Slashdot Mirror
Diary of an Aging Gamer
eToyChest has an insightful column up looking at the realities of the modern game store shelf, and how the titles there relate to the youth of today. From the article: "This year's summer trip to the software store made one thing very clear to me: In its efforts to follow initial adopters into adulthood, the videogame industry has--inadvertently or otherwise--left children in the dust.
There is no denying the fact that today's kids aren't going to have the same experience we had when we were young. Back then, the bread and butter of the big game companies (i.e., Atari, Sega, Nintendo and others) was the child market. Games were appealing to grown-ups, too--if only for the tech factor--but appealing to the kids was where the most money could be had. Walking into the game store meant finding a wall full of games dedicated to the young player."
Disgaea: almost definitely for a more mature (read patient) crowd. The story is there, but the focus is now on the battles themselves. The thinking person will definitely triumph over the button-masher here.
Disgaea?
The person with more time at his hand will definitely triumph over any thinking person here.
There is this weird assumption that kids need to learn the controls starting with 2 buttons, 3 buttons, 6 buttons etc.
I am an adult and have seen many kids play video games today. They are flawless with jumping straight into a deep, complex game. They don't really need mario, pacman, tetris.
In the last ten years, the game market has turned into shit.
There's really nothing new. There are piggy-backed enhancements of first person shooters, which culminate in hyper-twitching frag-fests like Halo and Unreal, or anti-social technoligized anarchist stupidity like GTA. And what's left over are the same tired RPGs and war games. It gets old real quickly.
There have been some promising games in development. I think SWG was really trying to be revolutionary, but that game has been murdered by corporate overlords who have micromanaged the design so that the game is essentially unplayable. That goes for most of the MMORPGS.
Don't even get me started on console games. The last console I bought was the N64. There were maybe a half-dozen decent games, and then the rest were crap that was stupid and badly designed. It used to be that anything that made it to cart was considered decent quality, but that's not the case any more. There's nothing more soul-sucking than spending money for a game that bores or frustrated you a half hour into it.
There is a reason why the game industry is in a glut. They're making crap. They've become too big and slow and dumb. They keep putting a fresh coat of paint on the latest thing from 1994 and finally people are tired of it.
I've skipped several generations of consoles. I still have no desire to get one. I don't think I've missed a goddam thing either, which is a sad state of affairs.
With the PSP being popular, the blowback from suck-ass game developers is beginning to turn full circle. The older the software supported, the more likely people won't throw the stuff in the trash because the new software sucks. I expect this trend to continue until people rediscover Missile Command, Joust, Asteroids, Robotron, Stargate and the hundreds of truly original and creative games from the 80s. If you think about it, there was more innvoation in six months of any given year from 1980-1990 than there has been in the entire last decade. Pathetic.
This month's Game Informer has an article addressing this same issue. I think the title was "The Greying of the Super Mario Crowd" or something similar. Basically, the article talked about how the game industry is catering to the people who played Mario Bros as kids, but are now older and have more mature tastes. When they were younger, they played Nintendo; when they aged, Nintendo was too kiddy for them, so they migrated to SNES and Sega. Then it was PS, then it was PS2 and so on.
While I think this is a great idea, I have to disagree with the idea that the game industry is more focused on older gamers. I used to work for a game publisher (the one we're all sick of hearing about these days) and our most profitable games were not the M or Teen rated games, but the kids' games. I never would have thought that if I hadn't started working there, but I think it's because we're all older and out of touch with what kids (10 and under) are into.
I don't think the industry needs to market to these kids though. Most of the kids games tie in to some kind of cartoon, kids movie (Charlie And the Chocolate Factory, anyone?), toy, etc. The kids already know of the characters and would probably want to buy the game just because it has their favorite cartoon character on the box. The thing with these games is that it's parent-friendly too. A non-game-savvy parent may stop by Toys R Us on the way back from work to pick junior up a treat. Is the parent going to buy some game he's never heard of, but there are posters of all over the store? Probably not. The parent will buy Kids Next Door or Britney's Dance Beat because he knows junior likes watching that on TV.
You are talking about kids that already know how to use a video game system. I have witnessed four different friends' children get initiated into the world of video games, and I am certain it's a learned skill just like anything else.
The newest one was started on Pac man, because there's no buttons, and he always moves until he hits a wall. We tried starting with Mario Kart, but he couldn't make the connection between pressing the button and driving.
I don't think there's a linear a progression of buttons, but I think that there's definitely a progression of no buttons to buttons.
It's perfectly analogous to normal children's toys, so I don't see how it would be a bad assumption. I think it's true personally, and for me it's based on actually watching a kids try to play games.
My (2 year old) son plays a game where he runs around in a 3d world using the arrow keys. He only turns left. He can open doors, climb ladders, remember paths from town to town but has no interest in turning right.
t
Women don't necessarily like watching action movies, so why should the same women be expected to like playing action games?
A lot of the traditional interests of women would probably be AI-complete to simulate. Women are thought to like chick flicks, which tend to be heavier on the drama than a typical action movie. It's a lot harder to simulate emotional responses to English sentences than it is to simulate the effects of a bullet.
I don't understand how what character is in the game has anything to do with how innovative or different the game play is. Are you trying to say that Mario Golf, Mario Cart, Mario Tennis, Super Mario Sunshine, Paper Mario, and Mario Party are all the same games beacuse they all feature Mario?
Leveraging an existing, well liked character is a great way to market innovative games, because people like to buy something that has a little bit of familarity. A lot of innovative games fail because they are too new for casual gamers to take a chance on. Take an innovative game and make Mario the main character though, and it'll sell. The best part is that everybody benefits... The people who like the tried and true, and all of us who wish games were more innovative.
It has nothing to do with focus on adults, it has nothing to do with 8 bit vs 64 bit, it has to do with the learning curve. That's all. So all the rant about Sony vs Nintendo is nice, but off-topic at best.
Stuff changes, yes, but it changes in a direction that's harder and harder to grasp for a new gamer. Regardless of age, a new gamer is utterly lost in most current PC games. Kids just happen to be an example of new gamer, but try introducing your old mom or grandma to some games and you may notice the exact same phenomenon. That's the whole problem.
_You_ have likely had the privilege of having that learning curve flattened across a decade or two. We older ones have started on stuff that had just one joystick and often one that only went either let-right or up-down, but you only had to use one of the axis. (E.g., Pong.) Then we had a joystick and one button. Then a joystick and two buttons, but still, you had to mash A and shoot bombs with B when it hit the fan.
Now a console has some 12 buttons to memorize, and some PC games need you to use half the keyboard.
The move to 3D too introduced a bunch of stuff that's an extra pain in the butt, without actually making gameplay any richer. E.g., also wrestling the camera. E.g., FPS "jump puzzles" just for the sake of one extra thing to spend time learning, not because it actually adds anything to the story.
Other stuff was also added just for the sake of complex controls, not because it was needed to enable you to do more stuff. E.g., at the end of the day, between Final Fight and my martial artist in City Of Heroes, the difference isn't that big: both run around and punch hordes of NPCs in the face. But COH makes me also manage some 5 toggles, several buffs, an endurance (mana) bar, and try to string the best combo of 7 different attacks.
Etc.
That's the problem: new players are supposed to just _know_ already stuff that you and I learned in two decades.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There may not have been any direct sequels in the FF universe, but the basic gameplay is the same. Form a party, go and kick the ass of some powerful evil, find Moogles, Chocobos, and Sid along the way, participate in many turn-based battles, and (as of late) use summons/guardian spirits to wreak havoc over and over and over. They're up to twelve games now with that basic pattern. I'd call that "milking the franchise," personally.
Goo goo g'joob.