210: Time to Move On

[boholikeu]

Frankly, I never actually wanted my hobby to be accepted by the general public, except in that I wanted them to leave me alone and let me do my thing. I love the fact that designers and publishers are making better money now, what with the larger audience, but I don't love what's happening to the games to make it so. The developers are, naturally, going to cater to the lowest common denominator. I can't dispute that this makes good business sense, but it does lead to mediocre games, games that take no chances and break no new ground. Easy games with minimal challenge, short lengths and lots of pretty sparkly effects to hide the low quality, that's what I'm seeing of late. Mind, there are still occasional bold games being designed, but it's a lot like Hollywood. Most of the product is like eating baby food, bland soft and flavorless, with a rare steak dinner sneaking in now and again. This is not what I wanted for my hobby.

Maybe it's just me, when I read a post like this I essentially hear "difficult/complex=good game. Easy to understand=bad". Is this more or less on the money?

If this is so then I can't say that "hardcore" gamers such as the above have a good grasp of game design. True, complexity and difficulty can make a game more entertaining, but they can just as easily ruin the experience. Dwarf Fortress, for example, has a wonderful amount of depth and re-playability, but it's marred by one of the worst UIs I've ever seen in a game. "Simple" doesn't have to mean "shallow" either: though the game play of the Sims isn't much more than basic micromanagement, the game itself is an excellent vessel for emergent narratives. In the end, "Hardcore" games aren't the shining pinnacles of gaming bliss that some players think they are, and shutting yourself off to a whole legion of games just because they are "too easy" isn't the kind of thing I'd expect from a true fan of video games.

 

[Royas]

Frankly, I never actually wanted my hobby to be accepted by the general public, except in that I wanted them to leave me alone and let me do my thing. I love the fact that designers and publishers are making better money now, what with the larger audience, but I don't love what's happening to the games to make it so. The developers are, naturally, going to cater to the lowest common denominator. I can't dispute that this makes good business sense, but it does lead to mediocre games, games that take no chances and break no new ground. Easy games with minimal challenge, short lengths and lots of pretty sparkly effects to hide the low quality, that's what I'm seeing of late. Mind, there are still occasional bold games being designed, but it's a lot like Hollywood. Most of the product is like eating baby food, bland soft and flavorless, with a rare steak dinner sneaking in now and again. This is not what I wanted for my hobby.

Maybe it's just me, when I read a post like this I essentially hear "difficult/complex=good game. Easy to understand=bad". Is this more or less on the money?

If this is so then I can't say that "hardcore" gamers such as the above have a good grasp of game design. True, complexity and difficulty can make a game more entertaining, but they can just as easily ruin the experience. Dwarf Fortress, for example, has a wonderful amount of depth and re-playability, but it's marred by one of the worst UIs I've ever seen in a game. "Simple" doesn't have to mean "shallow" either: though the game play of the Sims isn't much more than basic micromanagement, the game itself is an excellent vessel for emergent narratives. In the end, "Hardcore" games aren't the shining pinnacles of gaming bliss that some players think they are, and shutting yourself off to a whole legion of games just because they are "too easy" isn't the kind of thing I'd expect from a true fan of video games.

I don't necessarily think that simple=bad, any more than complex=good. That would be a pretty silly way to look at things. One of the most complicated games I've ever tried to play was Universal Combat. It was also one of the worst games I've tried to play. Simple can also equal elegant. What I'm worried about is simple not for the sake of elegance, but for the sake of simplicity over everything else. Games simplified for the sole purpose of being playable with a gamepad on the PS3. Yes, a game should be as simple as it can be, as long as the gameplay is not compromised. The fact is, some games have to be more complicated to be good. You can't make a flight sim (for example) and make it simple at the same time. Not if you actually want to call it a flight sim.

I'm also not specifically referring to just simple controls, or a simple interface. Simple and easy gameplay, that's a problem. You reference The Sims as an example of a simple, easy game. It does have a pretty basic interface, not a lot of complexity there. The actual gameplay, though, can get very complicated and very deep. Actually, the Sims is an example of excellent game design in a lot of ways. It has aspects that appeal to the casual and the hardcore alike. You can skim the surface and play it in an easy, casual fashion, or you can dig deeply into the possible interactions, figure out ways to do crazy things in building, make content and mods, that sort of thing. It appeals across the board, which is why it's sold umpteen million copies over the years.

When I'm playing a game, I expect to be challenged on some level. I don't want to have the game handed to me on a silver platter. I expect to have to consider strategies and tactics. I expect to have to weigh pros and cons. If I didn't want a challenge, I'd save a bunch of money and just watch a movie or read a book. It's cheaper, and I'd have to do less work. If a game fails to challenge me, to hold my interest, it's a failure in my book. Too easy does equal bad from my point of view. Not simple, but simplistic might be a good way to put it.

I'm not explaining what I mean very well, I'm afraid. It's hard for me to articulate what I'm thinking on this subject. I think the Hollywood analogy was about the best I can come up with. Nobody wants to take any risks, nobody wants to do anything interesting. Some exceptions exist, and some examples of an already established genre being done very well are out there as well, but for the most part I'm seeing the same old, same old. I take hope in some of the games I see, such as Mirror's Edge (not great, but it was a new concept), Brutal Legend (definitely looks different) and Dragon Age (not a ground breaking genre, but it looks to be shaping up as a stellar example of it's field).

 

[Nerdfury]

First of all, my mind works in a funny way - I'm what most people call a hypocrite, but it runs deeper than that, and is very difficult to explain. See, I can see both sides of everything, and I can be on both sides of the fence about the same issue, on different parts.

That's called a 'diplomat', not a hypocrite.

I suppose that's a nicer way to put it - thanks. Not many people see that, though. It's like people only see some strange extreme when they meet me. Odd.

 

[Ray Huling]

by "immersion" i meant that state of extreme focus,

Sure. My point is that some games can also provide a feeling of entering into a world or narrative and that some games can't. Some players look for that kind of thing; others don't.

As for escapism, I don't see why escapist activities have to be easy. Some people go hiking or rock-climbing to "get away".

We don't want to mistake escapism for mere preference. Escapism is more specific.

Bob prefers rock climbing to sitting in his office. No escapism there.

For Bob, rock climbing is a refuge from the pressures of the office. Escapism implies that something pains us from which we want to escape.

My point here is that it's silly to escape to something more difficult, more painful than the thing you're trying to escape from. In that case, I would say that Bob prefers the challenges of rock climbing to the challenges of office politics.

Escapism in video games would mean something like 'Bob gets picked on at school, and so he escapes to video games, playing which he imagines himself as a tough guy'. How do you imagine yourself to be a tough guy if you keep losing?

 

[Syntax Error]

Yes, we gamers did not exactly want the popular people to play games as we do. We wanted them to just accept that playing video games is not a total waste of time, while we are not wastes of skin. That journeying to the far-off mystical lands and thwarting an apocalypse is just like going out on a Friday night. If they somehow managed to accept that and play the same videogames we did, then, the better it is for both parties.

To some extent, I'm thinking that the hardcore's wish in that article - that the normals play video games like us - lacks some keywords. I'm guessing that you wanted it to be more on the lines of "that the normals play the same video games as us". What the hardcores would have wanted is that those same experiences be experienced by other people.

Frankly, I think it would be better if people just got rid of the Casual and Hardcore labels. This "divide" will only serve as a catalyst for the continued dumbing down of video games.

 

[Fearzone]

So, Russ, it sounds like you and I are about the same age. Our cultural experiences are defined by two unique phenomena that frame well within the course of our lives: the video game, and Dungeons and Dragons.

We were there for pong and regular paper D&D. These phenomena have stayed and grown and it is because of people like us who loved them, operating on the fringe, that they did. Things like Pat Benatar and the Gogo's have come and gone, and even Michael Jackson finally reached his natural endpoint, bless his soul. Arcades died to the consoles, R.I.P. But videogames and Dungeons and Dragons are still going strong. Who would have guessed?

So we have gone on to have successful careers, and now everybody wants a piece of what we started. That's fine, but we cannot allow a decomposition of our standards, or the whole movement risks fading into obscurity.

We see it now with the endless stream of utter crap forced down our mouth as "blockbusters." Thank goodness for Yahtzee.

Give me Tempest or Lunar Lander any day over the newest rail-shooter with all the best graphics.

 

[boholikeu]

When I'm playing a game, I expect to be challenged on some level. I don't want to have the game handed to me on a silver platter. I expect to have to consider strategies and tactics. I expect to have to weigh pros and cons. If I didn't want a challenge, I'd save a bunch of money and just watch a movie or read a book. It's cheaper, and I'd have to do less work. If a game fails to challenge me, to hold my interest, it's a failure in my book. Too easy does equal bad from my point of view. Not simple, but simplistic might be a good way to put it.

That's fine, but at the same time not everyone plays a game to be challenged. Some people like having a story they can interact with. Others like experimenting with the gameworld. Still others just want to have a chill time with some friends (online or at the same console). None of the above need challenge to be fun, and while you might not find them rewarding there are plenty of other people that do.

I'm not explaining what I mean very well, I'm afraid. It's hard for me to articulate what I'm thinking on this subject. I think the Hollywood analogy was about the best I can come up with. Nobody wants to take any risks, nobody wants to do anything interesting. Some exceptions exist, and some examples of an already established genre being done very well are out there as well, but for the most part I'm seeing the same old, same old. I take hope in some of the games I see, such as Mirror's Edge (not great, but it was a new concept), Brutal Legend (definitely looks different) and Dragon Age (not a ground breaking genre, but it looks to be shaping up as a stellar example of it's field).

Actually, I loved the above paragraph because it completely describes how I feel about many "hardcore" games. Like I mentioned in another post, hardcore players are actually pretty complacent about certain things, and it's only due to the new focus on casual gamers that we've seen some innovation in these areas. In fact, we're seeing new genres and playstyles that are so experimental that "old guard" purists don't even consider them to be "true games".

 

[Russ Pitts]

So, Russ, it sounds like you and I are about the same age. Our cultural experiences are defined by two unique phenomena that frame well within the course of our lives: the video game, and Dungeons and Dragons.

We were there for pong and regular paper D&D. These phenomena have stayed and grown and it is because of people like us who loved them, operating on the fringe, that they did. Things like Pat Benatar and the Gogo's have come and gone, and even Michael Jackson finally reached his natural endpoint, bless his soul. Arcades died to the consoles, R.I.P. But videogames and Dungeons and Dragons are still going strong. Who would have guessed?

So we have gone on to have successful careers, and now everybody wants a piece of what we started. That's fine, but we cannot allow a decomposition of our standards, or the whole movement risks fading into obscurity.

We see it now with the endless stream of utter crap forced down our mouth as "blockbusters." Thank goodness for Yahtzee.

Give me Tempest or Lunar Lander any day over the newest rail-shooter with all the best graphics.

I don't know, man. I find it hard to get too obsessed over "holding the line" when my own tastes tend to change so radically from time to time. I've actually completely given up videogames a time or two in my life, and spent the time I would have otherwise spent playing games doing things of a completely different nature; founding a company, for example, or learning to appreciate the native live music scene (and the girls and bars along the way), etc.

I can understand where you're coming from; that there's concern things will change to the point where what we enjoy or prefer is no longer produced in favor of things we do not. It's a fair concern, but unwarranted, I think. It would be impossible for me to recount the exact number of game development studios I've walked into where entire sections of their offices have been turned over to host pen and paper role-playing sessions. In fact, when we show up with camera, they've frequently just finished "tidying up" by stuffing all of the books and maps and dice into a closet, as if, for some reason, that's not what we wanted to see.

Most developers try to make games they themselves will enjoy, and most game developers are also themselves gamers. Yes, it's true that there are more games being produced that do not fit the tastes of what I would call the "hardcore" crowd, or my own for that matter. But there are also just flat out more games being produced. And in spite of the concern that games are being "dumbed down" I am rarely at a loss for something to play.

So, yeah, I see where you're coming from, but I'm not really all that worried about it.

Also, It's ironic that you point out Yahtzee. There are a lot of people who expressed grave misgivings over the fact that we'd introduced his work to The Escapist. As if the dick jokes somehow obscured the fact that he's quite possibly the most honest and insightful game critic in the industry. Or the most respected, by gamers and developers alike

My point with all of is that perspectives are wide and varied. Yet things are almost never as dire as they seem. Keeping an open mind is usually the best policy.

 

[mszv]

Oh games expanding their reach to more different sorts of people - I want that because I want to see more people like me into gaming. Hardcore games are fine, intense shooters (so not me) are fine, games where you engage in combat are fine (I play MMORPGs) - I'm glad they are there, for other people. But I want more different sorts of game experiences. So, selfishly, I love it when games expand their reach. I have no objection to hardcore games, and hardcore gamers being around, but it's just not me. I also like games that aren't too hard - because that's how I am. It is tricky - you want something engaging and rewarding, but not hard. Without some concept of harder and harder mastery, I think it's tricky for game developers to figure out how to keep people engaged in their game.

Combat - shooting, killing monsters, that's interesting. Aside from the adrenalin rush (also so not me) - I think this is popular because it's doable. Game developers have figured out how to make it work, in terms of understanding what you do, how you progress, how you get better, what it means, all that. I like the combat (if it's not too hard) of an MMORPG because I can understand it, and I can do it, but I'd like there to be different things to do in a game, aside from combat or puzzle solving. I've got to see if I can get into crafting.

I'd also like to see more game where you make stuff, or in my case, combine various elements in game to make stuff. It's all so disjointed now. You have your Second Life where you can make stuff, and you can sometimes craft things like weapons in MMORPGs. I think I'd like an online world where there was stuff to do and ways to advance in the game, but where it was also more varied, a little more sandboxy, but still with some goals and objectives. Maybe I'd like more GTA, but not with that setting - doesn't appeal to me.

For those of us who see games as an entry into a virtual world, our goals are different. We like to make progress to an end, particularly if there is a good story, but our focus is also in simply being in the game. Sometime alone, sometimes with friends, we seek new virtual world experiences. It really is a different mindset, different from mastering a game or beating it. Games where you are rewarded for various interactions with AI characters also appeals to me - I'm possibly the only MMO player who likes Fedex quests!

I also want games to be designed for those of us who don't have much time to play. I'll play not at all for two weeks, then an 8 hour session, then three nights of 1 hours sessions, then nothing for one week, then a couple of hours in a session, then I attend an event in Second Life where I stick around for four hours, and so forth. I want games to be designed to accomodate my crazy game schedule, and I want to have a good experience even if I don't play a lot.

So, selfishly, I want game companies to make more sorts of games for someone like me. If that means appealing to the "popular" market, so be it. It's not that I object to hardcore games, or hardcare gamers - but, proverbially, what about me?

 

[Lovesfool]

Very well put. I think the problem arizes from the fact that people like to be "experts". It is annoying to a "hardcore" gamer with a 20 year track record that his grandmother now has and is entitled a legitimate opinion about video games.

The hardcore gamer is a bit like the movie critic. Movies in the 30s were the bomb, anything from Kurosava or Bregovic is excellent and the next Jennifer Aniston movie is by definition crap.

Same here. If you have not played the original Megaman, or if your first video game ever was Wii Fit, then you should have no right to speak of video games.

Times have changed. I think they have changed for the better. The more mainstream the media, the more money are invested, the more versitility and selection we have, the better off for all of us.

 

[Tharticus]

Well put out article.

I grew up during the rise of the Nintendo after releasing the NES to the states. And yes, video games has changed over 20 years since video games were a small hobby to now pure entertainment. I don't like how this progressed since casual games are now Guitar Hero and having top notch graphics for having nothing but pure cinematic and zero gameplay. It is for the better, but I guess that gaming companies do need to make money. Even though there are games developed for a gamer this generation, it still has minimal challenges and can be easily beaten unlike the NES or SNES games.

The point is that I was once a hardcore gamer but I lost all track of it since gaming went the way of being mainstream. I still hope for another excellent game that is comparable back in the old days.

 

[Panzer_God]

Your story has reached into the dark and wrinkly abyss that was my soul and triggered feelings of guilt and stupity.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

I never considered myself as a hardcore gamer personally. Just playing games on extreme difficulty and becoming a master of games and a perfectionist, just isn't really my thing. Please note though that I don't consider myself casual either. I will understand a game and play it until I get as close to finishing as possible if not finishing a game if I'm given one.

Anyway, as a result of my lack of experience as a hardcore gamer, I'm not sure what to say about this artical. I guess that I do agree with you, games have become a lot more mainstream over the years, and that there are people out there who still want it to be their own private thing when just a slight glance at XBox Live can prove that this isn't true. And I do believe that they should pull their heads out of their asses and accept the fact that this is the turn gaming has made, but apart from that, I do not really know what to make about it.

So basically, I agree with you entirely, but that agreement isn't something that I fully understand.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Your story has reached into the dark and wrinkly abyss that was my soul and triggered feelings of guilt and stupity.

That's the most awesome feedback I've ever received. Thanks!

 

[Silva]

The article's optimistic view may be pleasant to read, but we have got little reason to be so positive from a factual perspective.

Yes, gamers got what they wanted. But the article forgets that the dream gamers had, to be understood by the mainstream, was an idealistic, emotional dream, founded from a deeper kind of inner deviancy found in the first dedicated gaming communities, and the desire there to be personally understood by others. These isolated men and women were hardly socialites, and I would suspect many of them are still not. These people found solace in an art form, or a skill, whichever you may call it, that fit into the same social stigmas that had been naturally consigned to people like them - labels like "nerdy" and "geeky", treatment like bullying, alienation, and a general lack of mainstream attention.

With the advent of casual gaming, there has also been an inevitable increase in intermediate gaming, which influences these communities, resulting in a pull down of passion. In the 90's, when two hardcore gamers met, they would immediately visit each other, play and bond in their own very unique way for hours over their game, and do it all several times a week. Instant friendships were possible.

Now, the intermediate is pulling these hardcore people out of that thought that what they do is original or interesting, or different. This means they have less reason to do it, because their original reasons - the stigma that were attached to both them and to gaming - are now gone. These people face a very personal issue, because the stigma they face is clearly guided not by the creativity of their art or their level of skill, but by their own personal traits. You see, they are forced to see that if the stigma of gaming has disappeared and yet they, gamers, are still seen as antisocial or basement dwellers or nerds or geeks, then the stigmas they faced were not generated by their hobby, but by their own flaws (from the view of the normal, average person). The illusion has been lost, and the naked truth faces people who, if we are honest, have never been known for taking the choice to face reality over escaping it.

It's no surprise that they defend their "hardcore rights" so passionately. There is a deeper issue which all of the escapism of the older times (which is now quite transparent) can no longer keep out of sight. So while casual gaming does indeed appear to be a boon to the business of the gaming industry, and a boost to the variety and diversity of games that are out there, it's not a uniformly positive thing.

Perhaps, in the long term, the revelation of a difficult truth for these people to face will lead to a happier life for them. Before that can happen, however, hard times are there for them, which is why I think it's a little rich to ostracise these people further by calling them "dicks" or saying that these complaints are the mere whining of an ignorant minority. What these people (yes, this may surprise you, but they are human beings just like you) need is a level of understanding that they themselves don't seek. Giving it is hard when you are the victim of criticism, yet that is exactly what gamers as a community need to do. Hardcore and casual, intermediate and non-gamer are merely categorical groups of people, and one group does not deserve ostracism any more than any group deserves special praise. Let's aspire to get over such immaturities.

 

[civver]

The developers are, naturally, going to cater to the lowest common denominator. I can't dispute that this makes good business sense, but it does lead to mediocre games, games that take no chances and break no new ground. Easy games with minimal challenge, short lengths and lots of pretty sparkly effects to hide the low quality, that's what I'm seeing of late. Mind, there are still occasional bold games being designed, but it's a lot like Hollywood. Most of the product is like eating baby food, bland soft and flavorless, with a rare steak dinner sneaking in now and again. This is not what I wanted for my hobby.

Those are pretty much my thoughts. I'm afraid that the "old" games will be left to rot by developers chasing after the casual dollar. I'm not a hardcore gamer, since I play games for the experience and fun as opposed to challenge, but I don't like some of these casual games. Bejeweled and similar games don't really provide me with an experience.

 

[Marmooset]

Time to Move On

Hardcore gamers have been clamoring for mainstream recognition of their favorite hobby for nearly 30 years. But they've missed an important point: Being accepted by mainstream audiences means accepting mainstream audiences themselves. Russ Pitts surveys the changing gamer landscape and charts a new path forward for mainstream and hardcore alike.

Read Full Article

Oh.
From the title, I thought you were leaving Cleveland.

 

[S_K]

If you consider 'progress' to be society frowning apon videogames, changing to society frowning apon videogames that arn't casual and/or shooting/party/licenced by random other things games then I suppose you might be right =P The USA and Japan might be more accepting but that's how it is in england at least. I'll consider it progress personally when men and woman can get along on videogames without treating each other like shit.

I'm not saying 'hardcore' games are better, but I am saying it's kinda like what happened to music, complete crap can outsell genuinly well crafted games now because games are more accessable sometimes peoples standards drop too out of naivity, that's one thing I think 'hardcore' gamers tap into and mock about the newcomers.