Slashdot Mirror
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."
Ms. Pacman, then, would be the prostitute?
GTA itself -was- pacman. it also sucked. it wasn't until Vice City that they really explored the full range of gameplay. With the depth they added, with the polish and the honest attempt to tell a story that just happened to fit with their existing gameplay, -that- is when rockstar struck gold.
When you abstract Vice City out to the level of 'pac man', then everything is pacman. Get the power up, win the game.
right now, gaming only has (predominantly) kids and young adults - and they (predominantly) are more into slickly produced action, sex and sports than, say, a good noir detective story. so clearly that's where publishers are going to pit their efforts. do you see movie studios backing anything truly new?
if we try to impose some sort of artificial limit on what is good content and what is 'pandering' - then we marginalize the entire industry.
the mainstream American Comics scene managed to marginalize itself entirely with the Comic Code of the 60s - 90s. Contrast the current american view of comics (no matter what the story, a guy holding a comic book is an immature dork) versus the japanese view of anime (where it is the content of the anime itself that matters).
Porn and Predator do not diminish all 'mature' film - so why should bmx xxx, or quake 3 diminish gaming's legitimacy?
Right now, gaming is dominated by big publishers, like film is dominated by big studios. We don't have an underground scene yet, and quite frankly we are only recently able to attract actual actors and writers to work in our media.
Innovation will happen, and 'mature' content will find its niche and push the media. In the meantime, yeah, predominantly it's going to be the 'formula', and slight variations that get pumped out.
And quite frankly, that's probably the way it will always be. The only difference we can hope for, is that after enough true gems come out these articles will stop claiming that when a publisher produces DOAX that it is proof that all video games are only shooting for that audience, and only fit for that audience.
People thought early cinema was a bastardized media, incapable of telling a story like a good novel or a play. and partially they were right. The thing is, by being able to explore they eventually found stories they could tell that no traditional medium could.
All this is, once again, is the old guard trying to convince everyone that this new fangled stuff is all rubbish and incapable of telling a 'proper' story. Time will be on our side so long as we don't fall for it.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
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.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
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.