Slashdot Mirror
How Do Games Grow Up?
Gamasutra is running a piece by game designer Brice Morrison questioning the lack of games for grown-ups — or, more accurately, the lack of an intellectual progression in games like that which exists for books, movies, and other creative works.
"While my interests in other media grew substantially more adult — from Nickelodeon to CNN, from Dr. Seuss to George Orwell — games did not seem to have a more intelligent counterpart for me to move on to. As I entered college, I became less interested in mindless entertainment and more interested in encountering new ideas. I didn't want to kill time; I wanted to take advantage of it. I wanted to challenge myself with profound concepts, to learn of new paradigms, processes, and possibilities. ... So what exactly are the barriers of entry for great thinkers (or groups of thinkers) to leave their mark on games? What must happen for games — or interactive entertainment, if you will, to mature as a medium?"
If I wanted to pursue more 'intellectual pursuits', I would socialize
This is /. I anticipate a problem with this approach.
Squirrel!
Plenty of "games" for grown ups that are challenging...
- Programming
- 3D modelling
- Spreadsheets
- Online banking
- and so on...
Usually the "adult" label is used not for actual weighty content geared for an adult audience with mature tastes, but just a repository for those things that traditionally children shouldn't be exposed to. Sorry, that doesn't make it adult-oriented, that just makes it non-kid-friendly, and typically can be best described as adolescent (boobs, explosions, gore, swearing, "gritty", "edgy", etc) content that would make Beavis and Butthead proud.
In my case, I've left all the AAA titles and tended towards puzzle games, where at least I'm challenged to expand my thought processes and puzzle solving abilities. There are some plot-heavy RPGs and FPSes nowadays with some challenging concepts or unexpected twists, but they still tend to be buried in adolescence to make them marketable, ignoring the amount of >30yo and female gamers who are no longer enticed by such or are even turned off by it.
I do commend Nintendo for putting a lot of focus on basic fun, party, family-enjoyable games which have been explosively popular without the adolescent slant, but they still do leave the adult-minded player wishing to be challenged at a more cerebral level.
Yeah but real life has a completely messed up difficultly curve.
The boss level of 'getting up in the morning' comes first, and then it's much easier after that.
I hope you do realize that the same applies to most of the RL skills waved around as "yeah, but look what _my_ hobby teaches me" proof that someone's pet hobby is better than gaming.
E.g., yes, your daughter's piano skills. (God knows how many kids have been tortured with _that_.) Unless her goal in life is an underpaid job in an orchestra that skill is useful for exactly one thing: more playing the piano. Usefulness for any other RL activity: zero.
And yes, you could say that she's going to be a great pianist and earn teh big bucks by being some concert's super-star. Guess what? His chances are about as good to make money as a gaming superstar. Or rather, your daughter's chances are just as bad. Not everyone gets to be Fatal1ty and not everyone gets to be a superstar musician. There are 1000 times more people wanting such a job, than people who actually get one.
But at any rate, the same chances apply to making living out of gaming. He can theoretically end up making a living out of being a top gamer, same as your daughter can theoretically end up a legendary pianist. Your daughter can end up a composer instead, and he can end up a game programmer with that experience. Your daughter can end up scraping by on a minimum wage playing in some orchestra or some unknown band in a bar, he can end up a minimum-wage game tester.
More likely, for most children who went through that, the only result is, ta-da, that they killed some time with it.
So remind me, exactly what do you base that snottiness on, when you look down upon his hobby? No, seriously.
But let's move on, let's see more poster children for "look at what a cool RL hobby I have" idiocies that get waved around all the time:
- mountaineering, camping, and other excuses to go out in the wild. Exactly what skills do people learn there, and when will they apply them IRL? Because it seems to me that the only times when you'll apply any of them, is... next time you go do that hobby. That's it. E.g., exactly when will you have to find north by the moss on the trees... in a city? If you want the actual useful version of that, get a GPS navigation system. No, let's make no bullshit pretenses, it's just a way to kill time.
- fishing. The chances you'll ever feed and clothe your family with a fishing pole, are practically nil. You'll never catch enough fish to sell them and, say, pay for your kid's clothes and education with it, because fish are freaking cheap. You'll never get a job to sit near a lake with a fishing pole, either. The way it's done nowadays is with big boats and nets, not with a fishing rod. And even, let's say, in a post-apocalyptic Fallout-type scenario, where are you going to fish? There just aren't enough rivers around to support even the most minimum population that way. Most have been depleted already, and you may notice that the fishing hobbyists go to some fish farm actually, where fish are artifficially fed and raised for that. So again, chance to ever get any other use out of that skill: zero. It's just a way to kill some time, and any skill you get there will only ever be used when you next go fishing.
- messing with one's car. I hate to break it to some people, but _very_ few even save any money there. Yes, everyone has some anecdote of that time they fixed the car themselves and saved a fortune. But almost everyone forgets those other times when they just made it worse and had to pay more to get it fixed, or the money spent on all those extra bits and pieces and tools that never actually got used enough to pay for themselves. And usually what they save is not worth the time spent there. There are people who practically live in the garage. Even if you saved $100 once (and you won't save more, unless you also smelt and forge your components too), if you spent 20 hours in
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
this thing sucks because it is not some other thing.
You can have something which is completely utilitarian, which is not a game. These programs exist: Iraqi culture simulations, reflex training programs, etc.
You can also have something which has a sense of whimsy and fun. This is a game, and some of them have the potential to make you think or to awe you with their beauty.
I don't know what the author is bitching about. He wants games without the fun, it would seem; games which take themselves as seriously as he does. Those just aren't games.
He thinks games are a medium on the level of television. This is wrong. The computer is the medium. Games are merely a flavor of program, much as game-shows are flavor of television. Do you expect your game-shows to "progress intellectually" as you age?
Fucking games journalists. Enough pretentious, bullshit opinion pieces. Get back to your fucking jobs.