Thanks Lampdevil. Game publishers are constantly looking for that holy grail of mass appeal. But in my 20+ years of gaming, I could probably count on one hand (or less) the number of games that have succeeded on a layered level, being just as fun whether you're 5, 15 or 35, but providing nuanced appeal for more sophisticated and experienced gamers. (Think similarly the Beatles being equally loved by critics as well as 12-year old screaming girls) The gaming landscape is littered with blockbusters that have tried and failed, and every once in a while a Guitar Hero comes out of nowhere that a young kid can pick up on easy, and a hardcore gamer can spend hours thrashing away on expert. (And both can play at the same time in co-op play.) But that's extremely rare. More often than not, we get dumbed-down gameplay to appeal to the lowest-common denominator or big and bloated high budget games with a myriad of half-baked "new" features and tack-on extras.
132: Play Like a 3-Year-Old
- Thread starter Wendy Despain
- Start date
I think it's sufficient to have a variety, and we're not THAT far off on that count. Take movies for example: No Country for Old Men is not a movie that a 3 year old would enjoy (even if you ignore the violence). 300 doesn't really have "nuanced appeal for more sophisticated and experienced [movie watchers]". Ratatouille isn't going to appeal to the frat-boy demographic. There's some crossover appeal there, but all three of those movies know firmly who their target audience is.Ace331 said:
I think the author's real problem is that she either doesn't own a game that a 3 year old will enjoy (since she's not a 3 year old), or didn't go digging through her collection for one. That's not an indictment of the author or the game industry; she'd have the same amount of trouble finding a DVD a 3 year old would enjoy.
This is why I like Lego Star Wars...no particularly long cinematics, no dialogue whatsoever, and on top of that Lightsabers+Force=win. (what 3 yr old doesn't love lego star wars?)
wow, you know, I don't think I've thought like a three year old in a long long time. I even remember being really frustrated by how much time it took between the end of a level and mario walking into the pipe. Seriously. How bizarre is that? It just goes to show that games targeted towards children need to be filled with something to do.
Our generation became so jaded by impatience, ADHD, and broken game design, that we've forgotten what its really like to be a kid.
"Pursuit of happiness" is right.
Our generation became so jaded by impatience, ADHD, and broken game design, that we've forgotten what its really like to be a kid.
"Pursuit of happiness" is right.
I can loan you my 3-year old Wendy if you'd like to do more research on this - she absolutely adores Mario in Super Mario Galaxy - to the point where she giggles uncontrollably and jumps about in excitement at the mere mention or hint of me turning on the game. She sits right next to me clutching her Wiimote collecting star bits for me and directing me on which way SHE thinks I should go - more often than not resulting in my horrible death. I honestly can't think of any game that has held her interest like this one, and that has her inter-acting with me as well. It's GOTY in our household that's for sure. And no, I do not work for Nintendo, but kudos is warranted to them for this little gem of a game.
The only problem is that if I get stuck on a level she gets bored very easily and wants me to go to a different level.....for about 5 minutes.....then a different level again....for another 5 minutes. Argh - I can't get any stars this way but still it's oodles of fun.
The only problem is that if I get stuck on a level she gets bored very easily and wants me to go to a different level.....for about 5 minutes.....then a different level again....for another 5 minutes. Argh - I can't get any stars this way but still it's oodles of fun.
games are stories? like gran turismo and dead or alive? i play those for the gripping narrative. you, sir, are a LIAR. lolBeery said:
and i HATE the fact that you can't skip the cutscenes in assassin's creed. i will patiently sit thru cutscenes the first time thru because i want to know the story when story is involved, but when replaying the game a second time you still cannot skip the cutscenes- WHICH SUCKS. so i played the game about half as long as i would have if replaying the game wasn't such a hassle. devs should not be so strictly forcing story down the gamer's throat. if the gamer doesn't care, then so be it. let us get to the fun if that's what we want.
interesting article. now i want to play battlefront.
For the record, I didn't use any poetic license on this article. For reals, my nephew won the first level of Star Wars Battlefront entirely on his own, with the unusual strategy of standing in one place (right where he started), turning in circles and firing constantly.
I was as shocked as anybody when he was victorious.
This is how it happened. Yes, your opponent AI are presumably out there trying to "capture the flag", but on the easiest easiest settings you're also given some pretty darn good AI on your team, and they will go out and do everything for you. He did run out of ammo, but not long before the friendly AI captured the necessary bases.
Levels one and two look different to me too, but only because I'm a jaded old gamer who... um... appreciates the minute details. But really, it's just another red/brown city. (On the settings I was using.)
And absolutely, if I had much warning I would have rented some games more on his level. That's why it took me a while to think of playing video games. I didn't have any (finished games) that were made for 3 year-olds.
Also for the record, I don't hate cut scenes. I rather like cut scenes. I kind of wanted to know what the reasoning was behind the pterodactyl with the laser weapons.
But not enough for me to fire it up and watch it without a 3 year old around. Sorry.
And please don't think I'm picking on Battlefront. I happen to love that game. That's why it was on top of my pile.
I was just so struck... Something is wrong if hunting worms is more fun than video games. After a rainy night you just have to step outside my back door and pick up twenty. There's not much thrill of the chase involved.
And no, I don't think every game should be fun (or played by) 3-year olds, but I think maybe we as developers would be better critics of our own work if we stopped and played like (or with) 3 year-olds for a bit. Just to remind us of what's fun about games.
Aunt Wendy, who can't figure out how to log in with the same username as this thread was begun with.
I was as shocked as anybody when he was victorious.
This is how it happened. Yes, your opponent AI are presumably out there trying to "capture the flag", but on the easiest easiest settings you're also given some pretty darn good AI on your team, and they will go out and do everything for you. He did run out of ammo, but not long before the friendly AI captured the necessary bases.
Levels one and two look different to me too, but only because I'm a jaded old gamer who... um... appreciates the minute details. But really, it's just another red/brown city. (On the settings I was using.)
And absolutely, if I had much warning I would have rented some games more on his level. That's why it took me a while to think of playing video games. I didn't have any (finished games) that were made for 3 year-olds.
Also for the record, I don't hate cut scenes. I rather like cut scenes. I kind of wanted to know what the reasoning was behind the pterodactyl with the laser weapons.
But not enough for me to fire it up and watch it without a 3 year old around. Sorry.
And please don't think I'm picking on Battlefront. I happen to love that game. That's why it was on top of my pile.
I was just so struck... Something is wrong if hunting worms is more fun than video games. After a rainy night you just have to step outside my back door and pick up twenty. There's not much thrill of the chase involved.
And no, I don't think every game should be fun (or played by) 3-year olds, but I think maybe we as developers would be better critics of our own work if we stopped and played like (or with) 3 year-olds for a bit. Just to remind us of what's fun about games.
Aunt Wendy, who can't figure out how to log in with the same username as this thread was begun with.
I sum it up into one word: PURPOSE.
Adults want to feel a sense of it. Kids have no need of it.
Everything that people say is bad about a "sandbox" environment, where you can almost do anything you want but you don't really know what to do next is exactly the kind of that kids like; they invent their own reasons. They're playing for the love of playing. We're playing to figure out why we should keep playing, instead of doing other, more important things.
Adults want to feel a sense of it. Kids have no need of it.
Everything that people say is bad about a "sandbox" environment, where you can almost do anything you want but you don't really know what to do next is exactly the kind of that kids like; they invent their own reasons. They're playing for the love of playing. We're playing to figure out why we should keep playing, instead of doing other, more important things.
It's a nice enough article to look at as a guide for designing a game that's going to be rated E, but if it's rated T or above then you really need to think of other things.
Nanosaur 2 is kind of a bad example, as the game is only good in that "Holy shit this is so horrible it's hilarious" way. I mean, working at my school's computer sales department at the bookstore during the summer, my co-worker and I watched the intro and laughed our asses off, then continued to laugh at the game itself. It's supposed to be a demo, but it's a bad one.
The Marble game is just fucking awesome, though.
I think what needs to be done first is that developers need to think of games that will be interesting for kids, but don't necessarily have to be rated Teen. Everyone's making platformers to mimic Mario 64 for kids, but no one's thinking "y'know, why not just make the next Mega-Man?" and work on a third person shooter with lock-on abilities where robots fight robots or some shit. Closest thing is Custom Robo, and even that has awkward controls at times (and it might be rated Teen).
Developers need to think about what they want their kids/nieces/nephews/grandkids to play, not just what they want to play and make. That's something this industry needs badly, and if a developer has a personal reason to make an E-Rated game good (if I were to make a game for my niece, I'd want to make sure it was good), then it'll likely come out fun like Mario Galaxy.
Nanosaur 2 is kind of a bad example, as the game is only good in that "Holy shit this is so horrible it's hilarious" way. I mean, working at my school's computer sales department at the bookstore during the summer, my co-worker and I watched the intro and laughed our asses off, then continued to laugh at the game itself. It's supposed to be a demo, but it's a bad one.
The Marble game is just fucking awesome, though.
I think what needs to be done first is that developers need to think of games that will be interesting for kids, but don't necessarily have to be rated Teen. Everyone's making platformers to mimic Mario 64 for kids, but no one's thinking "y'know, why not just make the next Mega-Man?" and work on a third person shooter with lock-on abilities where robots fight robots or some shit. Closest thing is Custom Robo, and even that has awkward controls at times (and it might be rated Teen).
Developers need to think about what they want their kids/nieces/nephews/grandkids to play, not just what they want to play and make. That's something this industry needs badly, and if a developer has a personal reason to make an E-Rated game good (if I were to make a game for my niece, I'd want to make sure it was good), then it'll likely come out fun like Mario Galaxy.
BTW, no one I've met yet can stand the opening cut-scene in Mario Galaxy, especially since it is unskippable. The funny thing about Mario games is that they are recognized as being all about play first, so the idea that it needs a story -- and an elaborate setting -- is ridiculous to them. Really. They almost made it swap it out for something else (and sadly it would have been faster than waiting for the opening to end).
The flaw of your article is that you set it on Easy. Of course it is easy to beat BF by turning around and holding X.
That being said, the rest of the article is quite well. Man, I wished I was a 3-year old when I played OoT. Maybe I could have saved Hyrule by not entering that Temple of Light as a kid, and instead just went out fishing.
That being said, the rest of the article is quite well. Man, I wished I was a 3-year old when I played OoT. Maybe I could have saved Hyrule by not entering that Temple of Light as a kid, and instead just went out fishing.
Great article, Wendy. Smoothly written and insightful. I loved the Spiderman bit. Just got done posting about kid logic over in the "Little Girl Games" forum thread.
It is fascinating what kids will find compelling and what they won't. I recently was on an airplane with a little girl whom I think was really too young to be flying alone (she claimed to be 5, but neither I nor the flight attendants thought she really was). The Happy Meal they'd gotten her during her layover kept her occupied through the ascent, but about ten minutes into the flight she got seriously agitated and started crying. I was able to calm her down a bit by talking to her, but that alone wasn't going to cut it, so I pulled out my DS. It is fascinating to see a child that age (no reading ability) navigate a game, basically moving through and getting a great deal of enjoyment just out of the interactivity of touching something on a touchscreen and getting a response. PictoChat and Electroplankton kept her busy for a little while, Rune Factory was a complete bust, and the semi-old build I had of GoPets was most successful of all of them, which was satisfying. But there is a simple zen to the way kids approach games.
It is fascinating what kids will find compelling and what they won't. I recently was on an airplane with a little girl whom I think was really too young to be flying alone (she claimed to be 5, but neither I nor the flight attendants thought she really was). The Happy Meal they'd gotten her during her layover kept her occupied through the ascent, but about ten minutes into the flight she got seriously agitated and started crying. I was able to calm her down a bit by talking to her, but that alone wasn't going to cut it, so I pulled out my DS. It is fascinating to see a child that age (no reading ability) navigate a game, basically moving through and getting a great deal of enjoyment just out of the interactivity of touching something on a touchscreen and getting a response. PictoChat and Electroplankton kept her busy for a little while, Rune Factory was a complete bust, and the semi-old build I had of GoPets was most successful of all of them, which was satisfying. But there is a simple zen to the way kids approach games.
(Sorry, but I am naturally long-winded, I apologize if this post sucks! n_n;
And these points aren't just being tangental, as I'm trying to voice my opinion about things that have been said in this topic so far.)
I really don't think this article is so much about suggesting that all games should adhere to kid logic so much as it goes to show how enlightening a childs simple, narrow logic can be to someone who has been conditioned into having a wider mindframe... Trust me, this is not an insult. A child will often ask questions of things we are made to ignore, and when we hear their way of thinking, it sometimes becomes a subtle reminder of exactly how we have changed in mere decades.
There are pretty much two camps of normal game players:
~ Games can be and should be art, and if that means forcing a player to see a cut scene to start enjoying the game as an artform, then so be it. After all, especially in these latest years where graphics and audio quality comes close to being capable of emulating the appearance of realism, we have heard brilliant musical scores, deep and moving storylines, and countless memorable moments... So why NOT take advantage of the fact that a player has to fight to get further along the story, to further deepen the emotional connection between the player and the main character?
~ Games are made for enjoyment, if I wanted a deep story, I'd read a book or watch a movie. As well, games are an interactive media, so having too many moments that take away the players ability to cast spells, fire machine guns, or command armies is wasting the potential of video games. After all, if you only get the full experience of a story or plot event once, what good is it to buy a $50-60 game if the only reason you have to replay it is being constantly interupted by the story you already know?
My main argument against this article is that while 3-year-olds can see flaws nearly immediately where it would take us much longer to notice, it is mainly because the mind of a 3-year-old is very different from that of an 18 or 23-year-old. They can get enjoyment out of very dubious things, it isn't because their minds have a more subtle yet advanced understanding, they just don't know, haven't seen, haven't heard the things we have... What child have you heard of can truly enjoy the nuances of a deep and interesting story (Can you point one out that would cry at the end of Disk 1 fo FFVII, if you needed an example)? Of course a child won't like a long intro movie, they want to kick ass and take names, anything that gets in the way of that is merely an obstacle (Sure, they SEE what they want to do, but in a video game, they want to be controlling the mayhem, not watch it)... So I honestly don't think the child was making some deep revelation when he said the game was just a movie. For them, there are no two camps, because they have pretty much just started thinking thoughts other than those of basic survival and communication... TMNT didn't have a story as far as I cared, the turtles kicked ass, so I watched, and it was only later I figure out about the mutation (I ignored the mutant part, they were just talking turtles), Foot Clan, and other parts of the story. Dora the Explorer doesn't have a main plot, but hey, I helped Dora fend off Swipper and get her to her house before dinner, I'm not sure, but I think I'm starting to understand some of the weird words she's saying, too!
And these points aren't just being tangental, as I'm trying to voice my opinion about things that have been said in this topic so far.)
I really don't think this article is so much about suggesting that all games should adhere to kid logic so much as it goes to show how enlightening a childs simple, narrow logic can be to someone who has been conditioned into having a wider mindframe... Trust me, this is not an insult. A child will often ask questions of things we are made to ignore, and when we hear their way of thinking, it sometimes becomes a subtle reminder of exactly how we have changed in mere decades.
There are pretty much two camps of normal game players:
~ Games can be and should be art, and if that means forcing a player to see a cut scene to start enjoying the game as an artform, then so be it. After all, especially in these latest years where graphics and audio quality comes close to being capable of emulating the appearance of realism, we have heard brilliant musical scores, deep and moving storylines, and countless memorable moments... So why NOT take advantage of the fact that a player has to fight to get further along the story, to further deepen the emotional connection between the player and the main character?
~ Games are made for enjoyment, if I wanted a deep story, I'd read a book or watch a movie. As well, games are an interactive media, so having too many moments that take away the players ability to cast spells, fire machine guns, or command armies is wasting the potential of video games. After all, if you only get the full experience of a story or plot event once, what good is it to buy a $50-60 game if the only reason you have to replay it is being constantly interupted by the story you already know?
My main argument against this article is that while 3-year-olds can see flaws nearly immediately where it would take us much longer to notice, it is mainly because the mind of a 3-year-old is very different from that of an 18 or 23-year-old. They can get enjoyment out of very dubious things, it isn't because their minds have a more subtle yet advanced understanding, they just don't know, haven't seen, haven't heard the things we have... What child have you heard of can truly enjoy the nuances of a deep and interesting story (Can you point one out that would cry at the end of Disk 1 fo FFVII, if you needed an example)? Of course a child won't like a long intro movie, they want to kick ass and take names, anything that gets in the way of that is merely an obstacle (Sure, they SEE what they want to do, but in a video game, they want to be controlling the mayhem, not watch it)... So I honestly don't think the child was making some deep revelation when he said the game was just a movie. For them, there are no two camps, because they have pretty much just started thinking thoughts other than those of basic survival and communication... TMNT didn't have a story as far as I cared, the turtles kicked ass, so I watched, and it was only later I figure out about the mutation (I ignored the mutant part, they were just talking turtles), Foot Clan, and other parts of the story. Dora the Explorer doesn't have a main plot, but hey, I helped Dora fend off Swipper and get her to her house before dinner, I'm not sure, but I think I'm starting to understand some of the weird words she's saying, too!
my sis and i loved elevator buttons when we were kids. anything with buttons that respond when pressed is quite thrilling to a kid, i figure.ErinHoffman said:
I thought this article was pretty interesting. Obviously, not all games should be made in order to appease 3 year olds, but when a completely novice gamer can spot some basic flaws-in this case, removing interactivity, or fights you can't ever win-there might be something to reconsider in how games are made.
Maybe you should stop playing video games if the only reason you have to play is to...figure out why you're playing in the first place? Have you considered just quitting video games altogether?namtastic said:
EDIT: I mean, what other reasons do you have for playing a game aside from the joy of playing? If you're playing a game for story...why not bypass the game and go straight to a good story by reading a good book or watching a good movie? Books and movies have far better stories than games. Even if they were equal in quality, I wouldn't bother with the game unless the game-play itself was fun. Basically, I don't see a valid reason to play a game unless it provides the "joy of playing."
You speak for a certain segment of the gaming population. People like you are exist.Beery said:
But people not like you exist as well. And they can't stand cutscenes. I am one of those people. Many three year olds are also like us, but there are plenty of older people like us, too. We happen to like this article.
We can all exist in peace. I won't play your games, you won't play mine. And if they start making more of your games than my games, oh well, time to do something else aside from video games I guess. Big deal.
Geez man. Take a chill pill.
I disagree with much of the premise of the article. I don't think the designers of chess or Monopoly would have much considered those games appeal to children who have not yet even started school. Are we then to assume there is a giant flaw in their concept and design?
And to use a cheap movie licence knock off and a couple of free Apple demos as examples of a general fault line through the game development community I find insulting to one's intelligence. As is the idea that in game cinematics are somehow completely redundant. No one plops their toddler down in front of The Seventh Seal or even the Star Wars trilogy and expects them to understand the finer points.
It seems to me that Wendy Despain, like so many writers on the internet, knows how to string a few words together but when it comes to well thought out essays...well no one is paying for them anyway.
And to use a cheap movie licence knock off and a couple of free Apple demos as examples of a general fault line through the game development community I find insulting to one's intelligence. As is the idea that in game cinematics are somehow completely redundant. No one plops their toddler down in front of The Seventh Seal or even the Star Wars trilogy and expects them to understand the finer points.
It seems to me that Wendy Despain, like so many writers on the internet, knows how to string a few words together but when it comes to well thought out essays...well no one is paying for them anyway.
Personally, I liked and -- as a thirty-year-old that's trying to get back out of the "eh, games are for kids" demographic -- agree with the article. What "Aunt Wendy" wrote about basically is why a lot of people I know, that had been avid gamers since preschool, quit in the mid-late 90s. Most figured we "grew out of" games, since most new releases seemed like dull work, but I don't think that was it. I think that when the main focus became impressive graphics/sound, other things suffered -- and we were the contingent of players that weren't satisfied enough to keep spending time/money/energy on it, even if we'd spent fortunes until that point.
I don't think that the point of the article was "all games should be playable by three-year-old kids" at all. I think that it's was more that people should start expecting/demanding better, rather than buying & slogging through a title because it's the least-crappy of what's available. Maybe then publishers will start giving you more bang for your buck, as they say; they charge enough that you certainly should expect something that's not mostly attractive-looking junk.
I don't think that the point of the article was "all games should be playable by three-year-old kids" at all. I think that it's was more that people should start expecting/demanding better, rather than buying & slogging through a title because it's the least-crappy of what's available. Maybe then publishers will start giving you more bang for your buck, as they say; they charge enough that you certainly should expect something that's not mostly attractive-looking junk.