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.

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: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

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