Adult Games, Child's Play?

Thanks to TotalGames.net for their gamesTM-reprinted piece discussing whether games are actually dumbing down in the industry's rush to produce mature titles. The editorial is concerned that "adding a spot of claret and some unguarded language to your game doesn't require any special artistic skill on the part of a developer." The writer then worries that "...those developers whose bread and butter has traditionally been more abstract titles where the gameplay is the hook and the graphical stylings are aimed at younger gamers, or at least at a general audience, are starting to find their games harder to sell." But original Grand Theft Auto creator Dave Jones thinks that "it's not violence that's selling but simplicity", even for his own series, arguing: "GTA has a very simplistic game mechanic - it is Pac-Man. The people are the dots you eat (run over) and the police the ghosts who chase you", although admitting: "What was different was the level of interaction within the city."

Comments

This is nothing new

[vasqzr]

Good graphics != good gameplay

Games with bad graphics, when they had to make the gameplay good, because thats all they had, are still played today.

I can think of a lot of games that had breathtaking graphics but you couldn't force me to play twice, because they were just so bad.

Re:sacrifical totem pole

[Snowmit]

yeah now that game play is starting to return to games (metroid prime, kill switch) they are totally sacrificing game length. back in the 80s a game took you at least 2-3 times longer to beat as they do today.

That's a feature, not a bug. I don't want to take 120 hours to play through to the ending of your (padded) game. 20 or even 10 hours is fine. If we're talking about mass-market then you want short games because the mass-market does not have the time to obsessively play a game for that long. If we're talking about artistic value then, again, what other medium has ever made you sit through even 40 hours of artistic expression to get the good stuff?

The idea that greater game length == a better game is so wrong. I mean, a game of chess takes, what a few hours? Clearly it's a bad game. They should have included multiple story-missions and at least two or three other multiplayer modes.

There should be more short games. I want games that will entertain my friends at a party. I want games that I can play in the few hours I have after work that aren't spent doing other stuff. I don't want to devote the next 6 months of my life to your one game. No bok demands that much of my time and no movie does either.

If most of your customers will never see the final two-thirds of your game, why are you wasting your resources on it? Save yourself some effort and time as a developer and start work on the next great, short and tightly-focused game.

Thanks Mom

[ArmenTanzarian]

Yes Mom, all movies today are just bad language and gratuitous violence... sure Dad, no good rock has been made since the 70's... yeah Grandpa, kids today are much bigger trouble makers than ever before... blah blah freakin' blah...

People have been yacking about this to get attention forever. Remember all the hoopla about Pulp Fiction? Well guess what? Pulp Fiction had a lot of violence, a lot of bad language, and also happened to be an incredible movie!

But back to the main argument:
People have always thrown useless elements into media in an effort to turn a quick profit. Books, movies, whatever... Ever heard of Deus Ex Machina (not the similarly titled video game)? Yes, grand sweeping plays that would just have gods come out of nowhere to resolve the plot. This certainly didn't help the flow of a play, increase the richness of the experience, but it got the audience home at a reasonable hour and it certainly made the authors some money.

Yeah, people throw in bad words and violence to sell a couple extra copies, but don't blame video games or video game culture. Cost vs. content is as ancient as the idea of conveying thought and I hate it when someone portrays this as a new or exclusive concept.

Re:sacrifical totem pole

[quandrum]

back in the 80s a game took you at least 2-3 times longer to beat as they do today. Maybe you took that long to beat a game, but the games weren't that long. This is the 80's! 90% of the games didn't have a save game feature. How long would a developer really make a game that you couldn't save? The crown jewel of the NES era, SMB3, took 8 hours the first time through. Except you couldn't save so you had to do the same things over and over and it just seemed a lot longer. Metroid Prime should take you longer than 8-9 hours, but you get to save, so you end up only playing 10 hours total. Want more play time? Try giving up the ability to save.

Re:sacrifical totem pole

[scot4875]

Very true. Not only that, but if you take the grandparent post's example of Metroid, the argument falls flat. The best players in the world can beat Super Metroid in roughly 45 minutes. The (currently) best player in the world can beat Metroid Prime in roughly 1:45. I don't claim to be the best original Metroid player in the world, but I think I can finish it in roughly 30-45 minutes.

It just took me about 8 hours to get through the latest Prince of Persia. The original (from the 80s!) had a time limit of what, 1 hour? Mega Man could be beaten in an hour, I'd be really impressed if someone finished Viewtiful Joe in that amount of time.

Note that all of these are single player games -- once you add in multiplayer, who cares about game time? You can play forever if you want.

Personally, I'd rather go through a game that has its action densely packed into a few hours than something that drags on just for the sake of lasting longer.

--Jeremy

Re:video games -are- growing up. if we'd let them.

[mausmalone]

you hit on a lot of good points, but it's not all about the story... it's not all about the content. You can't say that any one thing makes a great game. You can't boil down the essential elements. If you do, then FF3 was just a game about getting items and picking stuff from menus.

I know that people tend to fall in for graphic polish or beautiful music and they miss a lot of deep gameplay. Well, I'll be the first to stand up and say that I'm a graphics whore. I love games with pretty graphics... or rather I don't like playing ugly games. I also don't like playing games with boring music, or games with boring gameplay, or games with lack-luster stories. The truth of the matter is that the game has to be solid all-around to be good.

Saying that gameplay is king is really only half the story. It's definitely a critical component, if not the most critical component. But it's not the entire game.