Crusading against the hardcore...

[Ady]

These 'cool' people getting interested for the first time. We should see them as new members, not invaders. After they've played a bit of FIFA introduce them to ISS. After they've played a bit of Tomb Raider introduce them to Ico. After they've played a bit of WipeOut introduce them to F-Zero.

I don't think anyone really objects to new gamers (that really would be elitist snobbery). The bone of contention here is the market (particularly the pusblishers who seem to drive it) courting newer gamers at the expense of other tastes, hence the constant concerns about dwindling innovation and an over reliance on franchises and sequels.

At the end of the day, it's really all about personal taste, and no-one, regardless of experience has a right to impose their own personal tastes on another, but its plain to see that the market seems to be feeding one type of player and starving the other (and the press now seems to be encouraging it to its own ends). As such, the resentment from people who've been into gaming a long time is understandable. It's a bit like a group of people coming into your house*, deciding its now theirs and kicking you out onto the street. A form of gaming imperialism and colonisation if you will.

*I use this for want of a better analogy - not suggesting that gaming 'belongs' to any group as such.

[Scythe]

Whilst I feel that the viewpoints in this thread are fully justified and I do agree with the sentiment I can't help but think people are romanticising slightly.

The industry is currently trying to expand, how do they do this? Appeal to the mass market, ape the film industry, produce blockbuster titles, get WOM on the streets. People like us who have a knowledge of the scene and have been into gaming for years are a captive, stagnant market and for the industry to grow unfortunately they must appeal to the lowest common denominator, like the film and music industry...

We all feel protective over things we love I feel it about games, movies, music etc. and it pisses me off when the past is conveniently forgot and all the things you held dear are becoming commercialised and spoiled, its human nature...you do have a choice, and we are making it, the fact this forum exists, the fact we don't take what we're force fed by the market, we go out and look for interesting and exemplary examples of the artform, thats our choice, and at the end of the day, its all we can do.

Don't blame the industry for trying to grow, its only doing what joe public wants....its probably gonna get worse before it gets better!

[Shevek]

As regards to your point about analytical study, I'm not sure I agree with that. I struggle to see how sober theorising could make for better gaming experiences. At worst, we'd probably end up with real elitism, what with the academics championing only the types of gaming they consider worthwhile (as they did with music, proclaiming classical to be the 'highest form' or some such nonsense). Or maybe I've misunderstood you.

Partly, academic study of a medium (if undertaken properly) enriches the understanding of its content. This could be implemented in an elitist fashion, but what I propose would be based around a more mature and inclusive line of thinking.

Moreover it would be focused around game design elements, rather than the games themselves. The medium needs to be dissected on some level because games design has lost its way I feel. On the one hand we have inclusive but vapid games, next to exclusive and incredibly deep opae. As you very astutely mentioned, the former is trying to bring the latter into line. This is not the way forward for gaming, and a crash will occur if it is not corrected (history does have a habit of repeating itself).

[Squirtle]

My, personal, take on this issue is that gaming needs to become an analytical, empirical and quantitative subject for academic study. The medium needs to have beacon of analytical standard. Not only for the press but also for the education of the management within the industry.

Film studies and literary studies have been around for many years. It doesn't stop 90% of all books and films being absolute garbage.

Analytical study will not solve the problem that is being discussed here.

[Shevek]

Film studies and literary studies have been around for many years. It doesn't stop 90% of all books and films being absolute garbage.

Analytical study will not solve the problem that is being discussed here.

Indeed, but at least it would bring the problem out where everybody can see it. It will not solve our predicament, merely present it as it is (rather than the smoke and mirrors that we have had to endure as of late).

[Bowser]

Great discussion here, I think this has really captured the zeitgeist (and the problem as well as the spirit of the times).
The industry has grown enormously over the past few years and needs to maintain or expand its market. The hardcore niche is small and already saturated - look at the number of MMORPGs there are for instance, all requiring huge amounts of time, money and patience, and all competing for the same relatively small userbase - so the publishers 'know' they must expand into other areas.
Other areas such as mobile gaming, licensing tie-ins, and of course capturing the 'mainstream'. I don't think it's right to blame anyone for the situation, to a certain extent the games industry is the victim of its own success, and is now trying to contain the 'bust' after the 'boom'.
The healthiest thing possible for the market IMHO would be a levelling of sales - for the gap between the hits & misses to lessen a little. This would reduce risks associated with new original properties, and lessen the appeal of sequels and 'me too' games.
How to achieve this though? Well, for what it's worth, I'd like to see more 'raw' gameplay. Amazing graphics, gloss and blockbuster production values take a *lot* of time and money to achieve, yet most titles nowadays seem to think they require them, to stand any chance of being a hit. The thing is though... I'm sure the hardcore gamer doesn't really need them, and I'm not even sure that the casual gamer does... Sure, graphical razzle-dazzle will win a few sales, but there's no way Championship Manager, Pokemon, or The Sims remain in the charts month after month based on 'gloss'.
I'd like to see a stronger emphasis on developing the game, and leaving the presentation and production values alone for a while. I'd hope that the casual / hardcore divide is - in some senses - a false one when it comes to market importance. The casual gamer buys the blockbusters because those are the ones he's heard of. I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if the titles he or she was being sold - by adverts, by point of sale material, by shop assistants - was fresh, original and 'raw' in terms of presentation. Judging by the enormous success of Dance Dance Revolution, I'd hazard a guess that the casual and hardcore tastes aren't so different after all.

[Shevek]

Found a particularly pertinent quote from Parky:

Journalism is not meant to exist beyond the moment it endeavours to explain. Its only other purpose is to provide the wrapping for fish and chips.

[tssk]

At the end of the day, it's really all about personal taste, and no-one, regardless of experience has a right to impose their own personal tastes on another, but its plain to see that the market seems to be feeding one type of player and starving the other.

But still we see games like Pikmin, Ico, Frequency, Wario Ware coming out. And innovations like the Eye-Toy.

Take a look at the past using an emulator. I can assure you that 90% of games released are dross. I remember being worried in the 90's that gaming would be swamped by side scrolling platform games. Two years ago it was RTS. Now it's FPS games. And soon, I predict a flood of GTA clones.

I doubt though that we are heading for a crash of Atari like proportions.

Getting back to magazines though, I am worried about the low standard of reviewing we seem to be inflicted with when compared to years past. How many magazines are truely on the side of the consumer?

[Squirtle]

Film studies and literary studies have been around for many years. It doesn't stop 90% of all books and films being absolute garbage.

Analytical study will not solve the problem that is being discussed here.

Indeed, but at least it would bring the problem out where everybody can see it. It will not solve our predicament, merely present it as it is (rather than the smoke and mirrors that we have had to endure as of late).

Hmm, but surely wrapping up gaming in a language that most people can't understand (film studies - I'm looking at you!) is just a different kind of smoke and mirrors?

To me, analysing why something is fun takes all the fun out of it. Why was playing War as a kid fun? Why was playing tig, blue boy or british bulldog? Yes, you could analyse what makes it fun but in doing so, you suck the enjoyment right out of it and leave a stale, and frankly dull, husk.

This is why i think that too deep an analytical study of games is not a good thing.

[Concept]

Are you honestly telling me that academic analysis in films and music has hampered your enjoyment of these mediums?

I think academia can help streamline and ultimately simplifiy the process to do with design and management of videogaming. Treble pointed it out a while ago with a quote that went something along the lines of:

"We're fumbling around in the dark without a light right now".

There are so many different terms and ideas floating about that it becomes hard to differentiate between one line of thought from the next sometimes, even if they happen to be expressing the same point.

Standardising a framework with which we can form some kind of anaylsis is merely logical in my point of view. People like to uncover and understand things... It's a part of human nature.

To me, just saying that it's "fun" what makes us come back doesn't take into account the full diversity which makes people play with games. Dedication, skill, fear, involvement, happiness, joy, anger and sadness, to name but a few can all be a part of games.

Looking at the way videogames are made from different interpretative points of view, and streamlining and defining them, will only help clarification and classification be made easier.

It's like being aware of a toolbox, but not knowing which tool should be called what, and what they should be used for.

[Wools]

People who genuinely care about gaming don't relish seeing their hobby hijacked by people who would've never touched a controller had they not been told it was 'cool' to do so. People who genuinely care about gaming don't like seeing imaginative ideas compromised by greedy publishers who encourage developers to lazily beat the same old, tired ideas into the ground just to fill their own pockets. But hey, it's a popular franchise. Hey it looks pretty. That's what matters, surely? You disagree? Well, you're just an elitist twat. You're just holding things back. Shut up.

I actually found this month's Edge depressing - particularly the E3 DVD. Gaming has grown for sure, it's certainly bigger and more bombastic than its ever been, but it hasn't grown up at all. Gaming hasn't matured, it has just become obese.

Bring on the crash I say. Then we can start again.

There's hundreds of gaming genres to be found.
Develoers are becoming more experinced and new ones are poping up.
Publishers are becoming more risk taking.
Publishers that arent are dying out.
Movie licences (Rambo wasent the best movie tie in after GoldenEye) are better than there 8 bit, 16 bit counterparts.
The ratio of good to bad games is still even.

Choose good games.
Choose your favourite hardware.
Choose what magazine you want to buy.
Choose not to criticise every move the industry makes.
Choose Ico, Rez, Monkey ball, Halo, Jet set radio, advance wars.

Choose life. And mellow out while your at it.

[Ady]

I'm not sure where I stand on this but I'm with Squirtle in that I think trying to dissect and analyse why gaming is fun is somewhat counter-productive.

I'm also wary of the idea of academia-informed standardisation. IMO, anything that tries to apply a rigid set of rules to a creative process (which is what game creation is at the end of the day - or at least should be) ends up sucking the soul out of it.

[Concept]

It's not about applying a rigid set of rules. It's about learning and understanding the creative process.

How can that be a bad thing?

Like I said, if it's not your thing, then ignore any academic advances.

[Squirtle]

Are you honestly telling me that academic analysis in films and music has hampered your enjoyment of these mediums?

Too damn right it did. 2 years of communication studies, 2 years of an ND in media, 1 year of a HND in film/tv/video and then a three year degree in media specialising in film studies left me with nothing but hatred for the whole media industry. I used to love films before i studied them to death. I couldn't look at them without thinking, "oh, that's a nice edit," or, "He's crossed the line there," or, "Nice mise-en-scene, mr Scorsese." It just got too much and i found i wasn't enjoying what had been my favourite pastime any longer. I don't want video gaming to go the same way.

I think academia can help streamline and ultimately simplifiy the process to do with design and management of videogaming. Treble pointed it out a while ago with a quote that went something along the lines of:

"We're fumbling around in the dark without a light right now".

There are so many different terms and ideas floating about that it becomes hard to differentiate between one line of thought from the next sometimes, even if they happen to be expressing the same point.

Standardising a framework with which we can form some kind of anaylsis is merely logical in my point of view. People like to uncover and understand things... It's a part of human nature.

To me, just saying that it's "fun" what makes us come back doesn't take into account the full diversity which makes people play with games. Dedication, skill, fear, involvement, happiness, joy, anger and sadness, to name but a few can all be a part of games.

Looking at the way videogames are made from different interpretative points of view, and streamlining and defining them, will only help clarification and classification be made easier.

It's like being aware of a toolbox, but not knowing which tool should be called what, and what they should be used for.

I still stand by my thoughts. I can appreciate where you are coming from, and that for the makers of games it is of fundemental importance to understand the basics of making a good game. But take this to its logical end and I can also envisage a time when - and with the franchise heavy, risk aversion market we currently find ourselves in it may not be too far away - a game is assembled from a series of set blocks with very little original thought 'outside of the box'. Great, we can streamline it anfd classify it better because its been made with our ready labelled set of tools, but I'd like to see a game like Ico, Rez or Pikmin, hell even Jet Set Radio, come from a gestation period where creativity is nothing more than a set of gaming blocks to stick together.

[Sketcz]

After reading the opinions and facts on the latest EDGE, I did a search for topics, with various words in them, and unearthed this absolute gem of a topic.

Read all of it hurriedly, well written and interesting, and though I dont agree with everything, some great points mentioned. This shouldnt really die, especially since Im getting that distinct anti-serious-gamer feeling again.

Though the best has to be this post by Ady, filled with some very insightful remarks.

As much as I usually enjoy Edge, its recent trend for picking on the so-called 'hardcore' is starting to grate somewhat. It almost feels forced, an attempt to stir controversy and make the mag accessible to more 'casual' players to shift more units.

People who genuinely care about gaming don't relish seeing their hobby hijacked by people who would've never touched a controller had they not been told it was 'cool' to do so. People who genuinely care about gaming don't like seeing imaginative ideas compromised by greedy publishers who encourage developers to lazily beat the same old, tired ideas into the ground just to fill their own pockets. But hey, it's a popular franchise. Hey it looks pretty. That's what matters, surely? You disagree? Well, you're just an elitist twat. You're just holding things back. Shut up.

I actually found this month's Edge depressing - particularly the E3 DVD. Gaming has grown for sure, it's certainly bigger and more bombastic than its ever been, but it hasn't grown up at all. Gaming hasn't matured, it has just become obese.

The same fundamentally adolescent concepts are being pimped harder than ever, and now Hollywood wants to use gaming as a vehicle to support its own franchises even more. It really doesn't seem to be about creatives making wonderfully imaginative and playable games anymore. It's all about superficial, vapid 'entertainment', and that's what really concerns me.

Bring on the crash I say. Then we can start again.

I noticed particularly the stagnation with games when voting for the best of 2003.
I surprised myself with what I voted for, and actually had alot of trouble picking worthwhile titles. Plenty of "good" games, but few drop dead games that showed real ingenuity or that original sparkle we all love.

In the end I voted the same 4 games into various catagories, maybe Im narrow minded, but when a long time gamesplayer cant even name a full list of exciting refreshing games for the year, then its not a good sign.

Well, Im worried about it anyway.

Gaming better than ever they say, but inside it doesnt feel like it.
That little burst of endorphins isnt quite the same anymore.

Still, on a brighter side, Capcoms open minded "hardcore-serious-gamer" attitude to releasing games is nice and fresh.
VJ, K7, PN03, GF... a couple of mold breakers methinks.

Anyway, Im off to sleep, Ill see if anyones taken interest in this topic tomrorow.