Slashdot Mirror
When Videogames Publishers Go 'Street'
Thanks to 1UP/OPM for its article discussing what they describe as the 'thugging' of the videogame industry, referencing games such as Def Jam Fight for NY and Midnight Club 3: Dub Edition. The piece suggests: "Whether it was established franchises morphing into more streetwise versions of their former selves or new franchises emerging wearing their hip-hop influences on their sleeves, it was clear that the urban lifestyle is being embraced by developers and publishers alike." Marc Ecko argues "I think the problem is that the games industry is generationally nostalgic", and Steve Allison of Midway charges: "The guys bitching about this new trend are inching up on 35 years old, and they grew up on old-school gameplay. They're a very vocal bunch, but they're just not the market anymore."
Steve Allison of Midway charges: "The guys bitching about this new trend are inching up on 35 years old, and they grew up on old-school gameplay. They're a very vocal bunch, but they're just not the market anymore."
Well, this is likely true, but as one who used to play online shootemups, I can say the trend toward this has been going on for a little while at least. When all the little white kids got their computers around the same time hip-hop started going mainstream, you started seeing comments like "Whasssup Biatch" when someone joined the game or "I'm your pimp daddy" or some other affected effort at manifesting some pathetic street cred. I have sort of expected this sort of thing for a while now, but see it as a continued effort to squeeze some more marketing $$s out of a saturated hip-hop market. Perhaps when NWA or Ice-T was around this would have been interesting but come on now folks, the hip hop scene is dead and has been replaced by the thug-life affected persona that now simply looks and appears absurd. Nowhatimsayin?
So, essentially what Steve Allison from Midway is saying is that Midway has sold out and are adopting the grow the company, mainstream marketing bit. Steve..........Do you know what this means?.............It means that Midway is no longer cool. This of course is the risk companies take when they try to break from their roots and become something they are not, but hey......that's America and at least companies have that option.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
But in five to ten years time we will be in control of the market's purse-strings. Don't ignore us.
Spending money like an idiot, drinking to an excess, being only turned on by bimbos with no brains, beating eachother senseless with tire irons or whatever, shooting people you hate, getting shot at by people who hate you, eating only at drive thru, drinking alize and crystal, attending strip clubs like they were the new church, membership at the The Player'S Club, Gucci, bling-bling, bust
Riiiiiight.... with Daddy and Mommy's money. I think this kind of thing is just another outlet of "validated" rebellion the way Rock music was in the 70's - an ultimately safe way for middle-class kids to pretend they're pushing the boundaries.
The real people who actually live that lifestyle are revolting thugs.
This really isn't a big deal. I've been playing games for over twenty years. Games have their phases. A few years ago it was shooters and RPG (FF style games). Now it is the more realistic run around and buy drugs, beat hookers, and kill people. Ultimately, it doesn't make a difference. It is just another phase. We've all been through different phases in our lives. Anyways, the biggest worry to me is that the industry is going away. Sure there are the big upcoming games, but there really hasn't been innovation since the GTA series. Guess I will just have to go back to D&D.
I agree. I would never call any game "from the street" because whatever its trying to be, it's probably been made by a load of geeks who as far away from "the street" as you can be.
Really? Really? I've been reading that the gamer demographic keeps getting older. I've even read a little bit of that on Slashdot (although when I searched for it, all I got was a link to an article about women over 40 being a big, growing gamer market -- not quite the article I recall reading). We now have the gamer dad web site, and I'm sure a gamer mom web site either exists or will soon. I'm 33, and over the last 3 years, my income has finally been good enough to allow me to buy a Dreamcast, a PS2, and about $1,000 worth of games. I don't think I'm the only 30-something gamer in existence. I wonder if this guy just doesn't understand the market anymore. It's bigger than he imagines.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Steve Allison of Midway charges: "The guys bitching about this new trend are inching up on 35 years old, and they grew up on old-school gameplay. They're a very vocal bunch, but they're just not the market anymore."
I just turned 30 and I spend more on games now than I ever did as a kid. I was part of the first mainstream videogame generation and most of us have a lot more disposable income these days. And we still play games, even though some of us are married and/or have families.
It's incredibly stupid to dismiss us like that, but it's something I see over and over again. Games aren't maturing as my generation does, and although I spend a lot on games, I find the number of games that truly excite me anymore to be slim. My feeling is that a lot of this is due to the immaturity of many game developers, who think it's more important to have big-breasted polygons than a good storyline or gameplay. The other problem is arrogant and uninformed attitudes like this guy at Midway, which is very prevalent at the superpublishers which control the industry. I don't believe that the traditional business philosophy that the 12-18 market spends the most translates to the games market. From just personal experience I haven't seen the usual dropoff. What is needed is more independent studios again who have the creative integrity to concentrate on quality, which is what the 25-35 segment is begging for and not getting often.
Oh, and by the way Midway guy, 95% of the games your company has put out are trash.
Women prefer the "thug" men over the nice guy weak men.
Ah, no no no!
Don't ever think that! I'll leave aside the issue of generalising what three billion women want (makes about as much sense as me saying that all men want 'x'). But nice does not mean weak. Yes, weakness is rarely a trait that turns a woman on, but 'niceness' which I take to mean consideration for others is not the same.
If someone is only nice because they are afraid to upset someone, then are they really nice? I wouldn't think so. But a man who will stand up for you, protect you? Now that would be nice.
Some women will go for the badguys, but not many. Badguys in real-life are not like bad-guys in the movies. Do you really think most women want a life filled with violence and aggression? I promise you they don't.
Of course a certain amount of unpredictability is exciting. Everyone is attracted to someone who does the things that we wish we could do but can't. But I think that's really different to what you mean.
And in case you think all this has been meant in a physical sense, well yes it sort of was, but women can want a trophy boyfriend (the car, the clothes, the muscles) just like men want trophy girlfriends. But don't forget that not all men want that. (Relationships like this rarely last.) The other side of the gender-divide is not that different.
find me a woman who will go on a date with a homeless man with no job. Better yet find me woman period.
You're probably limited to other homeless women at the moment. It's not that a woman would or would not like you, but is she willing to make the sacrifices for you that dating a homeless man would involve (housing you, feeding you, driving you places)? When you're back on your feet then a woman is no longer having to make big lifestyle changes to accomodate you and you'll be a better prospect.
But it has nothing to do with you not being a "thug."
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The "musical fad" he was talking about is fake gangster rap music, e.g. G-Unit. I don't care how "real" or "hard" they are, real gangsters are on the streets, in jail, or dead, and they're never something to look up to.
True story.
I want to say that I don't think there is a real "pop and rock" genre. Just a place in walmart where the clueless put both types of music.
To me, pop is not rock.
Likewise, rock is not pop.
Rock is enormously varied. There is hard rock. Soft rock. Just plain rock. Rock and roll. Blues. Metal. Death metal. Thrash... and plenty more. But none of it is "pop".
I have come to the following conclusion: Pop is its own genre, usually easily distinguishable in the first few seconds of any particular cut. Pop doesn't mean "popular" (if it did, damn near everything would be "pop" at one time or another.) Pop is about being catchy (as opposed to timeless), stylish (as opposed to classy), and generally as inoffensive as possible so it can play on top 40 stations without alienating either listeners or advertisers. Some musicians/bands produce both rock and pop. Sometimes on the same compilation. Other mixes too. I have a Tony MacAlpine CD which mixes hard rock guitar-centric tracks with classical piano tracks. Very well, I might add. I enjoy it the whole way through, and marvel at the artists skill. But that doesn't make a category for the CD called rock/classical.
Pop/rock no more exists than does country/rap. Attempts to marry catagories like that almost always result in mutant children with -0- life expectancy. There are exceptions - Kid Rock is one, he manage to do very well mixing rap and rock, and some of the harder rockers have incorporated rap as well - but it is very rare for such things to be broadly accepted over time to spawn a new genre.
Personally, I think that particular mix suffers because marketable rock is a lot more difficult to create than marketable rap is.
Don't get me wrong - I like the occasional pop tune - but I certainly don't misidentify them as "rock."
I also object to the characterization that various categories are "dead"; disco is still played in clubs and homes; soul still plays, big band still plays - they're just not on top, that's all.
Very, very few categories have actually died. Now that we record everything, it may never happen again. That's a good thing, in my view.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yep. I've always been mystified by that, even when I was young. Is it white guilt? Whatever it is, it's been going on for a long time. Clothing and music trends start with the young black people and they get copied and mainstreamed by middle class white kids who want to be "street" for some reason. Fashion and music wise it's cool for white kids to take their lead from the black kids.
The interesting thing is that it doesn't really work the other way around. Black kids who get good grades, show up for class, etc. are accused of acting "white."
Obviously I'm painting with a very broad brush here and making observations about race is always extremely touchy here in the USA, but I'm just noting that the culture exchange is not a two way street.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/