Slashdot Mirror
Former Gamers Want More Social Games
Gamasutra is running a series of studies on what people from certain demographics want from games. Their most recent article takes a look at former gamers, from the age of 25 to 35, and how they view their old hobby. Many seem to have replaced games with social networking during their non-productive time, and they also tend to favor games they can play with friends in the same room, rather than anonymous online interaction. Previous parts of the study focused on family gamers and older gamers.
"We had some of our test consoles rigged up to an internet connection to see how these Missing Gamers would respond to online play. But whilst they were initially impressed at the ability to play with other people all over the world, they soon picked up on the fact that many of the people they were playing with were either too good, or too immature to endure for any length of time. It wasn't long before the online games were abandoned in favor of the simpler split-screen local multiplayer offerings. The ability to nudge, rib, and cajole each other on the sofa (not to mention share snacks and drinks) was simply too much fun to resist."
I don't know about others but the kind of time I spend on social networking (compiling) is not well suited to being replaced with the kind of time I spend gaming (uninterupted). The gaming time lost now goes to spending time with children and a wife(yes, they do exist).
"they also tend to favor games they can play with friends in the same room"
So, that's sex then.
Explains the missing gamers.
Next...
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Split-screen multiplayer ain't so fucking great when you don't have any friends.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm not suprised by this study, in fact, I believe I may be a classic example of why this may be. I have a gaming PC, xbox, ps2, gamecube, n64, NES... but most importantly I have a Wii. Me and my fiance primarily play this together (Mario Kart online) or whenever we have company (Karaoke, DDR, etc). But I also have a secret life that my girlfriend doesn't know about - I play EVE Online with a few HS buddies that she has never met. We are states apart and grew completely different apart (one is getting his doctorate in physics, the other is getting by on his HS diploma) but this is the one thing that keeps us socializing.
I wish I had more time to play games like WoW but I honestly don't anymore. I wish I even had time to talk on AIM anymore, but it seems as if those days are over. So before when my gaming time was an introvert activity, its now more of a social event where I can catch up with my friends while getting my video game fix.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
I've been playing since the Atari 2600 games. My favorite game? Battle tank, against my friend who owned the Atari. I've pretty much played every game type since then. But there are two trends I noticed in my gaming:
- time to game has gone down steadily.
- tolerance for internet asshattery has gone down as well.
- more and more people game.
The result? Gaming is now a social activity for me. My favorite moments are when my friends and I sit around a table and play some random WC3 mod or beat each other up in a game of VF5 or Halo. I still play single-player games, and I still play network games. But the #1 thing I look at in games is how well it will work with friends in the same room.
Do you hear that, Blizzard? No LAN play might look like a good idea, but you're completely ignoring the current social trends. It's indeed possible to play everything over the internet - but the fun factor of playing L33tH4x0r666 over my internet connection pales in comparison to the fun factor of beating my buddy in Halo. Or crushing them in Starcraft. If you truly want to make the best multiplayer experience, include LAN play. It's a must.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
OK, you want social interaction, we'll give you social interaction.
The big time-sink games, like Everquest and WoW, where it's necessary to get everybody on line at the same time for a raid, could be made even more intrusive with a mobile aspect. If someone raids your fortress, frantic messages go out to all the defenders phones, demanding that they get on line immediately and help with the defense.
When you really want to annoy another guild, raid them at 4 AM.
This would probably sell in Singapore.
I have to agree. But even more, I would like to see more cooperative multiplayer in games. So many games have a primary "campaign" mode, the standard game itself with all the effort in large scale maps and objectives and such, but when it comes time for the multiplayer option, it a purely competitive arena style thing, where large differences in skill/familiarity with the game ruin the fun for the noob that gets incessantly poned or for the expert that cant get anyone to play out of past frustration. Some games have accomplished this very well (Halo, Gears of War to name a few), but I haven't seen it much outside of the First Person Shooter genre.
What I wouldn't give for a truly cooperative Real Time Strategy game. And not just a basic alliance, which usually just means a non-aggression and map-sharing pact. But imagine for a moment full resource and control sharing. At that point you can differentiate roles and responsibilities. One person to manage resource and production while the other leads the military defense/expansion. Imagine Spore Space Stage if you could have one empire, with one player as the Minister of War, another as Minister of Commerce, and a third as Minister of Colonization. Or even a good military type, but were you can organize a hierarchical military system, with your infantry, munitions, and strike team special forces. The complexity players have achieved in tactics of WoW raiding or Call of Duty, etc. prove that given the freedom to do so, players will plan, cooperate and organize well beyond what you may anticipate.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
I'm not a "former" gamer, but better than 95% of my gaming time is in single-player games or in multiplayer with people in the same room (Smash Brothers, Wii Sports, things like that).
The only time I play online with strangers is when I've also got at least one friend in the game, which doesn't happen too often (most of my friends have the same gaming patterns as me and prefer living-room multiplayer, playing a single player game together, or just playing alone to playing online).
I get much more enjoyment out of a marathon playthrough of a single-player game, switching off with a friend, than I do playing an online FPS or whatever with said friend. My wife loves JRPGs, so we usually play those together, even though they're single player. Done similar things with a couple of the Zelda games, and with some 3rd-person games.
The rest of the time (the majority of it) I play PC-RPGs (single player--I *hate* that this market is so small, since it's produced some of my favorite games), strategy games (currently enjoying Hearts of Iron 2), and single-player atmospheric or story-heavy FPS games like the Half Life series, Deus Ex (I replay it every year or so, took me several playthroughs over a few years before I finally felt like I'd experienced the entire game), Portal, the Thief series, Bioshock, etc.
Why should I tolerate the abusive behavior of some pimpled 13-year-old virgin online when I can have a good time playing with someone I genuinely like?
The behavior in persistent worlds will only improve when they begin to impose cash fines for obnoxiousness on players' credit cards, doubling in amount with each incident. Failure to pay (i.e. card declined) locks up the account.
I piss off bigots.
I used to spend a fair bit of time playing FPS (mostly Quake and UT) online. Shooting real, unpredictable people and having a bit of a rivalry is much more fun than taking it out on some lackluster AI.
I still play the same kind of games, but I haven't been online in years. Reason? The advent of voice integration. I don't mind playing against a bunch of immature 13 year olds, but I don't need to be continuously reminded of the fact by some snot-nosed momma's boy whining in my ear to stop circle strafing him. (Ok, that time it was funny.)
I know, you can turn off voice chat, but voice did help usher in a new era of team based games. I enjoy the extra strategy and team play of those, but you can't get by without the voice now. Even in an FPS, there's stuff going on on chat you need to know about.
If it all felt less like elementary school playground, I'd probably get into it again, at least occasionally.
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
My point? Nothing, and I mean nothing, beats face to face.
I dunno, doggy style is pretty awesome.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So you are saying Quake is like a gateway drug, leading to such unsavory professions as Gamestop employee? Dear me, I'm glad Jack Thompson is disbarred, he would have had a field day....
This is a very debatable subject and it varies with the game mechanics and the foresight of the designers. There are many games that get ruined by scamming and ksing, but there are many games that have very altruistic guilds set up. I remember in diablo 2, after I became well equipped on 2 characters, I set out to start a clan that helped out noobs. Eventually, we had a large group of people that had a lot of fun together. We would have the decently equiped lite sorcs do normal and nightmare rushes for many people, and the hammerdins would do hell and get hellforge. The runes would help the noobs a bit, and some of the rushed accounts were made into common accounts that any guild member could use. We only got a few well equipped, and only high ranking members could use those. But it was fun for the noobs to instantly try out a new build with decent equipment without having to build one up alone. Only a few accounts got stolen (there will always be a greedy person), but not so much was lost that we utterly lost trust. We even had inter-clan duels with mid level naked characters for fun. We did a bunch of clan tournaments and events that greatly enhanced the experience of the game to a point that no one could really do alone. Has anyone who played d2 ever done cow level and other quests with 8 summon necros? I only lagged out once and another member lagged out twice, but it was still VERY fun. Another fun event was naked cowing with 8 fire druids. The d-torches made for SOOOO much fire it was hilarious (we had mercs with infinity).
Help fight spam
There are lots of games on that platform that I called "party games" before someone else coined the name "social games." By my definition, a party game has short play times between controller turnovers, are easy to learn and hard to master, and allow even the people who aren't playing to feel involved, usually by capping on how awful someone was at the game.
Soul Caliber was a great example of the 'hotseat' party game; only two people at a time could play but the rounds were quick and it was easy to hand the controller to someone else after you lost. I'm sure the same could be said of other fighting games but I never liked any other fighter as much as Soul Caliber, not even the SC sequels with their impossible balloon tits.
The various Wii sports titles take that fun aspect and moves it beyond the realm of traditional gaming genres, no robots and zombies and T&A. My mom tried out the Wii and it's the first system she's liked since the Odyssey. A system like this has huge, huge multi-generational appeal. Personally, I get a little bored with the Wii Sports games but I also don't like Microsoft Solitaire and that's the most popular Windows game ever so you can see why I don't trust my own opinion on such matters. :)
I see they've ported the old TMNT arcade game to the 360 and I assume they've included four controller support. That's another game that would kill at parties. There's also a Gauntlet port I see, one of the original four-players in the arcades. Pair that up with the big-screen TV's, party gaming can't help but to take off.
It's kind of funny, the basics of racing games haven't changed all that much since Pole Position: try to go fast, stay on the track, don't crash. But the graphics between then and now, heh! Amazing how much things have changed, the games look a thousand times better but it's still the same mechanics -- go fast, try not to crash.
These party games will go the same way, trying to present classic play mechanics in new and interesting ways. The motion controller was a genius move since many people find moving something around in the air more intuitive than pushing a joystick around, especially on today's fancy controllers.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
From what I've seen, people enjoy gmes of all sorts at any age. There is a group called The Older Gamers at http://www.theoldergamers.com/ that specifically cater to people who play games (online and otherwise) who are over the age of 25. You have 30 year olds playing MMOs, and 70 year olds playing FPS, so I don't think you can profile players and the types of games they play by their age.
For the vast majority of these people, their social networking is done via the games themselves or in the forums that discuss the games they play, or general ones. The only commonality is that they play computer games of some sort. And it's massive now, internationally, given how far it's come since it started in 2002 in a little corner of Australia.
So I'll dispute their claim that people give up games for social networking sites as they get older; they tend to be social with other gamers!
I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
If you're between 25 and 35, you've been around long enough to have played a countless amount of first person shooters, fighting games, racing games, MMOs, sidescrollers, and more. Honestly, there are very few new ideas, so it's harder to get into things. We're still playing the same core gameplay of those genres. They're well-established now.
Kids are into it all because, to them, it's new. Twilight Princess will seem pretty amazing and innovative if you never played Ocarina of Time ten years earlier. Halo multiplayer must seem revolutionary if you weren't around doing the same thing in a trash-talking Quake clan in 1996. StarCraft II will be totally awesome if you hadn't already played StarCraft 1, WarCraft 1 and 2, C&C, and so on.
Incidentally, I miss the old PC Gamer CDs where you could get about 20-30 shareware games, almost all of them coming from different genres. It was a cool time to be a gamer. I feel burned out every time I play yet another first person shooter. I've done all this before!
Whoops, I meant games. But seriously... I have absolutely no interest in social games. And I'm a former gamer. So score one for the opposing team.