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
...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.