Slashdot Mirror
Should Games Be More Boring?
An anonymous reader writes "At Gamasutra, serious games creator Ian Bogost is making the case that video games should be more mundane, particularly discussing of Nintendo' Brain Age: 'It's certainly a very different kind of game from Halo or even Miyamoto's own Zelda series, games that allow the player to inhabit complex fantasy worlds. Instead, much of Brain Age's success seems to come precisely from the ordinariness of its demands.' Would games become more accessible if they tapped into everyday things a little bit more, as opposed to spiralling off into fictional realities?"
No
"hokey religions and taking a nap are no match for a stab in the head" -- Black Mage
But yes, I think it would be good (for developers and for gamers) for games to break out into more genres. Here's a quote from Rod Humble, Executive Producer of The Sims, which neatly sums up a good way to think about this:
Just to get the imaginative juices flowing for developers here are some great ideas:
Virtual paint drying
Virtual grass growing
Virtual lawn mowing
Virtual gutter cleaning
Virtual root canal
Virtual hoop-pushing down a virtual dirt road with a virtual stick
I'm sure developers could take these a long way and I'm sure we can all agree we greatly anticipate the results
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Simulators are the way to go, simulate everything thats possible to simulate, so far I've sailed boats, driven busses, flown airplanes and got shot to death without even leaving my desk!
Particles, stuff that matters.
...and I hate it when food tastes good.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Heh no. I sort of he's coming from but he missed the boat, badly. I think that what developers should try to understand is that there is no "magic formula" for creating a good game. You can't feed the "fun" factor into a checklist and hit every point to get a good game. I think that in order to design a good game, it's necessary to try to think in entirely different terms. Great games are born from innovative and creative concepts, which are then mobilized using creative and fun stories, interfaces, graphics, etc. I'm not at all saying it's a crap shoot - I'm saying that once you start thinking in terms of formula, you lose the creative aspect of the game, and arguably, the fun factor as well. And that's what makes a game great - and of course it's also what ultimately makes it sell.
Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
I think it partially stems from the fact that the US, in particular, has this sort of aversion to drama and abstraction, in general. We seem to prefer the "realistic" to the "fantastic", partially because fantasy and mellodrama offend so easily. In fantasy, and mellodrama, the audience is required to open up themselves in various ways, emotionally and imaginitively, that I think a lot of people feel a bit self-concious of doing. It's also kind of a macho thing too, guys aren't supposed to be emotional or particularly imaginative.
I think this sorta explains the rise of GTA over fantasy games, but I think it also begins to explain the distinction between Brain Age and fantasy/drama titles.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Having a few 'mundane' games is one thing, particularly if we're talking Nintendo's type of mundane in terms of Nintendogs, WiiPlay, and the like.
The fact is, Fantastic games are what sell systems. I begged for my first PlayStation (one) thanks to Spyro the Dragon, and had Sega been on the ball a little more, NiGHTS would've let 'em sell quite a few more systems too. Brain Age is an okay game, but when I reach for my DS, I have Elite Beat Agents, Mario, Sonic, Cooking Mama, FF3... you get where I'm going with this.
Brain Age is a good secondary game as a 'pick up and play' offering. It's NOT what made the DS a success.
If by games, you mean Slashdots Games category, I really do not see how it could be any more boring.
I notice the actual question has to do with fantasy realities, and that the motivation is making games more accesible. This is analogous to saying "should we stop making fantasy books so that people read more books?" After all, not everyone is for 800-page novels with dozens of characters (often with unpronounceable names) and make-believe politics and geogrpaphy. Not to mention magic and possibly mythical creatures.
So should we stop writing fantasy?
How about we just keep writing fantasy, and also let people interested in straight-fiction just read straight-fiction. We can also have mysteries, educational books, sci-fi, horror, philosophy, etc.
Why criticize a genre to "help" a medium? Computer games are a medium. Fantasy games are a genre in that medium. If there's great response to brain age: make more games like it. There's no more reason to cut fantasy than there would be to cut the fantasy section of a bookstore.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
One of the most addictive games I've ever played.
Hello Ian and welcome to the games industry! (You noob.)
You might want to look up games such as The Sims, all the various Simpsons spin-offs or even Skate or Die or Paperboy from a previous generation. (i.e., its been done many, many times before.)
This article reinforces my belief that most people are complete and total idiots and don't have anything better to do than show everybody else how much they just don't get it.
Yeah, yeah, I know... kind of like this post.
-- toolie
If you want "boring", there's a place for you in Gold Farming.
It's absolutely ordinary for there to be shootings in South Central LA, but it's not boring.
To say Brain Age is boring because the tasks are ordinary displays stupidity and a lack of vocabulary. Rather simple vocabulary, I might add.
Also, the link is to the third page of the story, which is where Brain Age is discussed, but it is bad form.
Enough about the stupidity of anonymous cowards and their story submissions, on to where I talk shit about the article!
The article is just pathetic. "television is so familiar, it's not even startling to think about television programming produced solely to discuss other media forms." This is in response to a comment about TV shows about making movies. But there are movies about making things, and on this planet we call them documentaries. This lack of ability to stop and notice reality pervades the article, which is split into three pages to garner ad impressions, but has little enough content to have been on one page of this size.
His summary (which is not actually a summary - this not being an essay, but a meandering rant) follows: "we should want games to be more boring. Not just some games, we should want many of them, maybe even most of them to be boring, so that the ones that are not can become the Casablancas of our future medium." What he seems to be saying here is that we should want games to be crap, so that the non-crap can look even better by comparison.
Say it with me: mundane does not equal boring. Sure, most things which are mundane are also boring. But then there's sex.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mundane != Boring.
This title is just wrong. Zonk, is there any way we could please change it?
Mundane means commonplace, everyday, ordinary. Boring means uninteresting. Not the same. The article is not saying that games should be less interesting -- the article is saying that games could do well to apply more to real life, and to real skills (I.E. Smooth Moves having players balance brooms on their hands).
I'm all for making games more mundane -- I think it's a great idea, and it's a phenomenal idea for making games ultimately more fun. If "fun" is about learning patterns (as Raph Koster posits), then it only makes sense to build off of patterns that are found in real life (hence why driving games are so much fun).
However, I'm [b]not[/b] in support of making the games boring.
When i wake up after my Halo induced nap.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Brain Age's success doesn't come from being "ordinary," otherwise the myriad of chess, sudoku, and crossword games would have brought in massive sales. Its strength is derived from its accessibility and simplicity: not everyone has the time, energy, skills, or desire to learn complex building trees, resources management, or practice their trigger finger. Every man, woman, and child above the age of seven can add simple numbers, count objects, and match things. Further, the assigned tasks are short and mentally satisfying, not appealingly "ordinary."
I think this is just phrased so bad, maybe brain-age is boring to you. But it's obviously not boring to all those people playing it and enjoying it. If something is boring why the hell would people enjoy it? I personally find all those MMORPGs boring as hell but to my friend who is addicted it's like crack, I mean I don't say "Should more games be boring--just like MMORPGs". Anyway just a bad title....
Use existing graphics, cut your graphics/sound/artist dept. down by 80% and use the rest of the time to make an interesting game. Doesn't matter the genre, just make it fun/interesting/etc.
Look they are people out there who are all over ass sweat on the body they just shot. Great. Too bad ass sweat doesn't actually make the game good.
Given X the total time from start to finish how much of X is not on something relating to actually game play experience?
Accounting: The Game
Paperwork IV: The Redemption
Diablo III: Excel spreadsheet edition
1080p Crossword Puzzles
Starcraft 2: Zerg Human Resources
Grand Theft Auto V: Insurance Adjuster
Half Life 3: You actually work out the half life of a given element
Some no....that is why we have a variety of games available....
Games are distractions. Viewed from a clinical perspective, they are all chores. Why should I blow up the bad guy's superweapon again? Or take out that legion of storm troopers trying to kill me? Why should I bother solving some random number puzzle to access this door?
Most gamers would reply, "that's different!" But is it really? If you're not all that interested in video games, living out a fantasy like that might not be interesting. In fact, it may very well feel like a chore. (
(As a side note, this is why I stopped playing first person shooters save for those that take place in fictional universes that interest me. e.g. Elite Forces. FPS games were becoming a repetitive task of "avoid the zombie attacks, shoot the bad guys, avoid the zombie attacks, shoot the bad guys." Online gameplay was marginally more interesting with, "shoot other guy, get shot by someone else, shoot the other guy, get shot by someone else." But I digress.)
Generally speaking, when you view or interact with entertainment you are looking to invoke an emotional connection of some sort. A highly developed sense for a particular form of entertainment allows one to appreciate complex forms of it more readily than others. Meanwhile, some just want forms that evoke a simple reaction to a simple form of that entertainment.
To use music as an example, Beethoven can evoke a lot of emotion in those who have developed an ear for classical music and enjoy such music. Others prefer a more direct approach of a shouted out emotional state as found in Death Metal Rock. Still others are looking for a quick attack/release cycle of emotions as found in pop and techno music. (Ever notice the 90's techno always dropped the background music for a few seconds at the height of the song? It's a cheap trick, but it has serious emotional and cognitive impact on the listener.)
Taking this back to video games, it's not the chores themselves that make Brain Age interesting. It's being placed in a situation where you have to react and think quickly. Simple math and puzzles are used as the vehicle for such tests. For some players, the pressure being placed on them to get a better score is reward in of itself. This is similar to the reward one gets by blasting through a shoot-em'up while avoiding the gazillion+1 enemies that are hogging the screen space. Pressure is put on you to perform, and a certain reward is felt when you achieve a good performance level. One can even be proud of their achievement by sharing their score with others. In the old days, this meant entering your initials into the arcade machine. For Brain Age, this means having a normalized and easily relatable score to brag to your friends about.
My end point is that these games aren't "boring" at all. They are just as interactive as other forms of gaming. The only difference is in the audience they appeal to. Just as country music appeals to some while death metal rock appeals to others. It takes all kinds.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Fantastic settings implicitly demand that the player makes an effort to understand the world that the game is situated in, whether it involves magic, borderline-magical technology, or just plain weird situations. A mundane setting obviates that, but at the same time it strips the whole arrangment of any mystique that it might have otherwise had. Part of the presentation, and of the draw of the game as a whole, is its trappings-- something like Brain Age doesn't need a backstory like Warcraft or the Lord of the Rings, but at the same time, how many people are interested in playing a Real Life MMO? And no, Second Life or the various ARGs don't count, because they simply drip fantasy... and other, less mentionable substances.
... everything needs to be "dumbed down" for the masses these days? *sigh*
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
"Let the market decide"?
Thank you Captain Obvious. Since the author of the article wasn't suggesting that such games be given special government funding, or that people be forced to play them at gunpoint, then the market will decide anyway.
He's quite entitled to make suggestions, companies are free to ignore them, or consumers free to not buy them. You seem to be implying that anything outside some artificially restricted concept of "The Market" is not valid; i.e. software houses decide what to produce based only on their own opinions/research and consumers either buy or don't.
Chanting "let the market decide" like a mantra isn't meaningful or insightful; it's redundant.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Brain age sold well because it claimed to make you smarter and your brain younger. Their market was literally dumb people who wanted a game to fix that. That is like printing your own money. Games shouldn't get more mundane, they just need to make more outrageous claims. I'm thinking an immune system boost version of Mario Paint would sell nicely.
Virtual Baseball.
Sweet informative mod.
The biggest thing here is that Gamasutra is missing the point.
Brain Age is not a popular game because it is boring or because it has such a broad appeal. It is popular because it is good. Just like Zelda and Halo (NIMHO, but that isn't the point). Good games will always be popular. Bad games will go the way of Diakatana.
When it comes to games, the point is make something that is quality work. If it is, it will find a market to appeal to. Again, look back a number of weeks when Geometry Wars was being talked about. Is that game boring? No. It is simple, but the real key, it is really fun. Hence, why it is so popular.
I will say this, if a Game "Magazine/web site" is making this article, I really have to question their credibility.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
You jest, I made a game where you can become an accountant:
http://www.kudosgame.com/
It does really well. Maybe that's because you can also be a skateboarding molecular biologist who arrests street criminals using kung fu. Who knows?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Hmm, and what has he ever been involved in creating? Some instructional games carrying a activist message that no one's ever heard of? Yeah, I'm positive this guy knows what kind of games people want to play, and why they do.
That reminded me of the conspiracy people in the 70s and 80s saying that the government recruited kids with high scores for the army. How low have they sunk! Now they force you to get high scores!
Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
IMHO, games like any kind of media, should have various genres and kinds to appeal to different types of audiences.
Usually people that are into jet-lee movies aren't into Woody Allen movies and people into Gershwin aren't into 50cent.
I find Britney Spear songs train-wrecks, but a lot of people must like it seen how many million albuns she's sold. Same with Pokemon and most Nintendo games.
Make several diferent games in several genres targetting different audiences.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Anyone play Myst before?
Most boring game I've ever played, yet it sold in numbers that are only beaten by the Sims, which is incredible for Myst's time. However, I just couldn't get into a clickable slideshow. Felt like going to an art museum. Even text-based games are more exciting. So I think Myst was just a hype thing, a fluke. No way a game so boring could legitimately be popular. Nope.The reason games like Brain Age and a lot of Wii titles can be so simple, yet so successful is because they offer a completely new and original way to play video games. When video games first appeared on the market, the fact that they were a completely new form of entertainment is what sucked people in, and compared to what video games have become, these first games were quite 'boring'. I think, in time, we'll see a similar trend with these new games that are experimenting with motion sensitivity and the like. Eventually they will improve and branch off into completely new genres and the games that initiated this change will be regarded as primitive and 'boring'.
I sincerely hope this isn't taken as a troll, but George W Bush himself always came across to me as someone playing a movie-style president for an electorate brought up on the same thing. Not just the gung-ho mentality, but the whole package.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my gut reaction is that you're so soaked in this that you can't see it. Or are you implying that US society is much *less* influenced by images in popular culture than others are?
And you have an aversion to abstraction? Advertising and branding, the red-blood of All-American capitalism *is* abstraction of values. How else does a simple tick-shaped "swoosh" symbol, or some pretty white writing on a red background saying "Coca Cola" have so much meaning? It's not that Nike goods or Coca Cola are so much better than the competition; it's that they have so much imagery associated with them. It's bordering on hyperreality. I think this sorta explains the rise of GTA over fantasy games, GTA realistic? It's not exactly Ridley Scott's "Legend", but it's still a white boy's safe fantasy of black urban life. but I think it also begins to explain the distinction between Brain Age and fantasy/drama titles. Wasn't Brain Age/Dr. Kawashima a Japanese success to start off with before it did well in the US? The stereotype of American entertainment isn't "small-scale realism", it's big-bucks blockbusters.
I appreciate that there's been a move to "reality" TV in recent years, but if your reality shows are anything like ours in the UK, then they're contrived situations set up like a lab experiment designed to provoke drama and edited to play out like a real-life soap.
If reality TV reflects anything, it's the increasingly artificial and contrived direction modern society is moving towards, everyone's life played out as 15 minutes of TV fame.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
...for Waiting for Duke Nukem Forever. Navigating around the cubicle farm at work, eating, sleeping, commenting on /., joking about Soviet somewhere or other... Then Uwe Boll can make a movie about it.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I think that the magazines for home PC and console games tend to cater to the hardcore crowd - guys that can love games and will spend hundreds of hours on them. They have wanted difficult games or the games will be poorly reviewed.
Unfortunately that may only apply to 5-10% of the gaming public. What Nintendo has been doing is making games for everyone else. What nintendo has done is gone to make games for casual players, non-traditional gamers (like brainage puzzles), and cross-age groups. Sony doesn't get it either, as the PSP has been full of long difficult games too, all the while Nintendo DS comes out with stuff like Cooking Mama and creates a fad around pretending to slice vegetables.
Now the arcade paradigm, which doesn't require even more than 2-3 minutes of game play per game, has been disappearing from the consoles too, because of the focus on hardcore gameplay. That is largely missing from XBOX 360 except for the live downloads.
Even last month's Game Informer magazine had an editorial that tore into the general public making hardcore games too easy.
So it's not a matter of "boring games", but rather the games that the hardcore gamer and media have largely chose to ignore, which is what the casual gamer wants.
... but I don't enjoy my mundane life. Which is exactly why I like games that have "unrealistic" settings.
It sounds like the writer of this article does not really grasp the reason why Brain Age, and for that matter, all games, are fun. Brain Age is fun because we learn as we play. Halo is fun because we learn as we play. Brain Age does this transparently; openly offering challenges to the player that test certain skills. Games like Halo do the same thing: we are constantly seeing new challenges that test our skills to navigate, aim, conserve ammo, etc. Games are not fun when they are too hard, as there is too much noise and we can't get a worthwhile signal out of it without excessive effort filtering out the noise. I don't particularly like FPS's, nor do I enjoy jazz music, and you could say it's because I don't understand it enough to learn from it. Games are not fun when they are too easy, as we feel that we've grokked the game, and there's nothing else to learn from it. After you hit the glitch level in Pac-man, what's the point in continuing?
The author clearly shows his lack of understanding in this quote: It is a game of chores, really, not of challenges. Games like speed arithmetic and number tracing actually become maddeningly dull after only a short time, but many players persist because they want to have the sensation of keeping their minds sharp. [...] [It] makes people feel as though they are improving their long term mental health. It satisfies a mundane need for personal upkeep.
I played Brain Age daily until I unlocked the final challenge-dealie (I think it's the one where you say the numbers instead of write them?). Then I stopped. Along the way, it was nice to see improvement in each challenge over time, but after a while I would plateau, and that game would stop being fun to me. I kept playing so that I could unlock the other games, as they would offer me new situations to learn. If all the games had been available to me at the start, I would have stopped playing far earlier, and that unlock system is one of the great ideas that other games of Brain Age's ilk have adopted. I would love to know how many people keep playing regularily after all challenges are unlocked and they are not seeing significant improvements.
Of course, all of this is not something I thought consciously as I was playing. I realized it after reading A Theory of Fun for Game Design. A great read, and really has made me think twice about why I enjoy some games and not others.
boooooring. thank god i beat that addiction. all it took was a divorce. phew... i got off easy.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Games are all about escapism and fantasy fulfillment. The last thing I want is a weekly shopping simulator.
If I want boring and mundane I'll log into life 2.0.
I don't think it has anything to do with drama, or abstraction. It just comes down to the fact that for many people including myself, we *don't* like pretending to be dwarfs, fairies, wizards,warlocks, or even giants. People have their own definition of fun, and thats okay. Just because its not fantasy doesn't mean its not "creative" or "not boring". Believe it or not, their is a reason why Seinfeld and not firefly is the greatest tv show ever, and it has nothing to do with how "boring" one is or how much or more "creative" one is.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Exactly, and just like life, those that work end up paying for those that don't. =)
"The Last Starfighter"
I think it was on Showtime everyday for several years while I was growing up. I have similar fantasies that all of my work in Kobo Deluxe will pay off. I'm on level 647.
The real problem is the concept of "The Market." Games like Brain Age appeal to a different audience than RPGs. Economically, they are barely related. They aren't substitutes or complements. They just run on the same systems as different genre games. People don't go to a store looking for an FPS and walk out with Pong. Asking "should games be more boring?" is like asking "should everything on TV be more like soap operas?" Like with TV shows, the market for video games is too broad to really be treated as a single market. What TFA should have asked is "have the video game companies been paying enough attention to the arcade and puzzle game markets?"
Uh, NO. I don't ever want games to "more boring". In short I think that guy is crackers. I want over stimulation when I play games. Like Devil May Cry 3. I want adrenaline rushes and laughs. More boring? That is all just crazy talk. If I want "more boring" I will play Nintendogs with my 7 year old daughter. Other wise hook me up with some Star Craft 2, Crysis, UnReal 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, or Lair. That is the stuff I bought a PS3 and an $1800 computer for!
It may not have made the DS a success, but I'd certainly say it contributed. I fear I don't have any specific sales numbers to back that up, but I can say that my wife got a DS specifically to play Brain Age. Within a week of first seeing ours, my sister-in-law bought one for the same reason, and shortly after that, so did my parents. Surely we can't be the only DS owners in the world for which games like Brain Age & Big Brain Academy were the tipping point...
Works for you I guess, but I tried that game and almost went to sleep.....
I play games for the escapism. If I wanted mundane I'd stick to my real life and go to work, do my laundry and clean my house...or I guess I could play the Sims.
This sig is in another castle.
Oxymoron: Popular game Brain Age is Boring.
Yeah, the title is totally wrong:
Boring: Uninteresting and tiresome; dull.
Synonyms: boring, monotonous, tedious, irksome, tiresome, humdrum.
forgot one
TSP report writer
He's so serious, his games are all boring, with such sleeper hits as Xtreme Xmas Shopping, Bacteria Salad, Xtreme Errands and who could forget the gut-churning action of The Howard Dean for Iowa Game, and my personal favorite: Activism, The Public Policy Game.
This guy is serious alright, seriously deranged. He probably gets aroused while doing his taxes. His rant and much of the other "interviews" he does are little more than attention grabs, dropping names here and there trying to compare himself to the market giants. Big head with a small brain.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Games should go back to being games, rather than video based reincarnations of choose-your-own-adventure books or 120 hour movies with semi-interactive cut scenes (by which I mean the actual game play in between the cinematics). Games have put eye/ear candy above game play and plot for the last decade.
I own Brain Age and Lord of the Rings Online. The two games do different things for me. One keeps my mind fresh in the afternoon and reminds me to stop and take a break from work. It's a nice casual experience that is good for taking a little off time from work. The other is totally emersive experience that completely takes me out of my own life and let's me pretend to be an elf from Mirkwood, slay goblins and orcs and fulfill righteous quests. This would never work during the day because it's TOO engaging, but is great for after when my kid goes to bed and I need to unwind from the day and do something .
I don't see any need to homogenize all games because they all don't fit one scenario. Just like tools, different games are good for different scenarios.
Overmind: Thank you for stopping by the hive today, larva. Before we spawn you, tell us a little about yourself.
Larva: It has been my personal dream to spawn into something for your organization. I'm not desperate for a position, but there is not much I can do in my current position as a larva besides crawl around. I am looking for a role with more responsibility, like being a drone and harvesting minerals.
Overmind: What do you feel is your best quality that you can offer our organization?
Larva: If I spawn as an ultralisk or drone, I will do my best to serve the Swarm in that position. So, I guess that I'm adaptable to the Swarm's needs.
Overmind: Most of your job duties will entail killing humans. I note on your resume that you have no prior experience in this field. How do you feel about killing terrans?
Larva: Some of my best friends are human, so I'm not really comfortable with that.
Overmind: Yes, well thank you for coming in today. We will give you a call if we have an opening for you.
I am on the road crew. This is my stop sign.
Chanting "let the market decide" like a mantra isn't meaningful or insightful; it's redundant.
You must be new here.
That partly sums up what I felt; namely, that the current up-its-backside-with-Hollywood-production-values games market is just a small percentage of the total *potential* market. I felt this before games like Dr. Kawashima/Brain Age, and it was games like that which persuaded me to buy a DS Lite; and also the reason that I didn't even consider the PSP.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Yeah, I played that until I realized I could be cleaning my room instead.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
This is exactly what I've been saying about second-life. In second Life, I stand up, walk outside, consult my map, get in my virtual car, sit in virtual traffic, and go to a virtual zoo to see a virtual Kangaroo. On google, I type "kangaroo" and get a bajillion hits about kangaroos, with everything I ever wanted to know right in front of me. If boring games would sell, Second Life would be the new Warcraft
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Xtreme Standing in Line at the DMV
Supermarket Shopping Ultra
Malfunctioning Soda Machine Assault Omega
Dog Poop Scooping, Tournament Edition
Name That Smell, North Jersey Edition ... and my flagship product
Goofing of at Work II: Slashdot Boogaloo
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I think this is also taking it a bit far. I shall rephrase the question:
With popular franchise games becoming more engrossing at each subsequent release, would game publishers be better able to serve their existing customers (or, alternatively, expand the market for a particular game) by making it less exciting and immersive?
The answer here seems to be "Games like that are for weenies. We don't want any, but hey - if the publishers want to bang their heads against the wall, more power to 'em." I, for one, would like to see *larger* RPG and adventure game worlds, with more casual gameplay that doesn't require me to perform upkeep on my in-game knowledge and dexterity. Principally, the skill curve and knowledge curve should be very shallow as the game progresses. That is, I should be able to pick up the game after a hiatus and enjoy it without being frustrated or studying a notebook or having to replay the lower levels. That kind of boring could appeal to me.
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
I think what makes brain age different than every other game is that the sole focus of the game is self-improvement; it's like an RPG where you are (rather than control the main character). Let me explain.
In most RPGs, you get better primarily by gaining levels or acquiring new equipment. In Zelda, you get a new boomerang or a better sword. What's unique about brain age is that rather than doing better because you got the +10K dagger of Pwnage, your skills actually improve. You become better at adding and lower your "brain age". It's just like an RPG; you gain rated levels based on how you perform, but the focus is on your performing better, rather than giving your character special skills or equipment that allow them to perform better in your stead.
I can't think of too many other games where the focus is on self-improvement rather than avatar-improvement (or just simply a high score).
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
is a move away from fancy graphics in some types of games that don't really benefit from them...
RPG's especially don't need spectacular graphics, and rarely use them well. Typically, square's games in particular have become fairly boring and cumbersome as the games have stopped being about gameplay and plot, and turned more and more into an engine for showing off a bunch of artwork and cinematics. Very few games in the genre (except maybe the zelda games, and to a lesser degree FFXII) used the transition to 3D to the advantage of gameplay. Most games in the genre are still the same as they used to be, but with a big clunky 3D interface that doesn't really fit.
The only games that really make since as 3D are first person shooters, which always existed as only 3D, and 3rd person platformers, which made a pretty nice transition in mario 64.
I've thought about this a lot lately and I've come to a conclusion that is essentially in agreement with the article.
I don't really want a lot of fictional reality in my games these days. There was a time when I did, (paper & early computer RPGs) but I've since decided that many of these games take up way too much time for no real payoff. I think they can be as bad a drug habit for some folks and I am somewhat disturbed by the proliferation of MMORPGs. Don't get me wrong, there's a place for these games and they can be fun, but I doubt it's a good thing when adults start spending a majority of their time in these worlds.
MMORPGs aside, even other genres are putting heavy doses of 'fictional reality' in their games. Take the new Test Drive Unlimited game for example. You choose an avatar at the beginning of the game and psuedo-roleplay the character. No thank you. I just want to drive fast cars. You can leave all that crap out and just have the races and I'd be happier. The story lines in the Need for Speed Underground series were annoying and unnecessary as well. It's ME driving. I don't give a crap about the story or the other characters... I just like to win races. Yes it's nice to have a series of races in a big competition but I don't require any back story.
The most 'fictional reality' I can take these days is that found in a single player FPS, and it's rare that I actually finish those. I much prefer a quick, visceral, multi-player FPS match, which plays more like a sporting event than anything else. No fictional characters and no emotional involvement with any fictional reality.
As for mobile gaming... I like straight forward puzzle games or things like pinball, breakout, etc.. No Final Fantasy or Zelda for me, thanks.
What's really important to me personally is that the actual game mechanics are fun and that the real me is the protagonist. Perhaps I pretend that I'm in WWII running around shooting Nazis, or in a space station running around shooting aliens, but it's still ME doing the running around & shooting. I'm not pretending to be someone else and I don't really care what the setting or the story is as long as the game mechanics are good.
To quote billg: That's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard!
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
There certainly is a need for more mundane games, however I think the issue is not just 'Halo' vs 'Brainage'. I think the underlying issue is a little different. When I look at todays games by far most of them are simply inspired by other games, it sounds rather obvious, but I think its a major reason why the big publishers produce so little interesting stuff. Developers should not limit their source of inspiration to other games, but simply get the inspiration from real life, books, movies and whatever, but for most part its simply not happening. Games try to hard to be games these days instead of being an interpretation of whatever topic they are about. This restricts games a lot in what they can be, since every game follows the same rules instead of just doing what would be best for the topic.
I am sure that we will see a lot of BrainAge clones in the next years, but its missing the point, since its again just cloning already existing games.
Probably more people playing Solitaire on platforms from cellphones to hot Vista boxes than World of Warcraft will ever get. I don't know precisely what, but there's something to be learned from the success of Solitaire as a game on computers.
Shouldn't this be TPS report writer?
Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
I think the author's point is a good one, though poorly expressed.
Probably a better way to put it is,
"Should there be more games that are cerebral or contemplative rather than action oriented"
Put that way, the answer is probably yes. There are a lot of activities that people enjoy that are not excitement-oriented. And there have always been games that tapped into this kind of entertainment: board games, puzzle games, virtual pets, classic adventure games, resource management games, weird abstract games. Games like Brain Age reveal that this category is hardly mined out. But the factors that make such games enjoyable tend to be more unique and difficult to anticipate than, say, first person shooters, so they will probably always remain a minor component of the market.
Bullshit.
What will "take off" is what is backed by the biggest capital, which in turn buys ads and "reviews." Without this, nothing takes off.
Do you even know what games are on the market today? Just take a look: three or four genres, each clogged with half a dozen clones vying for the same shelf space. And these clones are likely to be sequels, which means they are even less original than their last iteration.
Recycling the same old shit month after month, year after year is hardly "the market" deciding. It's the suits deciding.
Gaming is now a market with a high barrier to entry. That's a complete reversal of the situation we had even fifteen years ago, when publishing opportunities were great and the variety in games even greater. As a result your fictitious sentient "market" is simply a puppet on a string, dancing the way corporate money tells it.
make it as boring as humanly possible.. games should be as dull as watching the grass grow that will definately boost sales who wouldnt want to buy "super turbo grass watcher 5000" ok so everybody, but that's besides the point. There is a difference between boring and overly immersive. Stimulation can result in different ways and they don't all have to come from the complex means that people typically think they need to as of late. This doesn't make them boring.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
Personally, I typically spend my evenings saving princesses so I can once again rescue the triforce.
Maybe Ian Bogost just needs to get out more...
I think what is meant here is that there should be more games with real life scenarios.
This may translate as boring to someone who loves first person shooters but not to others. I liken it to the difference between aliens and garden state. Garden state wasn't an "exciting" movie, but it WAS interesting.
There should be more games that actually focus on plot and writing, not just poly counts and endless waves of enemies.
That isn't an explanation. It isn't just "good." It hits a new market, and it is good for them in a way that other games haven't been "good."
Of course it's a well-designed game. That explains little.
That isn't true. I'm not a staunch defender of the wonders of the market, but in this case, it really is a matter of a product finding its audience. Of course, the product isn't Brain Age, but Brain Age + Nintendo DS; the game is helping sell the platform to people who otherwise might not be interested.
...) Understand that there isn't just one market - there really are dozens, hundreds of them.
This is unlikely to lead to a lot of the people who bought Brain Age also buying Castelvania. (Well, I bought both, but
Your question is still pretty pathetic. It is pointless to ask if games should be less exciting. But you do bring up a good point - there should be games that are approachable and do not require dedication to be fun. That can be done, but it should never be accomplished by making the games unexciting or boring.
Not everybody has the time to get into a game like Uru. Far more people have time to get lost in WoW. Most anybody can find the time to play Wii Sports on occasion (not that it isn't immersive, it's just approachable). All three games are good, and there is no reason to exclude the hard core gamers for the sake of casual players, or vice versa. There is a market for all three games, and no reasonably large publisher has to pick just one or two markets to cater to.
MMORPG games are as boring as they come.
most other games are just as boring.
They're using their grammar skills there.
And if anybody cared to check playing population, they would have found say 5-10% overlap of said demographics.
To start playing Brain Age, you need no previous knowledge. You can take it any time for five minute ride. And since it's portable DS game it can be always with you.
Halo is shooter. To many normal people games about going around and killing others are ... repugnant. Simple as that. And Halo also requires some training. And you would go through the training only if you are in to the genre. If you are now sci-fi shooter fan - Halo is just not for you.
Zelda is fantasy action. Which again (as Halo to sci-fi shooter) would appeal to people who are into fantasy action.
What I'm trying to get to, is that Brain Age is game anybody can play - as long as you want your brain exercised. And some time killed. For Halo/Zelda - you really need to be a youth with flood of hormones to waste and brains looking to be filled with new information and new experiences. (And since men are never grow ^_^ such games remain with us for long time.) Feel the difference.
Would you call soccer boring? 22 guys run over field hitting ball. Sometimes they even hit something with the ball. But rarely.
Mundane? Yes. Boring? Depends.
P.S. Notice that adult games like Brain Age are made not for a challenge - but just to pass time pleasantly. The games for kids - Halo/Zelda - are made as challenges young people love to take on to stand out of crowd. They are games, but game journalists being mostly (ex-)hard-core gamers (who else would want to cover games??) are obviously biased, since they used to games as challenges, not to games as way to pass time.
I personally, find more more action in Brain Age than I find in Mario.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Actually, my opinion is that many of the games people play regularly are boring. I study computer games programming at a University and I see lots and lots of games. One of the things that strike me is that many of the games enjoyed by people are not that fun to play. They play them more as a social activity.
Besides, I think what games are boring is a very personal matter. I would be dulled to death if I tried playing a MMO game like WoW but I can easily enjoy a good RTS.
I think making games boring is hard because taste varies very much. You can obviously make games boring in a general way but who would like to play a game like that? When cleaning or doing the dishes becomes more appealing than playing a game the game developer has failed.
.... then I wouldn't waste so much time playing them......
-- main(s){printf(s="main(s){printf(s=%c%s%c,34,s,34
1.Games for people who want to have fun.
2.Games for people who want to have challenge.(e.g. Skill based games)
Bith tyopes have some fun,and some challenge but game focuses on something singular.
Games more boring...well it works for TV I guess Days of our Lives is still going after like 30 years. I guess they could also mix it around a bit like Battlestar Galactica, which is like Days of our Lives in space. Personally I say NO! But then again I play mostly twitch games and I could hardly stand the slow pace of Twilight Princess.
Let's not forget: "Soul Calibur: Where's Voldo?"
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
- Some of what I used to play back then, in random order: the occasional RPG, Golf, Diablo, Descent, Starcraft. No idea though if I could still have fun playing them, but I liked them at the time. Of all those games, I think it was only Diablo (I and II) and Golf (the Links series) which I could play quite excessively, within a suited round of co-players.
- I'm not one for single-player, I don't care for massively multiplayer either. I've always been in favour of small, private rounds, since multiplayer gaming came up.
- I have no liking left for games which simulate or re-play the questionable ways in which this world has developed, continues to develop and to work, like Civilization, or any games playing with the subject of bourgeois governance or even business and commerce in capitalism. I see too much of it in real life already, understanding the concepts as being the main reason for most of the world's problems.
- First person shooters? No way, regardless in what surroundings they're set.
- I definitely won't be able to play excessively anymore, there's not enough time. Turns of half an hour or an hour in play should be possible and still be fun.
- Ah, yes, my PC hardware is quite limited (the currently biggest machines are around 1,3~1,5 GHz,
.75~1 GB, no real 3D acceleration), and I'm not able or inclined to invest too much in improving it for the purpose.
Is there anything at all, or am I at a loss? Do I have to go on spending my spare time with real people, in pubs and such? Any hints, a game's name I might want to look deeper into?Thx,
d. d.
Exactly! The market always decides! But I think the guy might be onto something here - after all it's not only "Brain age" that taps into this mundanity. Look at "Warioware" - minigames such as unspooling toilet paper or picking a nose. Not exactly the stuff of legend, but still more fun than many huge fantasy worlds.... Of course, if these types of tytpes continue to do well, we can expect to descend into games that simulate waiting in line at the DMV and the PS4 version of "Driving to work"....
http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
Should Games Be...?
The first 3 words are completely bogus. Asking what games should be, or stating what games should be is nonsensical. It makes as much sense as asking what a book should be about. Games, like books are a subjective experience based on whatever the creators make them into; which may or may not be what the creators intended.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Like Halo, Gears of war, Forza, Doom, and limitless other games. I think games should have levels of difficulty that let the user start from the bottom and work themselves up to insane levels. I prefer a challenging game that takes eons to learn how to play right than one which takes two hours to become an expert at.
i do not think so.may be u said is happenning at a time.most of all ,many games are so interesting that many players are no be able to come out.the runescape ---runescape accounts sale is so an interesting one and i think many players are immersed in it..no knowing how to get out
In relation to the controls? I know this is a bit off topic, but at this point I can't handle 34 inputs for a game! I topped off at Resident Evil (which was say '97). Even RE2 added a bunch of button combos to do stuff that I couldn't handle.
I'm not a great gamer, but it would be nice if I could just even play the game.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
"...the PS4 version of 'Driving to work'...." GTA IV?