Black Dragon37
09-02-2005, 05:21 PM
Gamer’s Know Best?
Plagiarize, 2nd September 2:00 am
Every now and then I feel like I need to write a tirade about the close minded videogamers I run into from time to time. Just to get it off my chest you know? The trick is finding ways new ways to do it. What hasn’t been done before? I always love getting my teeth into the whole ‘Nintendo are kiddy’ debate and have probably written a novel’s worth of material to the contrary. How’s about that old chestnut about gamers expecting things for free, and completely failing to understand the whole business side of gaming? That’s a good one actually, but another time.
We could do sequels and film tie ins… that’s good too, but one I can’t really get behind. A good game is a good game regardless of if it’s a sequel or a tie in and I know plenty of my favorite games fall into those camps.
I feel like being more subversive today. Something to annoy people. Maybe a brief about how console games are so much better than PC games and how PC game makers need to wake up, and how PC game players need to broaden their horizons? A bit too Penny Arcade perhaps. No, I want to do something a bit more… me… I guess.
So, how does this sound?
Gamers are destroying gaming.
I thought that might get you going. You’re probably trotting on down to the comments tab right now to tell me that it’s not true. That it’s actually gaming becoming mainstream that’s killing video games off and not the hardcore gamers… but this is where I ask you to hear me out on this one.
Let’s look at the big mainstream success stories of this generation. Best selling PC game (ever)? The Sims. PS2? Grand Theft Auto 3. Halo on X-Box.
What’s funny about those games? Given that their sales are well beyond the figures that hardcore gamers alone can get you, isn’t it weird that we’re talking about three groundbreaking and innovative games? Before you hardcore PC gamers start attacking Halo, save it. That’s a different debate and you’re in the minority. Halo’s game play innovations have been as far reaching as even PC first person shooters. Maybe we’ll get to that one in another day as well.
If the mainstream were the poison they’re meant to be, why did they take such risky innovative games to such heady heights?
Here’s a cold hard truth. The mainstream gamers don’t want the same shiz year in year out like publishers wish they did. They don’t buy that many games, so when something different and good looking comes along, so long as it gets their attention in one way or another, they pick it up. If this wasn’t true, then the truly massive hits would be the most accessible, the most generic, all sequels and film tie ins, but they aren’t.
I’m not ignoring the success of Halo 2, The Sims 2 or GTA3’s sequels, but it’s not as if the mainstream only jumped on board there with the sequels. Yes, Halo 2 sold better than all the Halo clones did, but only because the mainstream *already knew about Halo*. They’d already bought it or played it over at a friends house.
For the mainstream, it’s a matter of finding out about a game. Often they’ll need to play it to consider picking it up… but who is really to blame for any stagnation that may exist in the gaming market?
I think there’s a strong argument that it’s gamers, and it’s about time I gave you some of my reasons.
First of all, let’s get something clear, I’m not talking about everyone that calls themselves a gamer… but you should know soon enough if I’m talking about you.
If the mainstream love innovative, unique titles, why is it then that so many innovative and unique titles are failures? Beyond Good and Evil, for example, was accessible, unique, and fun. It wasn’t so long as to put anyone off. It was fun from the moment you picked up the joypad, challenging, but not too challenging and if there was any justice would be a franchise by now. The game review sites praised it to high hell, and yet the sales figures were disappointing to say the least.
It was well advertised. Well praised. But it failed. The mainstream didn’t take notice, because so called hard core gamers didn’t take notice either. If you’re reading this, and you didn’t buy Beyond Good and Evil, but have bought any EA game with a number in its title recently, then shame on you.
Michel Ancel the auteur behind that gem, is now making ‘King Kong: The Game’ and by all accounts it’s an amazing title, but why is someone who created a universe as detailed and colorful as found in BGE or the Rayman games now basing his works in other people’s?
When you look at the sales of Halo, The Sims and Grand Theft Auto 3, you’ll notice something else. Unlike most games that see the bulk of their sales in the first couple of weeks, those games had strong sales figures for months. Their best week wasn’t their first week on shelves.
Who is responsible for first week sales? Well that’s a no brainer right? It’s the hardcore gamer.
How many games a year does the mainstream gamer buy? Certainly single figures. Probably around 5… maybe less. This isn’t someone that sits and plays FPS, or RPGs, or RTS every day for hours. They don’t play clone after clone after clone. If they particularly liked a game, they’ll probably buy its sequel, but it doesn’t matter how big your brand name is if the quality slips. Just look at Tomb Raider for proof of that. If they particularly liked a film, they may want to check out the game, but even there, quality of film tie ins is unquestionably on the up right now. If they’re fans of a sport, they’ll want to get the game based off of that sport… but to lump sports fans, film fans, and so on all in together doesn’t explain why they’re willing to try something as quirky and different as The Sims was.
See, if a game comes along that’s different, and it’s put right in front of them, they’ll give it a chance. And if it’s different, and well made, there’s a good chance that the mainstream gamer will then go and pick it up. What stands out to a mainstream gamer beyond franchise names and sports titles? What else sticks its head up? Something that they haven’t already played before. Something different. That’s what.
Here’s the clincher then. Mr or Mrs Mainstream, happily ignores dozens and dozens of good reviews and adverts for the latest games week in week out. They rarely look twice at adverts. The notion that good graphics are what you need to get a mainstream gamer to give your game a glance is nonsense. They don’t have as high demands as the average hardcore gamer because their frame of reference is much more limited. GTA3 sacrificed good looks for gameplay and the mainstream gamer totally bought into it. When it comes to graphics their standards are if anything lower, and that’s something that shouldn’t be sniffed at.
So how does the mainstream gamer take notice of a new innovative game if the hardcore gamer isn’t buying them? Frankly, they don’t. If their gamer friend in the know isn’t talking about it, or putting it right in front of their face, they’re not going to give it a second glance.
If hardcore gamers aren’t buying the innovative games then that isn’t going to happen and the most worrying thing of all? It isn’t happening as much as it was a few years ago.
So who is to blame for that? Publishers, who are still taking risks on new franchises and game ideas (while turning out the guaranteed earners that let them afford to) or the hardcore gamers who aren’t taking risks on what they buy?
But it doesn’t even stop there.
Hardcore gamer doesn’t just call to mind a type of person, but specific genres. The hardcore gamers tend to play RPG, FPS, and RTS. They don’t tend to play platformers or adventure games or puzzle games or music games. Think about that for a second. The so called ‘hardcore gamer’ barely plays outside of a few genres… and when they do, you can bet they’re playing the latest Madden or racing title, that’s just the same game they played two years ago with more polygons.
Show them something truly innovative like Nintendogs and they’ll go so far as to tell you it isn’t a game. It’s a virtual pet. As if somehow the simulation of raising a dog, caring for it, training it to compete and win, is different to building a city.
Music games didn’t even exist before the Playstation. They don’t exist now thanks to the hardcore gamer who still turns their nose up at the kids at the arcade playing DDR. They exist thanks to the mainstream gamers embracing them. Platform games are too kiddy for them, and no innovation is going to get them to take a look at Sands of Time. So the publisher has to throw in breasts and gore in the hope that the mainstream gamer might take note.
If not for Halo, we’d likely still be playing the same Half Life clones we were before it came out in the FPS arena. The mainstream gamer isn’t responsible for the innovation drought that the FPS went through. It takes developers like Bungie and Valve to take risks in the hope that mainstream takes notice, because that’s the only way you can innovate.
A game like Quake 4 or Doom 3 can’t hope to be innovative, because they’ve had their acceptable rules locked in place almost as firmly as golf or baseball. You must have these specific weapons, gametypes, power ups… Don’t change things too much or you split your core audience, which severely hinders your chances of making it with the mainstream. The same is true for the RPG and the RTS.
They want the same thing but with better graphics, and sound. Even Half Life 2’s deathmatch fell under criticism because the gravity gun changed the feel of it too much. The most innovative new weapon in a game in a long time and hard core gamers don’t like it. At least when I fought to save the Biorifle in UT2003, it was because of the quirkiness and uniqueness of the weapon. It was being dropped because the hardcore gamer didn’t like it and not because they’d come up with something quirkier and more unique instead.
RPG are still as weighed down by stats as ever before. Numbers still float off people when you hit them, because it’s what the RPG player expects.
Adventure games died a death because people didn’t want new interesting storylines anymore, and not because games like Grim Fandango and Full Throttle weren’t original and different.
So hardcore gamers don’t want innovation in their titles. They don’t buy innovative titles, and they turn their nose up at anything they don’t understand… all the while bemoaning how much gaming turning mainstream has ruined it. They demand more and more violence and gore in their games, and ignore anything more wholesome, contributing to the seriously skewed image problem gaming has in the mainstream press.
Fortunately, not all people who play games obsessively are this way. Penny Arcade’s forums are a playground of open mindedness. Sands of Time, Beyond Good and Evil, Ico, Psychonauts, and many other recent critical hits but commercial failures are lauded there. No game is too brightly coloured, or too mainstream for them. If it’s fun it’s embraced and word is shared about which imports are the most fun, and fortunately it’s not the only place you can find gamers like it. To call these gamers hard core just doesn’t seem to fit. Hard core seems to suggest aggressiveness, platform bias, and macho posturing, which just don’t fit.
There’s no fear of your image being damaged by being caught playing with Nintendogs. If it’s fun, it’s fun and the hope is, that as more ‘hard core’ gamers grow up and stop worrying about being labeled childish for playing Sly Cooper 3, or looking stupid playing DDR, that the balance will shift from the hard core gamer to the all inclusive one, and that would be better for everyone. The mainstream gamer wouldn’t have games like Ico hidden from them, publishers would get their just rewards for taking chances, more genres would be embraced and fewer genres would be so repetitive and videogaming wouldn’t be seen as such a violent dirty thing.
Now feel free to ignore everything I just said and tell me I’m not a true gamer in the comments box. I thank you for at least reading the words.
www.aelon.net/2005/09/gamers-know-best/
Plagiarize, 2nd September 2:00 am
Every now and then I feel like I need to write a tirade about the close minded videogamers I run into from time to time. Just to get it off my chest you know? The trick is finding ways new ways to do it. What hasn’t been done before? I always love getting my teeth into the whole ‘Nintendo are kiddy’ debate and have probably written a novel’s worth of material to the contrary. How’s about that old chestnut about gamers expecting things for free, and completely failing to understand the whole business side of gaming? That’s a good one actually, but another time.
We could do sequels and film tie ins… that’s good too, but one I can’t really get behind. A good game is a good game regardless of if it’s a sequel or a tie in and I know plenty of my favorite games fall into those camps.
I feel like being more subversive today. Something to annoy people. Maybe a brief about how console games are so much better than PC games and how PC game makers need to wake up, and how PC game players need to broaden their horizons? A bit too Penny Arcade perhaps. No, I want to do something a bit more… me… I guess.
So, how does this sound?
Gamers are destroying gaming.
I thought that might get you going. You’re probably trotting on down to the comments tab right now to tell me that it’s not true. That it’s actually gaming becoming mainstream that’s killing video games off and not the hardcore gamers… but this is where I ask you to hear me out on this one.
Let’s look at the big mainstream success stories of this generation. Best selling PC game (ever)? The Sims. PS2? Grand Theft Auto 3. Halo on X-Box.
What’s funny about those games? Given that their sales are well beyond the figures that hardcore gamers alone can get you, isn’t it weird that we’re talking about three groundbreaking and innovative games? Before you hardcore PC gamers start attacking Halo, save it. That’s a different debate and you’re in the minority. Halo’s game play innovations have been as far reaching as even PC first person shooters. Maybe we’ll get to that one in another day as well.
If the mainstream were the poison they’re meant to be, why did they take such risky innovative games to such heady heights?
Here’s a cold hard truth. The mainstream gamers don’t want the same shiz year in year out like publishers wish they did. They don’t buy that many games, so when something different and good looking comes along, so long as it gets their attention in one way or another, they pick it up. If this wasn’t true, then the truly massive hits would be the most accessible, the most generic, all sequels and film tie ins, but they aren’t.
I’m not ignoring the success of Halo 2, The Sims 2 or GTA3’s sequels, but it’s not as if the mainstream only jumped on board there with the sequels. Yes, Halo 2 sold better than all the Halo clones did, but only because the mainstream *already knew about Halo*. They’d already bought it or played it over at a friends house.
For the mainstream, it’s a matter of finding out about a game. Often they’ll need to play it to consider picking it up… but who is really to blame for any stagnation that may exist in the gaming market?
I think there’s a strong argument that it’s gamers, and it’s about time I gave you some of my reasons.
First of all, let’s get something clear, I’m not talking about everyone that calls themselves a gamer… but you should know soon enough if I’m talking about you.
If the mainstream love innovative, unique titles, why is it then that so many innovative and unique titles are failures? Beyond Good and Evil, for example, was accessible, unique, and fun. It wasn’t so long as to put anyone off. It was fun from the moment you picked up the joypad, challenging, but not too challenging and if there was any justice would be a franchise by now. The game review sites praised it to high hell, and yet the sales figures were disappointing to say the least.
It was well advertised. Well praised. But it failed. The mainstream didn’t take notice, because so called hard core gamers didn’t take notice either. If you’re reading this, and you didn’t buy Beyond Good and Evil, but have bought any EA game with a number in its title recently, then shame on you.
Michel Ancel the auteur behind that gem, is now making ‘King Kong: The Game’ and by all accounts it’s an amazing title, but why is someone who created a universe as detailed and colorful as found in BGE or the Rayman games now basing his works in other people’s?
When you look at the sales of Halo, The Sims and Grand Theft Auto 3, you’ll notice something else. Unlike most games that see the bulk of their sales in the first couple of weeks, those games had strong sales figures for months. Their best week wasn’t their first week on shelves.
Who is responsible for first week sales? Well that’s a no brainer right? It’s the hardcore gamer.
How many games a year does the mainstream gamer buy? Certainly single figures. Probably around 5… maybe less. This isn’t someone that sits and plays FPS, or RPGs, or RTS every day for hours. They don’t play clone after clone after clone. If they particularly liked a game, they’ll probably buy its sequel, but it doesn’t matter how big your brand name is if the quality slips. Just look at Tomb Raider for proof of that. If they particularly liked a film, they may want to check out the game, but even there, quality of film tie ins is unquestionably on the up right now. If they’re fans of a sport, they’ll want to get the game based off of that sport… but to lump sports fans, film fans, and so on all in together doesn’t explain why they’re willing to try something as quirky and different as The Sims was.
See, if a game comes along that’s different, and it’s put right in front of them, they’ll give it a chance. And if it’s different, and well made, there’s a good chance that the mainstream gamer will then go and pick it up. What stands out to a mainstream gamer beyond franchise names and sports titles? What else sticks its head up? Something that they haven’t already played before. Something different. That’s what.
Here’s the clincher then. Mr or Mrs Mainstream, happily ignores dozens and dozens of good reviews and adverts for the latest games week in week out. They rarely look twice at adverts. The notion that good graphics are what you need to get a mainstream gamer to give your game a glance is nonsense. They don’t have as high demands as the average hardcore gamer because their frame of reference is much more limited. GTA3 sacrificed good looks for gameplay and the mainstream gamer totally bought into it. When it comes to graphics their standards are if anything lower, and that’s something that shouldn’t be sniffed at.
So how does the mainstream gamer take notice of a new innovative game if the hardcore gamer isn’t buying them? Frankly, they don’t. If their gamer friend in the know isn’t talking about it, or putting it right in front of their face, they’re not going to give it a second glance.
If hardcore gamers aren’t buying the innovative games then that isn’t going to happen and the most worrying thing of all? It isn’t happening as much as it was a few years ago.
So who is to blame for that? Publishers, who are still taking risks on new franchises and game ideas (while turning out the guaranteed earners that let them afford to) or the hardcore gamers who aren’t taking risks on what they buy?
But it doesn’t even stop there.
Hardcore gamer doesn’t just call to mind a type of person, but specific genres. The hardcore gamers tend to play RPG, FPS, and RTS. They don’t tend to play platformers or adventure games or puzzle games or music games. Think about that for a second. The so called ‘hardcore gamer’ barely plays outside of a few genres… and when they do, you can bet they’re playing the latest Madden or racing title, that’s just the same game they played two years ago with more polygons.
Show them something truly innovative like Nintendogs and they’ll go so far as to tell you it isn’t a game. It’s a virtual pet. As if somehow the simulation of raising a dog, caring for it, training it to compete and win, is different to building a city.
Music games didn’t even exist before the Playstation. They don’t exist now thanks to the hardcore gamer who still turns their nose up at the kids at the arcade playing DDR. They exist thanks to the mainstream gamers embracing them. Platform games are too kiddy for them, and no innovation is going to get them to take a look at Sands of Time. So the publisher has to throw in breasts and gore in the hope that the mainstream gamer might take note.
If not for Halo, we’d likely still be playing the same Half Life clones we were before it came out in the FPS arena. The mainstream gamer isn’t responsible for the innovation drought that the FPS went through. It takes developers like Bungie and Valve to take risks in the hope that mainstream takes notice, because that’s the only way you can innovate.
A game like Quake 4 or Doom 3 can’t hope to be innovative, because they’ve had their acceptable rules locked in place almost as firmly as golf or baseball. You must have these specific weapons, gametypes, power ups… Don’t change things too much or you split your core audience, which severely hinders your chances of making it with the mainstream. The same is true for the RPG and the RTS.
They want the same thing but with better graphics, and sound. Even Half Life 2’s deathmatch fell under criticism because the gravity gun changed the feel of it too much. The most innovative new weapon in a game in a long time and hard core gamers don’t like it. At least when I fought to save the Biorifle in UT2003, it was because of the quirkiness and uniqueness of the weapon. It was being dropped because the hardcore gamer didn’t like it and not because they’d come up with something quirkier and more unique instead.
RPG are still as weighed down by stats as ever before. Numbers still float off people when you hit them, because it’s what the RPG player expects.
Adventure games died a death because people didn’t want new interesting storylines anymore, and not because games like Grim Fandango and Full Throttle weren’t original and different.
So hardcore gamers don’t want innovation in their titles. They don’t buy innovative titles, and they turn their nose up at anything they don’t understand… all the while bemoaning how much gaming turning mainstream has ruined it. They demand more and more violence and gore in their games, and ignore anything more wholesome, contributing to the seriously skewed image problem gaming has in the mainstream press.
Fortunately, not all people who play games obsessively are this way. Penny Arcade’s forums are a playground of open mindedness. Sands of Time, Beyond Good and Evil, Ico, Psychonauts, and many other recent critical hits but commercial failures are lauded there. No game is too brightly coloured, or too mainstream for them. If it’s fun it’s embraced and word is shared about which imports are the most fun, and fortunately it’s not the only place you can find gamers like it. To call these gamers hard core just doesn’t seem to fit. Hard core seems to suggest aggressiveness, platform bias, and macho posturing, which just don’t fit.
There’s no fear of your image being damaged by being caught playing with Nintendogs. If it’s fun, it’s fun and the hope is, that as more ‘hard core’ gamers grow up and stop worrying about being labeled childish for playing Sly Cooper 3, or looking stupid playing DDR, that the balance will shift from the hard core gamer to the all inclusive one, and that would be better for everyone. The mainstream gamer wouldn’t have games like Ico hidden from them, publishers would get their just rewards for taking chances, more genres would be embraced and fewer genres would be so repetitive and videogaming wouldn’t be seen as such a violent dirty thing.
Now feel free to ignore everything I just said and tell me I’m not a true gamer in the comments box. I thank you for at least reading the words.
www.aelon.net/2005/09/gamers-know-best/