to basics trend is going to do a lot to pick up new gamers and re-approach those who didn't dig the leap from 2D to 3D.

Hey, I agree there, Nintendo might pick up some of the "bubble people" - those who aren't averse to video games themselves and have some history with them, but find modern gaming too complex or otherwise unappealing. That's a far cry from thinking a waggle wand is going to change the indsutry.

 

[HokieJoe]

The graphics whore in me says that video games will never reach the mainstream until graphics and animation are photorealistic. Moreover, it will be necessary for game AI to approach human-like behavior.

Subject matter and demographics will also play a big role, but I think realism is what’s holding up the ‘broader appeal’ parade right now.

 

[gutter_trash]

You're absolutely right. People who think the Wii is going to attract all sorts of non-gamers to the fray are hopelessly out to lunch. Most people don't play video games because that type of entertainment doesn't appeal to them at all. Adding a waggle wand to the traditional console will do nothing to get them to change their minds. They might not find it completely unappealing like if you put Halo 2 or FFXII in front of them, but it's not going to make video gamers out of them, either.

This whole innovate/non-gamer/expand the market stuff is all carefully crafted Nintendo PR. They're playing the cards they can since they're not going up against Sony and MS for the power/cutting edge appeal. I'm looking forward to the Wii myself, but I'm not buying any of this PR shenanigans. Mario with a waggle wand is simply Mario with a waggle wand, not some bold, dynamic new paradigm in video gaming.

QFT

Gamers are born gamers at an early age. I don't know many gamers who only began playing video games during their adult hood.

The exception are parents who have kids gamers who make their parents play with them.

As far as non-gaming adults without kids, these are the hardest to convert and it's not the Wii that will do it.

 

[Flynn]

More so as cultural icons than as video games. Yes, a ton of people played Pac-Man when it was in the arcades, but mostly the same types and ages of people who play video games now. Arcades were not filled with women or 40-some year olds playing Pac-Man. (I'm not talking about Japan, before someone mentions it)

I vividly remember seeing tons business men and women playing games on lunch breaks -- not in the arcades, though -- that was all kids and stoners, but at bar/diners like Mr. Grumps.

 

[Lord Error]

Arcades were not filled with women or 40-some year olds playing Pac-Man. (I'm not talking about Japan, before someone mentions it)

Pac-Man in US arcades was apparently very popular with women though. I wasn't living anywhere near there back then so that I could witness that though. It's just something I've read.

We need to see a resurgence of LucasArts-esque adventure games.

As much as I'd like that to happen - it probably wont. It would be nice to have more thinking games, with good writing and humor though, and it would be even better to see that kind of games get more non exposure as opposed to the kind of exposure games have nowadays. There seems to be this, very skewed view of what videogames are to people who get exposed to gaming news only through media like TV and news.

As I said in my post above, game publishers are here to blame too. They could at least try lobbying news outlets to write some more about games in a positive light and show off titles that are not just about killing and destruction, and show that there are games that are not just time wasters and distractions - but it seem like most publishers, as evidenced by my SotC example, don't seem to care.

 

[Attack You]

Those are all fantasy/genre games. Awesome though they may be.

Nothing particularly wrong with that. Fantasy didn't hurt LotR or Spider-Man -- and doesn't hurt the more whacked-out Pac-Man and Super Mario games, for a more direct comparison. The fantasy elements in Shenmue and Silent Hill are not overbearing. And in a world with -- well, Nicktoons -- Psychonauts was criminally overlooked anyway.

 

[VALIS]

I dunno guys, I literally grew up in arcades and I barely remember any women or older (30+) people in them at any time since the late 70s. Flynn, you're right, the game did have something of a life for it in bars and restaurants outside the traditional arcade, but I'm pretty confident that if such stats were available, less than 10% of Pac-Man's earnings in North America came from women or +30-year olds. Which might have been more than any other game at the time, but still wasn't a phenomenon in pulling in typical "non-gamers."

Also, you can't discount the novelty factor. Video games were more or less brand new then and had a cultural buzz they'll never get again. IF Pac-Man pulled in all sorts of women and non-gamers, where did they go? Why didn't they also get wrapped up in Donkey Kong, or Burgertime, or Zoo Keeper, three similarly simple games with equal mascot-type cuteness.

 

[Attack You]

I compare it to Disney classic animated flicks. If Disney flicks can be appreciated as art and loved by millions, Psychonauts could.

Classic Disney is too "safe" to be lumped in with Psychonauts, which has just enough "crude maturity" to hang with the Nicktoons crowd without being so...unpleasant to the ears.

 

[Lord Error]

On a more positive note, I will never forget when I borrowed my PS2 with Ico to a young married couple in their mid -late 20s, friends of mine. I remember her saying to my wife and me, when they finished the game (he was playing, she was watching and giving advices) - "Now I understand why you guys play videogames - I had goosebumps and wanted to cry at the end".

If someone like that, who basically never touched videogames in her entire life could be profoundly moved by a game, it tells me that not all hope is lost, but also that execs behind advertising it failed big time on achieving what they could have achieved. And when a game like that doesn't sell that great, it just send the signal to the rest of the industry to stick with what sells...

 

[EphemeralDream]

The work of legitimizing games as a mass medium can't only fall on the shoulders of developers and industry figures alone. I think refuting problematic stereotypes of gamers being anti-social and games being a major time sink that don't allow any other activities fall upon fan's shoulders.

When most people think of gamers joining together, it's usually for one of these: online multiplayer, gaming sessions, lan cafes, message boards, or tournaments. Why not start up a club in one's high school or college where gamers can come simply for discussions or maybe check out some newsworthy videos (not get together to play)? Colleges have book clubs, film clubs, anime clubs, etc. but never a club dedicated to discussing games. It's hard to say if it could help at all, but at least it'll show people that gaming is not just for kids anymore and a real hobby.

 

[datruth29]

I didn't say that at all. Diversity in video games will always be welcome.



That's where you lose me, when people start talking about this whole non-gamer thing. People need to stop worrying about (and talking about) non-gamers. Things achieve mass acceptance for many complex reasons, not because there isn't something that appeals to every taste.

Look at it this way. What can the needlepoint industry do to attract us non-needlepointers? Is there anything even remotely possible? And yes, before someone points it out, video games have a much wider appeal already than needlepoint does, but the analogy is still apt. Needlepoint to us = video games to many people of various ages. It's just not appealing. It's just not something I want to do.

What video gamers/game press/industry folks need to discuss is how to make make great games for a variety of styles and tastes. Stop worrying about people who don't play games - they're either going to come around or they won't.

Damn. Thats a good point. I definitely see where your going with the needlepoint thing. It's hard with that. When we do say gamer or non-gamer, its hard to really differeniate the two. What exactly is a non-gamer? Would somebody who only plays Halo be a non-gamer? What about somebody who plays a specific genre? I'm pretty sure that most of the posters would say that people who play only the games on yahoo would be non-gamers, but would we say the same about those who only play games on newgrounds or similar game sites?

Your completely right about the non-gamers not wanting to play games part. But if thats the case, you have to ask how many people are non-gamers, and when you think about it, everybody likes to play games. The key is the type of games. The stereotype of a gamer is that little kid sitting in dark room playing a game all by himself. However, something I always wanted to know was is what game do you envision that kid playing. Is it any game? Or is it that when the game changes, we have a different image of a gamer. Imagine if it was the Sims, Nintendogs, Sudoku, an RTS game, WoW, etc, etc. Does that kid remain the same, or do we imagine different people? You know what, its foolish to try to get somebody to play Doom who doesnt want to play Doom. And I'm pretty sure if that person doesnt want to play Doom, he/she probably doesnt want to play a game similar to Doom. But they might want to play a different kind of game.

Actually, now that I read your statements again, you firmly put publishers and developers in the position they should be in, that of making a wide varity of games for a wide varity of people. In the end, if a person wants to play the game, they will. If they dont, they dont. Maybe we just need to get over the fact that Momma Joe isnt getting a kick out of GTA and realize that a simple pacman type of game will do.

 

[teruterubozu]

It's not just about diversity and content, it's also about complexity.
Many games these days start with an hour tutorial just to grasp the basics of a game - that's a big turn-off for many folks. We can sit here and say "Psychonauts!", "Silent Hill!" - but in the end most casual players just want to have fun, not trying to learn some odd controller configuration.

 

[Campster]

This just in: Video games can be art only when they appeal to Lord Campter's personal aesthetics! You're full of shit just like the majority of the pseudo-intellectual, games-can-be-art crowd is full of shit. You don't want to see a vibrant art form like movies or music where all manner of things get created from shiny space marines to the most abstract and obscure of concepts, you just want more of what appeals to you. Textbook definition of fanboy.

This is why the comparison between video game fandom and comic fandom is very apt. Super hero comic fans just want more super hero comics, **** everything else. Indie/art comics fans just want more indie/art comics, **** everything else. JRPG gamers just want more JRPGs. FPS gamers just want more first person shooters. Wacky Jappy gamers want more Wacky Jappy games. Like comics, video games have found their niche markets and just keep playing to these niches. And then some self-appointed geniuses come along and say beyween the lines, "You know what's wrong with this industry? It should appeal more to my niche, not the other niches!" Zzzz.

How come in movies, the great critics can consider populist entertainment like The Godfather or Raging Bull to be among the greatest works of the form along with more abstract works like Fellini's 8 1/2 or Bergman's The Seventh Seal? How come in music, critics can consider Let it Bleed and White Light/White Heat to be equally wonderful and important, even though their intentions and philosophic outlook are quite different?

This hobby, like comics, like anime; is populated by a sea of fanboys who spend a lot of their time arguing and trying to define why their niche is better than other's peoples niches instead of celebrating superior works however they come. There's your first problem.

I'm a fan of what, exactly?

I want more variety in this industry, not less. At no point did I say every game ever made needs to be some sort of Rez/Vib Ribbon/Go abstract concept with an amazing artstyle and actual thought put into it. If we're ever going to attain the respect we deserve we need more variety, not less. I made the comment about space marines not because I don't think a good game about space marines could ever be made, but because the idea has been done to death and beyond. Halo and Doom are different, but not millions and millions of dollars of dollars and 15 years worth of different. But we'll always have room for our multimillion dollar derivative braindead actionfests, the same way film does. And there's nothing wrong with that.

That said, you're doubly an idiot for assuming that those who wish to see the medium evolve into a well accepted artform are a bunch of elitist schmucks. I can name lots of "major release" games that are well respected in academic, design, and player circles. The Sims, Doom, GTA3, SimCity, Civilization, Katamari Damacy, and the MMO paradigm, just to name a few off the top of my head. These are multimillion dollar major releases that have had a profound influence on how people think about and create games and play.

The thing is, these games are highly regarded because they were inventive, original, and well designed. Saint's Row might be fun for those who play it, but it's no more original than Dogopolgy or Lord of the Rings Chess. I'm upset because I see an industry that has limitless potential making the same six games with various wrappings. How many first person shooters are coming out this year, and how many do you think will reach the significance of Doom?

I don't get drawn into "What is art?" debates because they're absolutely fruitless. But I will say that there are ways to move this medium forward, and circle jerking over the same game made 10% shinier at a cost of $2,000,000 more isn't it.

And my point is, these are still video games at the end of the day. The majority of people don't play video games not because there's nothing that appeals to them, the majority of people don't play video games because video games don't appeal to them! Many people do not consider games as a pursuit they want to waste time in. Some people aren't competitive in that way and don't find the appeal in beating a video game. Plenty of people are primarily interested in their social life and consider even the most popular of art/media forms like movies and TV as minor distractions to kill time with between social events. A waggle wand will not change these things.

I agree that most people don't play videogames because videogames don't appeal to them, but I think there are reasons for that other than a universally applied "They just hate all videogames!" theory. Not everyone wants to waste an afternoon shooting things or racing in circles. Again, we need variety in terms of our designs. We need non-competetive games, we need simple games, we need games about socializing, we need games that function as interactive fiction. There's no intrinsic reason for people to universally approve of books, movies, and music but have games be relegated to a small percentage of the population's interest.

But seriously, what games make any sort of effort to appeal to a 50 year old black woman? What non-exploitve games appeal to 6 year old girls? Has anyone genuinely tried to design a videogame for couple to play together? But what do we have for the average 13-30 year old male? We have zombie games and space marine games and sword and sorcery games and racing games and on and on. Games appeal to a small percentage of the population because that's all they've ever reached for.

And if you don't think games have the possibility to be an enriching social experience online or offline, then I don't know what to say other than you clearly have never had a meaningful thought about games.

 

[teruterubozu]

I think it goes back to the gist of what an earlier poster said: Books, movies and music have wide appeal because many people have the potential to contribute within those mediums - writing, student films, playing an instrument. The videogame medium is so prohibitive in that regard. Which is why innovation is left to a handfull of people. That's not encouraging as a form of art.

 

[Flynn]

Nothing particularly wrong with that. Fantasy didn't hurt LotR or Spider-Man -- and doesn't hurt the more whacked-out Pac-Man and Super Mario games, for a more direct comparison. The fantasy elements in Shenmue and Silent Hill are not overbearing. And in a world with -- well, Nicktoons -- Psychonauts was criminally overlooked anyway.

I don't think there's anything wrong with fantasy either, but when you've got a medium dedicate to only one genre, that's when you get a problem.

Imagine if the only kind of music you could buy on CDs was heavy metal, or the only programs on television were war documentaries.

Also, you can't discount the novelty factor. Video games were more or less brand new then and had a cultural buzz they'll never get again. IF Pac-Man pulled in all sorts of women and non-gamers, where did they go? Why didn't they also get wrapped up in Donkey Kong, or Burgertime, or Zoo Keeper, three similarly simple games with equal mascot-type cuteness.

Tons of early games were tested in bars rather than arcades -- seems like the Arcade industry is back at that point -- considering the top game right now is Eugene Jarvis' hunting game.

You raise a very good question regarding where the women gamers went. I think some got bored. Others didn't follow games into the arcade. And I think, too, that more and more games became less female oriented as the market evolved. By the late 80s mascot games were overtaken by more testosterone oriented games. There very well could be a correlation.

 

[Barry Lightning]

I would disagree with this at least - there are some games that have visual, aureal and conceptual artistic merit that would appeal to intellectual community. Stuff like Rez, Ico, SotC, Katamari, LocoRoco, Psychonauts, hell why not Tetris and Lumines, just on top of my head. The problem is, most people don't even know these games exist (except for Tetris). They have no idea who made them (for the ones I listed it's mostly Japanese authors which almost by default won't get them any exposure here, but I doubt they are known even in Japan). These games are almost always marketed to the "hardcore" crowd. I even remember specific quote from SCEA representative in one interview regarding SotC. They saw it a videogame fan's game, and they wouldn't even try to advertise it to any wider population. That, for example, was a huge mistake in my opinion, that game could have hit a soft spot with a lot of people normally not interested in video games, perhaps even could have banked on the popularity of LOTR back then. Same thing with Ico, even worse actually - that game was just criminally mismanaged.

the "coolest" games with original flare and art style this past gen have been rez, killer7 and katamari. everything else has been pretty corny, imho. now, you can argue about this all you want, but these are the games that have that "crossover" appeal into the high-brow art community. sony used to chase the club crowd. perhaps now they should be hitting the payloa off to gallery curators?? in other words: videogamings self-validating quest = TEH GHEY

 

[Grayman]

so we've determined that

- there have to be new types of games
- some people will never be into video games



What about video games that mimic real games?
Wii air hockey or pool
Online chess with rankings and match making

How does stuff like that sell and how could it be made to sell better?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

The graphics whore in me says that video games will never reach the mainstream until graphics and animation are photorealistic. Moreover, it will be necessary for game AI to approach human-like behavior.

Subject matter and demographics will also play a big role, but I think realism is what’s holding up the ‘broader appeal’ parade right now.

I disagree. People want engaging entertainment that picks them up and makes them play. Art is far more important than the underlying, enabling tech. The tech is there for the art and not the other way around. Once it becomes either too expensive to chase the technological rabbit, or people finally totally figure this out, things will finally be more about content, I think. The graphics whore in you is wrong.

 

[Pakkidis]

I could literally go on and on with whats wrong with the industry's image but most of you covered all of it. My biggest complaint is mainstream media focusing in violent video games ( I blame GTA for this) while other games that are actually thought provoking go ignored. It is no wonder why people who don't play games think its all about violence.

 

[Ulairi]

You're absolutely right. People who think the Wii is going to attract all sorts of non-gamers to the fray are hopelessly out to lunch. Most people don't play video games because that type of entertainment doesn't appeal to them at all. Adding a waggle wand to the traditional console will do nothing to get them to change their minds. They might not find it completely unappealing like if you put Halo 2 or FFXII in front of them, but it's not going to make video gamers out of them, either.

This whole innovate/non-gamer/expand the market stuff is all carefully crafted Nintendo PR. They're playing the cards they can since they're not going up against Sony and MS for the power/cutting edge appeal. I'm looking forward to the Wii myself, but I'm not buying any of this PR shenanigans. Mario with a waggle wand is simply Mario with a waggle wand, not some bold, dynamic new paradigm in video gaming.

I gave my sister (32 years old) a DS Lite for her birthday, and the last time she came over I had her try a lot of my DS games. She loves Sudoku. Thinks Brain Age is okay, but as far as I know hasn't played it more than once or twice. Couldn't give a fat **** about Wario Ware, NSMB, Princess Peach, Kirby Canvas Curse, Yoshi, Phoenix Wright or anything else that people think is supposed to appeal to her. This is exactly how it's going to go with the Wii. It absolutely will not make gamers out of non-gamers, I'd bet my teeth on it.

NSMB, Princess Peach, Kirby, Yoshi, Phoenix Wright are not supposed to appeal to non-gamers. The Nintendo DS has broadened the market, it is selling to people who haven't played games before or haven't played in a long time. There is plenty of emperical evidence for this.

Mario Galaxy isn't supposed to get new players. Wii Sports, Wii Cooking, or whatever, is. Nintendo is giving it a good push when no one else is. Microsoft could care less, which is why the 360 isn't selling well. The PS3 isn't going to do it. It's up to the Wii. The industry is getting ready to crash if we stay on the current trend of just increasing power. Games are more expensive, systems are more expensive, and more people aren't buying games. The growth has come from gamers buying more games and that cannot happen forever.

 

[ghostlyjoe]

Widening the market is the same thing people have been whining about on these boards for more than a year: non-games. Interactive cook books, exercise programs, reference materials, chat functions, crossword puzzles ...

Not everyone plays chess. Not everyone plays basketball. Not everyone reads great literature. Not everyone watches "Friends" reruns.

We can talk about "high art" in games, but "high art" is as niche as niche gets. It's just the economic and class status the particular niche that lends "high art" its cultural currency.

More people rent Larry the Cable Guy DVDs than read Dostoevsky novels. How many on this board have read "A Good Scent from a Strange Mountain" or "Pilgirm at Tinker's Creek" or "The Crying of Lot 49" or "At Swim Two Birds" or <insert high-minded literary novel here>?

GAF hates Madden and scratches its collective head at Nintendogs and Brain Training. Those are games that truly step outside the core gaming demographic and reach a wider audience. If you truly want gaming to grow, then be prepared to see Metal Gear outsold 10-1 by Richard Simmons' Sweatin' to the Oldies Wii Version 3.

 

[etiolate]

blame for gaming&#8217;s geeky, uncool image

But gaming is geeky and that's jsut fine. The attempts to 'coolize' it have been horribley immature and redundant. The industry went the beer commercial route and made an ass of itself. So the "beyodn the boy in the bedroom" bit is true, as thats really what they were going after even for all the 'mature' talk.

Think about it. If someone asks you what you did this weekend, and you respond, &#8220;Ah, I was kind of tired and just hung out at home and watched a bunch of movies,&#8221; that&#8217;s normal. If you say, &#8220;Ah, I was kind of tired and just hung out at home and watched a bunch of sports on TV,&#8221; that&#8217;s normal. But if you say, &#8220;Ah, I was kind of tired and just hung out at home and played a bunch of video games,&#8221; that is simply not a normal adult response in most social circles.

People in the game industry are fond of blaming the mainstream media for that reality, and it is certainly true that most media outlets treat games as a fringe activity rather than as a dynamic part of the modern entertainment landscape. But in that sense the media is only reflecting broader society&#8217;s view of games, at least in this country.

1. This is only currently and as the game generation grows up and becomes the dominant age group, this perception will change. A lack of patience si harmful, just wait.

2. The media/public perception is just a cycle. We are herd market capitalism, and the reality is the media rarely is reflecting the public opinion as much as they are producing hte public opinion. Don't let the uberpower off the hook.

3. America is insecure. Puppetry, cartoons and graphic novels are acceptable serious forms of entertainment in other countries, but are pigeonholed and casted here in America. There's a lot of insecurity to battle if you want to take on this war. Wha tmakes the videogame indsutry think it can do to overcome this when other, much older forms of entertainment have failed? Why can't the undistry just stay 'geeky' but move beyond males?

So I have been aware of this issue and spoken of it before, but I'm worried how people will approach the issue. The previous attempts have been shameful. You can cry in your fluffy palms about it, but Nintendo did what was obvious all along. If you want to conquer Sony, you go after the untapped market: FEMALES. Then you move to adults, then you slowly open up.

 

[Flynn]

GAF hates Madden and scratches its collective head at Nintendogs and Brain Training. Those are games that truly step outside the core gaming demographic and reach a wider audience. If you truly want gaming to grow, then be prepared to see Metal Gear outsold 10-1 by Richard Simmons' Sweatin' to the Oldies Wii Version 3.

Is there anything wrong with that? In the real media world a show like Firefly is lucky to get made. Strange thing is, sci-fi, fantasy and war games are pretty much all we get, but it's only rarely anything as interesting as Firefly.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

I agree with basically EVERYTHING Valis said. I love you man <3

 

[VALIS]

I want more variety in this industry, not less. At no point did I say every game ever made needs to be some sort of Rez/Vib Ribbon/Go abstract concept with an amazing artstyle and actual thought put into it. If we're ever going to attain the respect we deserve we need more variety, not less. I made the comment about space marines not because I don't think a good game about space marines could ever be made, but because the idea has been done to death and beyond. Halo and Doom are different, but not millions and millions of dollars of dollars and 15 years worth of different. But we'll always have room for our multimillion dollar derivative braindead actionfests, the same way film does. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And this is why it's hard to take you seriously. What kind of deep understanding does someone possess about video games when they snidely and blithely dismiss a large segment of the industry? Do you think many people play and enjoy those games because they're not as bright or refined as you?

This is what I learned about art and appreciation a few years ago, something a lot of people don't seem to realize until they get a little older (and some never seem to realize it): The things I don't appreciate are usually things I have made no effort to appreciate. It's very comforting to oneself to dismiss large sections of various forms of entertainment as mindless or stupid, in fact it's as built in psychological crutch. "Everyone seems to be talking about these reality shows lately but they don't really appeal to me, therefore I dismiss them as stupid and not worthy of my understanding. There, now I feel better for not knowing what's going on."

This concept was also driven home to me by a weekly column ex-Angry Samoan Mike Saunders used to write in The Village Voice about teen pop music and Disney radio (click links for many fascinating articles). I thought like I'm sure many people thought - he's gotta be pulling my leg with this shit. Former uber-sarcastic punk rocker waxing poetically about Britney Spears and Mandy Moore? It's all a tongue-in-cheek or ironic thing, it's gotta be. But it wasn't, and week after week he explained why he liked this stuff, and it made sense! Blew my mind just a bit. I didn't rush out and buy any Britney or Back Street Boys albums, but when they come on the radio or TV now I don't just snort and dismiss them, either.

This is not saying people need to be a fan of everything. Who has the time? And some things will always appeal to a person more than others. But here's the point I made the first time, and now I'm making again: You are not doing video games any favor by saying it needs more of "this" and less of "this." You don't appear to have any great understanding of the form when you dismiss a very popular segment of the industry as "derivitive" and "braindead." If you don't like action/FPS type games, hey, swell. You don't have to. But then don't come around touting yourself as some game guru and deep thinker when you just stepped into the same pile that most self-appointed smarty pants do: "What the industry needs is more of the type of games I think it needs, more of the type of games I think are art, and less of that poopy stuff I don't like." Bull. Video games, like every media form, just need more outstanding works. If Half-Life 2 outsells Ico 50:1, that's just the way it goes. That's not the problem, since they're both top notch games. If someone can't appreciate an inspired game just because it has space marines or androgynous, spikey haired, angsty kids in it, that's the user's problem, not the industry's.

This all gets tied into one of the reasons why video games do not have a mass acceptance, because it's still a boys club where people spend a lot of their time arguing why X console or genre is better than Y console or genre. This kind of simpleton shit does not go on in most movie or music circles. Everyone has their favorites, but people don't spend most of their "air time" talking about why what they like is better than what you like. In those areas, people tend to enjoy the highlights more wherever they come from. Video games needs this.

 

[Campster]

And this is why it's hard to take you seriously. What kind of deep understanding does someone possess about video games when they snidely and blithely dismiss a large segment of the industry? Do you think many people play and enjoy those games because they're not as bright or refined as you?

This is what I learned about art and appreciation a few years ago, something a lot of people don't seem to realize until they get a little older (and some never seem to realize it): The things I don't appreciate are usually things I have made no effort to appreciate. It's very comforting to oneself to dismiss large sections of various forms of entertainment as mindless or stupid, in fact it's as built in psychological crutch. "Everyone seems to be talking about these reality shows lately but they don't really appeal to me, therefore I dismiss them as stupid and not worthy of my understanding. There, now I feel better for not knowing what's going on."

This concept was also driven home to me by a weekly column ex-Angry Samoan Mike Saunders used to write in The Village Voice about teen pop music and Disney radio (click links for many fascinating articles). I thought like I'm sure many people thought - he's gotta be pulling my leg with this shit. Former uber-sarcastic punk rocker waxing poetically about Britney Spears and Mandy Moore? It's all a tongue-in-cheek or ironic thing, it's gotta be. But it wasn't, and week after week he explained why he liked this stuff, and it made sense! Blew my mind just a bit. I didn't rush out and buy any Britney or Back Street Boys albums, but when they come on the radio or TV now I don't just snort and dismiss them, either.

This is not saying people need to be a fan of everything. Who has the time? And some things will always appeal to a person more than others. But here's the point I made the first time, and now I'm making again: You are not doing video games any favor by saying it needs more of "this" and less of "this." You don't appear to have any great understanding of the form when you dismiss a very popular segment of the industry as "derivitive" and "braindead." If you don't like action/FPS type games, hey, swell. You don't have to. But then don't come around touting yourself as some game guru and deep thinker when you just stepped into the same pile that most self-appointed smarty pants do: "What the industry needs is more of the type of games I think it needs, more of the type of games I think are art, and less of that poopy stuff I don't like." Bull. Video games, like every media form, just need more outstanding works. If Half-Life 2 outsells Ico 50:1, that's just the way it goes. That's not the problem, since they're both top notch games. If someone can't appreciate an inspired game just because it has space marines or androgynous, spikey haired, angsty kids in it, that's the user's problem, not the industry's.

This all gets tied into one of the reasons why video games do not have a mass acceptance, because it's still a boys club where people spend a lot of their time arguing why X console or genre is better than Y console or genre. This kind of simpleton shit does not go on in most movie or music circles. Everyone has their favorites, but people don't spend most of their "air time" talking about why what they like is better than what you like. In those areas, people tend to enjoy the highlights more wherever they come from. Video games needs this.

I've bought and played through Doom 3, Halo, TimeSplitters 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Goldeneye, Duke Nukem 3D, Blood 1 and 2, System Shock 2, Quakes 1, 2, and 3, No One Lives Forever 1 and 2, Half-Life 1 and 2 and Episode 1, and countless others. I don't dislike these games. I grew up with them. I love FPS games. But I'm not going to delude myself into thinking these are anything but undeniably minor variations on a single design. They're the modern equivelant of House Rules. And when I say "Braindead" I don't mean in the "the players don't have to think all that much while playing" sense. I mean it in the "the designers didn't have to think all that much while developing" sense.

Really, we're on the same side. We both want to see more variety in games, both in terms of design and metaphor. We want to see the artform grow and expand as others have, to have niche games that appeal to a small market and major releases that are embraced by the masses.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your last paragraph - we really really do have a painful problem with image. And shedding our middle-to-upper-class-white-males-aged-13-to-35 image needs to happen as soon as possible. Otherwise we stand on the verge of cultural irrelevance, as Warren Spector has recently pointed out.

 

[Mooreberg]

I'd like to show them Silent Hill 2, Psychonauts, Shenmue I+II, and a few others.

I'd like to throw them a cinder block. What does the "intellectual community" have to do with an industry meeting fiscal expectations? Were "intellectual" movie fans going to see Telledega Nights last weekend?

 

[VALIS]

I've bought and played through Doom 3, Halo, TimeSplitters 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Goldeneye, Duke Nukem 3D, Blood 1 and 2, System Shock 2, Quakes 1, 2, and 3, No One Lives Forever 1 and 2, Half-Life 1 and 2 and Episode 1, and countless others. I don't dislike these games. I grew up with them. I love FPS games. But I'm not going to delude myself into thinking these are anything but undeniably minor variations on a single design. They're the modern equivelant of House Rules. And when I say "Braindead" I don't mean in the "the players don't have to think all that much while playing" sense. I mean it in the "the designers didn't have to think all that much while developing" sense.

Really, we're on the same side. We both want to see more variety in games, both in terms of design and metaphor. We want to see the artform grow and expand as others have, to have niche games that appeal to a small market and major releases that are embraced by the masses.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your last paragraph - we really really do have a painful problem with image. And shedding our middle-to-upper-class-white-males-aged-13-to-35 image needs to happen as soon as possible. Otherwise we stand on the verge of cultural irrelevance, as Warren Spector has recently pointed out.

Okay, fair enough. I thought you were saying the path to the industry gaining wider acceptance and just being better was by producing more games in the genres you like, and I suppose you're not saying that. It is a constant trap many fall into and an opinion I read here constantly: "What video games need is more of what I like!" No, what video games need is more quality, more inspiration and more diversity, and if the non-gaming world comes around or not, so be it. Can't (and shouldn't) really do anything about it at that point.

 

[Nick Laslett]

I've thought for a long time that in the UK videogaming has been in the mainstream.

The country only has a population of 60 million, so there are approximately 25 million homes in the UK (rought guess). Current gen sales of PS2, Xbox and GC total about 14 million. That gives you a penetration of roughly 50% of households.

You only have to look at the highstreet shops in the average UK town to see that many outlets sell videogames, just as many as music and movies.

I live in a town with a population of 56,000 people. I can get videogames in the following outlets:

GAME
HMV
Virgin
Woolworths
WH Smiths
Independent 1
Independent 2
Tesco Metro
Blockbusters

Mainstream bestselling newpapers like The Times on Saturday and Sunday review videogames, The Guardian one day a week has a dedicated videogames section.

Magazine culture is very strong in the UK and there are dedicated magazines to all the different formats, there are even 2 dedicate to the PSP.

The 8bit home computes Commodore 64, Spectrum 48k, BBC B, Amstrad, were all very popular in the early eighties, that generation is now in their mid-thirties and they have no problem with videogames and a lot of them still retain an interest in the hobby despite juggling children and a career. This can been seen through the average age of the typical magazine's readership which will 27+.

The last bit of evidence is the UK software chart which so how much casual uninformed buying goes on. It is no different to the make up of the music chart or movie chart. Populism rules in the mainstream, not quality.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is a great point. Technological changes in other mediums aren't sea changes, they're gradual and not manditory. Filmmakers can take their time going digital. Musicians can record analog and master digitally if they desire. But consoles change the game every time and make the old nearly obsolete.

I think we've got hope to change that in things like XBLA and Nintendo's virtual console. Maybe more and more will back out of the processing arms race and start making non-conventional games for these markets.

WTH man? I hope that never happens. The game market will and shouldn't be the movie market. Screw the movie and TV market. Let games be games. Push the envelope. Make games different and more immersive.

In 10 years give me something that looks like todays CGI in King Kong while controlling it better like the Wii is trying to do. Screw going back to the NES days. We already lived that.

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

This all gets tied into one of the reasons why video games do not have a mass acceptance, because it's still a boys club where people spend a lot of their time arguing why X console or genre is better than Y console or genre. This kind of simpleton shit does not go on in most movie or music circles.

Hmm, I've seen a great deal of it in movie and music circles. I think for most of history philosophers of aesthetics and art critics did in fact have definite ideas about genre X vs. genre Y and weren't averse to dismissing whole sections as illegitimate. This has perhaps lessened recently with the rise of pluralist/liberal/subjectivist/relativist/postmodernist/capitalist/whatever ideology and social/economic structures.

This is what I learned about art and appreciation a few years ago, something a lot of people don't seem to realize until they get a little older (and some never seem to realize it): The things I don't appreciate are usually things I have made no effort to appreciate.

Personally, as I get older my tastes have mostly gotten more exclusive, not less. Gaining more perspective (not only through experiencing art and entertainment but through deeper knowledge of science, history, politics, society...) shows some of my old favorite media products to be quite inadequate even as I still understand why I once liked them.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is before your time.

If you want to go back even farther there was a time in the early days of comics when many books were million-sellers. During the boom in the '80s this was recreated on a smaller scale -- even still at that time even a black and white comic book like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles could be expected to break 500,000.

After the comics bust, best sellers like Marvel's biggest X titles are lucky to break 150k.

In the comparison between comics and games, we're assuming that games are headed toward the same bust, but haven't quite hit that yet.

Yeah but the problem is blockbuster games today can sell over 5 million units. I mean Madden in America alone can sell 4 million units. I don't plenty of comics were selling in the numbers that games are doing today.

And why do people feel that the gaming is going to fall like the comic market?

 

[mckmas8808]

I beg to differ. Games like Pac-Man and Ms. Pac Man did light the non-gaming world on fire. And sure, I think the Nintendo consoles are doing mostly traditional games, but they're doing tons of traditional old-school games -- the kinds that normal people can actually pick up and play without having to wrestle with two analog sticks.

I think the back to basics trend is going to do a lot to pick up new gamers and re-approach those who didn't dig the leap from 2D to 3D.

Ever heard of Guitar Hero? Ever heard of Singstar? Explain to me how these two Playstation exclusives don't do what you are saying right now. Non gamers can play and enjoy Guitar Hero and Singstar.

Plenty of people like to sing their favorite tunes with friends and Sony will be pushing this game hard when it comes out with the PS3.

 

[Flynn]

Ever heard of Guitar Hero? Ever heard of Singstar? Explain to me how these two Playstation exclusives don't do what you are saying right now. Non gamers can play and enjoy Guitar Hero and Singstar.

Plenty of people like to sing their favorite tunes with friends and Sony will be pushing this game hard when it comes out with the PS3.

They sure will. But notice that neither game needs ultra-realistic graphics to do so.

 

[Barry Lightning]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtYmBO45eLk

haha. no man. far from it. we're not talking gameplay here.

 

[HokieJoe]

I disagree. People want engaging entertainment that picks them up and makes them play. Art is far more important than the underlying, enabling tech. The tech is there for the art and not the other way around. Once it becomes either too expensive to chase the technological rabbit, or people finally totally figure this out, things will finally be more about content, I think. The graphics whore in you is wrong.

Sure, people want engaging entertainment- no disagreement there. However, some people are more inclined to enjoy games for their pure artistic aspect, or fun, etc...

I'm talking about people that don't game though. How do you attract those types? I've seen the transistion in interest peak from the Xbox to the 360. Few of my friends were interested in playing PGR2, but PGR3 got some of my decidedly non-gaming friends to give it a go.

They're impressed by how 'real' it looks. They're not into gaming for gaming's sake. For these type of people, there's a threshold of reality that must be met before you'll ever catch their interest. I don't know where that threshold is, but true VR is the most likely point.

 

[Flynn]

Sure, people want engaging entertainment- no disagreement there. However, some people are more inclined to enjoy games for their pure artistic aspect, or fun, etc...

I'm talking about people that don't game though. How do you attract those types? I've seen the transistion in interest peak from the Xbox to the 360. Few of my friends were interested in playing PGR2, but PGR3 got some of my decidedly non-gaming friends to give it a go.

They're impressed by how 'real' it looks. They're not into gaming for gaming's sake. For these type of people, there's a threshold of reality that must be met before you'll ever catch their interest. I don't know where that threshold is, but true VR is the most likely point.

But just like so-called non-games, true VR isn't really games anymore either. They're simulations. One aspect of games is in using the abstract to represent the real -- eg. a simple chess piece can represent a queen and a checkered board can present a battlefield.

 

[Aske]

I don't think this issue boils down to any one factor, or even a handful of them. There are numerous aspects of gaming that turn non-gamers off, but not all of them need to be addressed to hook large numbers of people. What I mean by this is that there are different 'fixes' or 'lures' for different groups of people and while many of these issues have yet to be addressed, a great number of them have been; and likely will be in the next generation and beyond.

To give some examples: games were once seen as toys. On the one hand, yes, the kids who made up the market grew older; but another major factor was the PS1. Sony's first console didn't look like something you'd find in a box under a pile of transformers, and the marketing and software for the platform contributed enormously to breaching the 17-30 year old male market; despite the fact that the PC had offered consumers more mature games than those found on the SNES for many years. Guys on sitcoms played Playstation - they didn't play an N64 unless it had was a gift for their kids, and they only played PC games if their characters were abnormally nerdy.

Another example is Second Life. You want a game that hooks 50 year old women? Look no further. The number of 40-60 year olds who use internet chat rooms is staggering: turn a chat room into a game, and they will follow. Admittedly not all of them have made or will make that leap, but those that did are suddenly interacting with software that could easily appear on a games console. Will the 40-60 year old chat room crowd ever buy a next-gen console? Doubtful, but not impossible. Hard to better a PC for chat-based software; but a cheap box with internet access that runs bored housewife/grandparent-friendly software might interest a few households.

Another factor that has already been mentioned: many people are put off gaming by intimidating dual-analogue controllers, and complex control systems. Wii may well offer the fix for some of these people, though I imagine most of those will be lapsed gamers rather than newcomers. But regardless, it's a few more people getting involved with interactive entertainment.

There are many more issues than these to be addressed of course - software diversity has already been discussed in previous posts, as has the off-putting (and incorrect) gamer stereotype generated by controversial software like GTA; and the important but frequently overlooked fact that many people will simply never be interested in playing games.

All that said, if I had to boil things down to the two greatest hurdles that I see keeping the majority of non-gamers away from gaming; I would identify them as accessibility and novelty. Wii attempts to address both these issues, though I agree that it only does so in a limited way. But gaming is expensive, games are usually hard to interact with for newcomers, and most people have long since decided whether or not gaming offers them anything interesting. Again, Nintendo caught a few people with Brain Training, but until we see a major hardware revision that offers experiences that will make anyone sit up and take notice (think total immersion VR; or an impossibly simple and intuitive interface, that allows people to fall into the most complex games without learning their controls) and/or a vast drop in prices to make gaming's current incarnation as accessible as watching movies or reading books, non-gamers are unlikely to give it a second look; no matter what software you aim at them. Right now, you have to like gaming to dedicate time and money to it; but you can't get into it without first dedicating time and money to it...

 

[Tadaima]

so now that they've had this conference, is it safe to expect romantic comedy games in the near future, Nintendolls and other girly non-games to attract the grrrls in their bedrooms?

I want to attract the girls in their bedrooms.

Wii can help me to achieve this.