On The Other Side of Videogame History

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Scrumpmonkey:
The problem was not the abundance of shooters, the probelm was the lack of anything else.

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment, or think it explains the critical reaction to E3 this year. I saw plenty of things that weren't FPS, Ubisoft's Wii U games standing tallest among the "other stuff."

I think the issues run deeper than simple shooter fatigue. If that's all it was, like I said, there's no reason we should not have seen this reaction years ago. :)

Dennis Scimeca:

Scrumpmonkey:
The problem was not the abundance of shooters, the probelm was the lack of anything else.

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment, or think it explains the critical reaction to E3 this year. I saw plenty of things that weren't FPS, Ubisoft's Wii U games standing tallest among the "other stuff."

I think the issues run deeper than simple shooter fatigue. If that's all it was, like I said, there's no reason we should not have seen this reaction years ago. :)

Maybe its a cumulative effect? There have been so many years on the bounce when we have been seeing the % of shooters if not increase then at least stay at a constant, highly visible level. Maybe after all these years (and yearly Call of Duty gun roster updates) its built up like so much Lead in the gamer's immune system.

You keep eating too much cake and sooner or later you're going to get sick son. Or so my mother told me. Gamers have been heavily munching at the FPS snack-bar for nearly a decde now and games like Halo are tempting us to go back for seconds, thirds and even fourth helpings of shooty goodness. Nevermind the aforementioned Activision Money-farm.

Or maybe its that even in the space of the FPS genere everything is begining to bleed together even more. Games like Dead-Sapce are actively "Seeking a wider audience" which is a nice way of EA saying they want it to be derrivative as fuck to cater to the lowers common nose-picking denominator. Big pubslisher's FPS seemed to be aimed at this imaginary stupid person who can't cope unless everything is exactly how they expect it to be. i.e. a generic action game loosely based on a mixture of gears of war and call of duty. No wonder people are crying "Enough! Oh my Jesus fuck enough!"

Gamers have tasted the sweet sweet fruit of developer-driven games like the now sadly discontinued STALKER, Killing Floor, Metro or the hyper realsitc ARMAII/ the wonder mod Day Z. These games are equally violent but they are at least interesting.

Lord_Jaroh:

KrabbiPatty:
I'm sick to death of this argument about games "growing up" and becoming "better", which in this guy and Bob Chipman and all the others' mind means shedding every shred of what makes games fun so we can all enjoy the utterly joyless navel gazing of Dear Esther, the video gaming equivalent of those horrible indie movie vanity projects that try and hilariously fail to "mean" something. Yay.

My question is what happens to people who LIKE these games in your utopia? Do we simply stop existing? Do we get driven out of gaming? If so, by you and...what army did you say?

If there are people honestly so childish they blush at the idea of DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball, or turn their noses up at God of War, or look down at me because I like Gears of War, then I'm truly sorry for you but if you'll excuse me I'd rather have fun.

I simply want games to have the same variety within them as the movie genre does. I want my Bravehearts and my Aliens; I want my Terminators, Office Spaces, The Roads, Incredibles, Waterboys, Notebooks, Inceptions, Across the Universes, Mementos, Titanics, District 9s, PS I Love Yous, Lion Kings, Cloverfields, King Kongs, Man on the Moons, Sparticus', Brokeback Mountains, Ben Hurs, Lawrence of Arabias, Orgasmos, Ghandis, Wedding Crashers, Spaceballs, Saving Private Ryans, No Escapes, Independence Days, and hell, even shit like Conan and Transformers.

The point is we want all genres to be able to make it in the big game industry as every other genre. We want games to "grow up" in the sense that they need to stop "just" appealing to the teen male demographic as a whole. Your games won't disappear at all, no more than violent movies disappeared. They'll be there, along with all the rest of the games, and more than likely they'll have to become "better" to compete for people's attention.

The point is, the people that grew up with games are now growing up, and many want games that appeal to their changing lifestyles and attitudes. I myself want mature games that are actually made for someone "mature" in mind, not just more headshots...

So how does a game cross the invisible maturity line? Is The Sims any more mature than Battlefield? Is Second Life any more mature than World of Warcraft? How does one make the distinction between what is mature and what is not in a game. Video games are made for 2 reasons: to be entertaining and to make money. Different people enjoy different games, whether that be life simulations akin to Second Life or run and gun violence a la Call of Duty.

I play shooting games with people from ALL age ranges, whether that be under 18, 18-25, 25-45, 45-older. If you ever care to spend the time looking, I'm sure you can find a "mature" game that you seem so bent on finding. Just because it's not at E3, which is almost ENTIRELY dedicated to the violence genre (and yes Mario is technically violent, you go around stomping goombas and such), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also, there ARE a wide variety of other games. Look at GT5, the NFL games and other such sports games. There are horror games like Amnesia, ALL manner of simulators, puzzle games that are truly puzzles and not built into a violent game, small indie games like Super Meat Boy, sandbox games like Minecraft, and the new Humble Bundles. You just gotta look a little.

ninjaman9000:

Lord_Jaroh:

KrabbiPatty:
I'm sick to death of this argument about games "growing up" and becoming "better", which in this guy and Bob Chipman and all the others' mind means shedding every shred of what makes games fun so we can all enjoy the utterly joyless navel gazing of Dear Esther, the video gaming equivalent of those horrible indie movie vanity projects that try and hilariously fail to "mean" something. Yay.

My question is what happens to people who LIKE these games in your utopia? Do we simply stop existing? Do we get driven out of gaming? If so, by you and...what army did you say?

If there are people honestly so childish they blush at the idea of DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball, or turn their noses up at God of War, or look down at me because I like Gears of War, then I'm truly sorry for you but if you'll excuse me I'd rather have fun.

I simply want games to have the same variety within them as the movie genre does. I want my Bravehearts and my Aliens; I want my Terminators, Office Spaces, The Roads, Incredibles, Waterboys, Notebooks, Inceptions, Across the Universes, Mementos, Titanics, District 9s, PS I Love Yous, Lion Kings, Cloverfields, King Kongs, Man on the Moons, Sparticus', Brokeback Mountains, Ben Hurs, Lawrence of Arabias, Orgasmos, Ghandis, Wedding Crashers, Spaceballs, Saving Private Ryans, No Escapes, Independence Days, and hell, even shit like Conan and Transformers.

The point is we want all genres to be able to make it in the big game industry as every other genre. We want games to "grow up" in the sense that they need to stop "just" appealing to the teen male demographic as a whole. Your games won't disappear at all, no more than violent movies disappeared. They'll be there, along with all the rest of the games, and more than likely they'll have to become "better" to compete for people's attention.

The point is, the people that grew up with games are now growing up, and many want games that appeal to their changing lifestyles and attitudes. I myself want mature games that are actually made for someone "mature" in mind, not just more headshots...

So how does a game cross the invisible maturity line? Is The Sims any more mature than Battlefield? Is Second Life any more mature than World of Warcraft? How does one make the distinction between what is mature and what is not in a game. Video games are made for 2 reasons: to be entertaining and to make money. Different people enjoy different games, whether that be life simulations akin to Second Life or run and gun violence a la Call of Duty.

I play shooting games with people from ALL age ranges, whether that be under 18, 18-25, 25-45, 45-older. If you ever care to spend the time looking, I'm sure you can find a "mature" game that you seem so bent on finding. Just because it's not at E3, which is almost ENTIRELY dedicated to the violence genre (and yes Mario is technically violent, you go around stomping goombas and such), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also, there ARE a wide variety of other games. Look at GT5, the NFL games and other such sports games. There are horror games like Amnesia, ALL manner of simulators, puzzle games that are truly puzzles and not built into a violent game, small indie games like Super Meat Boy, sandbox games like Minecraft, and the new Humble Bundles. You just gotta look a little.

Yes, but that's the point. I have to "look" if I want to find a good game that is outside the normal "popular" genre. Then I have to look again if I want to find one that isn't geared towards those that aren't adults. I don't have to "look" to find good movies in any genre. They're all over the place because they get equal billing to those that are dumb popcorn flicks.

I know that there are plenty of games out there. The problem is that they are generally outside the "AAA" development area. Thus we don't get the games with high production values AND an above average intelligence required. We can either go "indie" and mature, or "AAA" and popcorn shooter. This is not a good choice if we want the medium to further itself and gain credibility in the eyes of non-gamers (like movies did).

I would like there to be many choices in all production areas for every variety of game. Then everyone can be happy.

Dennis, games 'becoming more than they are' and games 'staying as they are' are not mutually exclusive. Both can happen. There's no reason why there can't be some games that take the medium further/higher while other games continue to cater to the sex/violence hungry audience. This is certainly true of other media; there are dozens of shit action movies released every year, but there's also the occasional English Patient or Shawshank Redemption (or whatever 'great' movie you prefer).

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here