Slashdot Mirror
Five Ways To Save Video Games
Games.net has an article up with the somewhat dramatic title of Five Ways to Save Video Games. The piece doesn't feel the need to pull any punches. From the article: "#1 Stop Treating Women Like Whores - Sexy is fine. Titillating can be fun. But when you show stupid jiggle-physics and scantily-clad girls cooing and moaning and wriggling, you show yourselves for what you really are: sex-crazed children. And don't think for a minute that the mainstream media doesn't pick up on this. If you can't stop demeaning women (with skimpy outfits and hyper-sexuality) and men (by glamorizing massive musculature and testosterone-dripping masculinity), then get the hell out of the industry."
Seriously, how many articles like this have we seen recently? I don't mind slashdot covering the articles; after all, this is an undeniable trend in gaming journalism of late and deserves to be covered. I do wonder whether the authors of these articles realise just how redundant they're being, though.
What I've noticed is that, whatever language and specific examples are used to dress them up, most of these articles seem to be trying to point in the same direction. In short, they want to "save" the industry by getting it to drop the practices that have been successful at pushing gaming into the mainstream over the last decade.
Seriously, how often lately have we read that games should stop trying to be like movies, stop including fmv or, indeed, any cutscene longer than about five seconds. How many cheap (and inaccurate) shots at Final Fantasy X do we have to sit, on the supposed grounds that it was just a movie with a few interactive sequences? What precisely is the purpose of attacking games with "epic" plots? Should every game be about a cartoon plumber running around cleaning graffiti off an island?
I think this basically boils down to "disgruntled fanboy syndrome". The journalists writing these articles now are the same breed who, ten years ago (before the Playstation, when gaming could still reasonably be described as niche) were writing about what games needed to do to break into the mainstream. Now that gaming is firmly a mainstream practice, they want nothing more than to push it back into its niche? Why? Ego, mostly.
A lot of these sages figured that when games became a mainstream activity, the nature of the public would change to fit their past-time. They didn't figure on their past-time changing to fit the public. Look at all the Final Fantasy fans who whinge on (often at great length, in slashdot games comments section) about how Square haven't made a good game since Final Fantasy VI and are just interested in milking the franchise these days? Do their claims stand up to close investigation? Not by any objective standard. FFX had a more intricate and nuanced combat system than FFVI, had more "optional" content and a better range of tools available to convey emotional expression. FFX-2, by no means the most popular installment in the series, was a pretty risky venture, taking all kinds of liberties with established gameplay concepts that *could* have simply been milked further to provide a safe cash-flow. The vast majority of those who publically hark back to the so-called glory days of the series are simply trying to boost their own egos by showing all these pesky newcomers that "WE WERE HERE BEFORE YOU" and assuming that their opinions should carry more weight as a result of this.
Alternatively, turn the example around and look at Nintendo. Nintendo's course of action over the last few years (and its probable course over the next couple of years) has been pretty close to what most of these articles seem to be promoting. They've eschewed movie-style production values (look at the absence of voice-acting in Wind Waker, for example) and concentrated on "old school" gameplay concepts. If these articles (and the general thrust of opinion on slashdot games) were correct, Nintendo should be market leaders. In reality, they're faced with declining sales, plummeting market share and a near total absence of any press attention out of the strictly specialist media.
In short, most gaming media articles on "how to save gaming" are in fact nothing more than thinly disguised articles on "how to save the author's job and/or ego".
And don't think for a minute that the mainstream media doesn't pick up on this.
You mean the way I read articles about the male/female stereotypes in hollywood movies every other day?
The media will pick up whatever it wants, and if it doesn't find something, it creates something.
Remember all the crying of "think of the chiiiildren" back when they found some boobs in a game labeled 17 or older already? Right, that was a major issue for the 9-13 age bracket.
I've got another hint:
Stop worrying about the media and start making better games, you morons.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Just because crack and herion are big money makers, does that mean we should all sell it? I know it's more of a problem with our apathetic culture than anything else, but it doesn't mean people have to keep contributing to it. There's a time and place for porn, but not every movie/game/ad/whatever should be trying to achieve the same goals. I want to throw up everytime I see those tire commercials with "sexy people" dancing in the rain...What the fuck does that have to do with your tires? lol
I've known lots of women who would refuse to play certain games because of the way the women looked or were treated in a game. If developers just want to aim their games at half the market, I guess we should let them go ahead and shoot themselves in the foot, but if gaming's ever going to become a truely mainstream entertainment medium, we're gonna have to diversify. Sure people say the games industry makes more money than the movie industry, but that's because we charge $50 (and now $60) a pop while a movie ticket is usually below $10 and DVDs are usually about $20.
I guess I'm the only one here who agreed with most of this article? Games may be blowing up right now, but they're about to go completely stale if current trends continue. It's sad when I spend most of my time playing old SNES/Genesis games because there are hardly any decent games coming out today. And these sort of articles aren't going to stop until some change happens.
The only thing I didn't quite agree with is that games shouldn't be as epic/cinematic. As while I do agree with this when it comes to simple platformers and action games, I've yelled out "just hurry up and get to the game" during numerous cinematics for those sort of games, as I'm sure everyone has at some point. But a game like Final Fantasy would blow ass without it's epic story and grandiose cinematics. It should really depend on the game itself whether this is a problem or not, as while he makes it sound like a general one...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
For the most part they are pointing out the obvious, however I found it rather ironic that their choice of images to prove their points shows how little they understand games or have bothered to research their choice of imagery beyond "that looks good, we'll use that".
... this may well be the longest thing I've posted on slashdot...
#2 Your Storylines Suck--Get New Ones
The image they've chosen to match this one against is from System Shock 2, one of the few immersive story driven FPS games from that time.
The original system shock defined a genre in a period when "shoot, shoot, shoot, grab the key" was about as deep as the stories in FPS games were. Then half-life 1 stole system-shocks crown by doing nearly everything the original while not leaving you feeling as isolated by adding lots of NPCs you could interact with.
System shock 2 was a fine sequel that built upon elements of the first system shock and made it truely atmoshperic and immersive to the point that it was capable of scaring you.
Yes the storyline still left you as the only live "person" on the ship and partnered with an operator, but that is system shock's style. Maybe they could have done more with it, but honestly I think the team that designed system shock did themselves proud on both the storyline and the game itself.
#5 Cinema is Sinful
The image they've chosen to match this one against is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas with the general feel of "stop trying to make games like film, because it doesn't work".
Again, really poor research - yes SA did have cinematic cut-scenes but the majority were amazing and really helped define & enhance the underlying story and hold your interest.
Yes, they could have tried doing it all in locked 3rd-person mode so it didn't break the immersion but that wouldn't have worked nearly as well at keeping peoples attention, or setting the scene.
For example in Half-Life and Halo the narrative is delivered from bystanders but for the most part these people are extras who could (and often would) never be seen again so you don't need to develop any attachment to them. Contrast this with SA where you and your extended family are all major characters, each with their own backstory and plotlines which are woven into the main story.
By the time the last "chapter" of SA begins your character has been used and thoroughly betrayed, some of which helps the player remain motivated and understand the events of the final chapter which would have seemed unthinkable at the start of the game.
Hmm
yeah, and it's not exactly like they can treat men as whores (gigolos yes...)
Sillyness aside, I completely agree - heck, extend that to all media, though the fat and/or ugly guy/girl could make a career in radio if they have a sexy voice (for some reason the 90s song "I might like you better if we slept together" comes to mind, but I've also seen DJs that fall into that category).
What exactly is not demeaning to women, a tiny breasted lesbian woman with a butch hairdo and pant suit that has a man hating attitude in-game? To sell any copies you'd better have great gameplay, have a non-offensive or tongue-in-cheek attitude and a lot of word-of-mouth from the GLBT crowd. How about modeling the character after Betty Crocker? Which would sell to anyone better, the Betty Crocker beach volleyball or DoA Extreme Beach Volleyball? Even if Betty Crocker gameplay is WAAAY better, I doubt it'd sell more, even though Betty is a composite of a generic woman made to appeal to all women of all ages. Think of it this way - why does one watch beach volleyball? It's probably not for the game, or regular volleyball would fill stadiums.
What about a dress or skirt? Where do you draw the line at being too high cut for a skirt or low cut (in the bosom) for a dress? A similar sort of criteria could be applied to guys (pulling straight from Duke Nukem, muscles?, shirt?, sunglasses? pant bulge?).
How about skintight leather? Is that demeaning or empowering (think Catwoman... er, make that Underworld... er, Bloodrayne... er, just picture it in your mind)? Skintight black leather on women is traditionally associated with S&M, often with a woman in charge (at least in US media). So in one respect you have the empowered woman in control, yet you also have the duality that most men find skintight leather sexy, whether they're into S&M or not, which is demeaning.
...that he's criticising the best selling games of 2004-2005? One slashdotter was correct when he commented above that these industry commentators just want to push gaming back into a niche market. They can't handle the fact that it's grown into the mainstream.
I mean, come on, lets look at what points he really has:
#1 Stop Treating Women Like Whores
At least he admits that television and movies have been doing the same for years, but no one has said that those industries should stop it if they want to be "saved". Why is computer gaming any different? Sure, he has a point, but I don't really consider it a problem until all games are treating women like sex objects. There's enough counter-examples out there (Resident Evil, Beyond Good And Evil, Perfect Dark, Final Fantasy X, etc) to not get worried yet.
#2 Your Storylines Suck--Get New Ones
Wait, what? Let me get this straight... He's ciriticising System Shock 2 and Half Life for having derivative storylines? Two of the most highly rated FPSs of all times, both having won many Game Of The Year awards, yet they both have derivative story lines. Oh I'm sorry, Mr "there is only one story in the world" you come up with something better. FPSs are exactly that, First Person Shooters. The story will always revolve around one man (or woman) because it's First Person, and until the technology for realistic squad AI or personal interaction came along, it was decidedly easier to reduce the human interaction. Besides, people who play FPSs don't want to be swamped by character interaction. A little bit, maybe, but mostly they just want to shoot things. So developers write story lines around that. Now, mister smarty pants, you develop an "original" story that involves one person, unravelling a mystery, without any character interaction. Go on, I dare ya! Chances are it's going to involve:
a) Getting transported to an alien planet (Doom)
b) Armageddon (Doom 2)
c) A Killer virus (Pariah)
d) Zombies (Resident Evil)
e) Conspiracy Theory (Max Payne)
If you can come up with a better reason why one man might be alone against the masses then suggest it. Until then, I think your argument is pretty weak. There are only so many story lines out there, especially for one lone soldier.
#3 Enough with the Epics
Oh. Sorry... Yes, you're right, we don't need anymore epic games. We need more mundane games where people do mundane things. Paperboy, anyone?
We need less heroes? We need more "everyday people"? I'm sorry, but I'm an everyday person, and I play games for escapism. I play grand theft auto because I do things there I can't do in real life. I can't shoot cops, I can't fly helicopters, I can't ride bikes ten times faster than the speed limit. The last thing I want to do is play an everyday game with an everyday character. I find The Sims boring, though I understand its appeal. But I also think its a niche and more sim-like games will fail to succeed. Why on earth would I want to play a game about everyday people?
Same as with the first example, if every game in the world were basing themselves on a heroic character that has to save the world, maybe I'd be worried. There are enough counter-examples not to worry.
#4 Stop with the Spectacles
This one's a bit iffy, and I do think some of the games he mentions have problems. Doom 3 is a classic example of too much work on the graphics and the engine and not enough on the gameplay. Sure it looks pretty, but I think the game suffers because of it. Halo 2 I haven't played, so I can't comment on, but in answer to one of the questions he poses on Half Life 2... Yes, I think it is a great game and the physics model complements the game experience rather than dominating it. Spectacles are great to enhance a good game, not to make a bad game into a good game. But that just comes down to basic game design "What makes a good game?" Developers shouldn't stop building spectacles, they should jus
Call Forum Joe, That's my name, That name again is Forum Joe.