Slashdot Mirror
Stanford Panel Tackles Shifting Games To Mainstream
Thanks to GameSpot for its coverage of a panel discussion at Stanford University named '2010 Game Odyssey - Visions of Electronic Gaming', and discussing "the industry's need to further establish itself as a form of mainstream entertainment." Different participants had starkly separate views, as Doug Lowenstein of the ESA (Entertainment Software Association) opened "...by criticizing the 'narrow-mindedness' of many digital entertainment companies, arguing that 'they still don't understand how the demographic has shifted... we're a victim of our terminology - people tend to pigeonhole us as toys...people don't appreciate [games] as an art.'" However, Jeff Brown of Electronic Arts "...pointed out that 'when you are playing games, you are not watching Viacom [television],' Brown concluded, 'I think we're feared.' Brown argued against the stigma that adults are 'outgrowing' games and instead suggested that the steep decline in gamers over the age of 37 simply demarcates the first generation that grew up with the medium."
I think from my own personal experience, there are certain people that seem very reluctant to play games, and this includes portions of the population that grew up with them. I know someone is thinking of coming on here and telling me about companies like Purple Moon or some of the other games, but have any really made an impact as big as Half-Life or GTA? I know there are certain games that have come out that are more "mainstream", (Snood & Tetris) but I just feel like there haven't been enough ragingly popular games that have had the advertising and commercial success that would allow it to be defined as the direction that video games as a whole is heading in.
IMHO, there are a lot of people that don't find video games to be an activity that would like to participate in, or don't feel comfortable doing. It just seems much more people would agree to sitting through a movie or a tv show than playing a game (though of course that could differ by what movie and what game it was)
I guess my biggest question is how much of this "lacking mainstreamness" is due to the appeal or stigma that gaming has versus how much has to do with the usability or ease of use for those people.
While I think that adults won't necessarily *stop* playing games, I think that they types they play will be different.
Unless they're playing for nostalgia (or one of the simple five-minute-killers like Tetris), I would guess the following:
* Patience for reptition is low.
* Demand for plot and writing to be of a higher quality than many games have been (poorly-translated Japanese text, a hallmark of many SNES games, is not acceptable).
* Meaninglessly thrown-in buxom girls will have less appeal (and in some cases will be treated negatively) compared to the traditional male teen audience.
* Cost will be less of an issue.
* There will be a lower tolerance for long learning curves. If you have N hours free on a weekend, you don't want to blow half of it learning the intricacies of some complex control system.
* There will be a lower tolerance for long setup times. If you have N hours free on a weekend, you don't want to blow half of it toggling 3d options to get things running properly on your system.
* The ability to play with a pair may become more highly valued. Traditionally, there have not been many games that allow cooperative play (Halo and FF Crystal Chronicles spring to mind), though there are many with competitive support. Not many teens have someone handy to play games with all the time (and if they do, it's a friend -- with whom human culture tends to dictate that we have a somewhat competitive relationship with). However, I've read about a surprising number of couples that play Everquest or similar games together. It's something fun to do with your spouse. Think of it as the bridge or mahjong of the future...
* Violent games will be less highly-valued (though, of course, there are exceptions
May we never see th
Unfortunatly its uninformed opinions like this that hinder gamings growth. Allow me to sling some answers back:
:p)
;)
* Anti-social (With sports, you are pretty much forced to play with someone else)
- A decreasingly less valid point. Multiplayer games (regular and MMOs) are becoming more popular each day, and new generations of games are introducing increasingly complex social interactions among players. Not to mention the hundreds of clans, communities, and fansites that spring up around popular games.
* Waste of money (Kicking a football once you have bought it costs nothing, but arcade machines eat coins)
- Gaming is no more expensive than many other popular sports, like Hockey or Football. All that equipment costs a LOT, just like a sw33t rig and a couple of games. "Just a football" would be better compared to, say, "Just a Gameboy" or "Just a no-name pocket game", as they're both shadows of their respective 'sports'.
* Lack of exercise (Sitting around the house all day)
Not gamings strong point, I agree. But why does it have to be? Not many people are looking for physical activity in gaming... thats what a gym or pool is for. (Unless you REALLY want to combine the two.. then you can go play DDR
* No chance of professional achievement (as, say, with popular sports)
- Bzzt. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Some of these people have six figure salaries. Thats a lot more impressive than a hell of a lot of careers.
* Addiction (I've never heard of someone who played/survived an 8 hour match of soccer, and still wanted more)
I guess you'd be interested in hearing a little record or two that happened recently. Worlds longest game of hockey: 130 hours. There were even an attempt or two around where I live that clocked in at 87 hours (ice was melting). Now thats h4rdc0r3.
* Viewed as being "mindless" (Chess, and other boardgames aren't - but even then they have a social element, professional rankings, etc.)
- So inaccurate, its almost laughable. Games are not all 'mindless'. A high level match in a FPS or RTS entails as much strategy as a game of chess, easilly. Planning, reactions, feints, counters, etc... its all there.
* Violence (Contact sports are violent too... but not in the deliberate blood-splatting way some video games are)
- Also a valid point, but its interesting to note that extremely violent games are virtually never the ones chosen for professional competition. Most violence in games is purely symbolic anyways. Would chess be considered violent too if the pieces bled or exploded when they were taken? And lets not forget the king of violence: Boxing. Nice sport, but you can't really look at that and then start pointing fingers at games.
* The loser sub-culture stigma (Anyone here old enough to remember the 1981 film "Joysticks" ?)
- Ah yes, a very large stumbling block. But like all good things, it will take time before gaming grows into a more mainstream role. Gaming is downright infantile compared to the age of most other sports. Hockey is what... 150 years old? Gaming is... 15? Call me in 85 years and we'll see where things are at.
* Fanatical Christians think role playing games are evil (I'm not kidding on that one: they reckon that creating character as a personification as oneself is idolatory, and then giving them magic powers makes it all look worse.)
- Mod me flamebait, but since when did it matter what a tiny slice of a religion thought? What kind of power do they even weild? Are they the Illuminati or something? Christianity isn't even the largest religion globally, never mind the small portion of bible-thumping whackjobs that view games as the "tool of the devil". Their skewwed viewpoints are of little consequence to the rest of us.
G