Are bosses, platforming and Game Over Screens the Past?

[HotChops]

So I'm still trying to find a proper video or transcript of the speech, but David Cage basically described the typical gaming protagonist as a mass murderer, and questioned the emotional potential of any story that's told predominately while looking down the barrel of a weapon. As one blogger summarized it:

 

"Cage argues that most video games are designed for teenagers, because they are based on violence and physical action, i.e. shooting or platforming. He felt that this makes video games meaningless and emotionally limiting."

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/710813/GDC-2011-David-Cage-Encourages-Developers-To-Forget-Video-Game-Rules.html

 

The same writer doesn't respond well to the criticism.

 

Now, contrast that with what Stephen Totilo writes (though note that he missed most of the speech, lol):

http://kotaku.com/#!5775640/a-plea-for-games-to-grow-up

 

Frankly, I strongly agree with Cage. I think the way he came off in his presentation might have been a little smug, but I think he's earned it. I really regret not being able to play Heavy Rain, but after watching more than 2 hours of it on Youtube, I really wanted more games like it.

 

What do you guys think?

[Pirandello]

I'm having trouble seeing how the title of this thread is relevant to the content of your post (which, from what I can read, is about emotional potential of a game with guns and killing in it).

[HotChops]

I'm having trouble seeing how the title of this thread is relevant to the content of your post (which, from what I can read, is about emotional potential of a game with guns and killing in it).

 

*sigh*

 

This is why someone needs to find a video of the damn speech.

 

It's from his powerpoint. I've seen two versions of the slide:

“Forget Video Game Rules. Mechanics, levels, boss, ramping, points, inventory, ammo, platforms, missions, game over, [and] cut scenes are things from the past.”

 

and

 

"We need to forget about video game rules — bosses, missions, game over, etc...are very old words of a very old language."

 

This thread is not simply about emotional story-telling or violence in games, this is question about the near-future of games (not to be confused with our other thread about the more distant and abstract future of games.)

[deanb]

I'm having trouble seeing how the title of this thread is relevant to the content of your post (which, from what I can read, is about emotional potential of a game with guns and killing in it).

 

Well the links used were g4TV and kotaku, you can see how it'd be irrelevant *badum-tish*

 

Anyway from what I can tell this is a transcript:

http://www.computera...mes-so-immature

 

Anyway I've just woken up, I'll add more thoughts later.

[SomTervo]

Good catch, Dean. I'll get back on here later, too.

 

In short, I agree with Cage- but I believe there's still a place for these action-focues blockbuster games. Like, I love the great mature art movies that come out these days, but I can still appreciate The A-Team or The Expendables when I feel like it. There's no need to limit the industry like that, to put too much focus on the art side of things. Though the lack of an art side of things is pretty significant to his argument, so Cage's comments are justified really.

[Thursday Next]

Totally agree with Kenshi. Just because we can make games that are all cerebral and such doesn't mean we should only make games like that.

 

Again... shilling my own wares, but Bulletstorm is a prime example (or Duke Nukem if you prefer) over the top, stylised, tongue in cheek shooters are a breath of fresh air amongst the "gritty" and "realistic" shooters that dominate the charts.

 

I'm delighted that there's a place for games like Heavy Rain and FlOwer, but sometimes I do just want to play something a bit "dumb" for lack of a better word.

[Strangelove]

I think the big problem is the balance of content in games.

people just will not make a game without violence in it because it wouldnt sell well and becauze lets face it: its too much work for them to figure out a way to make it work.

Heavy rain was my favorite game of last year, but i wouldnt want every game to be in that tone and mood. I still love bayonetta after all.

i also dont think he means to eliminate the old ways of making games but to kind of encourage and push people towards more mature games.

 

I myself am ready for more realism, drama, and anything else that doesnt encourage you to kill a million guys.

We live in a gaming industry where they are showing 99 rambos and 1 godfather at the theater. I love rambo, but thats not right. Its kind of sad how much game creators and even gamers refuse to go somewhere new. There are so many untapped genres outside of the action games weve been playing for over thirty years. Im 25, im grown up and my tastes in movies, tv shows and music has matured, games need to keep up.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Strangelove

[Cyber Rat]

(Warning: this is one very big "IN MY OPINION" post. I do not want this to come across as a fact, because I cannot claim it is.)

 

I think Cage is overgeneralizing things. While the kind of games he described are dominant at the moment, there are a lot of games which go beyond your typical "guy with gun/sword/fire flower" concept and reach as close as a creative medium can to becoming "art".

 

There's something he criticized that sounds completely like Heavy Rain, but I don't want to argue that point because it would sound as if I'm attacking his hypocrisy instead of his actual arguments. However, this bugs me a lot:

 

The last problem is probably the worst. When you think about it, video games have been based on the same paradigms for 13 years. The technology has made tremendous progress in that time - it's amazing. But when you think about the concepts of games, most of the time, you can take the last game you played and compare it to a game that was released 20 years ago. They are both probably based on the same basic rules.

 

There is so much wrong with this argument, it makes me want to cry. This is the basic plot structure of storytelling:

 

• Exposition: the beginning of the story, establishment of setting and characters
  
• Conflict: the problem(s) faced by the characters
  
• Rising Action: events in the story leading up to the climax
  
• Climax: the culmination of events in the story, point of highest reader interest
  
• Falling Action: events leading to the solving of the story’s problems
  
• Resolution: how events and problems of the story are solved
  

 

This was established in Ancient Greece and all forms of storytelling adhere to it or subvert/deconstruct it. But it is something everything comes back to. It's what movies used in the 1920s and what they use now, regardless of genre or artistic merit. Just because technology has advanced as much as it did in the past 20 years doesn't mean the old is bad. Of course, the plot structure works only for the story and gaming is unique in the regard that story is merely one part of it. I think that gaming probably has its own "structure" which isn't official yet (that I know of at least), but involves being challenged and overcoming said challenges for a reward. Even Heavy Rain has this. How do you save everyone and get the best ending? Successfully overcoming either reflexive challenges or decision based challenges. Your reward is getting the best ending. Were Heavy Rain truly innovative the way he makes it out to be (and by the way, I liked Heavy Rain as it is now), there would be no right or wrong choice and you would never feel rewarded (note that this would be a deconstruction of basic gaming concepts only if it wasn't railroading. If you're being railroaded to failure, then it's not deconstruction, it's failing to realize basic gaming concepts - i.e. bad game design).

 

As his argument stands now, I don't think it's a criticism of gaming not evolving, it's criticism of two genres. FPS and platformers, because of gameplay and plot. He didn't get into basic gaming concepts (which he seems to try and make it look like he is) either because he doesn't get them, or because if he did, his games would fall into what he would be criticizing.

 

As for wanting more "mature games". Same can be said for all creative mediums. You have good stuff, you just have to know where to look. Problem is that gaming is an industry, thus profits are a priority, thus more of the same sure things gets released, thus things that should earn money get the most media and marketing coverage. Movies were first nickelodeon entertainment machines, then evolved into something more and feature mature storylines as well as sheer entertainment. Games were also initially entertainment only, but we have long since reached the point where telling a mature storyline is possible. There are mature games, you just have to look for them because they aren't in the spotlight. Which is good, because marketing a game under a spotlight as mature can be sad.

 

And, in regards to Bulletstorm (since it got mentioned), I think it's a very good example of a mature game. Typical tropes played to 11 and then deconstructed. Fabulous.

[Hot Heart]

From a quick glance, I think he certainly has some valid points. I'll have to give everything a proper read when I'm not at work because this sort of thing really interests me.

[Johnny]

Pretty much what Cyber Rat said.

[deanb]

So to point out first I've not played Heavy Rain, but I've done the demo and watched my housemate through some of it.

 

where you have to cut your finger off

 

 

 

I think whether there's a few exceptions to the rule, he is pretty spot on, most games are based on running about, from a to b, or shooting things that aren't you?

And I don't think he's so much suggesting that all games suddenly become Heavy Rain, just that a few more Heavy Ran like games pop up. And I wouldn't mind.

A game that isn't based on getting from a to b, shooting along the way no questions asked. Something without a winner or loser, goals, etc. Something that's no so much a game as interactive experience.

Also games shouldn't so much be skill based*, it locks people out of the experience. You can't lose are reading a book or watching a film. If publishers want to make games more accessible, then don't go "dumbing down" the skill based games, but make games that don't require skill in the first place. Which clearly works, Heavy Rain sold much more than expected.

 

I also think the publishers need to shoot more for the mature audiences too. Stop assuming everyone is a teenager. Adults have an income, normally paying for the teenager, and if they're buying n playing games for the consoles they'd be more inclined to pick a console up for themselves n the kid. Mature doesn't have to mean it has sex or violence in it just because that's what the rating says. Just deal with more grown-up circumstances, better dialogue less adrenaline pumping pacing. It's not like at the moment the games industry has much written work that'd net it any awards.

Essentially the stuff at the bottom is kind of what I'd like from a few games:

We wanted the audience to remember this game for a long time; to think about the characters, the situations and what they've done. We wanted these things to follow them for a while and be just a small part of their culture - like the best movies they've seen or the best books they've read. That was our objective.

 

It's maybe a bit pretentious, but I can't think of any game that's moved me in a particular way. Never felt too strongly for any characters or situations I'm in. Like that PC gamer thing I threw up the other day about gamers being dicks to games cos we play them "wrong", and it mentioned how you start bulletstorm by shooting an unarmed man. And I kinda clicked I hadn't thought two seconds on it. In reality I would be a bit iffy on the situation, but there it was just the game, you do the motions, get to the end. Dragon Age I had this cat/girl/demon thing and I fucked up and the demon jumped from the cat to the girl and I had to kill the girl. And I felt sucky about it, but only cause I reckon I lost out on some good loot.

 

I want a "matrix moment". Where I finish a game and then start to question what I know. Add new colours to the palette of my life. Games haven't done that to me. It's been books that add to my character, make me think on things in new ways.

 

tl;dr: Games are great but empty. I wouldn't go to them for a bit of cerebral stimulation.

 

*Heavy Rain did have one fatal flaw in that while not so much skill based, it did require prior knowledge of the game pad

[Cyber Rat]

Also games shouldn't so much be skill based*, it locks people out of the experience. You can't lose are reading a book or watching a film. If publishers want to make games more accessible, then don't go "dumbing down" the skill based games, but make games that don't require skill in the first place. Which clearly works, Heavy Rain sold much more than expected.

 

I've heard that specific book/film comparison before. I think it's on a case-by-case basis, really. You just have to look which games benifit from the difficulty they have, and which don't. Heavy Rain obviously would gain nothing from notched up difficulty. While games where the challenge is more important than the actual story (for example, God of War), would leave an average experience if played through an inappropriate difficulty (like, if you're a veteran player and choose easy for some reason). But I don't believe a book/film comparison is good at all. You have to find a common thing they have. So, while it's reasonable to compare the plot progression in a book and a video game, since they both share the fact that they (usually) have a plot, you can't compare them as a whole because interactivity sets video games apart from everything else. That's like me comparing movies and books and saying movies are better cause of the visuals.

 

I think that's what the point of a difficulty slider should be. And players shouldn't be penalized for playing on easy and having to play on hard for the "True ending". If you can't incorporate a proper sense of reward for beating the game on any difficulty, it's a design flaw. But saying games should be more accessible like books and movies is silly. You'll just end up with an empty experience if the game doesn't deliver in other aspects.

 

An example that comes to mind, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Very accessible difficulty and no penalizing for skill-based performance, and yet it delivers in atmosphere and story (although the atmosphere is different from other SH games, but that's a different issue). Increasing the difficulty in that particular game wouldn't have added anything to the experience, really. So, Heavy Rain might have done it right as well in terms of being accessible and not "locking someone out of content"*, but you can't and shouldn't apply it to most games which don't rely on story and atmosphere as much. And yes, I am aware that that IS the issue, but people should accept that some games are meant for entertainment, and others are meant for EMOTIONs. Neither are a bad thing. Creative works should contain both.

 

*Funny thing about this. I know someone who couldn't finish Heavy Rain because of the scene Dean mentioned in his spoiler tags. Technically, he was locked out of content for lacking a stomach. Which isn't much worse than being locked out of a game because you lack reflexes.

[deanb]

My point was that there should be games that don't have any difficulty at all. I guess my point didn't come across to well. If a game has a difficulty, then it implies it's skill based. And that locks people out if they're not at the right skill, or it means developers attempt to push the overall skill requirements down in order to gain a larger audience, with the side effect of not creating a satisfying experience for those who can play the game at a higher skill level.

Too many games try to be for everyone, rather than realising the market has different types of gamers. I strongly believe video games can be for everyone, but I don't think there's a cat in hells chance that there will ever be one game that appeals to everyone's tastes. And I don't think people should try.

But I do believe these "interactive Experience" type games like heavy rain, that don't test how quick you are to aim n shoot, how good your tactics are, etc are something developers should be looking into making more of. It's a pretty open market atm.

[HotChops]

Heavy Rain has made me question the definition of the term "video game" and the concept of interactive entertainment as a whole. I think it's definitely time to leave the term "video game" behind and start moving towards "interactive entertainment" because to be quite frank, I'm not very interested in "games" anymore. I don't care very much about combat, points, missions, fetch quests or achievements.

 

I'd actually enjoy a game like Read Dead Redemption more if it was predominately ranch-based challenges, or Mass Effect if the purpose of the game was to be an intergalactic diplomat or an engineer aboard various star ships.

 

On a related note, I think we need to address a major component of the problem, which is this viscious cycle that the game industry seems to be stuck in: Non-gamers don't buy consoles because most of the games are mindless violence. Lacking a significant market, publishers stick to making mindlessly violent games. Thus, non-gamers have their apathy towards gaming reinforced by the abundance of violent games.

 

More and more we are seeing titles that cater to casual or non-gamers, but they're all mobile games, Facebook games, or motion-controlled games. Who's to say that they wouldn't appreciate better graphics and sound?

 

Let's look at LA Noire for example. More and more I've been thinking that the person who would really love that game is my dad. Instead of including complex driving or shooting mechanics, what if they super-simplified those portions, then packaged them with the detective stuff and then offer it for Kinect or Move? My dad doesn't go anywhere near games, but I could see him sitting in his living room and playing LA Noire start-to-finish with simple hand/arm gestures.

 

That would be a perfect addition to the motion-controlled lineup, but instead all we're getting is lameass Wii Sports clones.

[Johnny]

HotChops to be perfectly honest the first paragraph that reply reads like you think everyone should just make the kind of games you like and leave behind everything you're not interested in.

 

There's no reason every game, or even most games, has to be like Heavy Rain.

[HotChops]

HotChops to be perfectly honest the first paragraph that reply reads like you think everyone should just make the kind of games you like and leave behind everything you're not interested in.

 

There's no reason every game, or even most games, has to be like Heavy Rain.

 

I don't think I said that or implied it. I'm saying that we should leave behind the term "video game" in part because "games" are a lot more than just points and bosses now. When the term "video game" continues to be tossed around, it perpetuates that expectation.

 

It's not like traditional games are going away. Like movies, the best selling interactive experiences are going to involve action and violence instead of emotion and drama. I'd simply like to see the term and the ideas associated with games to change, along with more funding for games that do things other than shoot and platform.

 

I think my idea about a motion-controlled LA Noire would really open up a new market for people who are looking for games with lower skill thresholds, but who also want the better graphics and sound and deep stories of titles like Mass Effect or RDR.

[Cyber Rat]

I think my idea about a motion-controlled LA Noire would really open up a new market for people who are looking for games with lower skill thresholds, but who also want the better graphics and sound and deep stories of titles like Mass Effect or RDR.

 

A market for "new gamers with lower skill thresholds" opened up with the Wii. It is slowly dying out because most of the "new people" lost interest pretty fast (or they didn't really have the interest to begin with).

 

As far as graphics go, trust me, people who don't game can't tell the difference in graphics between Dead Space 2 and Morrowind, nor do they find it relevant.

 

And as for deep stories... Why would people play because of the story? A lot of games revered for their stories have either been done before much better, or are only good compared to other games. Exceptions do apply, but Heavy Rain's story alone is laughable without the interactivity.

 

I'd simply like to see the term and the ideas associated with games to change, along with more funding for games that do things other than shoot and platform.

 

There are a lot of those, they just aren't "in yo face" like mainstream titles.

[Hot Heart]

A market for "new gamers with lower skill thresholds" opened up with the Wii. It is slowly dying out because most of the "new people" lost interest pretty fast (or they didn't really have the interest to begin with).

 

I don't think the Wii's intended audience and what HotChops is talking about are the same thing.

[Strangelove]

Yeah, youre totally off about that. Its not about making preexisting games easier, its about making games that are easy at their core, like heavy rain.

not every game has to be about high scores, achievements or difficulty levels.

At this point in time a lot of games should be getting aaway from that.

 

Maybe in 1996 i would be impressed by douchebags finishing ninja gaiden black on the hardest dificulty, but im not a teenager anymore and accomplishing that doesnt mean shit. Videogames are so rooted in childishness in every single way its ridiculous. This industry really doesnt want the change that it needs.

if you want to reach out to everyone its not going to happen by making games easier or giving them motion/3d gimmicks, its about truly making games anyone can play. Some day publishers wont be happy from getting money from the same person each year with a sequel or a new game that plays the same and on that day theyre going to have actually take the time to figure out how to reach out to evryone or make less money. It just has to happen. So many people dont play games, its really sad and the refusal to let that happen by game creators and gamers themselves is even sadder.

[WTF]

Games as they are now will always exist but if people want games to be like other media the people involved in designing 'games as experience' need to mature. Therein lies the problem. One can only create as much as one matures.

 

From a film-making perspective, we have plenty of filmed content. 75% of them aren't well crafted and this includes all filmed content (outside of youtube) and they are made for an X audience. Games likewise are made for an X audience as well. To make a specific film one must be of that mindset. When Richard Kelly wrote Donnie Darko he needed to be young, he himself has noted that he couldn't make that film had he been 10 years older since he wouldn't be able to convey his high school mentality. The video game industry hasn't completely matured because the people involved in video gaming are only now reaching an age when they themselves can break out of their younger mindsets. What drives a younger person and what drives an older person are different.

 

This isn't to say that there aren't exceptions to the rule and this is definitely not saying that younger people won't appreciate it. But rather most of the creators of these games are quite young. How old were most of these people when they crafted experiences? Probably in their 20s and 30s. What's their life experience when it comes to the whole world? A bit limited. Most people involved in the industry need to get this life experience before they decide to write stories, to craft experiences and make that sort of game. There are also the older well-known creators, but they're from a different era entirely and still astounded by how fast tech has grown, I know many 40+ year olds who still are amazed at how young certain people on the internet are and of videos made by the youth. Of course they have accepted it and are used to it but it's a big change from when they were kids. (offbeat example: Winona Ryder is still a hippie with the 60s mindset and doesn't use the internet. The 60s vibe probably explained by the fact that her parents were friends of PK Dick and several beat writers). It's like that star trek episode where advanced calculus was part of third grade syllabus.

 

Another thing that most of us know is that video gaming is a software oriented machine and not much of a 'craft-oriented' machine. People generally are expected to hone their technical skills. not their life skills. Some of them have experience but most do not. I'll be honest, Cage himself is pretty bad at stories, he has a decent narrative voice but his stories are tripe. However what we find amusing about the game i.e. the thing that was parodied as 'the press x to jason' was based on his own emotional response of the prospect of losing his children (although it wasn't applied in the best way). Most people involved in the industry do not translate life experience to meaningful narrative. That's why games rarely become 'emotional art'. It is artistic like both visual medium and orchestrated sound (not music mind you) are artistic but not so much in conveying emotions. People writing these stories do not sit around and ask why does the character feel or do something? Motivation and story-telling isn't a major focus because gameplay is the focus (saying this doesn't mean that it isn't structured like a story just that it isn't the primary focus). If you don't feel something, it is difficult for you to express it.

 

Truth is both gameplay and emotion need to be the focus for newer experiences. You need to put a piece of yourself, your experience into the game and at the same time make it a game with mechanics. A lot of people find it hard because of the way they are trained. It's not that better training can improve it instantly, but it can open doors. Film-makers are always asked to find a voice, game developers are usually asked to find a style but not a voice (based on conversations and discussions with those studying game design academically and their lecturers). AI, Discrete Math, programming, graphic design, etc. are more important right now.

 

Game development right now is like how graphic artists were back in the 80s and 90s. Most people involved were from a technical background as opposed to an arts background. Later people from the arts background got involved as well and then they combined the two and we ended up with CVA and CGA courses. Similarly game design will (and in fact steps are being taken in that direction) move away from the technical perspective. Writers, musicians, film-makers and others want to be involved in it now and people want to call it art. It will take a little longer than people expect today, since right now we're at a stage of transition. Most of these new wannabe game creators were not always avid gamers. They were more gamers in their youth of perhaps the platforming variety.

 

Games do not need to be a visceral experience to be enjoyed but it would be nice if they could make you feel something. For instance Kirby's Epic yarn and LBP (particularly Kirby) are bright and cheerful games in spirit. It expresses positivity perfectly, doesn't get preachy, doesn't try to tell a story like a mature film or anything. However it conveys the message of happiness, just like if you watched things like Mr Ben, Mr Men show, Clangers, etc.

Stacking works on the side of your mind that would enjoy the original Thunderbirds, Costume quest on the Charlie Brown and the Peanuts gang cartoons and so on. None of these games are meant to be 'visceral' but meant to take you to your happy place. But you can tell that the people who made these games definitely were influenced by the things they saw as children and what they felt was transferred into the games they make.

 

If more people make games based on what they feel we'll have a variety of experience. It truly depends on the creative forces behind the game. If a game is purpose built like in a factory, you will be thrilled and excited for a while but after a few years it's rare that the game itself will leave an impact on you. Yes you can argue that the game had an impact but it's more likely that the community and people you played with impacted you rather than the game. You know when the focus is MP, the focus is not on their individual voice or experience but rather on the pick up and play daily gamer.

 

What the industry lacks is not good games, talent, skills, visceral experiences, inclusive experiences or anything like that. What it truly lacks is, in a broad sense, game developers willing to exercise their voice, their experiences and their maturity into games. There are games that do that, they leave a lasting impression on the audience too. Most games do not though. When the developer expresses a creative voice in the game it will shine through - be it platformer, action, fps, rpg, sports, puzzle. It seems that people in the industry make a sacrifice of their creative voice in order to appeal to the pick up and play daily gamer. Not every game needs to be a 'daily pick and play' type.

 

A part of the blame rests on consumers as well, but the devs and designers need to take risks and hopefully one day these risks will be rewarded. Lets see how well titles like Journey, TLG and the like that are so highly touted by every gaming hippie and generalist actually fare when it comes to sales. I can already imagine that while some fanboys will blindly hate it, several others will blindly highlight the one major flaw in these games and say that's the one reason I will not buy or play these games. What is truly preventing growth in games is tacked on multiplayer and in my opinion it is as bad as when films are made into 3D in post-production.

Our gaming habits, purchasing habits are largely to blame. But the good thing is games are getting so diverse that multiple types can exist. Can they continue to exist though? The truth is games are competing for our time, when we have limited time and a lot of stress, majority of people go for the easy pick and play games regardless of their age. Developers note this and aim for that market forgetting the others.

UT, Quake 3 Arena and Blizzard games showed developers that what keeps people playing and buying their games is continued ease of pick up and play. Most game devs adopted that and it's pretty much how we got here. Nintendo brought in a casual market but no one was able to translate that into a continued audience unlike the earlier examples. Facebook and mobile gaming are now doing the same thing that the first group mentioned did and sustaining a regular audience. At least 'most' people realise that those games are workplace and travel games. But the distinction is fading slowly. The next phase will be incorporating social and mobile elements to games (some of which we already have on a console-basis such as friends-lists, autolog and micro-communities to name a few). It'll evolve gaming to the point that more games will have a b-spec browser mode similar to GT5 till the next thing comes along of course.

 

On a final note, CliffyB said today, Middle-Class games are dead (as much as I'm indifferent to the guy, he has a valid point). It's only a matter of time before major viewshare goes to just the major titles and the runaway indie hits in this oversaturated market.

 

P.S. apologies for the long post. I'm currently editing two videos for a client and watching a movie and typing this. It's taken me probably an hour to type all this

[HotChops]

A market for "new gamers with lower skill thresholds" opened up with the Wii. It is slowly dying out because most of the "new people" lost interest pretty fast (or they didn't really have the interest to begin with).

 

I don't think the Wii's intended audience and what HotChops is talking about are the same thing.

 

No, I don't think that they are the same thing. I think that the boundary may get a little blurred at times, but I disagree with Cyber Rat.

 

For example, take my older brother. The last system he owned was an original Xbox that I gave him. Prior to that, he was a regular gamer for nearly 20 years. Today he's a very busy husband and father. He's between casual gamer and non-gamer.

 

But you better believe he knows the difference between Black Ops and the original Call of Duty. He knows the difference between Heavy Rain and Epic Mickey. For him, the biggest barriers in gaming are time and skill.

 

He shares my interest in games like Assassin's Creed, RDR and Medal of Honor, but he doesn't have the time or patience to work through them. He would be an ideal consumer for the kind of motion-controlled game that I'm talking about.

 

His wife a non-gamer, but she knows the difference between Mario Kart and Gran Turismo. If there was a game that catered to her tastes-- strong female protagonist, minimal violence, some romance and comedy -- with motion controls and strong audio/visual elements, I think she'd be interested in playing it.

 

EDIT: Nice post, WTF. I'm wondering how young most developers actually are though. I think the creative directors are generally older, but the coders are probably younger.

Edited March 5, 2011 by HotChops

[deanb]

@Johnny I don't think he was inferring all games are to be like that. In fact just the post above I reinforced it's more a case of seeing more "games" like Heavy Rain, not all games to be Heavy Rain. I'm pretty bummed that some genres are seemingly dying out so I'd never suggest for all games to become like Game Type X.

 

 

@HotChops_01: I think part of the issue lies in mixing together "casual" and "non-gamers" together in the same bag. Or assuming that "non-gamers" can be coaxed into gaming by making the process simpler. I'm a casual gamer when the time suits. I'll whip out casual games, play for a bit, pop it back away few minutes later. I'd imagine many of you do too. But yeah, I think that developers need to respect the "non-gamer" and their general skill level. It's like someone saying they don't watch TV, so to start them out you show them Barney.

 

@StrangeLove: Spot on

 

@WTF: Yeah I think games atm are very heavily focused on the technical elements. Like adding sound and colour to film. Being able to zoom. Avatar n Crysis for example are the same thing in their respective mediums. Avatar had fancy 3D and some pretty advanced vfx work, Crysis has an advanced engine. And it's those things that are talked about on the film/game than the actual film/game itself. The games industry is ripe for a few writers and such to jump in and shake things up, it just takes a studio somewhere to take the leap and do that.

And yeah I think it'll take a decade or two for that transition to happen. For one I think academic course need to drastically change.

On folks finding their voice, I think that's partly related to most games coming from a studio, rather than like a film where it's "Tim Burtons A Nightmare Before Christmas". Which Cage did with heavy Rain, went Alpha male and said "you do what I say you do". There's a few more well known guys out there, but I still think even with then the games are design by committee. And that just blurs the focus of the game if you try to appease to everyone on the dev team. I'm pretty much well aware I'm just a trained monkey because the director has better things to do than learn Maya n Nuke. And I do as he tells me (or his mouthpiece does at least). You'd struggle to make a film on your own. Whereas a game, especially these days and in past days, is pretty simple, and many folks do that. So game designers can be very independent and not so up for just doing as their told. Want to have some kind of creative input on it. If you have a strong lead who knows exactly what they want to do, then it's not as much of an issue.

 

And yeah I read the CliffyB stuff. This years GDC has been pretty kick ass. I think the "middle Class" game needs to get cheaper. That's the main issue for it. They try to sell for the same amount AAA titles with huge budgets in development and marketing, and just get squashed under it. But if they were cheaper, like £25 a pop, they'd fill a great niche in a game with a experience studio behind it, some retail space, and then they sell them in-between the gaps in the AA title release. Folks are aware for £25 it won't be the best experience, but it's an easier gamble than £20 on some indie title. It's there to pick up n play for a few weeks.

[TheMightyEthan]

We're starting to see more of the kind of "middle class" games at more appropriate price levels through the DD services (XBL, PSN, Steam, etc). I think we'll continue to see quality increase in games designed with those types of services in mind.

[Strangelove]

I wonder if publishers can tell if their games arent aaa.

darksiders for example is a middle class game. Its a mix of god of war and zelda, but not nearly as good. It should have been 50 bucks on release day.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, I bought Darksiders for $45 and was happy with it, but I probably would have regretted it if I'd spent any more.