On The Other Side of Videogame History

[lord.jeff]

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.

And what happens to people who like games like Dear Esther, I didn't care for it myself but I don't see the people that did as some evil entity that want to rune my fun just people who want to play a different genre. We have shooters, racers, sport sims, and many other genres being made right now without ruining the others, so why can't we have a nature walk sim genre and hugging genre of games. You blame people for wanting to take away your fun but your the only one I see attacking whole genres that bring others fun.

 

[lastjustice]

Every genre has a shelf life. Guitar hero/rock band were all the rage a few years back. We saw year after year of Tony Hawk. Ken and Ryu were took over the arcades. None of these things lasted forever, and the FPS bubble is probably going break soon. That's how gaming has always gone. Something gets hot, and the whole world makes more of it for awhile. The market gets flooded and it dies down once something new takes over. It has nothing do with maturity violence being too much. People just get sick of more of the same after a point. I think if someone released something else that was different but good, people would latch on to it in a heartbeat. Something else will pop up soon, and we'll get an onslaught of that heh.


I honestly don't care if gaming ever "grows up." I frankly don't need worlds approval to do things I like. Do I care if people like Rodger Ebert think gaming is art? no, but it was never meant for him anyways. My father hating gaming my whole life, as he commented at wanting smash my NES with a hammer back in the day. He never did it because he didn't disrespect my property but he probably would have given me a big hug if I had smashed it.


If gaming does grow up, it's hopefully because someone who works in the industry makes the game they want to make. That it isn't some sorry attempt to win the approval of their father figures of the world. If it's done for the right reasons thats when it will matter. Going thru the motions won't help anyone. It will probably just result in games no one wants to play.

I get why that happens too, these triple A studios have gotten so bloated that no one wants to take risks anymore. Everyone can't afford be wrong at this point and has to go with a proven winner. It be nice if developers could find a nice balance of budget and effort. No amount of money thru at a project will automatically make it creative or quality. Ultimately I believe the gaming landscape will change soon as this isn't all some video game doomsday. I'm sure if you went back to E3 in the late 90s you'd saw a mountain of fighting games. Early 2000s you'd saw a armada of Jrpgs. Every dog has it's day. Modern warfare will go way of Tony Hawk and will all be better for it heh. (I don't see FPS ever stop being made, just not the bread and butter that they are now.)

 

[Woodsey]

Most articles I read physically noted that this wasn't anything new, it was just that it had reached saturation point, and was brought further to the fore by the fact that everyone's having to pretend 7-year-old technology is brand new and exciting.

Because of that combination, E3 was particularly out-of-date, and particularly out-of-touch.

Violence wasn't really even the issue, but how it was being used to market stuff like Far Cry 3, The Last of Us and Tomb Raider when they have more going for them (although I must say, The Last of Us still looks entirely uninteresting to me in the face of playing DayZ).

The Escapist coverage at least made The Last of Us seem special, and a break in trend from the shooters of recent times

It very well may be. I admit to wincing when I saw that shotgun blast. It felt very intimate to me, more like a murder than a killing, but then I spoke to a colleague on the way out of the Sony press conference. He knew more about the game than I did, and said that the survivors Joel was fighting were apparently really, really bad guys, and that Joel used to be one of them. Put in that context, the violence didn't seem quite as disturbing.

This point brings it back to the marketing, actually. You said it as if it being 'more like a murder' was a bad thing - it's not (even if it weren't, contextually speaking, complete dickheads being killed). What's bad is that having a man's head explode was seemingly shown so as to have a crowd of people whoop and cheer. Or that, at the very least, that's the reaction inspired in the crowd, whether they intended it to or not.

To be honest, I wouldn't care if you were playing a character who was a complete psychopath, because that's still context. When you remove it from the equation in a 5-minute E3 demo, it's just as bad when people cheer in reaction to something like that shotgun blast as it is when it's about a reformed character shooting 'baddies'. Context is everything.

Because Christ forbid any of them try to be fun and something more.

To be honest, I've become rather loathsome of the misnomer that "games are meant to be fun!" in the first place. Games should be entertaining, in the sense they are an involving diversion in some capacity. 'Fun' is an incredibly limiting word, and increasingly so in an industry not limited to having sliding ships shoot at descending aliens anymore.

 

[RandV80]

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.

You're missing your own irony here. You're questioning what happens if your type of 'fun' games stop existing because people like movie Bob want more Mario games (his preferred style of games, not Dear Esther). Yet do you not realize that his Mario games got pushed out of the way, or at least out of the mainstream, by your own army of fans for testosterone driven action games? What you're accusing them of potentially wanting to do to your method of gaming, is exactly what you're type of gaming has done to them.

And there's not an emerging trend in gaming that will push Gears of War out of production, but rather there are two factors in play. First is the original NES child generation has more people naturally reaching that point of maturity, let's say the SNES and N64 children gens, where games like Gears of War lose appeal. Second, the ease of PC game development and distribution has grown to the point where these gamers can make games their own games to fulfill this growing market. And I guess there's a partial 3rd factor where big budget AAA development is almost starting to cannibalize itself (see: EA's recent comments about Dead Space 3), which is the biggest danger to your preferred style of games but really has nothing to do with the above group.

Also, I'm seriously amused at how you seem to perceive the reaction towards DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball for people who criticize it.

To sum it up no one is saying anyone style of game should be snuffed out, rather what they want to see is more diversity in the industry. I will however give you the point that there's not going to be a lot of sympathy from the people you dislike should the big budget AAA style shooter fall out of favour.

 

[HobbesMkii]

Maybe it's just fatigue? You know how a lot of movie reviewers have cooled towards comic book movies? Maybe it's a lot like that.

 

[Vault101]

I honestly don't care if gaming ever "grows up." I frankly don't need worlds approval to do things I like. Do I care if people like Rodger Ebert think gaming is art? no, but it was never meant for him anyways. My father hating gaming my whole life, as he commented at wanting smash my NES with a hammer back in the day. He never did it because he didn't disrespect my property but he probably would have given me a big hug if I had smashed it.

I think people misunderstand what that means..it doesnt mean "yes lets all become pretention and wanky"

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.

so therefore..you really really didn't like Portal?

wow...not only do you miss the point but the point is somewhere over in another galaxy

 

[KrabbiPatty]

You're missing your own irony here. You're questioning what happens if your type of 'fun' games stop existing because people like movie Bob want more Mario games (his preferred style of games, not Dear Esther). Yet do you not realize that his Mario games got pushed out of the way, or at least out of the mainstream, by your own army of fans for testosterone driven action games? What you're accusing them of potentially wanting to do to your method of gaming, is exactly what you're type of gaming has done to them.

And there's not an emerging trend in gaming that will push Gears of War out of production, but rather there are two factors in play. First is the original NES child generation has more people naturally reaching that point of maturity, let's say the SNES and N64 children gens, where games like Gears of War lose appeal. Second, the ease of PC game development and distribution has grown to the point where these gamers can make games their own games to fulfill this growing market. And I guess there's a partial 3rd factor where big budget AAA development is almost starting to cannibalize itself (see: EA's recent comments about Dead Space 3), which is the biggest danger to your preferred style of games but really has nothing to do with the above group.

Also, I'm seriously amused at how you seem to perceive the reaction towards DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball for people who criticize it.

To sum it up no one is saying anyone style of game should be snuffed out, rather what they want to see is more diversity in the industry. I will however give you the point that there's not going to be a lot of sympathy from the people you dislike should the big budget AAA style shooter fall out of favour.

I "missed" the irony because I'm not a hipster who allows Edgar Wright movies burn a hole in the part of my brain that lets me process logic.

In all seriousness though, lets start at the end: why does it amuse you I defend DOA? I like breasts, I enjoy sex and masturbation, so I like DOA. Is this...a problem? Is it wrong? No? Then all the criticisms of it which focus EXCLUSIVELY on that are full of shit, they're just being a bunch of snobs who pretend to be above sex or sexuality, and I'm not about to let ANYONE let alone a bunch of snobs look down on me for enjoying sex. If you have an objective argument as to why the actual, objective gameplay of DOA or Tomb Raider or whatever is wrong or bad or such then fine but saying "LOL IT HAS BEWBS MUST BE FOR TEENS LOL" is not only asinine its--dare I say--immature.

And yes they ARE trying to snuff out certain games. The people who actually argue that the ravings-of-a-lunatic nonsense that comprises the "plot" of Braid represents either an actual plot or one that means "more" than the story of, say, Mario Bros or Gears of War are either stupid or lying purposefully. But the thing is, the people who I euphemistically call the "Extra Credits Clique" (because "douchebag hipsters with superiority complexes clinging to their box set of My So Called Life like it's the holy grail" is too long to write out constantly) want for games like that to be the ONLY games ever made. Why else do they constantly heap much-undiserved praise on ONLY the most obtuse, plotless, mindless, pseudo-philosophical claptrap while in the same breath sneering and scoffing at the VERY IDEA that "games for fun" or "games for sexual stimulation" should even EXIST.

Or to quote Mr. Flynn, the Rush Limbaugh of hipster gamers, "There are SOME games people should have the GOOD TASTE to not make" he says while showing Army of Two stills. So don't LIE to me about how these people feel, I know they think I'm the scum of the Earth because I don't find The Passage to be the single most engrossing experience of my life, and I know that because they SAY SO every time they get a chance. They don't want "diversity" in the industry--they want the industry to cease to exist so that "indie devs" can make "real games" for them. Max Scoville, the Glen Beck of hipster gamers, literally said, on camera, his dream is for Triple A devs to cease to exist and for Kickstarter and indie devs to dominate the gaming landscape. This wasn't a joke either, he had two other people there basically salivating at the idea. So "diversity" is hardly the issue here.

The issue here is ME being tired of people like THEM acting like I have no right to exist because I don't genuflect at the feet of the Indie Gods, which as every sane man knows comes right after facing east every morning to pray to Tim Schaffer. It PAINS me that I've been playing video games since I was five years old and yet I have to PROVE to people I'm a "Real Gamer" because I happen to hold very little regard for arthouse bullshit and retrogames. I've owned every console ever made since the NES and played thousands and thousands of games, but I'm not "good enough" to live in the same world as the Men of Courage who made Braid. And frankly I'm sick to fucking death of having to defend myself, my friends, and my preferred form of enjoyment from a hundred little ankle biters who think "dude bro" is both a term and pejorative. It's neither, and if there IS some all-encompassing group of homogenous, sheeplike followers who want games to become a morass of visually and functionally identical fluff it's not people like me it's people like them.

 

[Kargathia]

Because Christ forbid games just be FUN!

So much for understanding that different people enjoy different things - and tend to be vocal about their dislikes.

You don't like "them", and "they" wouldn't like you. Neither of your positions come down to anything more than personal taste, and to declare one objectively superior would be laughable. How exactly is this situation in any way resembling a metaphorical red flag that has to be charged?

Even though I applaud at the creativity and passion of argument I can't help but feel that right now you're raging because somebody is wrong on the internet.

 

[RandV80]

I "missed" the irony because I'm not a hipster who allows Edgar Wright movies burn a hole in the part of my brain that lets me process logic.

In all seriousness though, lets start at the end: why does it amuse you I defend DOA? I like breasts, I enjoy sex and masturbation, so I like DOA. Is this...a problem? Is it wrong? No? Then all the criticisms of it which focus EXCLUSIVELY on that are full of shit, they're just being a bunch of snobs who pretend to be above sex or sexuality, and I'm not about to let ANYONE let alone a bunch of snobs look down on me for enjoying sex. If you have an objective argument as to why the actual, objective gameplay of DOA or Tomb Raider or whatever is wrong or bad or such then fine but saying "LOL IT HAS BEWBS MUST BE FOR TEENS LOL" is not only asinine its--dare I say--immature.

And yes they ARE trying to snuff out certain games. The people who actually argue that the ravings-of-a-lunatic nonsense that comprises the "plot" of Braid represents either an actual plot or one that means "more" than the story of, say, Mario Bros or Gears of War are either stupid or lying purposefully. But the thing is, the people who I euphemistically call the "Extra Credits Clique" (because "douchebag hipsters with superiority complexes clinging to their box set of My So Called Life like it's the holy grail" is too long to write out constantly) want for games like that to be the ONLY games ever made. Why else do they constantly heap much-undiserved praise on ONLY the most obtuse, plotless, mindless, pseudo-philosophical claptrap while in the same breath sneering and scoffing at the VERY IDEA that "games for fun" or "games for sexual stimulation" should even EXIST.

You're taking this way to seriously. Even if there are people out there that want to snuff out high testosterone action games like Gears of War in favour of high art games like Dear Esther, there's far to few of them to actually accomplish anything or influence the market to a change. And Movie Bob certainly isn't one of them either, he's just a fan of 2d platformers. Personally my preferred type of games are strategy and RPG, with a preference towards the fantasy/medieval genre. As long as I'm getting games like The Witcher/Xenoblade/Civilization/Total War/etc I'm plenty happy. And occasionally I'll enjoy a more involved FP game like Metroid Prime, Deus Ex, or Half life. I'm not selfish enough to think they should just stop making the type of games I don't play, really the only thing I don't care much for is trend of mashing up different genre's all into the same sort of game.

Also, I would say DOA Volleyball is best described as a fetish. Gamers that criticize it aren't anti-sexual prudes, they just don't have a thing for cartoon sex. It's more of a Japanese game and yes the game is targeted towards teenagers over there.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

On The Other Side of Videogame History

The complaints about E3 are kind of a good thing.

Read Full Article

Eh, it's the same kind of person that'll wonder when humanity will "grow up," failing to realize that there are new, tiny people popping up all the time. Videogames will always have their "kids' table," and the "tweens' table," and the every-other-table. Just because I got old enough to eat steak didn't mean I only ever ate steak.

The question behind us was simply, "When will this medium be able to produce mature, thoughtful work of merit that is still an exemplar of the medium?" The question was never, "When will every game be a serious work of art?" At least it shouldn't have been. Nor should it be now.

Limbo uses metaphor to discuss and convey issues of growing up, peer pressure, fear and death. A great example of intelligent, mature game design.

 

[Dastardly]

Limbo uses metaphor to discuss and convey issues of growing up, peer pressure, fear and death. A great example of intelligent, mature game design.

Agreed, which is why I refer to it as the "question behind us" rather than the question before us. We've already seen the industry demonstrate a resounding "Yes!"... but some people seem to think we're at a failure if any immature games "slip through."

It'd be like believing Transformers invalidates film as an art form despite the presence of countless other brilliant examples.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Limbo uses metaphor to discuss and convey issues of growing up, peer pressure, fear and death. A great example of intelligent, mature game design.

Agreed, which is why I refer to it as the "question behind us" rather than the question before us. We've already seen the industry demonstrate a resounding "Yes!"... but some people seem to think we're at a failure if any immature games "slip through."

It'd be like believing Transformers invalidates film as an art form despite the presence of countless other brilliant examples.

Just wasn't sure with some of your wording. English can be a deceptive thing. "The question behind us was simply," made me think you were referring to a problem that is once again in front of us.

I don't know. Maybe my mind just farted, lol.

 

[Grospoliner]

It's funny that they mention Deus Ex HR. I played through it opting to take the non-violent approach. I was honestly infuriated that the developers had not designed the game in such a way that I could defeat the bosses without killing them. I had spend countless hours tasering and knocking people out in a specific bid to be merciful, even though I was forced to employ violence to do so. At the end of the game, I had a body count of 5. The 4 bosses and one unfortunate soul that I had apparently stepped on and inadvertently killed (Not sure how it happened the poor guy was just dead).

It wouldn't have taken them much effort to develop a KO scene for the bosses and ending cutscenes to represent this. I mean the whole game was about humanity and the abandonment of it in technological progress. Forcing me to kill people was insulting.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

In all seriousness though, lets start at the end: why does it amuse you I defend DOA? I like breasts, I enjoy sex and masturbation, so I like DOA. Is this...a problem? Is it wrong? No? Then all the criticisms of it which focus EXCLUSIVELY on that are full of shit, they're just being a bunch of snobs who pretend to be above sex or sexuality, and I'm not about to let ANYONE let alone a bunch of snobs look down on me for enjoying sex. If you have an objective argument as to why the actual, objective gameplay of DOA or Tomb Raider or whatever is wrong or bad or such then fine but saying "LOL IT HAS BEWBS MUST BE FOR TEENS LOL" is not only asinine its--dare I say--immature.

We're not at all bashing those games because we are sexually repressed snobs who believe in maturity above all else. We're bashing it because we see what it represents: a lowest common denominator. Companies make these games because they know that we'll buy these games on the most basest of interests (see: boobs). We're not insulting the gamers that play them, as we all have our guilty pleasures. Rather, we hate companies that see us as so stupid that we'll buy games just based on the jiggle mechanics.

And for the record, I like DoA. I don't own the game, but I'm a casual fighters fan and like playing them, specifically DoA 4 from the franchise, when I can. Kokoro ftw.

And yes they ARE trying to snuff out certain games. The people who actually argue that the ravings-of-a-lunatic nonsense that comprises the "plot" of Braid represents either an actual plot or one that means "more" than the story of, say, Mario Bros or Gears of War are either stupid or lying purposefully. But the thing is, the people who I euphemistically call the "Extra Credits Clique" (because "douchebag hipsters with superiority complexes clinging to their box set of My So Called Life like it's the holy grail" is too long to write out constantly) want for games like that to be the ONLY games ever made. Why else do they constantly heap much-undiserved praise on ONLY the most obtuse, plotless, mindless, pseudo-philosophical claptrap while in the same breath sneering and scoffing at the VERY IDEA that "games for fun" or "games for sexual stimulation" should even EXIST.

They praise artsy, innovative games because they are in a significant minority. They scoff your "games for fun," which I presume you mean shooters, because we are oversaturated by them. Please name all the artsy games you can. Now name how many of those you found on your own, without some critic or LPer talkimg about how great it is. Compare this same number to shooters, any shooter.

We don't hate shooters. Hell, the games I play right now (Mass Effect 2, Call of Duty: MW2 and WaW, Halo Reach, Dynasty Warriors 7) are mostly a type of shooter (and you get a cookie for figuring out which one of those aforementioned games doesn't revolve around a gun as its gameplay mechanic). We just. Want. Something. Else.

btw, lol at the comment of "plotless." On the plots of Reach, MW3, BF3, and GoW 3, the first has so msny continuity errors that, combined, you could fit the Pillar of Autumn through them; the second is practically identical in structure to MW2 but with different names and locales, the third is so by-the-book that you could probably have some knowledgeable troper like our MovieBob name the entire plot based on the info on the back of the box and the opening cutscene; and the fourth wasted a philosophical deconstruction of the rambifications of the COG-Locust War on attained knowledge of the government's knowledge and involvement with the Locust prior to E-Day with the queen in order to have a cliche "Revenge!" one-liner. Trust me, the triple A's aren't a pinnacle of even basic plot.

Or to quote Mr. Flynn, the Rush Limbaugh of hipster gamers, "There are SOME games people should have the GOOD TASTE to not make" he says while showing Army of Two stills. So don't LIE to me about how these people feel, I know they think I'm the scum of the Earth because I don't find The Passage to be the single most engrossing experience of my life, and I know that because they SAY SO every time they get a chance. They don't want "diversity" in the industry--they want the industry to cease to exist so that "indie devs" can make "real games" for them. Max Scoville, the Glen Beck of hipster gamers, literally said, on camera, his dream is for Triple A devs to cease to exist and for Kickstarter and indie devs to dominate the gaming landscape. This wasn't a joke either, he had two other people there basically salivating at the idea. So "diversity" is hardly the issue here.

The issue here is ME being tired of people like THEM acting like I have no right to exist because I don't genuflect at the feet of the Indie Gods, which as every sane man knows comes right after facing east every morning to pray to Tim Schaffer. It PAINS me that I've been playing video games since I was five years old and yet I have to PROVE to people I'm a "Real Gamer" because I happen to hold very little regard for arthouse bullshit and retrogames. I've owned every console ever made since the NES and played thousands and thousands of games, but I'm not "good enough" to live in the same world as the Men of Courage who made Braid. And frankly I'm sick to fucking death of having to defend myself, my friends, and my preferred form of enjoyment from a hundred little ankle biters who think "dude bro" is both a term and pejorative. It's neither, and if there IS some all-encompassing group of homogenous, sheeplike followers who want games to become a morass of visually and functionally identical fluff it's not people like me it's people like them.

Ok, I sympathize with your thoughts that you hate how some gamers regard the 'retro' games with such devout nostalgia that they think that these kickstarters should just be the norm. I acknowledge the importance of devs like Tim Schafer on video game style, but I can proudly claim that the only game I've played by him was Brutal Legend because, while I would love to play some of his older works, I'm not ready to kill someone over them, and actually I'm really looking forward to Halo 4 and Blops 2.

But, on the other hand, I agree with the Army of Two as a game that shouldn't be made for what it represents: a game designed entirely on demographic appeal. It's formulaic crap designed on a conveyer belt, giving it everything that "sells." Cover mechanics, guns, violence, glorification of gratituitous violence, nothing in the game is unique. We, and I, hate games like that because they have no identity. They can literally be interchanged with one another and you would not notice. Say what you will about Mario and Zelda; at least you can tell the games apart.

I prefer balance. Games like Halo 4 and Blops 2 are great as long as we have something to counter it. A gaming world dominated by either Triple A or Indie would force me out of the genre for how scary it is.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

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...

 

[Dennis Scimeca]

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.

 

[ninjaman9000]

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.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

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.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

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).