Topic: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Started by: Marco
Started on: 9/3/2003
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/3/2003 at 1:33am, Marco wrote:
Video Games aren't fun enough ...
One thing that's often said here is that RPG's won't be main-stream in their current configurations (i.e. even popular games fall short of being pop-culture or main-stream intertainment).
Here's an article where the person is basically saying the same thing about video games:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3197911.stm
The writer notes that:
a) video games are mostly too hard (I, mostly, agree)
b) video-game prouducers spend too much time making it "look beautiful" rather than focusing on game-play (perhaps--but games are a visual medium--I wish the Sims was prettier).
Note that the kind of sums video games command (and here they're not being seen as "main-stream") are above money spent on movies (this is in the UK).
Let's say people spent, oh, say 1/10th as much on RPG's as they do on movies--would we be "mainstream" then?
-Marco
On 9/3/2003 at 1:27pm, pete_darby wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Video Game "expert" talks palpable nonsense.
In other news, water still wet.
Honestly, what does she want for games to be seen as mainstream? A vast number of magazines ot be devoted to them? (check) Sufficient popularity to sustain an industry? (check).
But, when we get down to what passes for the meat of the argument, it's the old "you guys are developing for the hardcore..." when most developers who try to develop for the mythical mainstream find that a) the publishers won't fund them and b) the Mainstream won't buy them because the mainstream (again, whatever that is) don't buy "games" as a whole, but individual games may emerge as aminstream successes.
"Mainstream" successes (and I can only really think of the Sims as a recent one, going back to Tetris for a previous example) were developed by people fighting against the industry's perception of a selling game. Which is kind of what she's saying, but The Sims was a massive risk, and one that many people have failed to emulate.
Sure, game developers are going for the hardcore, because that's the proven market. Why did John Dillinger rob banks? Because that's where the money is.
But I await with bated breath the range of games for the mainstream that microsoft must be developing for x-box, given her background
Apart from that, she's making a plea for narrativism in computer games... which is incredibly hard to implement, and alienates a large part of your present, hardcore gamist market. Again, Mazeltov, but I'm not holding my breath
On 9/3/2003 at 1:46pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Yeah.
Lets see video games are now hip enough that celebraties are regularly seen and shown playing them, brag about their power rig on Cribs and are guests at E3. They are wide spread enough that corporate america feels the need to police them to keep them off of company networks and company PCs. If it was just a handful of people gaming there wouldn't be policies on it. In some parts of world, say Korea, its practically a national past time.
Hip and widespread. I'm having trouble coming up with anything else that would be required to label something "main stream".
On 9/3/2003 at 2:30pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Valamir wrote: Yeah.
Lets see video games are now hip enough that celebraties are regularly seen and shown playing them, brag about their power rig on Cribs and are guests at E3. They are wide spread enough that corporate america feels the need to police them to keep them off of company networks and company PCs. If it was just a handful of people gaming there wouldn't be policies on it. In some parts of world, say Korea, its practically a national past time.
Hip and widespread. I'm having trouble coming up with anything else that would be required to label something "main stream".
I agree.
But consider this:
Back in my *grade* school (and this is years ago) the school announced a policy (over the PA system and in writing) stating that they'd confiscate any AD&D books found on students--not out of paranoia--but because people were playing in the library rather than studying.
Many people have a Friendly Local Gaming Shop (or comic book shop that orders games)--both Barnes and Noble and Borders carry RPG's in stock (a poor selection, yes--but still). The closest mall to my house used to have (and again, this is high school) a music store, a book store, a computer software store, and a gaming store. Specialty shops for RPGs are hardly unknown or massively unusual (in the US).
An AD&D book appeared in a recent nation-wide TV advertisement, a couple of mentions on the X-Files. Vin Deisel has said he plays. I do think most people know RPG's by reference even if they aren't familiar with the fine-points (as with video games).
The "regular mature adults" that I know/work with don't play RPG's--but they don't play video games either. But as far back as the movie ET, D&D had enough mind-share that they could show the kids playing it without having to explain it.
In other words, by the *visibility* criteria, what do video-games have that RPG's don't (a few things obviously: TV-adds being the big one, but IIRC AD&D had at least a print advertising campaign outside of industry magazines).
-Marco
On 9/3/2003 at 2:53pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Whats missing is the "Hip".
Video games are hip and cool. Even anime is becoming hip and cool.
RPGs are for geeks and dorks. D&D is NOT hip and cool.
Now, since what is "hip and cool" is one of those things that are generally defined by the glitterati as opposed to having any real definition we can all just shrug and not care. But, IMO, RPGs will never be mainstream until they are seen as being "hip and cool" (at least for a while...then after that they can be "retro".)
So once we have the popparazzi busting in on Brittany and Justin rolling a few d20s, we'll have arrived ;-)
On 9/3/2003 at 3:28pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Valamir wrote: Whats missing is the "Hip".
So once we have the popparazzi busting in on Brittany and Justin rolling a few d20s, we'll have arrived ;-)
I can buy that.
But, in a weird way, if they did bust Brittany running a 14th level elf in Tomb of Horrors ... my blood would sorta run cold. Maybe it's hard to explain, exactly--but I'd wonder what happend to my formerly sane universe :)
-Marco
On 9/3/2003 at 4:24pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
What you've proven is that RPGs are well enough known that they are a part of what's called "Cultural Literacy". That is, people familiar with our culture will know what RPGs are. That doesn't make them mainstream, by any stretch of the imagination.
Whereas Electronic Arts wouldn't have been able to clear 1.3 Billion dollars last year if video games weren't mainstream. Every 30-some I know plays video games. Hell, my wife is a Zelda junkie, and I can't get her to play RPGs. Go figure.
Mike
On 9/3/2003 at 5:25pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Mike Holmes wrote: What you've proven is that RPGs are well enough known that they are a part of what's called "Cultural Literacy". That is, people familiar with our culture will know what RPGs are. That doesn't make them mainstream, by any stretch of the imagination.
Whereas Electronic Arts wouldn't have been able to clear 1.3 Billion dollars last year if video games weren't mainstream. Every 30-some I know plays video games. Hell, my wife is a Zelda junkie, and I can't get her to play RPGs. Go figure.
Mike
Well, okay. Part of cultural-literacy--but not mainstream? Sure--but I think it's an interesting distinction and in some cases a fine line. But I do think the article sounds really similar to the not-mainstream argument: "too much flash, not enough game play" and "despite some good numbers they're just not mainstream."
On slashdot a poster was talking about how most normal people just wouldn't put up with the broken user interfaces most games employ today. That, with a 90-degree content rotation coulda come off of here too.
-Marco
On 9/3/2003 at 10:40pm, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
So, I recently read a couple of things that seem relevant here - one was a study that showed the average age of video game players was much older than anyone thought, and that considerably MORE than the majority of on-line game players (Everquest and the like) were late/post-teenage females. I can't find whatever website I read this on now - it may be bad research, or my memory may be flawed, but . . . I think the facts here in the US lean towards considering computer games as pretty mainstream.
The other thing I'd mention is a phenomena pointed out by Greg Costikyan in his web log (http://www.costik.com/weblog/) he calls "Grognard Capture," whereby the "extremists" (non-mainstream) bend a game so far towards their preferences that it becomes less enjoyable/useful to others.
I like "beware Grognard Capture" better than "video games aren't mainstream," but my general respect and admiration for the mind of Greg Costikyan may be influencing that . . .
Gordon
On 9/4/2003 at 8:06am, talysman wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Gordon C. Landis wrote: So, I recently read a couple of things that seem relevant here - one was a study that showed the average age of video game players was much older than anyone thought, and that considerably MORE than the majority of on-line game players (Everquest and the like) were late/post-teenage females.
I believe the article was linked on slashdot. were you refering to this yahoo article? they also linked to a couple other stories that videogames are certainly more mainstream than RPGs... for example, there are apparently professional game players.
that videogames are mainstream, at least in america, isn't too surprising:
parents bought early nintendo and other video game systems by the millions in the '70s and '80s, mainly as a "babysitter", and even adults at the time tried the games out. so we now have a significant portion of the US adult population which has played a video game at least once. many adults use video games as a quick stress release.
which, I think, points to one reason why RPGs are not in the mainstream yet: personal investment is too high for RPGs. I don't mean the books, although that's certainly a problem with some systems. the expectation of most rpg products is that you will find a group and play every week for about a year, possibly more. it takes at least a week of study to even learn the basics of some game world/system combinations.
that's not what the mainstream looks for in a game. they want something they can learn in a half-hour at most and play at a moment's notice. they might play a game they like several times, but they don't want a schedule -- they get enough of that at work, which is what they are trying to escape for an evening.
now, there are RPGs right now, especially indie rps, that could fit this need. however, as Mike points out, RPGs are already part of our cultural literacy, even though most people don't play or know much about RPGs. and what happens if "mainstream customers" decide to try RPGs? they pick up one of the games they've heard about, the ones you can find in regular bookstores: WotC and White Wolf products, which are not the kind of games mainstream customers are looking for.
note that I'm not even talking about genres, here. genres go in and out of ashion all the time. I was recently reminded that in the '80s, during the swords-and-sorcery movie boom, CBS aired "Wizards & Warriors", a primetime fantasy tv series loosely inspired by D&D and directed by people like Bill Bixby. it didn't do well, but the reason it even existed was because network execs noticed fantasy was becoming more popular. it could have worked, with luck, but didn't.
likewise, an RPG could make it to the mainstream, if the specific genre is temporarily fashionable, but only if it also meets the general public's entertainment needs: low learning curve, low handling time, low time investment, high replay value. the public wants a game that they can pick up or drop on a whim.
On 9/4/2003 at 12:42pm, pete_darby wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Gordon C. Landis wrote:
The other thing I'd mention is a phenomena pointed out by Greg Costikyan in his web log (http://www.costik.com/weblog/) he calls "Grognard Capture," whereby the "extremists" (non-mainstream) bend a game so far towards their preferences that it becomes less enjoyable/useful to others.
I like "beware Grognard Capture" better than "video games aren't mainstream," but my general respect and admiration for the mind of Greg Costikyan may be influencing that . . .
Gordon
{slaps forehead} Thank You! Grognard capture is what I was trying to remember. So the market panders to the grognards, so becomes perceived as grognards only, so the only people companies in the market cna make money out of...
The ironic thing is that, in RPG's, sites like The Forge are probably the best hope to fight Grognard capture, the grognards (yes, I'm thinking of RPG.net forums) tend to view The Forge as elitist for trying something different.
On 9/5/2003 at 8:33am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
Grognard capture sums it up perfectly for me. As a further point, I think the computer game industry has done a lot more learning of lessons in general than RPG has over the last few decades. Some complaints about broken interfaces noted above may be legitimate, but a game that does not ship without a fully developed set of gameplay tutorials barely exists these days. People don't read manuals, therefore an alternative was devised; teaching the player how to play is part and parcel of the design.
On 9/6/2003 at 5:17am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Video Games aren't fun enough ...
The article wrote: "When people talk about 'it's only a game', they're cheapening the value of games. It trivialises the time people spend playing a game and time is the most precious thing people have."
The GNS Essay wrote: The ugly truth is that this phrase is not reconciliatory at all. Rather, it is code for, "Stop bothering me with your interests and accord with my goals, decisions, and priorities of play." I strongly urge that individual role-players not tolerate any implication that their preferred, enjoyed range of role-playing modes is a less worthy form of play.
Fascinating.
The article wrote: "People need drama in their lives. Games fulfil emotional and mental needs that cannot be fulfilled any other way," she explained.
Well, there just might be another way...like, I dunno, roleplaying games.
Anyway, sounds like she wants less-Pervy and more Nar video games. Considering how many computer games seem to have their roots in roleplaying games, it's sort of interesting to me how she wants to move away from the crunchy dungeon crawl systems and on to the lighter drama systems. Maybe we can expect to see what the early 90's were for rpgs hitting video games soon.