We Need More Gamers

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
I think the "it's not a pure game system so it's worse" argument is silly, the system still remains usable for games. To make that argument worth anything you have to point out what effects it has that you consider negative. Calling something "selling out" is even worse though, what the hell does that even mean? Yeah, so Nintendo no longer focusses on those hanafuda card things and videogames make more money than cards but why is that bad? Were you an avid fan of their cards and experienced a loss of quality when their focus shifted or something?

Hell, how did they even sell out? Selling out usually means abandoning one's values for money but what values were abandoned? "Make hardcore games" and "make games art" were never their values. Their values were always "entertainment for everybody" and now they've finally found a way to do that better. Doesn't look like selling out to me.
 
Nov 5, 2007
453
0
0
Abedeus said:
It's appealing to oldies and kids. People who have THE LEAST to do with gaming.
That has to be the most elitist thing (along with your other posts) I saw on here. I don't think kids movies ruined movies as an art form.
 

wowcrendor

New member
Feb 19, 2009
154
0
0
ShadowKirby said:
Abedeus said:
It's appealing to oldies and kids. People who have THE LEAST to do with gaming.
That has to be the most elitist thing (along with your other posts) I saw on here. I don't think kids movies ruined movies as an art form.
Quite true. There should be games for all ages which is partially why there is a rating system. As a kid, I loved to play Mario, Kirby, etc. This only contributed to the gamer I am today.
 

sanzo

New member
Jan 21, 2009
472
0
0
@Rodger: Thank you for saying everything I would've said. Kudos to you, man

I've said this before, i'll say it again: Gaming consoles are toys, and your ps3 or xbox360 are toys just like the Wii is. I don't care how many extra features your toy has; it's still a toy, deal with it
 

Ancientgamer

New member
Jan 16, 2009
1,346
0
0
Shamus, I love how you can turn those insufferably inexpressible thoughts that most of us would consider common sense to words. For example, I'd love to show this to my (rabidly anti-gamer) parents and teachers because it explains those seemingly obvious points that I can never really explain when prompted. Unfortunately, they'd probably just use the instances of of "foul" language (dipshit and tits) to discredit the artical, and then repremand me for reading it.
 

Aptspire

New member
Mar 13, 2008
2,064
0
0
let me just get my 3 Iron (I play Golf...and Tiger Woods 06)

great article BTW. wish those o'reilley's and the like would read it though
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
ShadowKirby said:
Abedeus said:
It's appealing to oldies and kids. People who have THE LEAST to do with gaming.
That has to be the most elitist thing (along with your other posts) I saw on here. I don't think kids movies ruined movies as an art form.
Movies? I think we are talking about GAMES here. And please, you don't actually think 70+ or under 7 people actually care about gaming?


KDR_11k said:
Abedeus said:
Sorry, but children have little to do with the image we want. We want to show games as mature form of art, like Mass Effect or Fallout 3. Not Zelda, not Mario.
No, we want games recognized as a regular form of entertainment, not a secret Illuminati plot to turn random people into psychopathic serial killers. Art does not play into it. Is reality TV art? Yet do people claim it's corrupting our children? In fact art may be detrimental to our cause, artsy stuff usually fails at being actually enjoyable so why would these people want to join gaming if we present them with some incomprehensible inside joke that makes us look like we're martians for even knowing what it means? You give them Fallout 3, they'll go WTF and back to watching TV. Gaming has become an elaborate system of idiosyncrasies and memes that looks completely incomprehensible from the outside and that's exactly why people see gamers as alien and evil. You want people who know nothing about swimming to go right into the deep end of the pool and swim a marathon race. That just does not work and it's definitely not going to help against their fear of deep waters.
You know why people think it's corrupting the children? Because stupid parents ignore the ESRB and other ratings.

Oh, and Wii Sports won't make people look at games better. Instead, it will treat games as a funny waste of time, where people swing their remote at a screen for half an hour. No plot, no dialogs, no thoughts.

If we show games that are not only killing and looting, but also aren't too childish (because then people say "oh, so it's a toy for small kids, and you are how old?"), they would see that games aren't bad.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Look guys, there are more gamers now than ever before. Things are going to change with time, it's simply that with our current lifespans generations pass slowly. Also we are now "leapfrogging" generations. Basically there are only so many jobs (and less and less with automation) and the people holding those jobs are able to work them for a lot longer than they used to. This means that those jobs aren't availible when their kids come of age.

The thing is that gaming technology and the internet stuff primarily got going for "The Lost Generation" also known as "Generation X". Basically we're a group of lazy game-playing morons to the media because as sociologists knew before we were even born, we (as a group) never had a chance. The Baby Boomers are STILL pretty much running things and in the job force when they should have been retired. Anger, laziness, violence, angst, all of these things "characterize" Gen X (and did so before we were even out there) because the world really was against us.

"Generation Y" in comparison is going to be growing up right around the time the Baby Boomer bigwigs step down and people from the younger generation will be able to actually step up into the majority of those decent jobs. It won't be until you see this, and enough 50-60 something Gen-X and Gen-Y children in the goverment until you see major changes in attitudes and such.

Jack Thomson is an older guy, and so are the people that listen to him. What he's saying is reasonable *IF* one was to totally discount sociological predictions, and such. Games aren't responsible for a proliferation of lazy, basement dwelling losers, or violence and anger. "Society" is and there was little that could be done about it. There was no actual desicians made. To be a successful Generation Xer requires you to be pretty bloody exceptional, a lot of those jobs for normal and sub-normal people that were decently
livable are either disappearing due to automation, or still held in many cases by Boomers. Heck even when it comes to low-end jobs (hahaha that 35 year old Gen Xer works at Mcdonalds as a cashier!) you have Senior Citizens being doped up with medication and heading back into the work force.

So yeah, I'm depressed, I play video games to keep myself occupied, and I generally hate just about everyone. I have problems beyond the sociological ones (being disabled, which I won't go into), but after 10 years of working before becoming disabled I had pretty much gone nowhere, and neither had most people I knew who were around my age.

-

I'll also be honest in saying that you seem to see more about anti-video game predjudice from gamers as it gives them a feeling of being some kind of oppressed, but heroic, minority without any of the real risk or disadvantage. It's "cool" to be disliked by everyone, except of course for all the people you know and hang out with.

Frankly I see Jack Thomson getting a platform mostly because gamers give him one for that reason.

It reminds me of what happened with paper and pencil RPGs during the 1980s. It was a problem for a while, mostly because EGG shot off his mouth in a most unwise fashion during a police investigation. But even after it died out, you had gamers going overboard about the dumbest little mentions simply to try and recapture the excitement, even long after things died and gamers were simply seen as huge nerds rather than anything dangerous.

-

As far as game content goes, I think there needs to be more sex and ultra-violence in games, I see games as being more in danger from sweeping moral enforcement that is targeting everything from comics, to TV, to movies, than anything else.

Really the biggest blow to gaming recently was when Rockstar backed down over the "Hot Coffee" thing and consented to seeing "Manhunt 2" censored. This was closely followed by Bethesda going on their little feargasm over fan-made nudity patches for Oblivion.

Such issues are the REAL danger as they are preventing the growth of gaming in the direction of entertainment for adults, and every victory on any front makes it that much easier for people to censor/pressure stuff on other fronts.

Jack Thomson is like the loonie fringe of what is a dangerous movement, but the people you need to be watching are not guys like him (who is a target for gamers) but more contreversial figures like Hillary Clinton who was heavily involved in the whole "Hot Coffee" thing.

Go into a gaming forum and badmouth Jack Thomson and there won't be a problem, but badmouth Hillary and it can rapidly become a whole differant hill of beans, and her name is actually attached to something that succeeded. Jack Thomson is mostly known as a crackpot who has tried the ridiculous and failed.

>>>----Therumancer--->
 

insectoid

New member
Aug 19, 2008
701
0
0
The guy who watches five hours of television a day will look at the woman who plays five hours of videogames a day and conclude she's "addicted."
Been there...
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
KDR_11k said:
Abedeus said:
And please, you don't actually think 70+ or under 7 people actually care about gaming?
The point is to make them care.
Oh.

Well, kids care about games. They don't care about gaming. I mean, for them it's just another form of killing the time.

Oldies have nothing better to do. Church, talking about dead/dying/sick relatives and TV. Most of them won't live long enough to see what will become of gaming. They honestly won't care.

You might as well try to make people care about the enviornment.
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
What kind of argument is that? They're supposed to care just enough to understand what gaming is, what attracts people to it and why it's not the end of all civilization, if they go beyond that, nice, if they don't, who cares.

You sound like you see gaming as some kind of elite club that the plebs should stay out of and that only true devotees should be allowed into. That is the exact image that is hurting gaming. It should NOT appear as a cult that requires devotion and withdrawal from sopcial life, it should appear as yet another pastime that people choose or choose not to take part in. It's not a freaking lifestyle or religion.
 

DaveMc

New member
Jul 29, 2008
51
0
0
Abedeus said:
No. The system that brings the crowds in is a sellout. Or a console for fans, COUGH sonic COUGH mario.
Abedeus, I wonder if you could clarify exactly what you think it is that "gaming" needs? Because I find your posts fascinatingly bizarre, written from a stance of some sort of moral purity that I really and truly do not understand. What in the world can a console "sell out" against? That implies that there's some sort of code that they should be upholding, which they are violating by daring to attract people to actually buy and play them. If you could explain this to me, and possibly give me the coordinates of the planet on which this all makes sense, that would be helpful.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
DaveMc said:
Abedeus said:
No. The system that brings the crowds in is a sellout. Or a console for fans, COUGH sonic COUGH mario.
Abedeus, I wonder if you could clarify exactly what you think it is that "gaming" needs? Because I find your posts fascinatingly bizarre, written from a stance of some sort of moral purity that I really and truly do not understand. What in the world can a console "sell out" against? That implies that there's some sort of code that they should be upholding, which they are violating by daring to attract people to actually buy and play them. If you could explain this to me, and possibly give me the coordinates of the planet on which this all makes sense, that would be helpful.
I was talking about a situation where the only games for a console are remakes, remakes, REMAKES. Dozens of Mario games, Sonic games, Metroid Primes, Final Fantasies, Tomb Raiders... This is hardly improving the quality of gaming overall.

Why am I still talking to Wii fans?
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
I do not think we need more gamers. There are already too many of those. All we really need are more people who play games. There is a difference.
 

DaveMc

New member
Jul 29, 2008
51
0
0
Abedeus said:
I was talking about a situation where the only games for a console are remakes, remakes, REMAKES. Dozens of Mario games, Sonic games, Metroid Primes, Final Fantasies, Tomb Raiders... This is hardly improving the quality of gaming overall.
I see, it's a quality argument: you feel that more people playing games will lower the quality of the games produced. I can understand that, though I disagree. I think it's more likely that expanding the number of people playing games (whether we want to call them "gamers" or not, antithesis) will lead to more and better games aimed at a variety of audiences. Of course, everyone involved in this debate is guessing about all this, so you could be right, or I might be.

Someone brought up movies earlier, and I think it's worth thinking about that analogy, or related ones. Once upon a time, when various technologies were new, there were distinct demographics of "people who would go to the 'movies'" or "people who watch television", or "people who use the Internet". Nowadays, movie-goers and TV-watchers and (increasingly) Net-users are just called "people", and all of those things cater to a variety of different groups with very different tastes. I happen to think that the Golden Age of Television is *right now*: one can find many shows being produced that feature rich, sophisticated dialogue and complex, season-spanning plotlines. One can also find shows where people eat bugs for money. The high-end shows are possible precisely because, I would claim, "TV-watchers" is not some elite group of people who really appreciate the medium properly; instead, there's enough space and revenue from the wide variety of viewers to support a whole range of shows.

Now apply all that to gaming: I think we're moving in the direction of "people who play games" not being a demographic any more, and instead having everyone playing some form of games, at least sometimes. Shamus is contending, and I agree, that this is a good thing. I understand your concern that it will somehow "water down" your beloved games, but I really don't think you need to fear that. TV and movies only got better as more people participated in them, and I don't see why we should think that games will do the opposite.
 
Nov 5, 2007
453
0
0
Abedeus said:
ShadowKirby said:
Abedeus said:
It's appealing to oldies and kids. People who have THE LEAST to do with gaming.
That has to be the most elitist thing (along with your other posts) I saw on here. I don't think kids movies ruined movies as an art form.
Movies? I think we are talking about GAMES here. And please, you don't actually think 70+ or under 7 people actually care about gaming?
Yeah, let's just ignore a 100 years old media and it's history in case it may help us understand how games can become an accepted media form. We must keep the all holy gaming in the hands of the 15-30 male population.

God, what is the problem if they don't care about gaming ? Should we keep (and I know you won't like me for that) movies out of the hands of the people that can't understand them, that can't appreciate a philosophical point of view. If the movie industry would have tried the same thing, try to cater to a small group of "initiate" only, back in the 10's or 20's, it would have stagnated. Some people see movies as a quick pastime only but I think that the industry survived. Deeper games and mass appeal games can both live in the same universe without destroying each others relevance.
 

Phase_9

New member
Oct 18, 2008
436
0
0
I don't want more mainstream gamers. I'm sorry, but someone who thinks that being funny is shouting profanity over the chat system of the newest and coolest FPS shouldn't be playing that game, they should be playing the preschool games on the Leap pad that teach you to not be an asshole.

Also, those mainstream gamers who are convinced that they know more than a hardcore gamer because they happened to have heard a rumor somewhere, while the hardcore gamer actually keeps up with gaming news, are possibly the most annoying, arrogant, and insufferable people on the planet, mostly because they refuse to even consider that their ten year old cousin might know less about gaming than the guy that is a QA tester, reads gaming mags, visits online news sites, generally keeps abreast of gaming news, and who they asked for advice when deciding which console to buy. And they still think they are "hardcore" gamers.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Abedeus said:
Rodger said:
Abedeus said:
DeadlyYellow said:
I love table top games yet make fun of LARPers, does this make me bad?
edit: I detest using the term "gamer" and "Wii" in the same sentence. Someone playing Wii Sports has no idea what's a normal game like.

Wii is not crucial to gaming. Motion control? Has been done with those guns that were used to point at the TV screen and shoot ducks off. No to mention that mouse is a superior controler in every way.
Whether you like it or not, the Wii IS a gaming console, and the Wiimote IS a gaming device. What you mentioned with the ducks is also a game and the practice of doing so is also gaming. Wii Sports and any other game making use of the Wiimote IS just as much a normal game as any game using a control pad. I can't even think of why any intelligent gamer would dismiss the Wii as a gaming console, especially since its the most gaming-oriented console of this generation.
Kudos for insulting me so that a mod won't notice. The most gaming-oriented console? How about Xbox 360? Hardly a "movie" device, since most of the people already had a DvD player before buying it. Only PS3 can run Blu-rays. Also, Wii is for old people and kids. Even statistics show this.

I would go so far as to say the Wii is the MOST crucial system to gaming in this console generation. Take a look at the XBox 360 and PS3. Both consoles focused on taking steps AWAY from gaming and becoming a full 'media center'. Being able to play DVD's and blu-ray movies is not crucial to gaming. The Wii, through its use of the wiimote, actually made steps to make gaming more available to everyone, thus a crucial step for the gaming culture as a whole. Its an easier interface for people to adapt to than the standard video game controller, which is why the Wii is as successful as it is.
Better controls don't equal better gameplay. Like someone wise said, random stick waggling replaced random joystick waggling. Also, what's wrong when a console (like a PC, or a PS3) tries doing something more than just gaming? I'd say that's a better thing than just playing - at least you are using it for something more. That's like buying a $3000 PC and using it only for games.
Just because it doesn't have as many games people would consider 'hardcore' as the other two systems doesn't make it any less of a gaming system or any less crucial to gaming.
Actually, it kinda does. It's appealing to oldies and kids. People who have THE LEAST to do with gaming.
But that's the thing.
We need games to be as widely acceptable as television shows and books; then when enough people are gamers, it wont be demonized as badly.

One of my wife's friends hated video games and thought they were a waste of time but now owns a wii. It expanded the market this generation and for that it should get our respect.

That and I made a bundle on Nintendo stock last year.

And while I don't play on the wii as much as the ps3, I think we should recognize what it's done to make video games a more integral part of our culture.