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."

Comments

What about the other half of the population?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or is there still a stigma around games being something that really appeals to guys? Don't get me wrong, I know that there are studies done that show more females being gamers than ever, but are these leading companies like Electronic Arts really marketing toward this demographic?

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.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[cgenman]

Most game developers don't target demographics when conceptualizing games. They may decide to move a level from Syria to Iraq based on feedback from their target demographic, but when coming up with the overall concept that drives the game they generally do what pleases themselves. This is then presented to the publisher, who decides what they think will be the great games and demographics depending upon how they feel.

Women are sorely underrepresented in game development. While other people may have more accurate figures, I would estimate that only one in twenty is female. There are many debates on why women are as rare as they are, but the result is that games are made to satisfy their largely male creators.

This isn't always a bad thing, or a necessarily sexist thing. The two designers most responsible for bringing women into gaming, Alexey Pajitnov and Will Wright, are both men, and both enjoyed great financial success. That's not to say Roberta Williams and other women in dame development don't exist too, or that Game Gal and Game Girl Advance haven't had a tremendously positive influence, but games that are successful in drawing in women are successful in drawing in men too.

Companies would like to sell to the female gamer... As far back as 83 debates have raged as to how to do that. Just about the only rules of thumb that have come out of this debate are "make a great game" and "no blatant negative sexism."

Of course, Video game magazines achieve a degree of sexism only matched by their tremendously poor use of the language. I can't even flip through a "Game Pro" without cringing. That is a boys-only locker room, and that does need to change As Soon As Possible.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

I completely agree with the parent.

Being one of the few women who enjoy computer games (and I'm talking about the boys' games like Half-Life and Diablo, GTA and Civilization), I couldn't tell you why most women don't like games, but I can tell you what turns me off. That boys-only locker room style, scantily clad women whose obvious purpose is only to make the boys drool really alienates women. It's not just that the industry isn't making games with us in mind, it's that they seem to be making games specifically NOT for us, as if women are dangerous to the gaming market and they have to keep us out. That's what it feels like sometimes.

I can give you a great example of what I'm talking about, but it's actually about a TV network rather than a game. When I was watching TV one night by myself in a place where the channels and schedules were unfamiliar I was flipping until I saw something that looked good. Star Trek: TNG caught my eye and I stopped. When it went to commercial break, however, I realized that I had apparently picked the wrong channel. I forget what network it was, but it was flaunting itself as the "Guy's Channel." The commercials were filled with big-breasted women in seductive poses and over and over again they repeated their motto of "men only" or something to that effect. This was a network I could recal watching before, mostly for exactly what I was watching it now, ST:TNG. Sometime between the last time I had watched it and this time it had completely changed its advertising style. I understand that they are playing to a certain audience, but I was insulted that they would go so far as to completely alienate me like that. There was no need, I thought. I had always been perfectly happy to watch ST:TNG on this network before, but the commercials were making it seem like a porno, claiming the episode was "uncut" and that there would be a racy scenes where Troi took off her shirt, or something to that effect. There was nothing else on, so I gritted my teeth through the commercial breaks and watched the entire episode. I saw no such scene. Perhaps it had happened before I had tuned in.

It's this sort of thing that keeps computer games from being mainstream. As somebody already said, the really popular games like Tetris and the Sims appeal to both men and women. You don't have to aim games towards women, you just have to stop aiming decidedly AWAY from them.

Think about what makes a really good movie. It usually has something in it for all demographics. Not very often does a bloody, gory movie get high praise when awards night comes along, and neither do those who feature scantily clad women who are only there so the boys can jerk off. Yes, we still have movies like that, and quite a number of those are popular. But they will never be studied or critiqued for their use of symbolism or their careful crafting of the viewers' emotions. If we want games to be seen as an art form, we need to *gasp* craft them like an art form.

That won't happen until the game companies stop playing to the horny teenage male demographic, and, sadly, this won't happen until it that demographic stops being so profitable.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[bigman2003]

Have you watched 'WE: Womens Entertainment' or 'Lifetime' or 'Soapnet' or 'Hallmark'?

All are aimed directly at women.

What about 'The View' or 'Oprah'?

No gratuitous cleavage there- any cleavage you do see is purely accidental, and VERY offensive to any guys who might be watching.

If you are complaining that you, as a woman, were alienated while watching a network that describes itself as 'the guys channel', you might be expecting too much.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

That was simply an example. I could have changed the channel, I did several times, actually, but kept coming back to it because there was nothing else on that I wanted to watch. I was in the mood to watch Star Trek, so I watched Star Trek, racy commercials and all.

But this debate is not about television shows, it's about games. And I don't think you can point to as many as three games that are aimed towards women specifically. This is why women don't play games, the same reason most women (even those women who enjoy Star Trek) would not watch that channel. Of course, it's an infinite loop. Women don't play games, so games aren't made for women, so women don't play games... However, if that channel had bombarded the viewer with less breasts then those few women who enjoy the show would probably have sat through it. The show itself could appeal to both genders (okay, Star Trek isn't the best example of that, but assume ST's gender neutral for the sake of argument) but if the packaging is male-oriented then less women will play it.

My point is that if games start to pull away from the horny male demographic that alienates women then they will probably find more women will play the games. Opening up games to a wider audience is the only way to make them more mainstream and more popular, and I think a good way to start is to move away from the male-oriented packaging. You can do this without losing the patronage of men, as proven by the Sims (which has both a male and female following). It's okay to have games with slutty female characters and tons of gore, just like it's okay to have that channel. Just give the women another option, and you'll find that there's a ton of women gamers, just waiting for a game that won't insult them.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[deadboy2000]

I was a VG developer for many years, and I spent a great deal of time studying the gender imbalance. I concluded that it's neither the content (immature) nor the context (locker room) of video games that turns most women off of them, it's the cultural stigma. Simply put, little boys are taught from birth that playing games is a legitimate use of your time, as they help develop practical skills. But girls are generally taught that games only distract you from achieving more practical goals.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[bigman2003]

I buy a lot of games, and I don't believe that any of my games have 'slutty female characters'. Are you thinking of fantasy games?

Thinking down the list of games I've been playing in the last 6 months- not to pick out games to 'prove you wrong' but just thinking of what I've really been interested in...

Crimson Skies
Metal Arms
Splinter Cell
Project Gotham Racing (2)
Links
Top Spin
Amped
Everything or Nothing
Trivial Pursuit
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Dance Dance Revolution

Only 1 of them might portray women as 'slutty', and that is Everything or Nothing. But- that is a James Bond game- and that is just what you expect from James Bond.

One of the characters in Links has big boobs- but it's not a big deal. The rest of the games have nothing that would be considered an 'insult' to women.

My wife has a (male) character in Amped who snowboards with shorts, and no shirt. I'm not insulted, I think its funny- and at least she's playing the game with me.

But I don't know why games should be 'pointed toward women specifically'. Why not just play good games? Is a car racing game gender specific? Tennis? Golf? Trivial Pursuit? DDR?

There are 'girl oriented' games out there- and if I were a woman, I would find those extremely insulting. 'Cosmo Girl Makeup Party'? Have you ever seen 'Barbie Horse Adventure'? It's crap!

When we start to think that every segment of society needs to have games (media in general) directed toward them- we'll end up with a huge fragmentation of the gaming industry, everyone trying to target their specific audience with what they think they should be playing. In my opinion, if they create good games, the audience will come- no matter who they are.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

Okay, I admit I went off on a bit of a tangent and not many games have "slutty female characters". I think I was thinking about the game magazines mentioned in the parent of my first reply. I'll refer you back to that post.

I'm not saying that there should be more games pointed towards women specifically (I don't think I said that... if I did, that's not really what I meant), just that they shouldn't be pointed towards men specifically. I did say that there weren't many games out there pointed towards women, but I said that not to suggest that their should be more, but to point out an inbalance in the industry. I think we need more gender neutral games, or at the very least more gender neutral packaging/advertising (i.e. gaming mags).

Thinking back on some of the games I've played recently, yeah I'll admit that most of them aren't bad in the demeaning-of-women sense. Prince of Persia, my current addiction, actually has a strong female character. But it's hard to deny that most games are made with men in mind, either intentionally or unintentionally. When you have the option to choose the gender of the character there are usually subtle disadvantages to playing a female. Nothing as unfair as differences in the game rules, the genders usually play the same, but there may be less avatars to choose from or less voices or less sideplots. I remember back when I played through Baldur's Gate 2 that my sister advised me to play a male main character because there was only one or two possible love side-plot for a female character, compared to three or four for a male character. And when you can't pick the gender most of the time the main character is male (GTA, the original Deus Ex, Prince of Persia, Thief).

I'm not saying gaming industry should be fragmented (as you said) by targeting the huge lot of specific audiences out there. I'm saying it should start thinking outside the box and trying to make up games that appeal to more than just the teen/young adult male demographic. It's tempting to play just to them because they've shown themselves to be big spenders. But if, as the article said, we want to bridge out computer games and make them into a mainstream media element then we need to think wider appeal, which means women.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[DAldredge]

"were filled with big-breasted women in seductive poses"

Kind of like what most womens magazines have in them? Just look in Cosmo...

Final point, an industry that does BILLIONS USD in sales per year is already mainstream...

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[bigman2003]

Whoops...I should have added Prince of Persia to my list of 'recent games played'.

You are right- games generally are targeted toward men. Initially I was just reacting to your comments about slutty female characters. But there are plenty of games without slutty female characters (which you are in agreement).

The fact that there is a gender inequality is probably just the financial reality of the gaming market. Three people in my house play games- me, my wife, and my daughter. I've probably spent at least $1,200 in the past 12 months just on game software. (It is probably more than that, but I'd rather not acknowledge anything beyond $1,200). My wife and daughter have spent a combined total of 0 (zero) dollars on games.

It would never cross their minds to spend $50 on a game, when they could use that money to buy new shoes, or Cosmo magazine, or something like that. I'm not being sexist- that is just the reality. My daughter has an incredible sense of math when it comes to shoes. We went out for dinner, and the bill was about $250. My daughter was able to tell me how many pairs of pants, shoes, and shirts she could have bought with that money- in a matter of about 3 seconds. (Of course, knowing that it totals 5 video games came to my mind)

It's not that they don't like games that much- they do play them. It's just that it just isn't a priority for them. So financially, the game makers stand to make $1,200 a year if they target me, or get zilch if they target my wife and daughter- because they would never enter the video game store to purchase a game in the first place. Financially, it just makes sense to target me. (And the 15 year old boys who will someday grow up to be the 36 year old man who doesn't mind spending $1,200 a year on games.)

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

I'm not denying that the young male demographic spends more money on games. This is the sad truth. I'm one of the few women I know who actually goes out and buys them on a regular basis. My sister used to be a bit of a gamer, but she's not anymore, being deeply mired in extracurricular activities in college that take up the majority of her time, so she usually only plays games that I recommend to her, and then she usually borrows the game from me instead of buying one herself. In fact, besides her I don't know any women personally who game.

But the question is, if games became as widespread an entertainment medium as movies or TV, would more women spend money on them? I think so. I don't think there's anything about computer games in general that automatically makes them less appealing to women, besdies the stigma that says comp games are for boys and that fact that most games today justify that view. Women, especially young women like your daughter (I'm assuming she's in the 10-20 age group), are very sensitive to peer pressure. They're constantly bombarded by the media and their friends with ideas like they should be concerned only about shoes and their weight and that computer games are for boys. Don't get me started on mags like Cosmo, BTW, they're a huuge part of the problem.

It will be a slow process, trying to pull the gaming companies away from the moneymaking young men's demographic, but I think it's possible and that eventually women will be playing and buying as much as men. But that'll only happen if the gaming industry decides it wants to be a mainstream, socially acceptable entertainment medium like movies and television. Until it does that it'll always be labeled as the pasttime for boys and geeks.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

Wow, I feel special. I've been insulted by my first anonymous troll. I love how male geeks are always so quick to assume that female geeks are out of shape and single. See, the benefit to being a female geek is the male-female ratio. There's, what, 20 geek guys for every one geek girl? Insulting one of the few women who actually enjoy being around geeks like you is a good way to stay single. ;)

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

God, don't get me started on Cosmo. Magazines like that are why so many teenage women are depressed and/or anorexic. :/

Did you know that most of the female mannequins you see in stores are so thin that if they were alive they would be physically unable to have children?

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[bigman2003]

Umm...I'm not sure why you think that because I spend money (on games, and eating out) it means that I do not give my daughter enough affection or love. Actually- I do know why...more on that later.

I spend TONS of time with my daughter. I am a very involved parent, and I support my daughter in a lot of things. I am very aware of what she is doing, and she knows I care- about her, and about what she is doing.

Obviously, to you, spending $250 on dinner is a lot. And spending the money on games is also a lot. Well, not everyone is in the same financial situation you are. I've got a great job. And, I don't just categorize 'great' as meaning I make a lot of money- but making good money, AND giving me plenty of time with my family. (40 hour work weeks only- I could make more if I was willing to do 60 hour weeks..but it ain't worth it)

I'm guessing that you are either too young to have a job (and your parents have crappy jobs) or you are in your early 20's and haven't gotten a decent paying job yet. So therefore, anyone who does make money must be a cold-hearted bastard who is willing to sell out his family in order to make a few extra bucks. Nope- the world doesn't have to work that way.

I'm posting this NOT because I am trying to defend myself. Hell, you don't know me, and I don't know you so it doesn't really matter. But I would like to point out that you CAN have a good life- make money, have a good family life, love your wife and kids, and do what you enjoy during your free time.

I'm also the same guy who posts all over Slashdot, trying to tell programmers that free software is NOT the way to get rich. Why would people give their work away? I don't understand it. But then again, if you are giving your work away, don't resent me because I have money to spend. I don't feel that I'm immoral for charging for my time and expertise- if you feel that your time and expertise are worthless, then that is your decision. Here- see one of my previous posts on the subject:

(And yes- even though you are an AC- I KNOW you support free software, free MP3s and stealing whatever you can from big business.)

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[jchenx]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned The Sims in this thread (or maybe I've missed it). That's one game my wife really enjoys, and she's definately not alone. I don't think it was intentionally designed to be a "girl game", but it seems to have become one.

Also, it's been well known for a while that women dominate the online web game audience(CNN article). Puzzle and card/board games like the ones at MSN Games/Zone.com () and Yahoo! Games may not be as big as say Half-Life or Halo or Diablo, but they particularly popular among women.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

While I agree with the general gist of what you're saying...

Star Trek: TNG caught my eye and I stopped. When it went to commercial break, however, I realized that I had apparently picked the wrong channel. I forget what network it was, but it was flaunting itself as the "Guy's Channel."

This is Spike. For some reason, it plays a phenomenal amount of Star Trek (which is kind of funny, because I've found that while I don't know any female hard-core Trekies, a lot of women seem to enjoy watching Star Trek).

To be fair, while Spike *is* a lot more ostentatiously "for men" than its counterparts for women, it *did* trail the existence of Oxygen and other "for women channels" by at least a year or two.

I think Spike kind of revels in being politically incorrect, but there's also a bit of a reason for it. A lot of guys get a little tired about being lectured about political correctness WRT gender. Sometimes you just *want* to watch a bunch of pretty girls bouncing on a trampoline between channels. If you're *going* to put in scantily clad women...isn't a single channel the best possible way to do it?

Now, that sword cuts two ways, and I'd expect Spike viewers not to complain about, say, male models being shown on Oxygen, and I can cope with seeing a bunch of, oh, I dunno, endorsements from Tom Cruise during commercial breaks if there was something good on the channel.

Finally, I agree with you that movies depend too much on showing skin, and that it usually doesn't do a whole lot for overall movie quality. I don't think many of the best movies (real classic "wow-people-will-be-watching-fifty-years-from-now" ) I've seen rely on much on skin (though I do like L.A. Confidential, and that's pretty racy), and a disproportionate number have downright unattractive characters.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

Did you know that most of the female mannequins you see in stores are so thin that if they were alive they would be physically unable to have children?

Heh. USian population doesn't have enough children per family to maintain itself...and the ideal US woman is barren? :-)

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

Thinking down the list of games I've been playing in the last 6 months- not to pick out games to 'prove you wrong' but just thinking of what I've really been interested in...

Crimson Skies

IIRC, the Black Swan or someone came off as pretty sultry. Doesn't Nathan sleep with one of the women he saves? He saves pictures of them in his scrapbook...

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

One of my most irritating moments watching film was with the beginning of Aliens: Resurrection (which was an awfully disappointing movie overall, much less the scene that irritated me). I really liked the Aliens series, and really liked Ripley as a main character. She's human, but tough as nails. She was decidedly *not* in the Aliens series (1-3) just to show off some skin.

Then they decided to, for absolutely no reason, insert a five minute scene with Ripley writhing around in plastic wrap towards the beginning of Resurrection. Had it been a random character, I wouldn't have been quite as irritated, but dammit, that was *Ripley*.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

Why do either you or the woman you're talking to bother to respond to AC trolls? You're likely talking to some junior-high kid who has just successfully managed to get some random person much older than he is both upset *and* to write a long diatribe.

Seriously. If you were driving down the street and some jackass yelled at you "Your mother fucks dogs!", you wouldn't pull over, get out of your car, and yell at him for five minutes. You'd think "asshole" and forget about him. Why would you do so on Slashdot? You could have just ignored him, and no one would have thought less of you for doing so, but instead you made a tremendous deal out of it.

While you're at it, I have to say that your attack on open source workers, many of whom do *not* run around AC trolling, was not appreciated. Let's say that said asshole walked into a soup kitchen after insulting you. You wouldn't drive up to the place and start calling the volunteers working there penniless losers who are always going to be poor and deluded because they're incapable of dealing with society, just for the sake of getting back at one said guy.

I don't feel that I'm immoral for charging for my time and expertise- if you feel that your time and expertise are worthless, then that is your decision.

This is very offensive to the masses of people (many of whom read Slashdot, and many of whom are intelligent, motivated, and very generous) that work on Open Source. Sure, they may not take home as much as they could doing otherwise, but they're donating time and effort to making my life and your life better. Don't kick them in the face for doing so, please. If you are uninterested in using the donated work of volunteers like me, or in donating your own time, that's fine. You are even entitled to argue against their motivation in the course of an argument as being irrational or harmful. You do not have any reason to call their time and expertise worthless, however, especially while posting on a one of the premier open source forums (a website that you are using for free that is implemented with a mass of open source database, webserver, and backend code).

Seriously, I think Christianity is a load of horseshit from a religious standpoint, but neither do I walk into a church and start screaming insults at people, you know?

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

In fact, besides her I don't know any women personally who game.

I know women who game, but the gameplay style is *stunningly* different from guys who game.

None of them play more than a few games.

Most of them do not play any game very seriously or with interest in "just managing to beat that last boss". They aren't interested in *working* at a game -- it's usually something to walk in, see someone playing, and grab a controller, or something to fill up a spare half hour.

I know only two women who play a multiplayer highly competitive game (Quake) and honestly, I think that the only reason they started is because Quake was so popular and so many people were playing it. Most of the rest of the competitive gaming is from boardgame-like games (like Yahoo Games). While DDR is technically competitive, most DDR players seem to focus on beating their own score.

It makes sense -- if you were an adolescent male back when we were running around and pulling down animals for food, well, adolescence is when you established your position in the heap by demonstrations of who is tougher than whom.

I don't think that the appeal of attractive women in media goes away when a guy gets older (just the tolerance for the poor storylines or implausible premises associated with them). I have a pretty strong suspicion that having scantily clad women in games isn't so offensive as the fact that so much of the emphasis is *on* those women, and the plots are so embarassingly bad. (If you were watching Spike, perhaps you saw ads for "Stripperella", the stripper superheroine?) Romance movies, which generally seem to be aimed at women, frequently have attractive actresses...but they don't follow an absurd plotline that keeps the actress in a constant state of undress.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

No, it wasn't Spike. It was something with three letters. I think it may have been TNN, but I'm not positive. I just know it wasn't Spike. This was a channel I had watched once or twice before, but it was the first time they seemed to be saying "no girls allowed" (unless they're supermodels and don't mind being gawked at).

And once again, I just used it as an example. I'm not objecting to male oriented channels, just pointing out that a show (or a computer game) that might otherwise be acceptable to women is less likely to be watched (or played) when it's wrapped in male-oriented images like that.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

Why do either you or the woman you're talking to bother to respond to AC trolls?

I dunno about him, but I just did it because I was bored. ;) I think of it as a creative challenge, trying to come up with a snappy comeback to somebody I know doesn't have to guts to back up anything he's said.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

Spike is The Channel Formerly Known As TNN. Some sort of political and rebranding shakeup happened. Try to go to www.thenewtnn.com in your web browser and you'll be redirected to www.spiketv.com.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

Here's a fun fact:

In the original script of Aliens, Ripley was a man. Wanna know what they changed in the script between that version and the one that was actually filmed? Not a thing. They just decided to cast a woman. :)

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[Merkuri22]

Yeah, after reading some of the other responses I realized it must have been Spike. Sorry, I don't watch much TV and I certainly don't follow the political shakeups and rebrandings of male-oriented networks. ;)

Did this happen around springtime last year, a little before May? I must have tuned in just after the change.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

Did this happen around springtime last year, a little before May? I must have tuned in just after the change.

Actually, beats me. I actually generally don't watch much TV (despite appearances :-) ), but I live with a bunch of folks that like Star Trek, so I had the Spike/TNN transition explained to me.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[0x0d0a]

Funny.

Re:What about the other half of the population?

[DeadScreenSky]

I concluded that it's neither the content (immature) nor the context (locker room) of video games that turns most women off of them, it's the cultural stigma.

Exactly. I can't think of any females I have met that tried out gaming for any serious length of time (ie more than a couple hours) and then later stopped. The women who don't game probably have never really tried it, or at least tried the type of game that would catch their interest.

And too often the people that make this kind of claim (that females don't play games) are ignoring massive segments of gaming, like PC Flash-based games. Maybe a lot of women don't play the more classic examples of games (Halo, GTA3, etc.), but that doesn't meant they don't play games at all...

Adults will play different games

[0x0d0a]

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

Re:Adults will play different games

[Tyggyr]

In other words, women don't play games because the games aren't good enough yet. ;-)

Re:Adults will play different games

[Zegnar]

To address a point: yes! Multiplayer should be better. I loved Descent 3, because one could play cooperative with a friend, but that requires two compys. Age of Empires is another good one - team against the computer, but again, ya need two computers. Games should think of multiplayer in terms of co-op, as well as competetive play. I'd love to get a CONSOLE game where I could play through a storyline game with a friend (any suggestions?) and I only need one box. I think the competetive factor appeals very much to the stereotypical teenage male, and the down-the-pub-mates, but not to anyone else.

Video Game

[Neo-Rio-101]

In comparison to other sports and games, video games are disparaged because:

* Anti-social (With sports, you are pretty much forced to play with someone else)
* Waste of money (Kicking a football once you have bought it costs nothing, but arcade machines eat coins)
* Lack of exercise (Sitting around the house all day)
* No chance of professional achievement (as, say, with popular sports)
* Addiction (I've never heard of someone who played/survived an 8 hour match of soccer, and still wanted more)
* Viewed as being "mindless" (Chess, and other boardgames aren't - but even then they have a social element, professional rankings, etc.)
* Violence (Contact sports are violent too... but not in the deliberate blood-splatting way some video games are)
* The loser sub-culture stigma (Anyone here old enough to remember the 1981 film "Joysticks" ?)
* 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.)

So yeah..... anyone for tennis?

Re:Video Game

[cgenman]

I'm not saying these are wrong, I've just decided to go down your list to come up with counterarguments people can use when attacked with these.

* Anti-social (With sports, you are pretty much forced to play with someone else)

Quake, Halo, Everquest, Savage, Street Fighter, and many other games are multiplayer. Snowboarding, Rock-Climbing, Mountain Biking, and many other sports are solo. Multiplayer gaming should be encouraged at all times, but it generally doesn't need to be. People flock to multiplayer games.

* Waste of money (Kicking a football once you have bought it costs nothing, but arcade machines eat coins)

Having a full set of sparring pads, a baseball outfit, and a membership at a rock gym I'd argue the opposite.

* Lack of exercise (Sitting around the house all day)

As opposed to the 5 hours of television (average) Americans watch each day? I'd rather they were doing something at least interactive with that time, than watching another episode of Survivor.

I'd point out Dance Dance Revolution, but would it help? Americans aren't active. While we should be outside doing exercise, the largest portion of our non-sleeping day is spent watching television. Videogames compete with television, not sports. In that comparison, Videogames win hands down. I'd rather people be playing tennis with a group of friends than playing Counterstrike with them, but realistically one does not preclude the other. I'd much rather people were playing Counterstrike with their friends than watching Friends alone.

* No chance of professional achievement (as, say, with popular sports)

Nice bit of sarcasm there (which is why I think you shouldn't be modded troll). There are a lot more game developers than professional athletes. Not all of us drive ferraris, but the career path for an athlete is very limited.

* Addiction (I've never heard of someone who played/survived an 8 hour match of soccer, and still wanted more)

True, but at least videogames come and go. A Football hooligan at 6 will be a football hooligan at 45. An evercrack addict at 15 will probably be a Diablo III addict at 21. And when the time comes, they will be much more ready to give up having an addiction than that football hooligan.

Of course, you do get some sports addicts in High School, primarily anorexics who are insecure about their appearance and who want to buff up/slim down. They enjoy the high of running and they do it until they have severe health problems. It happens in most high schools at least once per year.

* Viewed as being "mindless" (Chess, and other boardgames aren't - but even then they have a social element, professional rankings, etc.)

Games aren't mindless. Games are, at heart, puzzles. Do you move your six units in to attack now, while getting pincered or do you pull them back to affect a more defensive position? How do you topple the pole into the wall, letting the water break through to push the crate onto the switch opening the door? If three enemies from the other team just walked by, is their fourth teammate scouting ahead or hanging back with a sniper rifle? Can you say that about prime-time television?

* Violence (Contact sports are violent too... but not in the deliberate blood-splatting way some video games are)

*cough*Movies*cough*. Ahem, where was I?

* The loser sub-culture stigma (Anyone here old enough to remember the 1981 film "Joysticks" ?)

There's not much we can do to counter the loser sub-culture stigma, except to not be losers ourselves. As it stands, most guys my age (25) play videogames. Other people in other age ranges don't understand videogames, and consider it a weird, sub-culturey thing. Until we become the dominant culture, I we are by definition a subculture. And of course while "losers" will be caught playing videogames, so too will "winners." People will just say that people were losers because of games, and winners were so in spite of them.

* Fa

Re:Video Game

[duffbeer703]

Quake, Halo, Everquest, Savage, Street Fighter, and many other games are multiplayer. Snowboarding, Rock-Climbing, Mountain Biking, and many other sports are solo. Multiplayer gaming should be encouraged at all times, but it generally doesn't need to be. People flock to multiplayer games.

These games are also almost entirely anonymous. The value of team sports is that it is a forum to develop leadership skills and social ability.

Running around Quake 2 shooting shit doesn't do any of that.

Re:Video Game

[cgenman]

You'd be surprised how adversity on the battlefield can draw people together.

The individualistic Multiplayer is quickly becoming the rarity, not the norm. Savage is an excellent team game, with an official hierarchy and a wide division of labor. Battlefield 1942, Counter Strike, Battlefield Vietnam, Rainbow 6, and many other modern FPS games are also squad-based. Most MMPORPG's like Everquest emphasize squad tactics. Halo's multiplayer is cooperative.

If you think all multiplayer games are about anonymously "running around... Shooting shit," then you need to get out there and play something recent.

Re:Video Game

[TwistedSquare]

I concur. Recently I've been very into Natural Selection (a team-based Half-Life mod). It encourages teamplay like no other game I've played, and is very fun. Get voice going on there with your friends and it really is just as good as any sport. It is also one of the few games where I only care if my team won, and not who on the team was best.

Projections

[obeythefist]

If you look at the trends, since more and more people are gaming, if the industry motivates much like Television, the future will be interesting indeed!

Firstly, the goverment will get more involved and start regulating much like TV is regulated, both for content and for delivery.

What this means is (and this fits with globalisation of an industry), standards will become more prevalent and eventually, although this will be painful, platforms with either be monopolised (unlikely with so much at stake for existing competitors), or they will unify to enable one game to run anywhere. It sounds odd but remember, Java and XML and other technologies are facilitating portability of applications. It's not inconcievable that in the future this will extend to gaming. Certainly OpenGL makes games relatively easy to shift around from one platform to another. The industry just needs to take it a few more steps.

What does this mean for existing players? It'll become a lot like the nVidia/ATI/AMD/Intel wars of today, where platforms that do the same thing vie desperately for market share by pretending to be so much better than the rest. So you get better framerates on XBox-XPSP3 than PS8 than Nintendo GameBoxCubeMaster 5.

Maybe. Who knows?

Maybe they have a job

[Nice2Cats]

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.

Or maybe they just have a job, kids, and a house and can't spend enough time in front of the computer anymore to make those expensive games worthwhile.

God, how I'd love to spend a whole week again just playing "Half Life", or maybe finally finishing "Diablo II" with all characters...

Re:Maybe they have a job

[bigman2003]

I'm 36 (almost in the 'over the age of 37' group). I play a lot of games, but it generally a struggle to get my gaming time in. I could choose to ignore my other obligations, and spend all my time playing games, but I don't.

This week I will probably get 4 gaming sessions in. Each one lasting about 1.5 hours. This might seem like a lot, but I don't watch any television at all.

This past week, instead of gaming, I chose to:

• Have a BBQ and party for friends. (one guy stayed late to play some Amped 2, so I did get some gaming in)
  
• Attend another friends birthday party.
  
• Take my daughter to two meetings at school (cheerleading).
  
• Take the family to a movie (Hellboy).
  
• Attend my 'History of Film' class at local college.
  
• Do homework for said film class.
  
• Go for walks with wife and dog.
  
• Do yardwork.
  
• Hang up dartboard in backyard. (which took me waaay too long)
  

So when I finally get time to play games, it feels like I am 'stealing' time from something else. I'm not a super-busy person, but as I get older, I find that my responsibilities take precedence over video games. Interestingly though, I did purchase two games this week, even though I probably have 3 or 4 others I am still working on.

Ret0rt3fied

[MachDelta]

Unfortunatly its uninformed opinions like this that hinder gamings growth. Allow me to sling some answers back:

* 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 :p)

* 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

Re:Suggestions

[bigman2003]

Generally I agree with you...

I just picked up ' Everything or Nothing ', the new James Bond game from EA. I think that EA usually makes 'McGames', games that are technically fairly good, but don't have anything exciting to offer. Medal of Honor for the PC wasn't that great of a game- but since it never crashed on me, I ended up enjoying it.

But Everything or Nothing pretty much hits the James Bond nail on the head. You really do feel that it is a good extension of the movie series.

And as for voice talent, they use all of the real Bond voices, and some other big names.

Pierce Brosnan
Judi Dench
John Cleese
Willem Dafoe
Heidi Klum
Shannon Elizabeth (okay, that last two were not top tier..)

They did a really good job- its probably the most 'movie like' of any game I have played. Obviously huge money went into the game, and not many companies other than EA have that money.

As far as sound tracks go- once again, I agree. And I agree pretty much without exception. (Okay, Grand Theft Auto III was an exception) This is one reason that I really love my Xbox- customized soundtracks. When I first started playing Amped 2- I hated the music so much (Emo? Fricking EMO?) that I didn't like the game. When I finally switched out the music to my custom soundtracks, the game suddenly got good- and my scores got much better.

* Viewed as being "mindless"

[UltimaL337Star]

Loser sub culture? I don't know about you, but I can safely say that atleast 12 out of every 13 guy's at my highschool's interested atleast a little bit in videogames. Almost any of them would probably give you a blank stare if they tried to start a conversation about Vice City and you had no idea what they were talking about. By no means even 25% of them have much gaming knowledge other then what their local blockbuster advertises, they're hardcore mainstream consumers. Having a console in a house with kids is practically as usual as a TV in any home, standard in the average american home. Even alot of girls have a ps2 in the house who don't have brothers, maybe not GC or Xbox since they're not as "consumery". Alot of regular girls seem to like to keep one around in hopes of improving the guy magnet factor of their house, or have played one game at friend's house and immediatley decide they WILL have it... strangely the most common game products I see around their houses are racing games like gran turismo and usually or planning to get a dvd kit. Yeah, try taking a survey of people who have purchased a console or pc game in the last 2 years next time you get a statistics assignment in Algebra. And Mindless? Nah, gamers are definetly problem solvers, can't shutup after they find a good game, and I'm pretty sure it's more stimulating for the mind then spotting that pre-algebra failing super senior in weight training tha.

Games, mindless? WTF

[1eyedhive]

I'm 19, been playing computer games since I was 5.
When I started out, I watched a LOT of TV, playing the occasional arcade sidescroller on the 386, then graduating to Carmen Sandiago and a handful of Learning Company Edutainment games.
Then a little game called Simcity cought my attention at school, within two weeks I had it at home (after an upgrade of 4MB RAM and Windows 3.1 (from 3.0). I played that game for years, solving every single problem a city threw at me.

Then the shareware, Bio-Menace, Galactix, Raptor, Blake Stone, etc. The parents didn't want me playing these as much, viewing it as a lesser game (apparely they wanted me watching TV over learning how to shoot stuff, Star Trek and PBS are better somehow???) (sidenote: I went from Sesame Street/Reading Rainbow straight to The Next Generation at age 5)

Then came the Packard Hell Pentium, and with it,
came a little game called DOOM!!!
My parents HATED that game with a passion, viewing it as mindless, bloody, gory, etc. I ask you, what's so gory about doom I? I played it anyway.

I survived on various shareware shooters, Flight Sims, SIM* games and the like until C&C Red Alert, again, my parents were skiddish about that (wargame), I was 10 at the time.
I played it anyway, convincing them it was as mentally stimulating as chess (it was damn close).

Then in 1998 came Star Trek: Armada (another RTS) and with it, Elite Force (the first FPS that I actually bought). By then, they didn't care much about the violence.

When I have kids, I'm showing them the world of games, first learners, then SIM* games, (problem solving) and finally RTS and shooters (strategy and teamwork).

Anyone who says Games are mindless oviously hasn't watched enough Survioir, Real World, Fear Factor, etc. to realize that TV these days is a mental black hole. I'll take a frag session in BF: Vietnam over reality TV anytime, anywhere.

I watch the following shows (new):
NCIS, JAG, Monk (sucker for detective/miliraty law), ENT, Stargate, Smallville.

Stuff I watch in reruns:
all of the above plus:
Sliders, Any and all Trek, BSG, etc.

mostly sci-fi there, but then again, I AM a geek now arn't I?