I won't name names, but I've recently played a few shooters with some friends and in every game outperformed them by leaps and bounds. In fact, in Modern Warfare 2, my friends simply couldn't perform well enough to enjoy the game. While I was sniping this player and stabbing that one, my friends were dying and dying some more. At the end of a five-minute match, they had racked up only a few kills each, whereas I had twenty or thirty.
My point is not that I'm that good. At times, other players mop the floor with me, and I'm not playing in the elite matches.
No, my point is that a wide variety of gamers enjoy shooters, but their shorter histories with shooters, lesser skill and different playstyles are rarely acknowledged in gameplay design.
I'm not asking for flag football here. But how about some more games that don't pretend everyone wants to be a pro? Some people just want to blow stuff up and shoot each other in the face.
Showing posts with label audience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label audience. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
open world driving
I've never been a big fan of racing, but I do enjoy driving gameplay. Believe it or not, play-driving does not necessarily mean racing.
Track racing is fun once through, but there are so few dynamics. The setting and challenge are exactly the same every time. The player has few options, so the emphasis is on performance of a strict routine. Such gameplay has poor longevity.
I've played a number of racing games, since my best friend is a vehicle fanatic. But only two have seemed open and dynamic enough to coax me into buying them: Need For Speed: Most Wanted and FUEL. I enjoyed the former more, and traded both in.
The beauty of NFS: MW is three-fold. First, there's an open city with a variety of challenges (sharp curves, barriers, etc), shortcuts, and road types for exploration. Second, setting the game in a city with dynamic traffic adds dynamics to races and exploration alike. And third, the cop chase gameplay adds a dynamic, open-world challenge that doesn't distract from the core driving gameplay (as Full Auto-style weapons and Wheelman-style stunts can do).
FUEL really shines when you're dodging trees and jumping obstacles at high speed in a motorbike over varying terrain. It's a thrill I haven't found anywhere else. But, vast as its world is, FUEL becomes redundant quickly and offers poor competition. Varying, meaningful weather was a great promise, but a failed one.
Anyway, judging by the sparsity of such games, publishers seem to believe that gamers who don't like track racing don't appreciate realistic vehicles and vehicle physics. That's not the case. Just because we don't like marathons and drag straightaways doesn't mean we want cars with guns or cartoon go-karts (though I've got nothing against that either). Cars ≠ racing.
Many more people are interested in driving gameplay than are interested in NASCAR, Grand Prix, drift racing, drag racing, and so on. Make a driving game with good physics, a wide variety of vehicles, truly personal (rather than achievement-style) customizations, an open and dynamic world, and a variety of challenge types... and that's a game with broad appeal.
Track racing is fun once through, but there are so few dynamics. The setting and challenge are exactly the same every time. The player has few options, so the emphasis is on performance of a strict routine. Such gameplay has poor longevity.
I've played a number of racing games, since my best friend is a vehicle fanatic. But only two have seemed open and dynamic enough to coax me into buying them: Need For Speed: Most Wanted and FUEL. I enjoyed the former more, and traded both in.
The beauty of NFS: MW is three-fold. First, there's an open city with a variety of challenges (sharp curves, barriers, etc), shortcuts, and road types for exploration. Second, setting the game in a city with dynamic traffic adds dynamics to races and exploration alike. And third, the cop chase gameplay adds a dynamic, open-world challenge that doesn't distract from the core driving gameplay (as Full Auto-style weapons and Wheelman-style stunts can do).
FUEL really shines when you're dodging trees and jumping obstacles at high speed in a motorbike over varying terrain. It's a thrill I haven't found anywhere else. But, vast as its world is, FUEL becomes redundant quickly and offers poor competition. Varying, meaningful weather was a great promise, but a failed one.
Anyway, judging by the sparsity of such games, publishers seem to believe that gamers who don't like track racing don't appreciate realistic vehicles and vehicle physics. That's not the case. Just because we don't like marathons and drag straightaways doesn't mean we want cars with guns or cartoon go-karts (though I've got nothing against that either). Cars ≠ racing.
Many more people are interested in driving gameplay than are interested in NASCAR, Grand Prix, drift racing, drag racing, and so on. Make a driving game with good physics, a wide variety of vehicles, truly personal (rather than achievement-style) customizations, an open and dynamic world, and a variety of challenge types... and that's a game with broad appeal.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
roleplay isn't for nerds alone
It occurs to me that books and movies are basically an externalization of the roleplay all human beings naturally engage in as children.
In other words, we never really stop roleplaying as we grow into adults. We just rely increasingly on the imaginations of others... entertaining their adventures, rather than conjuring our own.
Instead of donning paper helmets and swinging wooden swords, shooting paintball guns and lobbing water balloons, we watch action movies, violent and competitive sports, and military documentaries. The girl who plays with dolls and tea sets might grow up to watch melodramas and "play" hostess at gatherings. It's still playing pretend, but why come up with your own fantasies when someone else can provide better ones?
If this is true, then it makes sense that video games would be tagged as childish, because the medium is a step back toward the self-directed roleplay of childhood.
It also suggests that role-playing games are not just for nerds. They're for everyone. If RPGs have trouble matching the sales of shooters, perhaps the problem isn't the genre itself. Perhaps the problem is a mistake in how RPGS are commonly realized.
It's not that RPGs are intellectual. Football has an abundance of rules and more strategy than chess. But football is also fundamentally about action. And there, I think, is the key. It's the poor presence and implementation of action that holds most RPGs back from broad appeal.
On the one hand, you have RPGs like Final Fantasy and Mass Effect which emphasize dialog and cutscenes over other elements. On the other hand, you have MMOs and D&D-derived stat-based combat systems in which the rules dictate more than guide.
I'm happy to see a lot of blending between genres these days; particularly between shooters and RPGs. I think developers will find that most people, and not just nerds or hardcore gamers, respond well to RPG elements when those elements don't slow things down to a crawl and allow players the freedom to direct their own experiences.
In other words, we never really stop roleplaying as we grow into adults. We just rely increasingly on the imaginations of others... entertaining their adventures, rather than conjuring our own.
Instead of donning paper helmets and swinging wooden swords, shooting paintball guns and lobbing water balloons, we watch action movies, violent and competitive sports, and military documentaries. The girl who plays with dolls and tea sets might grow up to watch melodramas and "play" hostess at gatherings. It's still playing pretend, but why come up with your own fantasies when someone else can provide better ones?
If this is true, then it makes sense that video games would be tagged as childish, because the medium is a step back toward the self-directed roleplay of childhood.
It also suggests that role-playing games are not just for nerds. They're for everyone. If RPGs have trouble matching the sales of shooters, perhaps the problem isn't the genre itself. Perhaps the problem is a mistake in how RPGS are commonly realized.
It's not that RPGs are intellectual. Football has an abundance of rules and more strategy than chess. But football is also fundamentally about action. And there, I think, is the key. It's the poor presence and implementation of action that holds most RPGs back from broad appeal.
On the one hand, you have RPGs like Final Fantasy and Mass Effect which emphasize dialog and cutscenes over other elements. On the other hand, you have MMOs and D&D-derived stat-based combat systems in which the rules dictate more than guide.
I'm happy to see a lot of blending between genres these days; particularly between shooters and RPGs. I think developers will find that most people, and not just nerds or hardcore gamers, respond well to RPG elements when those elements don't slow things down to a crawl and allow players the freedom to direct their own experiences.
Monday, July 13, 2009
sex scenes
The thing about sex scenes is they usually don't communicate anything that couldn't have been communicated just as well or better in more subtle ways.
That's not always the case. Sex scenes do make sense sometimes. Ironically, the first example that comes to mind is clothed sex scene in the movie Hot Shots, where Topper Harley cooks breakfast on the woman's sizzling belly. I know that's not a good example.
The sex scenes in A History of Violence are a better example. The story is about a reformed man who is forced to face his thuggish past, and forced to realize that those thuggish inclinations remain a part of him. Both sides of his personality are shown in two very different sex scenes. In the first, he is gentle and giving. In the second, he is brutal and selfish. Since the story as a whole is graphic and adult-oriented, using sex scenes to show this dichotomy makes sense.
On the other hand, consider the movie Big. That film shows Susan unbuttoning her blouse and John putting his hands on tits for the first time, but then camera fades out before even her bra is off. It's a simple, subtle scene that shows little and reveals much. Later, the characters laugh after Susan expresses some anxiety over the relationship. John leaps onto her and the camera cuts away. Sex is again implied, and all that the storytellers wanted to convey is expressed without actually showing the sex.
To Catch a Thief with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly is another good example of subtlety.
Mystery can be a powerful tool. In horror stories, keeping the monster/ghost/psychopath hidden or mysterious often increases suspense. It allows the audience to interject their own fears and suspicions, thereby personalizing the story... as well as demanding much of the audience's concentration and making them more susceptible to awe and suggestion. Likewise, mystery surrounding sex allows the audience to imagine what they will, allowing for personal expectations. It can also preclude conscious consideration by moving on quickly, thereby encouraging the audience to react with gut instincts.
Not showing sex doesn't reduce its presence or impact on a story. Dracula is a great example. The vampire's habit of biting on the neck is suggestive and provocative. Ever since Stoker's novel, vampires have been associated with sensuality. Stoker wrote more graphic scenes, as have many authors of vampire stories, but it is the neck-biting that most audiences remember.
The increasingly common inclusion of sex scenes and their increasingly graphic nature is more a cultural trend than an artistic one. I've seen almost as many films made before the Sexual Revolution as after, which is rare for someone of my generation. And I'm sure many of you are familiar with many classic works of literature, like Oedipus Rex or The Taming of the Shrew. These stories don't shy from sexual themes, but instead present them in thoughtful, rather than obvious, ways.
As is often the case in art, restraint can inspire. Just think of your daily conversations. Who usually speaks more artfully -- the person trying to be polite and considerate, or the person who accepts no bounds? I cuss quite a bit on occasion, but it's when I'm not cussing that I speak more eloquently. Try to tell a dirty joke in a clean way; you might find that the nuance makes the joke funnier. Restraints are challenges, and challenges feed the imagination.
As I said before, showing sex explicitly certainly makes sense sometimes. But I think trying to present the same themes without obvious presentations often leads to better results.
The same goes for making particular characters sexy -- try to make him or her sexy without any brazen comments, without tight clothes and a lot of bare skin, and you might be surprised at the effect.
That's not always the case. Sex scenes do make sense sometimes. Ironically, the first example that comes to mind is clothed sex scene in the movie Hot Shots, where Topper Harley cooks breakfast on the woman's sizzling belly. I know that's not a good example.
The sex scenes in A History of Violence are a better example. The story is about a reformed man who is forced to face his thuggish past, and forced to realize that those thuggish inclinations remain a part of him. Both sides of his personality are shown in two very different sex scenes. In the first, he is gentle and giving. In the second, he is brutal and selfish. Since the story as a whole is graphic and adult-oriented, using sex scenes to show this dichotomy makes sense.
On the other hand, consider the movie Big. That film shows Susan unbuttoning her blouse and John putting his hands on tits for the first time, but then camera fades out before even her bra is off. It's a simple, subtle scene that shows little and reveals much. Later, the characters laugh after Susan expresses some anxiety over the relationship. John leaps onto her and the camera cuts away. Sex is again implied, and all that the storytellers wanted to convey is expressed without actually showing the sex.
To Catch a Thief with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly is another good example of subtlety.
Mystery can be a powerful tool. In horror stories, keeping the monster/ghost/psychopath hidden or mysterious often increases suspense. It allows the audience to interject their own fears and suspicions, thereby personalizing the story... as well as demanding much of the audience's concentration and making them more susceptible to awe and suggestion. Likewise, mystery surrounding sex allows the audience to imagine what they will, allowing for personal expectations. It can also preclude conscious consideration by moving on quickly, thereby encouraging the audience to react with gut instincts.
Not showing sex doesn't reduce its presence or impact on a story. Dracula is a great example. The vampire's habit of biting on the neck is suggestive and provocative. Ever since Stoker's novel, vampires have been associated with sensuality. Stoker wrote more graphic scenes, as have many authors of vampire stories, but it is the neck-biting that most audiences remember.
The increasingly common inclusion of sex scenes and their increasingly graphic nature is more a cultural trend than an artistic one. I've seen almost as many films made before the Sexual Revolution as after, which is rare for someone of my generation. And I'm sure many of you are familiar with many classic works of literature, like Oedipus Rex or The Taming of the Shrew. These stories don't shy from sexual themes, but instead present them in thoughtful, rather than obvious, ways.
As is often the case in art, restraint can inspire. Just think of your daily conversations. Who usually speaks more artfully -- the person trying to be polite and considerate, or the person who accepts no bounds? I cuss quite a bit on occasion, but it's when I'm not cussing that I speak more eloquently. Try to tell a dirty joke in a clean way; you might find that the nuance makes the joke funnier. Restraints are challenges, and challenges feed the imagination.
As I said before, showing sex explicitly certainly makes sense sometimes. But I think trying to present the same themes without obvious presentations often leads to better results.
The same goes for making particular characters sexy -- try to make him or her sexy without any brazen comments, without tight clothes and a lot of bare skin, and you might be surprised at the effect.
Friday, May 22, 2009
what you know
I'm going to try something different today. Instead of droning on and on with my thoughts, I'm just going to pose a quick question. Then y'all can respond to it and I'll respond to your thoughts. So...
A common bit of advice for writers is to "write about what you know". Surely, this advice has some relevance for game designers. How so?
A common bit of advice for writers is to "write about what you know". Surely, this advice has some relevance for game designers. How so?
Monday, March 23, 2009
TV spectating: the question
The Sci-Fi channel has apparently taken the leap into game spectating. From what I've read, though, their WCG Ultimate Gamer show is as much reality TV as spectating. I don't like that idea, but it raises the question of what sort of show could make game battles popular on TV.
What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?
As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?
The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".
Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.
The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?
What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?
As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?
The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".
Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.
The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
in favor of gore and violence
I have mixed feelings about graphic violence in war games.
On the one hand, if you intend for a war game to be educational and didactic, then your depiction of war should be as realistically graphic as possible. There's a limit to how much reality most game consumers will take, of course. The full horrors of our world are not shown even in schools or on TV because relatively few people are willing to face absolutely everything. But the more education that can be sneaked in, the better.
On the other hand, it's easy and wrong to relish the gore too much. Some enjoyment is benign, I think. Young boys cross-culturally play war games (not speaking of video games), and enjoyment of violence goes hand-in-hand with that instinct. A thrill from battle is natural, including gory signs of victory. But that, like any instinctual desire, has a proper place and manner. The appetite for violence can and should be directed, moderated, and bloodlust (gore) with it.
Enjoyment of gore is founded in a taste for victory, I believe. When you see the head of your sniper's victim explode like a watermelon, it can be more satisfying feedback than simply seeing the victim fall down. When your battleaxe hits home and you hear a pained cry mixed with the sound of flesh tearing and bone shattering, that's a taste of competitive success.
I have great respect for films in which bullet wounds are intentionally invisible or merely red stains (like John Wayne films, or The Hunt for Red October). Gore can be good feedback or good education, even integral to storytelling, but subtlety can also be good. The absence of gore can better focus the audience's attention on other elements. Game designers should always ask which way better suits their particular game.
Anyway! As usual, I'm getting off track.
That article made me think of the irony that the game restrictions intended to honor social concerns are very often in the way of serving those values.
For example, children cannot be killed in games. Children in games like Neverwinter Nights, Fable 2, and Fallout 3 are invulnerable (yes, it's sad that I know this). Bioshock allows the player to kill the child-like "Little Sisters", but the screen fades out when this happens. Truth-conscious war games have yet to represent the reality that combatants are commonly children (often teenagers, sometimes younger) or even include them as bystanders. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is getting a sequel, but what are the chances it will have kids with assault rifles, militants residing with their families, or terrorists stationing supplies and soldiers in schools and churches?
Yet what would push home the nature of urban combat to gamers better than having to face women and children with guns?
Rather than forbid gore and uncomfortable scenarios, those interested in socially productive gaming should encourage developers to include such things and provide intuitive commentary.
Intuitive commentary means unspoken commentary; gameworld consequences and reactions beyond dialogue. Soldiers visibly shaken by the deaths of their comrades. Non-player combatants being crippled, rather than slain. The dead abandoned, their corpses stripped by poor locals and nibbled on by crows and dogs. Wailing mothers and grandmothers. Lost, crying children.
Intuitive commentary means reward and punishment. Save an ally and he might watch your back a little more closely. Spare what enemies you can and you might receive valuable information, face softer resistance from noncombatants, or even make a friend. Kill too many noncombatants and your allies will turn against you (the game ends... restart). Kill some kid who's aiming a gun at you and expect the family to seek revenge. Place a landmine, and don't expect to be able to control who dies by it.
As I said earlier, I acknowledge that there is a limit to what consumers of entertainment are willing to endure. Films like Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Black Hawk Down have demonstrated that the average consumer will endure a great deal if the presentation of that uncomfortable content is artful and meaningful. Games, being interactive, can probably not push quite as far, but are still capable of much more than the industry has generally been willing to explore as of yet.
I'm not saying all war games should be seriously toned and educational. I'm just saying that if you're making a serious game, gore and other nasty elements can be used toward noble ends. They don't have to be about feeding immoderate impulses. The industry is currently bound by certain social restrictions, but designers will have more and more room to explore mature content if they can demonstrate to society how it might be done tastefully and productively.
On the one hand, if you intend for a war game to be educational and didactic, then your depiction of war should be as realistically graphic as possible. There's a limit to how much reality most game consumers will take, of course. The full horrors of our world are not shown even in schools or on TV because relatively few people are willing to face absolutely everything. But the more education that can be sneaked in, the better.
On the other hand, it's easy and wrong to relish the gore too much. Some enjoyment is benign, I think. Young boys cross-culturally play war games (not speaking of video games), and enjoyment of violence goes hand-in-hand with that instinct. A thrill from battle is natural, including gory signs of victory. But that, like any instinctual desire, has a proper place and manner. The appetite for violence can and should be directed, moderated, and bloodlust (gore) with it.
Enjoyment of gore is founded in a taste for victory, I believe. When you see the head of your sniper's victim explode like a watermelon, it can be more satisfying feedback than simply seeing the victim fall down. When your battleaxe hits home and you hear a pained cry mixed with the sound of flesh tearing and bone shattering, that's a taste of competitive success.
I have great respect for films in which bullet wounds are intentionally invisible or merely red stains (like John Wayne films, or The Hunt for Red October). Gore can be good feedback or good education, even integral to storytelling, but subtlety can also be good. The absence of gore can better focus the audience's attention on other elements. Game designers should always ask which way better suits their particular game.
Anyway! As usual, I'm getting off track.
That article made me think of the irony that the game restrictions intended to honor social concerns are very often in the way of serving those values.
For example, children cannot be killed in games. Children in games like Neverwinter Nights, Fable 2, and Fallout 3 are invulnerable (yes, it's sad that I know this). Bioshock allows the player to kill the child-like "Little Sisters", but the screen fades out when this happens. Truth-conscious war games have yet to represent the reality that combatants are commonly children (often teenagers, sometimes younger) or even include them as bystanders. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is getting a sequel, but what are the chances it will have kids with assault rifles, militants residing with their families, or terrorists stationing supplies and soldiers in schools and churches?
Yet what would push home the nature of urban combat to gamers better than having to face women and children with guns?
Rather than forbid gore and uncomfortable scenarios, those interested in socially productive gaming should encourage developers to include such things and provide intuitive commentary.
Intuitive commentary means unspoken commentary; gameworld consequences and reactions beyond dialogue. Soldiers visibly shaken by the deaths of their comrades. Non-player combatants being crippled, rather than slain. The dead abandoned, their corpses stripped by poor locals and nibbled on by crows and dogs. Wailing mothers and grandmothers. Lost, crying children.
Intuitive commentary means reward and punishment. Save an ally and he might watch your back a little more closely. Spare what enemies you can and you might receive valuable information, face softer resistance from noncombatants, or even make a friend. Kill too many noncombatants and your allies will turn against you (the game ends... restart). Kill some kid who's aiming a gun at you and expect the family to seek revenge. Place a landmine, and don't expect to be able to control who dies by it.
As I said earlier, I acknowledge that there is a limit to what consumers of entertainment are willing to endure. Films like Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Black Hawk Down have demonstrated that the average consumer will endure a great deal if the presentation of that uncomfortable content is artful and meaningful. Games, being interactive, can probably not push quite as far, but are still capable of much more than the industry has generally been willing to explore as of yet.
I'm not saying all war games should be seriously toned and educational. I'm just saying that if you're making a serious game, gore and other nasty elements can be used toward noble ends. They don't have to be about feeding immoderate impulses. The industry is currently bound by certain social restrictions, but designers will have more and more room to explore mature content if they can demonstrate to society how it might be done tastefully and productively.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Dante's Inferno: tread carefully
So the guys at EA Redwood Shores have announced their next project, and it's Dante's Inferno.
And that's great, but I hope they realize the importance of getting this one right.
Dead Space is a stellar game. I finally finished it a couple days ago -- great sci-fi, great horror, great gameplay. We can probably expect similar quality in the team's next project. And their recent experience with creating horror will undoubtedly aid them in recreating Hell.
But, still, I worry. At this point, you can't base a mainstream game on such a pivotal work of classic literature as Dante Alighieri's and not expect that to grab the attention of non-gamers. Mainstream news worldwide will take notice. How respectfully or carelessly the original work is adapted into gameplay will be widely reported on.
Those reviews, previews, and interviews could have a profound effect on how games and the industry is perceived for many years. If EA Redwood Shores impresses the greater public, it would be a big step forward. Otherwise, reasonable doubters and willful naysayers alike will have more fuel for their arguments.
I also worry because Dante's Divine Comedy is a faithful religious work, and game designers are not known for being pious or reverent. The only religion in Dead Space is wild and deadly fanaticism. Such fanaticism does exist and is scary, so I can only hopefully assume the lead designers don't perceive all religion to be so irrational.
The Judeo-Christian concept of good and evil is difficult to translate into gameplay. Evil is merely an absence or twisting of good, as darkness is an absence of light. Evil spirits, including Satan, are utterly powerless except as God allows (for the sake of our maturation and free will). Humans rarely battle demons directly, and even then (usually exorcisms) our power is prayer... appealing to and trusting in God's love for intervention. Angels and demons are far, far more powerful than humans. It is God and His love for us that protects and saves us. Prophecy, spontaneous healing, bilocution, stigmatas -- such powers come from God, not from us.
Dante's tale is more about viewing, hearing, and conversing than about interaction. So seeing Dante hacking and slashing his way through Hell raises concerns about sincere representation, though such gameplay could certainly be fun. Dialogue and prayer are difficult to translate into good gameplay.
Redwood Shores should also consider the meaning of Hell, the beliefs which shaped Dante's work. Hell is chosen by the damned. It is a willful separation from God's grace. We're all familiar with knowing what the right, loving action is and choosing to do differently. Many know God's love and reject it. Pain, sadness and anger occur when things aren't as they should be. When creatures made for love reject love, they embrace darkness and torment. Hell is punishment, but it is also self-punishment.
Part of the purpose of understanding Hell is fear. All parents know that toddlers can't be expected to always obey (to act justly, learn and grow) out of love and understanding. Fear is necessary. When children grow to be teenagers, they are more capable of love and understanding, but fear remains necessary as a fallback. Emotion and will often overpower reason, and in those moments we need fear. Even adults need fear of consequences, a fact which much of our legal system is founded on. God has revealed Hell to humanity because we need that fear to fall back on in those moments when we want to reject -- or merely postpone -- love.
Knowing Hell also illuminates God's grace and goodness. Hell is evil without a mask. In our world, evil usually take the form of corruption -- something good distorted into poison; slow death. If one can understand evil in its essence (Hell), and pure good as well (Heaven), then recognizing good and evil as they are entangled on our world is a more manageable task.
EA Redwood Shores is tackling one of the world's most respected works of literature, as well as a setting which is taken very seriously and believed to be real by billions of people worldwide. I'm very happy they're doing so. I hope they give the subjects adequate study and reflection, as well as respect in the finished product.
And that's great, but I hope they realize the importance of getting this one right.
Dead Space is a stellar game. I finally finished it a couple days ago -- great sci-fi, great horror, great gameplay. We can probably expect similar quality in the team's next project. And their recent experience with creating horror will undoubtedly aid them in recreating Hell.
But, still, I worry. At this point, you can't base a mainstream game on such a pivotal work of classic literature as Dante Alighieri's and not expect that to grab the attention of non-gamers. Mainstream news worldwide will take notice. How respectfully or carelessly the original work is adapted into gameplay will be widely reported on.
Those reviews, previews, and interviews could have a profound effect on how games and the industry is perceived for many years. If EA Redwood Shores impresses the greater public, it would be a big step forward. Otherwise, reasonable doubters and willful naysayers alike will have more fuel for their arguments.
I also worry because Dante's Divine Comedy is a faithful religious work, and game designers are not known for being pious or reverent. The only religion in Dead Space is wild and deadly fanaticism. Such fanaticism does exist and is scary, so I can only hopefully assume the lead designers don't perceive all religion to be so irrational.
The Judeo-Christian concept of good and evil is difficult to translate into gameplay. Evil is merely an absence or twisting of good, as darkness is an absence of light. Evil spirits, including Satan, are utterly powerless except as God allows (for the sake of our maturation and free will). Humans rarely battle demons directly, and even then (usually exorcisms) our power is prayer... appealing to and trusting in God's love for intervention. Angels and demons are far, far more powerful than humans. It is God and His love for us that protects and saves us. Prophecy, spontaneous healing, bilocution, stigmatas -- such powers come from God, not from us.
Dante's tale is more about viewing, hearing, and conversing than about interaction. So seeing Dante hacking and slashing his way through Hell raises concerns about sincere representation, though such gameplay could certainly be fun. Dialogue and prayer are difficult to translate into good gameplay.
Redwood Shores should also consider the meaning of Hell, the beliefs which shaped Dante's work. Hell is chosen by the damned. It is a willful separation from God's grace. We're all familiar with knowing what the right, loving action is and choosing to do differently. Many know God's love and reject it. Pain, sadness and anger occur when things aren't as they should be. When creatures made for love reject love, they embrace darkness and torment. Hell is punishment, but it is also self-punishment.
Part of the purpose of understanding Hell is fear. All parents know that toddlers can't be expected to always obey (to act justly, learn and grow) out of love and understanding. Fear is necessary. When children grow to be teenagers, they are more capable of love and understanding, but fear remains necessary as a fallback. Emotion and will often overpower reason, and in those moments we need fear. Even adults need fear of consequences, a fact which much of our legal system is founded on. God has revealed Hell to humanity because we need that fear to fall back on in those moments when we want to reject -- or merely postpone -- love.
Knowing Hell also illuminates God's grace and goodness. Hell is evil without a mask. In our world, evil usually take the form of corruption -- something good distorted into poison; slow death. If one can understand evil in its essence (Hell), and pure good as well (Heaven), then recognizing good and evil as they are entangled on our world is a more manageable task.
EA Redwood Shores is tackling one of the world's most respected works of literature, as well as a setting which is taken very seriously and believed to be real by billions of people worldwide. I'm very happy they're doing so. I hope they give the subjects adequate study and reflection, as well as respect in the finished product.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
data and perception
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
I've always liked that expression, and it's a vital bit of wisdom. Raw data is rarely impervious to misinterpretation. Such misinterpretation is often willful, but innocent illusions are just as common.
Nowhere is misinterpretation easier and more common than in demographics. Demographic information is often talked about as if it contains undeniable truths. The reality is that nearly every demographic study raises more questions than it answers... which is why there's no substitute for intuitive wisdom. The decision-making process that any entertainment consumer goes through is usually too complex to be summarized in clearly-defined calculations and diagrams.
I point this out because there's a cultural attitude in the modern world that facts and figures are more insightful than human reasoning and intuition. This cultural pressure can sometimes lead to poor judgments. Great works come from human beings, nor from systems and processes.
Just for fun, take a look at these charts and try to discern a lesson or two from each. What can we learn from looking at the all-time US box office sales? Or what might be made of the discrepancies between the US box office and the UK box office.
I've argued before that film sales demonstrate that Americans favor entertainment which is open to all ages ("family" entertainment) and offers inspirational messages.
I've always liked that expression, and it's a vital bit of wisdom. Raw data is rarely impervious to misinterpretation. Such misinterpretation is often willful, but innocent illusions are just as common.
Nowhere is misinterpretation easier and more common than in demographics. Demographic information is often talked about as if it contains undeniable truths. The reality is that nearly every demographic study raises more questions than it answers... which is why there's no substitute for intuitive wisdom. The decision-making process that any entertainment consumer goes through is usually too complex to be summarized in clearly-defined calculations and diagrams.
I point this out because there's a cultural attitude in the modern world that facts and figures are more insightful than human reasoning and intuition. This cultural pressure can sometimes lead to poor judgments. Great works come from human beings, nor from systems and processes.
Just for fun, take a look at these charts and try to discern a lesson or two from each. What can we learn from looking at the all-time US box office sales? Or what might be made of the discrepancies between the US box office and the UK box office.
I've argued before that film sales demonstrate that Americans favor entertainment which is open to all ages ("family" entertainment) and offers inspirational messages.
Monday, November 03, 2008
arenas
Why don't we see them in MMOs?
There are two primary aspects to an arena: competition and spectators. MMOs fail to design for spectators. These games are full of battles and competitions -- PvE, PvP, RvR -- but audiences who can watch these battles while remaining outside the conflict are purely incidental when they do exist.
Predictably, my closest experience to playing spectator in an MMO was in early Star Wars: Galaxies. While sitting in a cantina so that an entertainer could heal my fatigue, a gunfight suddenly sprang up between a Rebel and an Imperial soldier. It was exactly like the cantina scene in the first Star Wars film: for the duration of the fight, the music and dancing stopped and all eyes were upon the warriors. When the battle was over, the music and dancing resumed; the audience returned to their socializing.
Here's where I answer my own question. Arenas have obvious potential for fun: imagine players rooting for and betting on their favorite fighters and favorite teams, or players capturing mobs to sell to the arena, etc. But we don't see arenas in MMOs because dynamics and skill are downplayed in the standard MMO combat template.
I'm fine with games being designed for gamers who are not like me. I have plenty of friends and family who can only enjoy a game if the control complexity and dependence on skill are less than I generally prefer. MMOs reach many people like this, among others. But it's sad that such avoidance of depth and dynamics in MMO combat so completely dominates the genre that features such as arenas are impossible.
But maybe I'm wrong. Do you think arenas are possible with current MMO standards?
There are two primary aspects to an arena: competition and spectators. MMOs fail to design for spectators. These games are full of battles and competitions -- PvE, PvP, RvR -- but audiences who can watch these battles while remaining outside the conflict are purely incidental when they do exist.
Predictably, my closest experience to playing spectator in an MMO was in early Star Wars: Galaxies. While sitting in a cantina so that an entertainer could heal my fatigue, a gunfight suddenly sprang up between a Rebel and an Imperial soldier. It was exactly like the cantina scene in the first Star Wars film: for the duration of the fight, the music and dancing stopped and all eyes were upon the warriors. When the battle was over, the music and dancing resumed; the audience returned to their socializing.
Here's where I answer my own question. Arenas have obvious potential for fun: imagine players rooting for and betting on their favorite fighters and favorite teams, or players capturing mobs to sell to the arena, etc. But we don't see arenas in MMOs because dynamics and skill are downplayed in the standard MMO combat template.
I'm fine with games being designed for gamers who are not like me. I have plenty of friends and family who can only enjoy a game if the control complexity and dependence on skill are less than I generally prefer. MMOs reach many people like this, among others. But it's sad that such avoidance of depth and dynamics in MMO combat so completely dominates the genre that features such as arenas are impossible.
But maybe I'm wrong. Do you think arenas are possible with current MMO standards?
Friday, October 31, 2008
shocks vs scares
A number of people have said they don't consider Dead Space and other horror games to be truly scary. These people point to the difference between startling someone with unexpected events and giving that person a lasting chill. It's a valid distinction.
As many have pointed out, the greatest barrier to evoking fear through games is emotional distance from the danger. Like any emotion, fear is rarely, if ever, pure. There are many types of fear, many mixtures. But any type of fear is basically a defensive reaction to perceived danger.
Some people are more sympathetic with story characters than others. A strongly sympathetic person can be affected deeply by fear through story, because there is not a great division between that protagonist(s) and self. But many others have a harder time connecting to characters. They do not feel much fear via games and movies because they themselves are not in any perceived danger.
So, obviously, the way to bridge that gap, to make a game truly terrifying, is to endanger the audience!
I'm only half joking. The best scary stories put the audience on edge long after the story has been told. This is generally, though not always, accomplished by making the imaginary danger seem real. The movie Jaws convinced a whole generation of movie goers that human-hunting sharks are real. Films like Child's Play and Poltergeist instilled fear of dolls in countless kids. And how many grown adults are uncomfortable in front of poorly illuminated mirrors because someone locked them in a dark room with Bloody Mary? The scariest tales live on in reality.
Is it cruel to instill such lasting fears in people? Not necessarily. The great American writer Flannery O'Connor used horror to communicate themes which her readers would normally be resistant to. In other words, she used fear as a form of mild violence to break past emotional barriers in her audience. In O'Connor's own words: "to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the blind you draw large and startling figures." The most impressive lessons in any person's memory are often those cemented by deep emotional experiences. Fear is one emotion which can ensure the questions your story raises are not abandoned the moment the player steps away.
Cheers to the things that go bump in the night!
As many have pointed out, the greatest barrier to evoking fear through games is emotional distance from the danger. Like any emotion, fear is rarely, if ever, pure. There are many types of fear, many mixtures. But any type of fear is basically a defensive reaction to perceived danger.
Some people are more sympathetic with story characters than others. A strongly sympathetic person can be affected deeply by fear through story, because there is not a great division between that protagonist(s) and self. But many others have a harder time connecting to characters. They do not feel much fear via games and movies because they themselves are not in any perceived danger.
So, obviously, the way to bridge that gap, to make a game truly terrifying, is to endanger the audience!
I'm only half joking. The best scary stories put the audience on edge long after the story has been told. This is generally, though not always, accomplished by making the imaginary danger seem real. The movie Jaws convinced a whole generation of movie goers that human-hunting sharks are real. Films like Child's Play and Poltergeist instilled fear of dolls in countless kids. And how many grown adults are uncomfortable in front of poorly illuminated mirrors because someone locked them in a dark room with Bloody Mary? The scariest tales live on in reality.
Is it cruel to instill such lasting fears in people? Not necessarily. The great American writer Flannery O'Connor used horror to communicate themes which her readers would normally be resistant to. In other words, she used fear as a form of mild violence to break past emotional barriers in her audience. In O'Connor's own words: "to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the blind you draw large and startling figures." The most impressive lessons in any person's memory are often those cemented by deep emotional experiences. Fear is one emotion which can ensure the questions your story raises are not abandoned the moment the player steps away.
Cheers to the things that go bump in the night!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
relative pricing
All pricing is relative.
In other words, all prices will be judged by consumers in their relation to other prices. Your customers will compare the price of your product to the prices of other products. The big question is: what will they compare it to?
With expansion content, I always use the original game's price as my primary measure. Expansion content should not cost nearly half the price of the original game if it offers significantly less than half the amount of content.
But I don't assume that the majority of game consumers think like me in this matter. What do you use as your measure of fairness when considering the price of expansion content or full games?
In other words, all prices will be judged by consumers in their relation to other prices. Your customers will compare the price of your product to the prices of other products. The big question is: what will they compare it to?
With expansion content, I always use the original game's price as my primary measure. Expansion content should not cost nearly half the price of the original game if it offers significantly less than half the amount of content.
But I don't assume that the majority of game consumers think like me in this matter. What do you use as your measure of fairness when considering the price of expansion content or full games?
Friday, August 22, 2008
goals alone don't motivate
So I finally got around to watching the trailers for Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3. Just about everyone who has played RTS games since the genre's earliest days knows that Red Alert is one of the gems in the RTS crown, so hopes are high for any game that seeks to recapture that experience.
In RA3 (gamers love acronyms, right?), the graphical quality and visual detail are very impressive, the story sounds intriguing, and the scale of combat seems right for a Red Alert game. But you know what really grabbed me in the trailers?
That classic Red Alert music! Heavy metal guitar mixed with marching orders and a touch of techno. Oh yes. It's time to rock!
Music, more than any other artform, acts as inspiration. And inspiration is vital to any player experience. It's not enough to provide goals and some challenges to overcome.
It basically boils down to this: human beings are not defined merely by logic, by our capacity for reasoning. Emotion is every bit as vital to our being, and the purpose of emotion is to motivate. Every one of us sometimes fails to act in accordance with our own reasoning, and that is because logic is simply not enough.
Great music inspires. Wondrous and beautiful visions inspire. Deep and larger-than-life characters inspire.
Mathematical formulations fail to produce great works of art because art is math yet it is more than math... just as humans are logical, but we are more than logic. Calculations are often accurate, but they are not enough. A good game designer studies the science behind the systems, he pays attention to demographics and other statistical feedback, but he also steps back from all the numbers and the figures to look at his work with a child's eyes and a loving heart. He takes a moment to regain that child-like sense of wonder and asks simply, "Now, what would be cool?".
A wise man once said that anything worth knowing can be explained to a child. If you can't explain to a child why your game is worth playing, why your game is "cool", then it's time to start over. Goals and challenges are nothing without inspiration to pursue and conquer them.
In RA3 (gamers love acronyms, right?), the graphical quality and visual detail are very impressive, the story sounds intriguing, and the scale of combat seems right for a Red Alert game. But you know what really grabbed me in the trailers?
That classic Red Alert music! Heavy metal guitar mixed with marching orders and a touch of techno. Oh yes. It's time to rock!
Music, more than any other artform, acts as inspiration. And inspiration is vital to any player experience. It's not enough to provide goals and some challenges to overcome.
It basically boils down to this: human beings are not defined merely by logic, by our capacity for reasoning. Emotion is every bit as vital to our being, and the purpose of emotion is to motivate. Every one of us sometimes fails to act in accordance with our own reasoning, and that is because logic is simply not enough.
Great music inspires. Wondrous and beautiful visions inspire. Deep and larger-than-life characters inspire.
Mathematical formulations fail to produce great works of art because art is math yet it is more than math... just as humans are logical, but we are more than logic. Calculations are often accurate, but they are not enough. A good game designer studies the science behind the systems, he pays attention to demographics and other statistical feedback, but he also steps back from all the numbers and the figures to look at his work with a child's eyes and a loving heart. He takes a moment to regain that child-like sense of wonder and asks simply, "Now, what would be cool?".
A wise man once said that anything worth knowing can be explained to a child. If you can't explain to a child why your game is worth playing, why your game is "cool", then it's time to start over. Goals and challenges are nothing without inspiration to pursue and conquer them.
Friday, July 11, 2008
virtue hurts
Peter Molyneux has revealed a bit more about Fable 2 here. The part I found particularly interesting was mention of "... a beautiful girl who is about to be stricken by a curse of terrible scars - do you save her by taking on this curse yourself?"
From the interviews I've read/watched, it's clear that Molyneux is admirably making a didactic game. He really wants Fable 2 players to feel that being virtuous is difficult. In the case above, being horribly scarred (as a consequence of a virtuous action) would often result in even good people reacting to you with repulsion or disgust (in reality, though the consequences in the game have not been revealed yet).
I wonder how far such realism could be pushed in a game.
Acts of good are often unjustly punished. That's reality. But it is and has always been the case that most human beings do not have the wisdom or courage to fulfill justice in the face of that reality. Most of us desire justice, but we also desire comfort and to be liked by others. Sometimes we do the right thing and sometimes we do the easy thing, but few of us consistently choose the hard path (virtue).
In everything, I support holding people to high standards. But watching someone make sacrifices in a movie and making those sacrifices yourself through a game character are very different experiences. When roleplaying a character, there is always a choice of whether or not to push forward, to move on. You can wish a film character made another choice, but you know you must accept that character's action. In a game, the choice is yours and regret is a more palpable force.
I'm all for what Molyneux is doing: challenging players to live up to virtue. But how hard can he make it to be -- how much virtue can he expect from players -- before the game becomes too difficult, too realistic, for the majority of gamers? How far can such games push reality before their potential audiences shrink?
Virtue, by the way, as Aristotle defined it, is how well a thing performs the action it was designed for. A knife is virtuous if it cuts well. A hammer is virtuous if it is solid and well-balanced. A human being is virtuous if he or she loves well.
From the interviews I've read/watched, it's clear that Molyneux is admirably making a didactic game. He really wants Fable 2 players to feel that being virtuous is difficult. In the case above, being horribly scarred (as a consequence of a virtuous action) would often result in even good people reacting to you with repulsion or disgust (in reality, though the consequences in the game have not been revealed yet).
I wonder how far such realism could be pushed in a game.
Acts of good are often unjustly punished. That's reality. But it is and has always been the case that most human beings do not have the wisdom or courage to fulfill justice in the face of that reality. Most of us desire justice, but we also desire comfort and to be liked by others. Sometimes we do the right thing and sometimes we do the easy thing, but few of us consistently choose the hard path (virtue).
In everything, I support holding people to high standards. But watching someone make sacrifices in a movie and making those sacrifices yourself through a game character are very different experiences. When roleplaying a character, there is always a choice of whether or not to push forward, to move on. You can wish a film character made another choice, but you know you must accept that character's action. In a game, the choice is yours and regret is a more palpable force.
I'm all for what Molyneux is doing: challenging players to live up to virtue. But how hard can he make it to be -- how much virtue can he expect from players -- before the game becomes too difficult, too realistic, for the majority of gamers? How far can such games push reality before their potential audiences shrink?
Virtue, by the way, as Aristotle defined it, is how well a thing performs the action it was designed for. A knife is virtuous if it cuts well. A hammer is virtuous if it is solid and well-balanced. A human being is virtuous if he or she loves well.
Monday, June 02, 2008
women and gaming
I'm feeling brave today.
A long time ago, after watching this GameTrailers interview and having met, for the first time, a woman who enjoys a Real-Time Strategy game, I decided to give my take on the question of women's place in the gaming world. Will games ever appeal to as many women as men? Do women want different experiences or have different expectations?
I forgot about this article for a while, but Brian over at The Weekend Gamer brought it back to mind by highlighting a new study. Incidentally, the scientist's conclusion (that gaming in general is more natural for males) isn't supported by his evidence (which suggests only that particular types of gameplay are more suited toward males).
Anyway, here are some semi-random thoughts on the subject. Much of the information about physical differences between men and women I learned from my youngest sister, who is a biomedical engineer, medical researcher at the National Institute of Health, and now training to be a physical therapist. I'm also fairly well schooled in psychology. And I grew up in a family with two boys and three girls, which means I've been having discussions about these differences all my life. The sister in medicine also happens to be the one who played games like Halo with me for years.
CERTAIN
First, here are the things I'm sure of.
Women are destined for games, too
Every year now, there are new reports of the growing numbers of female gamers. For whatever reason, gaming has been more popular with guys for a long time. But a day is soon coming when a woman playing video games will be no more surprising than a woman going to see a movie or watching TV. Nothing about the medium itself, interactive entertainment, is exclusive or preferential.
And the cultural barriers that deter girls from trying out games in general are slowly but surely being eroded. Those cultural barriers might not disappear altogether -- male gamers might always outnumber female gamers -- but female gamers will at least become nothing to raise an eyebrow at. Groups like Frag Dolls (a group of women devoted to competitive war games) will always be exceptional, but girls will game in some form.
Some games are for us all
Many games are or will be equally popular among both sexes. In my experience, the original Mario Kart on the SNES is such a game. So are some classic arcade games and MMOs. The Sims series is popular with both sexes, as I'm sure Spore will be.
Some games favor one sex
The term "chick flicks" didn't come out of nowhere. Through the many decades of motion pictures, many films have been far more popular among women while other films have been far more popular among men. The same is seen in literature and every other artform. The same will be seen in video games.
Genre alone does not determine the audience. Though guys generally hate being dragged to sappy romance films, there are some romances that are popular with guys, too (French Kiss, There's Something About Mary, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, etc). Action flicks generally draw more male viewers, but some are popular with women (Speed, Rush Hour, LOTR, etc).
CONFIDENT THEORIES
Here's the stuff I'm not certain of but think is likely.
Art Themes
Men and women have different ratios of rod-to-cone light-receptor cells in their eyes. This means that women tend to be physically more capable of distinguishing separate colors than men and have better peripheral vision. Men, on the other hand, tend to have better depth perception and form tracing. This probably affects women's interests in game art the same way it affects women's visual interests in clothing and interior design.
Women tend to have a greater appreciation of vibrant colors and cumulative design (meaning how objects fit together). Men are more attentive to shape and the structural layout of environments. The RTS that my female friend said she loved is Warcraft 3. Without suggesting that she likes it for the visuals alone, that game and World of Warcraft use vibrant colors and a rounded art style. Mario Kart and other Mario games, popular among women, also employ this basic style.
Spore could be a great instrument of study in this area. I bet patterns will emerge in the sort of creatures and objects men design versus what women design. Incidentally, a woman might be the better researcher there, because women more often notice patterns (focus on cumulations, rather than specific objects, is as much a part of female brain development as eye development; male and female brains form a little differently).
Animations
A woman's gait is naturally different from a man's gait; not because of different attitudes, but because of a number of physical disparities in things like center-of-gravity, shape of the knees, and shape of the hips. If a game's visuals are real enough that the uncanny valley is a concern, then this difference between sexes should also be considered. It might be the reason that something doesn't look quite right. But the difference is slight... easy to exaggerate into a seductive parody, so artists should be careful.
Multiplayer
Women tend to be more socially attentive and cooperative than men. Both men and women are often bull-headed, but a man is more likely to insist on his own way, refuse help (instructions, driving directions, etc), and focus on individual gain. So I think women tend to favor cooperative multiplayer over independent multiplayer. That's not saying that women are not competitive... just that they like to explore and compete in a more cooperative way.
All three of my sisters played competitive sports, and it was obvious that they play in a different way than guys. Women tend to focus more on team achievement. Team performance is important to men too, of course, but individual achievement has more relative value for us. Star Wars: Galaxies and Star Wars: Battlefront are good examples of games which favor male-type cooperation. Players can act separately while contributing to a common goal. Everquest and Halo are examples of games which favor female-type cooperation. One player's character cannot survive without the other's direct participation and intervention.
Yes, mostly-male militaries around the globe are based on the latter sort of cooperation, but how many young boys playing war games pretend in a support role? Soldiers fight side-by-side because it's necessary to survive and win; not because it's their preference.
Reinforcement
When I asked one of my sister's about psychological differences between men and women on the soccer field, she mentioned that teammates shout words of encouragement much more often on women's teams. In her own words, "women respond more positively to encouragement". So it would make sense to include such encouragement in a game for female gamers.
On the flipside, I wonder if men respond more positively to the harsh criticism that's typical when coaching men's teams. The warrior instinct might mean this tends to inspire men by challenging our egos. The only video game experience I can cite here in Crackdown, in which I loved the narrator's mocking commentary and challenges.
Genres
As I said before, genre alone does not determine whether a game is attractive to both sexes or one. But some genres are ideally suited for gameplay which favors one sex over the other, just as most Nora Roberts fans are women while most Tom Clancy fans are men.
We might as well start by acknowledging that the division in films and books will translate into games. Romance favors women. We haven't seen many romance games yet, but they're on the way. Mass Effect's choice-empowering relationship play is one hint at things to come.
Women like war dramas, while men are the primary audience for war action. In addition to other features, an FPS game might be made more attractive to women through more personal dialogue between soldiers and more exploration of the protagonist's character. Women might also be interested more in rescue missions and guard missions, since their goals tend to be more about relationships.
Horror seems like a neutral genre, though men might favor the "walk into the darkness" type of horror while women favor the "something is coming" horror (feeling trapped). Men tend to like plans (structure) and predictability, while women are more willing to accept and adapt. Thus, a game like Dead Space probably favors men, while the movie Alien is more a woman's style in this way (the protagonist is unexpectedly trapped with the monster and defends herself; she doesn't seek the monster out). I'm far from sure about this theory, though my sisters generally agree. Also, women probably like their horror more contemplative and relationship-driven (like The Ring and The Grudge), while men prefer battle-driven plots (Predator, The Ghost and The Darkness).
Tone
I think women more commonly choose light-humored entertainment than men. Perhaps it's those confrontational instincts. Men seem to choose dark and severe entertainment more often than women. Women seem more appreciative of silly jokes and behavior. I think that's one reason all of my sisters loved Mario Kart so much. Popular romances are more often comedies than tragedies, it seems (though, again, I could be way off on this).
NO IDEA
These are things worth considering, but I have no idea how they affect women gamers or games for women. They are psychological differences, though, so I think there probably is an effect of some kind in games.
When women fight
Cat fights are notoriously vicious. I wondered if this might be a myth, but the women I know don't think so and its confirmed at least in my own experience. I have no idea what the reason is for this ferocity, but I can't help but think it must translate into gaming somehow. Do cat fights tell us anything about women's perception or approach to any element of gameplay?
Dealing with pain
When studying psychology, I noticed that there might be a difference in the way men and women handle emotional pain. Depressive disorders are more common among women, and aggressive disorders are more common among men. Men seem more likely to project their pain onto others, while women seem to focus their pain inward (perhaps one reason encouragement is so appreciated).
Consolations
When a woman is approached by a friend with a problem (a non-emergency), she's likely to first respond with sympathy. Women seem to value emotions more than men, and when hurt or troubled like to know that a confidant understands the emotional distress. When a man is approached by a friend with a problem, he's likely to respond immediately with advice; to try to solve the problem.
Random adages on the subject
Men never forgive. Women never forget.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
A woman can say more in a sigh than a man can say in a sermon.
Is there anything else y'all can think of? Any other area of possible difference?
A long time ago, after watching this GameTrailers interview and having met, for the first time, a woman who enjoys a Real-Time Strategy game, I decided to give my take on the question of women's place in the gaming world. Will games ever appeal to as many women as men? Do women want different experiences or have different expectations?
I forgot about this article for a while, but Brian over at The Weekend Gamer brought it back to mind by highlighting a new study. Incidentally, the scientist's conclusion (that gaming in general is more natural for males) isn't supported by his evidence (which suggests only that particular types of gameplay are more suited toward males).
Anyway, here are some semi-random thoughts on the subject. Much of the information about physical differences between men and women I learned from my youngest sister, who is a biomedical engineer, medical researcher at the National Institute of Health, and now training to be a physical therapist. I'm also fairly well schooled in psychology. And I grew up in a family with two boys and three girls, which means I've been having discussions about these differences all my life. The sister in medicine also happens to be the one who played games like Halo with me for years.
CERTAIN
First, here are the things I'm sure of.
Women are destined for games, too
Every year now, there are new reports of the growing numbers of female gamers. For whatever reason, gaming has been more popular with guys for a long time. But a day is soon coming when a woman playing video games will be no more surprising than a woman going to see a movie or watching TV. Nothing about the medium itself, interactive entertainment, is exclusive or preferential.
And the cultural barriers that deter girls from trying out games in general are slowly but surely being eroded. Those cultural barriers might not disappear altogether -- male gamers might always outnumber female gamers -- but female gamers will at least become nothing to raise an eyebrow at. Groups like Frag Dolls (a group of women devoted to competitive war games) will always be exceptional, but girls will game in some form.
Some games are for us all
Many games are or will be equally popular among both sexes. In my experience, the original Mario Kart on the SNES is such a game. So are some classic arcade games and MMOs. The Sims series is popular with both sexes, as I'm sure Spore will be.
Some games favor one sex
The term "chick flicks" didn't come out of nowhere. Through the many decades of motion pictures, many films have been far more popular among women while other films have been far more popular among men. The same is seen in literature and every other artform. The same will be seen in video games.
Genre alone does not determine the audience. Though guys generally hate being dragged to sappy romance films, there are some romances that are popular with guys, too (French Kiss, There's Something About Mary, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, etc). Action flicks generally draw more male viewers, but some are popular with women (Speed, Rush Hour, LOTR, etc).
CONFIDENT THEORIES
Here's the stuff I'm not certain of but think is likely.
Art Themes
Men and women have different ratios of rod-to-cone light-receptor cells in their eyes. This means that women tend to be physically more capable of distinguishing separate colors than men and have better peripheral vision. Men, on the other hand, tend to have better depth perception and form tracing. This probably affects women's interests in game art the same way it affects women's visual interests in clothing and interior design.
Women tend to have a greater appreciation of vibrant colors and cumulative design (meaning how objects fit together). Men are more attentive to shape and the structural layout of environments. The RTS that my female friend said she loved is Warcraft 3. Without suggesting that she likes it for the visuals alone, that game and World of Warcraft use vibrant colors and a rounded art style. Mario Kart and other Mario games, popular among women, also employ this basic style.
Spore could be a great instrument of study in this area. I bet patterns will emerge in the sort of creatures and objects men design versus what women design. Incidentally, a woman might be the better researcher there, because women more often notice patterns (focus on cumulations, rather than specific objects, is as much a part of female brain development as eye development; male and female brains form a little differently).
Animations
A woman's gait is naturally different from a man's gait; not because of different attitudes, but because of a number of physical disparities in things like center-of-gravity, shape of the knees, and shape of the hips. If a game's visuals are real enough that the uncanny valley is a concern, then this difference between sexes should also be considered. It might be the reason that something doesn't look quite right. But the difference is slight... easy to exaggerate into a seductive parody, so artists should be careful.
Multiplayer
Women tend to be more socially attentive and cooperative than men. Both men and women are often bull-headed, but a man is more likely to insist on his own way, refuse help (instructions, driving directions, etc), and focus on individual gain. So I think women tend to favor cooperative multiplayer over independent multiplayer. That's not saying that women are not competitive... just that they like to explore and compete in a more cooperative way.
All three of my sisters played competitive sports, and it was obvious that they play in a different way than guys. Women tend to focus more on team achievement. Team performance is important to men too, of course, but individual achievement has more relative value for us. Star Wars: Galaxies and Star Wars: Battlefront are good examples of games which favor male-type cooperation. Players can act separately while contributing to a common goal. Everquest and Halo are examples of games which favor female-type cooperation. One player's character cannot survive without the other's direct participation and intervention.
Yes, mostly-male militaries around the globe are based on the latter sort of cooperation, but how many young boys playing war games pretend in a support role? Soldiers fight side-by-side because it's necessary to survive and win; not because it's their preference.
Reinforcement
When I asked one of my sister's about psychological differences between men and women on the soccer field, she mentioned that teammates shout words of encouragement much more often on women's teams. In her own words, "women respond more positively to encouragement". So it would make sense to include such encouragement in a game for female gamers.
On the flipside, I wonder if men respond more positively to the harsh criticism that's typical when coaching men's teams. The warrior instinct might mean this tends to inspire men by challenging our egos. The only video game experience I can cite here in Crackdown, in which I loved the narrator's mocking commentary and challenges.
Genres
As I said before, genre alone does not determine whether a game is attractive to both sexes or one. But some genres are ideally suited for gameplay which favors one sex over the other, just as most Nora Roberts fans are women while most Tom Clancy fans are men.
We might as well start by acknowledging that the division in films and books will translate into games. Romance favors women. We haven't seen many romance games yet, but they're on the way. Mass Effect's choice-empowering relationship play is one hint at things to come.
Women like war dramas, while men are the primary audience for war action. In addition to other features, an FPS game might be made more attractive to women through more personal dialogue between soldiers and more exploration of the protagonist's character. Women might also be interested more in rescue missions and guard missions, since their goals tend to be more about relationships.
Horror seems like a neutral genre, though men might favor the "walk into the darkness" type of horror while women favor the "something is coming" horror (feeling trapped). Men tend to like plans (structure) and predictability, while women are more willing to accept and adapt. Thus, a game like Dead Space probably favors men, while the movie Alien is more a woman's style in this way (the protagonist is unexpectedly trapped with the monster and defends herself; she doesn't seek the monster out). I'm far from sure about this theory, though my sisters generally agree. Also, women probably like their horror more contemplative and relationship-driven (like The Ring and The Grudge), while men prefer battle-driven plots (Predator, The Ghost and The Darkness).
Tone
I think women more commonly choose light-humored entertainment than men. Perhaps it's those confrontational instincts. Men seem to choose dark and severe entertainment more often than women. Women seem more appreciative of silly jokes and behavior. I think that's one reason all of my sisters loved Mario Kart so much. Popular romances are more often comedies than tragedies, it seems (though, again, I could be way off on this).
NO IDEA
These are things worth considering, but I have no idea how they affect women gamers or games for women. They are psychological differences, though, so I think there probably is an effect of some kind in games.
When women fight
Cat fights are notoriously vicious. I wondered if this might be a myth, but the women I know don't think so and its confirmed at least in my own experience. I have no idea what the reason is for this ferocity, but I can't help but think it must translate into gaming somehow. Do cat fights tell us anything about women's perception or approach to any element of gameplay?
Dealing with pain
When studying psychology, I noticed that there might be a difference in the way men and women handle emotional pain. Depressive disorders are more common among women, and aggressive disorders are more common among men. Men seem more likely to project their pain onto others, while women seem to focus their pain inward (perhaps one reason encouragement is so appreciated).
Consolations
When a woman is approached by a friend with a problem (a non-emergency), she's likely to first respond with sympathy. Women seem to value emotions more than men, and when hurt or troubled like to know that a confidant understands the emotional distress. When a man is approached by a friend with a problem, he's likely to respond immediately with advice; to try to solve the problem.
Random adages on the subject
Men never forgive. Women never forget.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
A woman can say more in a sigh than a man can say in a sermon.
Is there anything else y'all can think of? Any other area of possible difference?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Spielberg "gets people"
According to Louis Castle, "More than anything he [Steven Spielberg] gets people. I have made a lot of games, more than a hundred and I am quite accomplished in this field, even I don't have that kind of instinct."
It's a surprisingly simple characteristic that explains so much about his mastery of film-making, right? He gets people. And because he understands them so well, he's remarkable apt at tapping into universal themes, desires, and habits, and letting those insights guide his craft.
I can't help but think that's the core characteristic of a master game designer, too. They get people.
Think of Will Wright, when he's explaining how human beings learn through experimentation, and love learning. Think of Peter Molyneux, when he proposes that Fable 2 will touch gamers' hearts... not through romance, but through an unshakeable companion (a dog) and unconditional love.
If you need a demographic chart to know what people want, then you don't really "get people".
It's a surprisingly simple characteristic that explains so much about his mastery of film-making, right? He gets people. And because he understands them so well, he's remarkable apt at tapping into universal themes, desires, and habits, and letting those insights guide his craft.
I can't help but think that's the core characteristic of a master game designer, too. They get people.
Think of Will Wright, when he's explaining how human beings learn through experimentation, and love learning. Think of Peter Molyneux, when he proposes that Fable 2 will touch gamers' hearts... not through romance, but through an unshakeable companion (a dog) and unconditional love.
If you need a demographic chart to know what people want, then you don't really "get people".
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Room for the reckless
Ever noticed that "berserkers" in video games are never encouraged to go berserk? Their rage can make them faster, more powerful, or open up special attacks, but it never really sends them into a frenzy.
Games usually emphasize strategy and thoughtful play for a number of reasons. For one, many people like to be challenged intellectually. Also, it's easier for a developer to control a game's pace and intensity if the game is focused on overcoming set obstacles in controlled ways.
But there's something to be said for reckless gaming. I like intellectual challenges, but I also enjoy careless mayhem in wild environments. Some people have first-hand experience of my reckless habits, like charging into the midst of five Halo 3 brutes so I can smack one in the face with the butt of my assault rifle.
Sometimes, I want to play without a seatbelt. Sometimes, I want to drive off-road... in a sportscar. Sometimes, I don't want to worry about death penalties, health bars, mana bars, etc; I just want to play in the experential, unfocused way that we all enjoyed when we were little kids.
The first game I can remember that was devoted to this sort of play is Rampage. Here's your giant monster. Here's a city full of terrified citizens and skyscrapers. Now, go eat people and smash buildings.
Spore will certainly involve more strategy than Rampage, but it also is devoted to experential play. I, for one, expect to be spending more time in the editors than in any other part of the game. When I take my custom creature out into the wild, I can expect the environment to be wild... to be strange and untamed. When my creature meets another, there will be no name coloration to tell me, "This thing's going to spank you, then laugh at you, then eat you. Run away!" That's because the game isn't about victory and defeat. It's about enjoying the moment, and exploring.
Should there be more games like this? Definitely. But perhaps a better question is: Can there be room for the reckless in games that also include strategic play? Can an MMO, for example, allow my berserker to truly be a berserker, while also allowing my wizard friend to play thoughtfully to conquer fixed achievements?
Games usually emphasize strategy and thoughtful play for a number of reasons. For one, many people like to be challenged intellectually. Also, it's easier for a developer to control a game's pace and intensity if the game is focused on overcoming set obstacles in controlled ways.
But there's something to be said for reckless gaming. I like intellectual challenges, but I also enjoy careless mayhem in wild environments. Some people have first-hand experience of my reckless habits, like charging into the midst of five Halo 3 brutes so I can smack one in the face with the butt of my assault rifle.
Sometimes, I want to play without a seatbelt. Sometimes, I want to drive off-road... in a sportscar. Sometimes, I don't want to worry about death penalties, health bars, mana bars, etc; I just want to play in the experential, unfocused way that we all enjoyed when we were little kids.
The first game I can remember that was devoted to this sort of play is Rampage. Here's your giant monster. Here's a city full of terrified citizens and skyscrapers. Now, go eat people and smash buildings.
Spore will certainly involve more strategy than Rampage, but it also is devoted to experential play. I, for one, expect to be spending more time in the editors than in any other part of the game. When I take my custom creature out into the wild, I can expect the environment to be wild... to be strange and untamed. When my creature meets another, there will be no name coloration to tell me, "This thing's going to spank you, then laugh at you, then eat you. Run away!" That's because the game isn't about victory and defeat. It's about enjoying the moment, and exploring.
Should there be more games like this? Definitely. But perhaps a better question is: Can there be room for the reckless in games that also include strategic play? Can an MMO, for example, allow my berserker to truly be a berserker, while also allowing my wizard friend to play thoughtfully to conquer fixed achievements?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Offline multplayer
More information was released about the upcoming Turok multiplayer. It's going to be online only. =/
I'm sure I can't be the only 360 owner who doesn't have any face-to-face friends (as opposed to online friends) who also own a 360 and subscribe to Xbox Live's Gold service. I'm even more certain that a good portion of console gamers still prefer gaming with their buddies in one room to gaming with them online. It's a very different experience. And for all this talk about bringing new gamers into the market, making online multiplayer exclusive surely doesn't help.
I have nothing against online gaming, understand. I just think a lot of publishers and developers are over-estimating its appeal and importance. Offline gaming is still big business. Offline multiplayer is still big business (just look at the Wii).
For some games (perhaps for Turok), online just makes more sense. Perhaps the UI doesn't function well when reduced to a quarter of the TV screen. Perhaps it's pivotal that one player doesn't know what the other is seeing/doing (though we managed alright with Goldeneye N64). But, please, give offline multiplayer it's due. Please, developers, keep asking if it's feasible for your game. Please, publishers, don't demand online gameplay elements from your studios, because sometimes that just distracts from the game's true heart.
I'm still a big fan of offline multiplayer. So are millions of others. We crave sustenance! And online multiplayer is not a suitable substitute.
I'm sure I can't be the only 360 owner who doesn't have any face-to-face friends (as opposed to online friends) who also own a 360 and subscribe to Xbox Live's Gold service. I'm even more certain that a good portion of console gamers still prefer gaming with their buddies in one room to gaming with them online. It's a very different experience. And for all this talk about bringing new gamers into the market, making online multiplayer exclusive surely doesn't help.
I have nothing against online gaming, understand. I just think a lot of publishers and developers are over-estimating its appeal and importance. Offline gaming is still big business. Offline multiplayer is still big business (just look at the Wii).
For some games (perhaps for Turok), online just makes more sense. Perhaps the UI doesn't function well when reduced to a quarter of the TV screen. Perhaps it's pivotal that one player doesn't know what the other is seeing/doing (though we managed alright with Goldeneye N64). But, please, give offline multiplayer it's due. Please, developers, keep asking if it's feasible for your game. Please, publishers, don't demand online gameplay elements from your studios, because sometimes that just distracts from the game's true heart.
I'm still a big fan of offline multiplayer. So are millions of others. We crave sustenance! And online multiplayer is not a suitable substitute.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Don't widen the kiddie pool
Looks like I'll be able to get an article up afterall. =)
WIDE, NOT SHALLOW
Everywhere you look, there's an article about some developer or publisher saying we need to widen the pool of gamers. They're right. Video games have nowhere near the mass appeal of movies.
Ok, so we don't really "need" to expand the audience. I mean, hey, the game industry already makes more money than the film and music industries! But the moneygrubbers are never satisfied... and, more importantly, it's always nice being able to share. I'd like to see a day when I could talk to my parents about video games and know that they share my enthusiasm, like they might with a movie. The social stigmas and gaming illiteracy are significant problems. Not many of us are content to wait until every living generation was raised on video games.
However, in order to widen the pool, we don't have to get rid of the deep end and turn the whole thing into a kiddie pool. Short-and-cheap isn't the end-all of attracting new people to the gaming world.
The fantasy of casual games
Nearly everyone in this industry seems to be suggesting that the only games that attract non-gamers into the fold are "casual" games; games like Bejeweled or Flow. Those are great games. But, quite simply, it's ridiculous to believe that these represent the future of gaming and the only viable gateway games.
For one, these people are simply ignoring history. Video games started with casual games. Such games have always been around. You know what? My dad has played Pac-Man and Space Invaders. Yet he wasn't sucked into gaming, and can't even fathom people of the Baby-Boomer generation considering video games as adult entertainment. The sort of video games he does enjoy? Basically, video versions of non-video games: solitaire, chess, pinball, etc. Even those are rare enjoyments, and a form of entertainment he would never even consider purchasing. He plays them because they came with Windows or because I put the games on his computer (honestly, I can't remember ever seeing him playing the pinball game I installed on his computer, though he does enjoy pinball).
So if treating these potential gamers like idiots, as if anything more than 3 buttons on the TV remote or microwave is too much for them, isn't the best way to attract them, then what is? Here are some basic guidelines:
1) EASE THE ENTRY
These people grew up playing boardgames and sports with rules a hell of a lot more complex than most video games. The whole game doesn't have to be simple and easy. However, the entry does have to be simple and quick. Many non-gamers are strongly biased against video games as time-worthy entertainment, so avoid a big learning curve and get to the point quickly.
Quickly means more than simple and intuitive controls. It means the heart of gameplay must be summed up in the first five minutes (a rule, incidentally, that I would apply to games for any audience). The player should have full clarity on his or her primary goals, challenges, and tools. Depth can be added as the game continues, as was well-accomplished in Diablo 2, but you have mere moments to impress the non-gamer into continuing his or her first steps into gaming.
2) FAMILIAR FOUNDATIONS
Does the game have any connection at all with the non-gamer's past experiences? When trying to coax someone into anything new, gaming or not, it helps to relate the experience to something he or she is already familiar with.
Baby-Boomers grew up with intellectual games. They watched TV gameshows that tested knowledge of the real world. They played chess and checkers, Monopoly and Clue. Sure, maybe your Myst-like game has some challenging puzzles, but can the player share his success half so easily or well as when he completes a crossword or search-a-word puzzle (games which don't cost even a third of the price, by the way)?
It's no wonder many Baby-Boomers can't connect with depthful adventure games; look at the settings! Folks of my parents' generation grew up with manners, order, and respect for authority; concepts like duty and the sacred. Believe it or not, not everyone's interested in "sticking it to the Man". To them, "rugged individualism" didn't mean saying to hell with everybody else; it meant stubborn determination in the face of overwhelming odds. Movies of the 1950s didn't lack blood and on-screen violence because movie directors were incapable of producing fake blood; they were that way because of aesthetic values and goals which Baby-Boomers still search for in entertainment.
3) SOCIAL FOCUS
Many non-gamers think of video games as something a kid does alone in front of a TV. The games they grew up with, the games they respect, are games about sharing experiences.
Baby-Boomers, in particular, come from a more community-focused culture than those of us who grew up in the 80s or 90s. Competition wasn't about beating your opponent down and taunting him with "lol, you suck!" or rubbing your score in someone's face. They had winners and losers (often, in a stronger form than we're used to), but they laughed together and were not so personally divided during the heat of gameplay.
Co-op gameplay is a great path even for non-gamers other than the older generation. Someone is infinitely more likely to try a new passtime if he or she can do it together with you... if it's an experience you can share, but not an experience in which you the trained expert are going at quarter-speed with the hopeless amateur. And, as I've written elsewhere, co-op doesn't have to take the form of two equals. Offer depthful roles, but also offer simpler-but-valuable support roles.
Co-op, competitive, or otherwise. However you do it, being able to share your experiences is absolutely pivotal to any form of entertainment.
4) TRUE DEPTH AND VALUE
Games are only beginning to explore real drama (as opposed to melodrama) and have hardly approached deeper meanings. If you want to see the day when games are taken as seriously as movies, then make games that are as serious as movies.
Going back the Baby-Boomers, they didn't grow up on all this "to each his own" philosophy and "you pick the meaning" style of storytelling. They grew up with certainty, and a recognition of wisdom and experience outside one's self. The stories they respond to involve concrete messages.
It's true, games are more tightly censored than other media. But let's be honest, it's still possible to create depthful settings and stories in ways that those censors can swallow. How? Look back to those old black-and-white films. You can tackle themes concerning sex and violence without explicitly showing the sex and violence. You can say whatever you want to say if you're smart enough (and humble enough) to phrase the message in the right way.
The majority of the top-grossing films in the history of American cinema have been films with strong, certain, and obvious messages. Through similar storytelling, developers can reach veteran gamers and non-gamers alike. Video games are suited toward a different method of storytelling, but are capable of at least equal depth and cultural influence.
Anyway, so that's my rant about this "casual games" craze. The people who aren't buying Frogger-style games right now won't be buying the next generation of Frogger-style games either. Attracting new gamers isn't just about simplicity, ease, and a complete lack of time investment. Non-gamers aren't primitives. The key to their hearts isn't through primitive games.
The two upcoming games with the highest likelihood of attracting non-gamers into the fold are Will Wright's Spore and Peter Molyneux's Fable 2 (even if it is on a gamer console, it will at least grab non-gamer media attention and maybe some gaming visitors).
WIDE, NOT SHALLOW
Everywhere you look, there's an article about some developer or publisher saying we need to widen the pool of gamers. They're right. Video games have nowhere near the mass appeal of movies.
Ok, so we don't really "need" to expand the audience. I mean, hey, the game industry already makes more money than the film and music industries! But the moneygrubbers are never satisfied... and, more importantly, it's always nice being able to share. I'd like to see a day when I could talk to my parents about video games and know that they share my enthusiasm, like they might with a movie. The social stigmas and gaming illiteracy are significant problems. Not many of us are content to wait until every living generation was raised on video games.
However, in order to widen the pool, we don't have to get rid of the deep end and turn the whole thing into a kiddie pool. Short-and-cheap isn't the end-all of attracting new people to the gaming world.
The fantasy of casual games
Nearly everyone in this industry seems to be suggesting that the only games that attract non-gamers into the fold are "casual" games; games like Bejeweled or Flow. Those are great games. But, quite simply, it's ridiculous to believe that these represent the future of gaming and the only viable gateway games.
For one, these people are simply ignoring history. Video games started with casual games. Such games have always been around. You know what? My dad has played Pac-Man and Space Invaders. Yet he wasn't sucked into gaming, and can't even fathom people of the Baby-Boomer generation considering video games as adult entertainment. The sort of video games he does enjoy? Basically, video versions of non-video games: solitaire, chess, pinball, etc. Even those are rare enjoyments, and a form of entertainment he would never even consider purchasing. He plays them because they came with Windows or because I put the games on his computer (honestly, I can't remember ever seeing him playing the pinball game I installed on his computer, though he does enjoy pinball).
So if treating these potential gamers like idiots, as if anything more than 3 buttons on the TV remote or microwave is too much for them, isn't the best way to attract them, then what is? Here are some basic guidelines:
1) EASE THE ENTRY
These people grew up playing boardgames and sports with rules a hell of a lot more complex than most video games. The whole game doesn't have to be simple and easy. However, the entry does have to be simple and quick. Many non-gamers are strongly biased against video games as time-worthy entertainment, so avoid a big learning curve and get to the point quickly.
Quickly means more than simple and intuitive controls. It means the heart of gameplay must be summed up in the first five minutes (a rule, incidentally, that I would apply to games for any audience). The player should have full clarity on his or her primary goals, challenges, and tools. Depth can be added as the game continues, as was well-accomplished in Diablo 2, but you have mere moments to impress the non-gamer into continuing his or her first steps into gaming.
2) FAMILIAR FOUNDATIONS
Does the game have any connection at all with the non-gamer's past experiences? When trying to coax someone into anything new, gaming or not, it helps to relate the experience to something he or she is already familiar with.
Baby-Boomers grew up with intellectual games. They watched TV gameshows that tested knowledge of the real world. They played chess and checkers, Monopoly and Clue. Sure, maybe your Myst-like game has some challenging puzzles, but can the player share his success half so easily or well as when he completes a crossword or search-a-word puzzle (games which don't cost even a third of the price, by the way)?
It's no wonder many Baby-Boomers can't connect with depthful adventure games; look at the settings! Folks of my parents' generation grew up with manners, order, and respect for authority; concepts like duty and the sacred. Believe it or not, not everyone's interested in "sticking it to the Man". To them, "rugged individualism" didn't mean saying to hell with everybody else; it meant stubborn determination in the face of overwhelming odds. Movies of the 1950s didn't lack blood and on-screen violence because movie directors were incapable of producing fake blood; they were that way because of aesthetic values and goals which Baby-Boomers still search for in entertainment.
3) SOCIAL FOCUS
Many non-gamers think of video games as something a kid does alone in front of a TV. The games they grew up with, the games they respect, are games about sharing experiences.
Baby-Boomers, in particular, come from a more community-focused culture than those of us who grew up in the 80s or 90s. Competition wasn't about beating your opponent down and taunting him with "lol, you suck!" or rubbing your score in someone's face. They had winners and losers (often, in a stronger form than we're used to), but they laughed together and were not so personally divided during the heat of gameplay.
Co-op gameplay is a great path even for non-gamers other than the older generation. Someone is infinitely more likely to try a new passtime if he or she can do it together with you... if it's an experience you can share, but not an experience in which you the trained expert are going at quarter-speed with the hopeless amateur. And, as I've written elsewhere, co-op doesn't have to take the form of two equals. Offer depthful roles, but also offer simpler-but-valuable support roles.
Co-op, competitive, or otherwise. However you do it, being able to share your experiences is absolutely pivotal to any form of entertainment.
4) TRUE DEPTH AND VALUE
Games are only beginning to explore real drama (as opposed to melodrama) and have hardly approached deeper meanings. If you want to see the day when games are taken as seriously as movies, then make games that are as serious as movies.
Going back the Baby-Boomers, they didn't grow up on all this "to each his own" philosophy and "you pick the meaning" style of storytelling. They grew up with certainty, and a recognition of wisdom and experience outside one's self. The stories they respond to involve concrete messages.
It's true, games are more tightly censored than other media. But let's be honest, it's still possible to create depthful settings and stories in ways that those censors can swallow. How? Look back to those old black-and-white films. You can tackle themes concerning sex and violence without explicitly showing the sex and violence. You can say whatever you want to say if you're smart enough (and humble enough) to phrase the message in the right way.
The majority of the top-grossing films in the history of American cinema have been films with strong, certain, and obvious messages. Through similar storytelling, developers can reach veteran gamers and non-gamers alike. Video games are suited toward a different method of storytelling, but are capable of at least equal depth and cultural influence.
Anyway, so that's my rant about this "casual games" craze. The people who aren't buying Frogger-style games right now won't be buying the next generation of Frogger-style games either. Attracting new gamers isn't just about simplicity, ease, and a complete lack of time investment. Non-gamers aren't primitives. The key to their hearts isn't through primitive games.
The two upcoming games with the highest likelihood of attracting non-gamers into the fold are Will Wright's Spore and Peter Molyneux's Fable 2 (even if it is on a gamer console, it will at least grab non-gamer media attention and maybe some gaming visitors).
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Unexplored Settings
I attended the Austin Game Conference this week. There, I met a few fellow Texans and a lady from LSU, but most of the attendees I spoke with were from out of the state...usually California or Canada. That was predictable, of course, but it led me to a saddening notion.
The South, particularly the Gulf Coast, my cultural homeland, doesn't seem to have been the setting of any game I've played in 20+ years. Sure, GTA was once set in Miami, but that's hardly Southern culture, right?
It's not that this demographic has been completely ignored. We are, afterall, typically big sports fans, and there has never been a great shortage of decent sports titles available. Military games usually include someone with a Southern dialect, though his dialectual culture rarely enters into the equation. But is the industry really so young that games with settings equivalent to those of movies like Big Fish and Just Cause are understandably non-existent?
This doesn't only apply to the South, of course. Midwestern culture also seems to get lost in the shuffle. I had to raise an eyebrow when I found out that the midwest was producing a high-publicity game, but that game would be a GTA copycat!
Then there's the most stunning lost demographic of all...Baby Boomers!
As my retiring 58-year-old father pointed out to me, after being scolded by me for not being into video games, the Baby Boomer generation is moving into retirement. They've seen many affluent years, they've got a lot of money stashed in their pockets, and they've been conditioned to sit around and watch TV all day long. Conclusion? They're bored to tears and practically begging the game industry for something their style.
But what has the industry offered them? They like the simple arcade games on Yahoo and MSN, but how about something more depthful? Destroy All Humans is set in an era they could understand, but anal probes are not humor of their generation.
Look at the settings of Hitchcock, John Wayne, Cary Grant and Humphrey Bogart. Where are the Cold War games?
For some such games, a significant barrier is the industry's preference for combat-oriented games, as Damion Schubert pointed out at the AGC. For others, the barrier is the nature of our combat systems, which Peter Molyneux has determined to highlight in London. But these barriers can be overcome and, if they are, millions of new consumers await.
We should not let the goal of cross-cultural game design blind us to the desire of current and potential gamers to embrace the comfort and inclinations of their own culture.
The South, particularly the Gulf Coast, my cultural homeland, doesn't seem to have been the setting of any game I've played in 20+ years. Sure, GTA was once set in Miami, but that's hardly Southern culture, right?
It's not that this demographic has been completely ignored. We are, afterall, typically big sports fans, and there has never been a great shortage of decent sports titles available. Military games usually include someone with a Southern dialect, though his dialectual culture rarely enters into the equation. But is the industry really so young that games with settings equivalent to those of movies like Big Fish and Just Cause are understandably non-existent?
This doesn't only apply to the South, of course. Midwestern culture also seems to get lost in the shuffle. I had to raise an eyebrow when I found out that the midwest was producing a high-publicity game, but that game would be a GTA copycat!
Then there's the most stunning lost demographic of all...Baby Boomers!
As my retiring 58-year-old father pointed out to me, after being scolded by me for not being into video games, the Baby Boomer generation is moving into retirement. They've seen many affluent years, they've got a lot of money stashed in their pockets, and they've been conditioned to sit around and watch TV all day long. Conclusion? They're bored to tears and practically begging the game industry for something their style.
But what has the industry offered them? They like the simple arcade games on Yahoo and MSN, but how about something more depthful? Destroy All Humans is set in an era they could understand, but anal probes are not humor of their generation.
Look at the settings of Hitchcock, John Wayne, Cary Grant and Humphrey Bogart. Where are the Cold War games?
For some such games, a significant barrier is the industry's preference for combat-oriented games, as Damion Schubert pointed out at the AGC. For others, the barrier is the nature of our combat systems, which Peter Molyneux has determined to highlight in London. But these barriers can be overcome and, if they are, millions of new consumers await.
We should not let the goal of cross-cultural game design blind us to the desire of current and potential gamers to embrace the comfort and inclinations of their own culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
