Spector: Videogames Still "Comic Books" and "Cartoons"

[theultimateend]

I don't get it?

Since when did 1 in 3 people liking your stuff not become mainstream?

I can't think of many things outside of biological necessities (like breathing or sex) that have higher approval ratings than that.

Because 1 in 3 is not a statistical majority, of course.

How else would you measure mainstream appeal?

Well as I mentioned if gaming doesn't qualify as mainstream then I'm not sure what does.

You could argue television has more support but the shows themselves are the analogue to the games. Few shows have folks invested into them on the magnitude of something like World of Warcraft or Modern Warfare 2.

Same thing with movies. The theatre is the console and the actual movie is the game. Few movies end up taking away that kind of view level. If they were I don't think they'd be panicking and grabbing at every straw that presents itself (Like 3D).

But yes, if you want 51% internship for "mainstream" then as I said you won't find much outside of biological necessity and things required by law.

 

[samsonguy920]

Mr. Spector, there is a game for everyone else. It's called Farmville.

 

[samsonguy920]

One third of households is a huge success.

Wii has sold more than 70 million units worldwide.

The most popular Zynga title supposedly had more than 70 million users.

Davinci Code by Dan Brown apparently sold 80 million which is a bit more. You can't tell me that Dan Brown does not appeal to the mainstream.

Those statistics (and we all know how we feel about statistics) fail to take into account how many of those Wiis are sold to one household, which changes drastically the effect on worldwide sales.
Including supposedly in a statement defeats the emphasis, and I fail to see what The DaVinci Code has to do with what we are talking about.
Ignoring all of that, one-third is not a success.

 

[Croquemitaine]

Hey, if you're an old gamer like me, you don't want gaming to get any more mainstream. The drive to broaden the market is why the industry has become obsessed with graphics and explosions.

As someone pointed out earlier, gamers used to be content with text games ("You have been attacked by a Orc. What do you do?"). The mainstream audience won't accept that. They need to see a big photo-realistic demon-ogre-dragon-hybrid leaping down on them in a burst of flames. And it has to happen FAST.

Conversation in RP games is another example. We used to be content with text boxes. Now everything has to be fully voiced. Not only does fully voicing cost more to create, but it also limits the flexibility of the story-telling engine. Plus NPC's never say your name anymore, unless the game assigns you a name. "Roleplaying" in games is now reduced to you playing a character and story that's been written for you, because the mainstream likes that. Those of us who prefer to create our own characters and forge our own stories are a niche crowd. Even Bioware is no longer interested in catering to us (this is not a slam at Bioware or any other developer. It's a business and they're right to target the larger market).

Remember, going mainstream doesn't mean they (the mainstream audience) become more like us. It means games become more like them.

 

[Shawn112]

Well looking at cartoons in the west they are nothing but a marketing tool to sell ads or toys, in the east they are treated like prime time TV or film. As far as comics go......the story telling can be better than prime time because of how cheap and dumb TV/Film is getting.

So ya its not what you have its what you do with it and of course gaming is the most disposable dumping ground of modern media so meh.

Bingo.

Attempting to turn games into film/tv/radio is exactly the problem that the industry faces.

Bioware/bethsoft/valve/blizzard seem to be the only ones who get it.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Those statistics (and we all know how we feel about statistics) fail to take into account how many of those Wiis are sold to one household, which changes drastically the effect on worldwide sales.
Including supposedly in a statement defeats the emphasis, and I fail to see what The DaVinci Code has to do with what we are talking about.
Ignoring all of that, one-third is not a success.

Apparently some people love statistics when they get to pick and choose how to interpret them. Davinci code is as good as example as any when looking for mainstream things that have sales figures that can be compared to games and if you want to look for things that have more sales, like being in more than 50% of households in a region or something equally absurd, then you start going in the direction of the Bible, Koran or Mao's little red book.

 

[TheDukester]

Maybe the shoddy storylines have something to do with the fact that most gaming studios feel that they don't need a dedicated writing team. Or it could have something to do with how male-dominated the industry seems to be.

HA! Have you watched any prime time TV show lately? Its just as bad!

I said writers, not screen writers. Everyone's focusing on the leaps and bounds of the technological aspects of videogames, but the writing has barely budged. Every storytelling medium needs its own style of writing; you can't just take a writer from one genre and put him in something else completely different.

Screen writing does not equal videogame writing does not equal novel writing does not equal short story writing, etc. etc.

Meh writing < mechanics

Again its the same basic writing as other media hell games would be better served if mechanics got more attention than bare glance before the Gdamn beta is released to the public...

I think that's the problem with a lot of gamers. They just assume that it is the basic writing, but the mechanics of videogames dictate that the writing has to be something different entirely.

I feel like the whole industry's design philosophy is still off the mark. We haven't really experienced interactive storytelling because in most games, the player's decisions/actions are at best periphery and superficial. Take Mass Effect for example. Most of the choices in that game are just who doesn't like you/who likes you. The ultimate arc of the story is going to be the same. I mean, maybe I'll be proven wrong, but here's my point: I made some decisions in Mass Effect 1, but ultimately my playthrough of Mass Effect 2 ended with the defeat of the enemy just like everyone else (even the people who had their version of Shepard die defeated the final boss first)

Gamers don't affect the arc of stories because videogame stories aren't currently set up to allow that. That's the part of videogame story development that needs to change, which will influence the mechanics

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Well looking at cartoons in the west they are nothing but a marketing tool to sell ads or toys, in the east they are treated like prime time TV or film. As far as comics go......the story telling can be better than prime time because of how cheap and dumb TV/Film is getting.

So ya its not what you have its what you do with it and of course gaming is the most disposable dumping ground of modern media so meh.

Bingo.

Attempting to turn games into film/tv/radio is exactly the problem that the industry faces.

Bioware/bethsoft/valve/blizzard seem to be the only ones who get it.

Take Bioware out of that ME2 a shooter and DA2 watered down more than DA was... they are looking to become more popular by turning their products into the dreaded canned spam of tv/film/radio. Sure they might have decent writing but you play a game you don't watch it....

 

[Denmarkian]

I don't get it?

Since when did 1 in 3 people liking your stuff not become mainstream?

I can't think of many things outside of biological necessities (like breathing or sex) that have higher approval ratings than that.

Because 1 in 3 is not a statistical majority, of course.

How else would you measure mainstream appeal?

Well as I mentioned if gaming doesn't qualify as mainstream then I'm not sure what does.

You could argue television has more support but the shows themselves are the analogue to the games. Few shows have folks invested into them on the magnitude of something like World of Warcraft or Modern Warfare 2.

Same thing with movies. The theatre is the console and the actual movie is the game. Few movies end up taking away that kind of view level. If they were I don't think they'd be panicking and grabbing at every straw that presents itself (Like 3D).

But yes, if you want 51% internship for "mainstream" then as I said you won't find much outside of biological necessity and things required by law.

Okay, now you're just being thick on purpose.

Yes, individual television shows or movies could be considered analogues to individual video games, and these comparisons happen already, but not in an analytical sense. People make comparisons all the time between different media, we're still waiting for "The Citizen Kane of video games"

But we're not talking about individual video games, we're talking about the appeal of playing video games as a means to spend time compared to watching a movie or television, or reading a book.

You can talk about a specific game having a larger fan base than a specific show, but that's comparing apples to carburetors.

Warren Spector is saying that the very act of playing video games will not appeal to the mainstream until we move beyond the kiddie-fantasy story content that we have now.

I'm trying to say that the act of playing video games will NEVER achieve mainstream appeal because it is not a storytelling medium that gives the same experience to every player the same way that watching a movie or television show, or reading a book does.

Playing a video game is an intensely personal experience by design. And that makes it difficult to relate one person's experience playing a game to another person's experience playing the same game. You can't objectively critique the story because so much of the experience is tied up with the immersion and gameplay.

If people can't talk about it, they will be less inclined to do it.

Another point I was attempting to make is that video games don't appeal to people because they have really bad story telling. Like I said, everything that happens in the game is related to the player character, otherwise the momentum of the story grinds to a halt while you the player gets caught up on the rest of what's happening.

Another is that people can't relate to the actions video game characters make because they're either innocuous, or completely not the choices the player would make were they personally in the same situation (See: Any Zero Punctuation reviewing a game with a moral choice system)

Yet another point I made, when someone tried to bring up sales figures, is that statistical analysis indicates that, in that particular case, the console has a 30% market penetration, which is not a majority, ergo not mainstream.



1. Playing a video game :: Watching television

2. Playing WoW :: Watching LOST

1 =/= 2

Warren Spector and I are talking about #1, you are trying to bring up #2 as refutation of my argument about #1.

You even concede my point to try and make your refutation.



What I feel is the core issue of video game development right now is that companies are trying to make video games a mainstream product, and will do almost anything to appeal to the widest audience, forcing in a panoply of game modes in an attempt to appeal to everyone.

This is folly.

Video games are a niche product right now, and cannot be forced into the mainstream. The only thing anyone succeeds in doing while attempting to do so is to flood the market with a watered-down experience that will be disappointing to everyone who tries it. While at the same time, driving away people who are interested in exploring the limits of the medium.

There will never be a "MAUS" of video games; the only things that turn a profit are the continued regurgitations of series that became popular when people were still exploring their creative limits, or the video game equivalent of "Eat, Pray, Love".

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Warren Spector is saying that the very act of playing video games will not appeal to the mainstream until we move beyond the kiddie-fantasy story content that we have now.

I'm trying to say that the act of playing video games will NEVER achieve mainstream appeal because it is not a storytelling medium that gives the same experience to every player the same way that watching a movie or television show, or reading a book does.

I would say that Warren Spector's view is clearer than yours when it comes to this. You are limiting yourself to interpreting everything in terms of drama when drama is only one aspect of games. Did organised team sport fail to catch on because it was unable to deliver the same sort of narrative as theatre? Did dance music fail catch on because it was unable to deliver the drama of opera? Did cheese and pickle sandwiches fail to catch on because they were unable to deliver the emotional impact of a punch and judy show. And so on.

You are also just wrong, in my opinion, if you think that video games do not have many effective tools for providing a very strong non gaming/sporting type experience. Drama hasn't always been the strongest point but games excel in mutlimedia art such as combining visual arts, music and architecture, and so on. They are even better at this than movies, and could easily swallow up the capabilities of comic books if needed. Heck, some people even see the future of comics as being apps for devices like the iPad allowing access to new audiences without the cost and risk of publishing. The next MAUS could easily be a mutlimedia app made for a mobile device using technology made for games.

 

[elvor0]

I happen to like cartoons and comic books thank you very much, and besides the films that do well aint exactly high brow either. Transformers 2 springs to mind, the movies that do well are always action movies, sure Avatar had 3D going for it, and there was the oil/native american "under"tones going on, but to the average person it was just a cool movie, and was accessable to the general public.

Sure more high brow, quality written stuff would be great, but im content to swing swords and fight zerg with my legion of space marines as general fun and tom foolery, if im looking for something a bit more artsy or whatever I'll play Braid or Shadow of the Collussus, this next generation of video game design will be golden, as it's going to be us lot who grew up with it, who realise we need to hire writing teams, and will be experienced with what game mechanics work and what doesn't, I wholeheartedly look forward to it.

 

[Denmarkian]

I would say that Warren Spector's view is clearer than yours when it comes to this. You are limiting yourself to interpreting everything in terms of drama when drama is only one aspect of games. Did organised team sport fail to catch on because it was unable to deliver the same sort of narrative as theatre? Did dance music fail catch on because it was unable to deliver the drama of opera? Did cheese and pickle sandwiches fail to catch on because they were unable to deliver the emotional impact of a punch and judy show. And so on.

You are also just wrong, in my opinion, if you think that video games do not have many effective tools for providing a very strong non gaming/sporting type experience. Drama hasn't always been the strongest point but games excel in mutlimedia art such as combining visual arts, music and architecture, and so on. They are even better at this than movies, and could easily swallow up the capabilities of comic books if needed. Heck, some people even see the future of comics as being apps for devices like the iPad allowing access to new audiences without the cost and risk of publishing. The next MAUS could easily be a multimedia app made for a mobile device using technology made for games.

I agree that drama is only one aspect of games, but that's the flip-side of what I'm saying.

Storytelling is Drama.

Telling a good story requires Drama.

I'm surprised you imply that I think sports are not as dramatic as theater, in that they don't deliver a "narrative".

I'm inclined to disagree. Landon Donovan's goal that gave the USA team a win over Algeria in this summer's World Cup was absolutely the most riveting and emotionally wrenching moment in sports I've ever seen. <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbn3rOPmR9w>This video shows that exactly.

Similarly, good dance music compels you to dance, and will in fact have shifts in tone throughout the piece, like the breakdown, that gives depth and complexity to the song. Hell, proper DJing is the act of taking the audience on an emotional narrative through careful selection and blending of pieces of music.

Video games can't focus on storytelling, because they have the gameplay to consider. This hurts the game's ability to tell the story it wants to tell. That's the trouble with video games as a storytelling medium.

Don't get me wrong, there are innumerable stories that are better told through a video game; for example, every single movie adapted from a video game. But the fact that the stories that are best told through video games are SO DIFFERENT from the stories that are best told through books and movies, means that the time is still very far off when a parent will play their children a bedtime story game instead of reading one.

I think it's so far off that we might as well not consider it, and get back to exploring the limits of kinds of stories that are best told in video games, instead of trying to squeeze a novel into a game, or trying to equate playing a game to watching a movie.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I agree that drama is only one aspect of games, but that's the flip-side of what I'm saying.

Storytelling is Drama.

Telling a good story requires Drama.

I'm surprised you imply that I think sports are not as dramatic as theater, in that they don't deliver a "narrative".

I'm inclined to disagree. Landon Donovan's goal that gave the USA team a win over Algeria in this summer's World Cup was absolutely the most riveting and emotionally wrenching moment in sports I've ever seen. <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbn3rOPmR9w>This video shows that exactly.

Similarly, good dance music compels you to dance, and will in fact have shifts in tone throughout the piece, like the breakdown, that gives depth and complexity to the song. Hell, proper DJing is the act of taking the audience on an emotional narrative through careful selection and blending of pieces of music.

Video games can't focus on storytelling, because they have the gameplay to consider. This hurts the game's ability to tell the story it wants to tell. That's the trouble with video games as a storytelling medium.

Don't get me wrong, there are innumerable stories that are better told through a video game; for example, every single movie adapted from a video game. But the fact that the stories that are best told through video games are SO DIFFERENT from the stories that are best told through books and movies, means that the time is still very far off when a parent will play their children a bedtime story game instead of reading one.

I think it's so far off that we might as well not consider it, and get back to exploring the limits of kinds of stories that are best told in video games, instead of trying to squeeze a novel into a game, or trying to equate playing a game to watching a movie.

I'm waiting for the explanation of how a cheese and pickle sandwich is dramatic.

I think that it is wrong to use drama as the explanation for anything being important. Probably it is wrong to use gameplay as the explanation for any game being important but I would say that it is pretty bloody important. Just like Stalin said that quantity has a quality all of its own then gameplay has a drama all of its own. Like sports have a drama all of their own. In the end though I think that it all drills down not to drama, but human psychology and biology and what we find rewarding. Games are rewarding, and not just in one easy to explain way like that they can be dramatic in the same way as movies.

That feels like enough for me but also a cop out since I'm not addressing exactly what you say. Video games can concentrate on story telling, and they can concentrate on story telling like movies, radio, animation or whatever but it doesn't always feel as fulfilling because they are not always as accomplished and are not as pure as what they are copying. Being accomplished may be a solvable problem but the purity isn't. The purity, and huge popularity, of games comes from games with strong gameplay that doesn't concentrate too much on being like movies, radio, animation or whatever even if they are influenced by it. Games like these are mainstream and do have a drama all of their own.

A game like Monopoly is a narrative about becoming rich through speculation and luck and the way that the game is certainly crafted to highlight the drama of that process. Parts of it are fixed, the board, cards and rules are the same each game, so you get the same designed story each time. That particular "drama" is more alive and culturally relevant than almost all movies of the period.

So yes, I'm saying that games that do not focus on movie style narratives are not only worth people making but are not automatically second rate to movies in terms of being mainstream or relevant.