"I, Gamer" Article Reflecting on Gamers (from Kotaku)

[Elesirdur]

Just finished reading this and thought it was worthy of posting over here. The author does raise a good point about the somewhat insular writing in game reviews, but I'm disappointed that she said nothing about the role of a critic or reviewer in saying if someone will 'like' a game. I'm of the opinion that telling the reader that the will, or will not, 'like' a game is not the purview of the critic; that is up to the player to decide for themselves. The critic should analyse and deconstruct the game and discuss its finer points. Bluntly saying that someone will like a game or hate it not only removes the need for any kind of deeper critique, but is also slightly unethical of the author to do so.

We expect from our modern media that they keep some shred of objectivity, even if subjective opinions (which can never be escaped by humans) are expressed in subtle terms. Personally, I can no more accept a serious game critic telling me that I will like or hate a game in his or her review as I would the New York Times or the Globe & Mail overtly telling me who I should vote for in an election. Not only is that pretty unethical but it's also haughty as well; reviewers who start doing that just show how inflated their ego is that they have the ultimate answer. But then again, video gaming seems only third to political allegiance and old-school car manufacturer preference in the scope of rabid and irrational devotion to a person or product. Nevertheless, ethics in reviews vary wildly but I think they could use some tightening up.

New York City is difficult in the winter. Most residents still do much of their navigation on foot, and Manhattan's grid-like avenues and towering buildings can funnel the approaching winter's dry cold snaps into veritable wind tunnels. Coats never seem quite warm enough, and gloves make it clumsy to fumble for the little paper swipe card that gets me a train ride a few stops over to my nearest GameStop.

If you're like me, maybe you get a good feeling when you hit up a game store, a little rush of positive sentiment that goes beyond the familiar aura of shelves stocked with potential adventures still gleaming in their plastic. Especially now, as the Holiday shopping season starts to get underway, these stores are filled with people buying and trading games, just like you. In one shopper's hand you see a favorite title of yours, and the two of you make eye contact and smile, because you just know, you just get it, right?
Maybe not.

I can't remember what I was in to buy just a week or two ago when I happened up to the shelf alongside a customer holding Silent Hill: Homecoming, poring over the back of the box in a decidedly indecisive fashion. He caught me looking, and managed to make conversation.

"Do you know if this is good?" He asked, hesitantly, nearly immobilized by his dense parka.

Well, of course I know. I review games, and I was one of the few reviewers who really, really liked this one. I can barely resist launching into my spiel on all its good points and its flaws — so what I say instead, as a preface, is, "did you read any of the reviews?"

The consumer shakes his head slowly. He looks a little nervous - perhaps it's the fanatical gleam in my eye. But he should understand, right? Like, he's a gamer, right?

"I don't read any reviews, or anything," he says, looking like someone deftly trying to sidestep a Jehovah's Witness. He puts poor Homecoming back on the shelf, and later I see him get in line with SmackDown vs. RAW 2009 for PlayStation 2.

He doesn't read any reviews? Or anything?

Well, you can at least expect your local GameStop employees to be on your wavelength. Everyone's heard the stories about the long-suffering GameStop worker, especially as the holidays approach. They're already busy behind the counter here, and on another recent outing I came in for the second time in a month with a bushel full of trade-ins, and the register-worker recognized me.
"Got a lot of games again, huh?" He says cheerfully, going through the work of scanning my used titles through the system and crediting them toward my new ones. "Yep, you sure get a ton of stuff." He's looking at me curiously, as if wondering why should this gal come and go with so many games?

I begin to wonder if he thinks I'm casing stolen goods, or something, so I quickly find myself saying, "well, games are my job, so I've gotta… you know, keep up."

"You make games?" Asks the employee.

"No, I write about 'em," I reply, cheerfully. And he looks at me like he's waiting for more information, so I add, "like… on Kotaku."

"On what?" The scanner machine continues whirring and flashing as he rings me up.

"Kotaku," I say.

"Is that, like, a website?"

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a world in which people do not know that Kotaku exists. And for the record, the GameStop employee, while he seemed perfectly knowledgeable about the titles in his store, doesn't know what GameSpot, IGN ,Edge or anything else of their ilk are, either.

The Strange Gap
And these incidents kept on happening to me - popping in and out of game stores in order to research this article, I quickly found that most people are unaware of the topics we discuss here every day. They know what Gears 2 is, perhaps, because they had the first one - but they don't know what Mirror's Edge is, they haven't gotten to hear about how awesome Left 4 Dead is, they don't know about the fire in Far Cry 2. They don't know that EA tried to buy Take-Two this year, they don't know that Nintendo is "abandoning the hardcore gamer," they don't see why it's a big deal that Final Fantasy XIII is coming out on Xbox 360.

In your average game store, customers do not read reviews. They do not post on forums, they have never been motivated to leave Amazon feedback just to "send a message," they do not blog. They do not know which publishers have poor reputations and which ones have good ones. They do not know the names of famous Japanese game designers; they might have Mario Kart Wii at home, but they do not know who Miyamoto is.

We often talk about how the life of a gamer is something of a lonely one - how the love of gaming still, even in the purported era of social acceptance, often feels like a personal secret, and how seeing, say, another DS in the crowd can feel like a private high-five. But according to recent NPD data, 13.7 million Americans own Wiis, 11.6 million own Xbox 360s, and 5.7 million own PlayStation 3s. Add those numbers up . Sure, some people might own more than one console, but more don't than do, so you can get even a rough idea of just how many people are playing video games just in the United States.

Now, think about ubiquitous pop sensation Rihanna. Chances are, all summer you heard her smash hit "Umbrella" more times than you wanted to. Lately you've probably heard her earworm "Disturbia" drift by you on the airwaves, piped in over the mall speakers or sung out loud by teens on the bus. Even if you're not into pop music, more likely than not you know of Rihanna's songs and would recognize her cute Bahamian face, even without being aware of it. You can tell it's a cultural sensation, even if it's not your culture, per se. But Rihanna's newest album, "Good Girl Gone Bad," which contains both of the songs I just mentioned, has sold only 6.2 million copies - and that's not just in America, that's around the world.

We're talking about a global smash music success that goes platinum several times - and it's only half as popular as the Wii in the U.S. alone, and only relatively slightly more popular than even the third-place PlayStation 3. So why is it that while everyone's heard of Rihanna, it seems like no one knows what Fallout 3 is when you're not at the computer?

The guy buying Smackdown vs. RAW could not be called a "casual" gamer. Neither can the GameStop employee who doesn't read video game websites. But perhaps what our online culture has taught us to expect from other "gamers" is a little bit skewed.

All of us "on here," within this world of ours, are not just in love with games - we're in love with the culture we've created around games, and that culture, obsessed with information related to our pastime, is only the most vocal minority at the tippy-top of a great big bell curve. Outside in the so-called "real world," away from our regular guildies, the folks with familiar forum handles, and the hundreds of comments spewing angry invective on the latest contentious review, there are millions of gamers in the world. They just aren't "culturalists" (cultists?) like us, and so we fail to recognize them.

Getting Lost
And it's convenient we were on the subject of music, because the difference between the fan and the cultist also appears in the music genre. There's often an assumption among music fans that you either read music mags religiously and talk about bands few people have heard of in terms few people can understand, our you're a Celine Dion-loving, mainstream-embracing plebian with nothing that could be called taste.

In fact, in music as with games, there is a great and broad-ranging middle ground; some music fans can be quite seriously into, say, indie music, without ascribing to all of the telltale tenets of modern-day "hipster" culture. But as with games journalism, writing about music is enormously bipolar - it's either designed to satisfy the most scrutinizing culturalist, or it's glossy MTV-ish pap about artists like, say, Rihanna.

Which is why I don't really read music articles at all, even though I buy several albums a week on iTunes and love to share undiscovered songs with my friends. But recently, I happened to notice that the elite Pitchfork Magazine had reviewed one of my new favorite albums, so out of curiosity, I decided to see what the review said. It called the album "inherently disjointed, very much the product of two distinct, if exceptional, songwriters," immediately compared the album to the two songwriters' prior work as separate acts, and also compared the album to the band's prior one.

I could barely puzzle out what a phrase like this means: "focused on skewing darker, on sounding nastier, more perilous, and less straightforward than its predecessor, with elaborate arrangements and, you know, no singles— translates into a lot of proggy diddling (and, ironically, less theremin). The approach yields predictably mottled results…"

In short, it was a mixed but fairly critical review of an album I love, rooted in comparisons to the artists' other work (which I also love, but supposing I'd never heard of 'em?). If I'd read this review first - well, I would have had to struggle a bit to understand the critic's language - but after that, I might have not wanted to buy the album. So because I neither possess nor relate to the critical vocabulary of a Pitchfork writer, high-end music reviews are fairly useless to me.

It occurred to me that this is how the "average" gamer - you know, the people in line at GameStop, the people who would never in a million years be reading this article - probably feels about game reviews, and the associated culture we've built around game websites. And that's why we don't know them, and they don't know us.

Different Things to Different People
That guy in the parka who wondered whether to buy Silent Hill: Homecoming probably doesn't read game reviews for the same reason I don't read music reviews; they would have told him all about the controls, the environment, the vibe and the themes, would have listed for him a raft of minor criticisms he'd never even notice, but wouldn't have told him anything about whether or not he'd like the game.

He doesn't need the extra facts, the peripheral humor, the sneak peeks we get from our favorite game sites. And he probably doesn't need the sense of community that we get from socializing, networking and sharing content with other elitists online - because he's got about millions of possible pals out there, average gamers just like himself, who are happy to just play with him and enjoy it.

"Oh hey," a shy girl who looks about my age notices that I've got my DS in my hand as I'm on my way out of the store. She's holding the new Tinkerbell DS game, she looks a little lost, and I can tell she's been hoping to ask another female for ideas. "Do you have this one?"

I tell her I don't; I tell her it's a game for kids. And she laughs a little, shrugs, makes a gesture that encompasses the entire store, as if to say, so? These are all just toys, aren't they? To some people, they are.

So yes, our existence is still somewhat a lonely one; we are in the minority, still. But it's not because we're gamers. It's not even because we're hardcore gamers. It's because we're such fanatical culturalists that we forget about the middle ground. Is it a divide we can bridge?

[Leigh Alexander is news director for Gamasutra, reviews games at Variety,and maintains her gaming blog, Sexy Videogameland. Her monthly column at Kotaku deals with cultural issues surrounding games and gamers. She can be reached at leighalexander1 AT gmail DOT com.]

[Arnwulf]

I enjoyed that article. And she's right, I work with a few "gamers", they don't even know the Konami code!

[arus2001]

Gotta admit, never heard of Kotaku until the whole PW incident.

Funnily enough, before I got into the internet, I used to read a lot of gaming mags like Gamepro, Gameplayers, Nintendo Power, etc.. And while I combed sites a bit after getting wired, I eventually lost interest in most reviews, pointless screenshots, or the who's who of the gaming world. I came to realize such things won't change how games are produced, what I like, and ultimately what I'd buy, or even rent if hesitant.

I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I wouldn't say I'm casual, either. I'm some kind of in-between with a familiarity of the industry, an aversion to fanboyisms, and ultimately wishing we'd see more RPGs since that's what got me hooked to begin with.

[Kohan]

Just finished reading this and thought it was worthy of posting over here. The author does raise a good point about the somewhat insular writing in game reviews, but I'm disappointed that she said nothing about the role of a critic or reviewer in saying if someone will 'like' a game. I'm of the opinion that telling the reader that the will, or will not, 'like' a game is not the purview of the critic; that is up to the player to decide for themselves. The critic should analyse and deconstruct the game and discuss its finer points. Bluntly saying that someone will like a game or hate it not only removes the need for any kind of deeper critique, but is also slightly unethical of the author to do so.

Even if in brief, I do believe that topic was covered within this paragraph:

That guy in the parka who wondered whether to buy Silent Hill: Homecoming probably doesn't read game reviews for the same reason I don't read music reviews; they would have told him all about the controls, the environment, the vibe and the themes, would have listed for him a raft of minor criticisms he'd never even notice, but wouldn't have told him anything about whether or not he'd like the game.

The entirety of the article does indeed detail why websites like IGN aren't breaking through to the mass audience. Their average article is too long, too dry, and generally inaccessible to most -- gamers included, as it's several pages of filler, gripping to no one and there merely to bring in additional traffic.

I do disagree, however, on the subject of a reviewer closing their article by commenting whether the end user will like the game or not. If the reviewer is familiar enough with the material in question, and perhaps even the fan base associated with it, I believe they can make a fair judgment -- just as well, if their article has been clear and elaborate (while not dragging on for too long), a reader may decide nonetheless that they'd like to give the game a go.

This could, potentially, bring us into the whole argument over whether review scores/ratings are a good idea. Many people, including some within the industry, believe they are unnecessary. I am a journalist in this industry, and I don't like them. Hell, I often forget to include them when I've turned in my work, and have to add them later on.

Really, too few writers seem to fully understand who they are writing for. If you are writing for the masses, your article should be concise and accessible -- if you're catering to an enthusiast crowd, you can and should use the terminology they expect, and should cut out the mess they don't care about. A lot of the editors on IGN simply write and write and write with no one in mind, really amusing no one aside from themselves, and yet, this is viewed as the standard -- this is the largest site and a big part of the reason gaming journalism gets little respect.

Add to that the utter failure of many of its writers to thoroughly research whatever they're writing about, and the whole thing comes off as painfully amateurish, just a mess.

[BRP]

I agreed until

The guy buying Smackdown vs. RAW could not be called a "casual" gamer. Neither can the GameStop employee who doesn't read video game websites. But perhaps what our online culture has taught us to expect from other "gamers" is a little bit skewed.

Actually they could be. Judging from the details on her story alone they should be. I think she is completely wrong in this respect.

People are mixing up casuals with nongamers.

I've written a lot about this in this post and it is basically not important to the subject... so I decided to spoiler it. Click the spoiler if you want to hear me talk about nongamers vs casuals vs gamers.

Spoiler: show

Nongamers play nongames like Wiifit and Wii Sports and maybe tamper with real games but never at any moderate detail. I don't think you'll find a nongamer thinking about the damage properties of Ryu's fireball compared to his uppercut, but you can say they've played Street Fighter II. To put it simply, they do not even measure. They are simply outside the entire equation.

Casuals are people who play games with a sense of understanding, but lack the experience and/or the enthusiasm to gain the experience that is required to truly understand games and the world of games. While nongamers make almost no attempt, casual gamers simply don't make a large enough attempt. This usually means they play very few games and that their taste of games and genres are unrefined. You can put a vast majority of MMO players into the category of Casual because 50% of the time they are not actually playing a game and the other 50% of the time is usually the time they will be playing any game in a months time.

From what I've seen a good deal of Kotakus viewership is split at being casual and the lower area of the so-called "gamer" tier. This includes a good deal of their editors, but I can't really say much for all of them. There is about 0 "hardcore gamer" content on Kotaku. If there is any, I have never seen it. Destructoid is the same way and are deluded in thinking they are the "HARDCOREZ."

Continuing with her concept of calling people who read websites "gamers"...

Reading reviews or not really doesn't separate you from the "rest." What is important is understanding the nature of reviews. Otherwise all you are doing is having someone tell you their opinion and you (sometimes) eating it up. Same for messageboards.

Right now you go onto a site like Gamespot or IGN and you get reviews that are dumbed down. This is so people who don't understand reviews can eat them up. Sites who do not do this will often get complaints saying that "their points are unclear or "include too much unnecessary details." What these complaints are really saying is "Your review makes me think." The purpose of reviews nowadays are not to make people think, just to tell them what to think. So it really doesn't matter if you read reviews or not.


I think she is right about almost everything she says in the comparison to music, but again she misses a very big point. That middle ground is what's being reported, not so much the cultist.

[Kohan]

Actually they could be. Judging from the details on her story alone they should be. I think she is completely wrong in this respect.

People are mixing up casuals with nongamers.

I agree with both of your points. There are plenty of people who don't read websites who are enthusiastic and knowledgeable, just as there are IGN readers who don't know dick about the industry.

And she shouldn't have been so surprised few people have heard about Kotaku -- it isn't as if anyone goes there for a good read. I wouldn't really be so shameless about saying I wrote for them, as they're basically the garbage bin of game blogging.

I've written a lot about this in this post and it is basically not important to the subject... so I decided to spoiler it. Click the spoiler if you want to hear me talk about nongamers vs casuals vs gamers.

[...]

Although I did read the contents of your spoilered-out post, I have to say that I do disagree with those. You don't have to be so intense as to study exact damage numbers and similarly minute details to be considered a real gamer. When you use the terms "nongamers" and "casuals," you seem to be using them interchangeably -- correct me if I'm wrong on that.

People who play "Wii Sports," cell phone games, and a game like "World of Warcraft" with only a middle-ground infatuation -- I would call them casual gamers. They're the kind of people who like little Java games, puzzlers, "Myst," et cetera, but usually don't care about much else. They are gamers and they deserve respect as such, but they definitely fall into the "casual" category.

Honestly, the term "hardcore gamer" is one I take issue with, as people have all sorts of different judging sticks they use, and in the end it's all a matter of e-peen argument. If you have fairly comprehensive knowledge pertaining to multiple genres, can play almost anything thrown at you at least competently, and enjoy playing at your best through research and attentiveness, I would say that qualifies as "hardcore."

If you're any more invested than that, you're an enthusiast.

Continuing with her concept of calling people who read websites "gamers"...

[...]

Right now you go onto a site like Gamespot or IGN and you get reviews that are dumbed down. This is so people who don't understand reviews can eat them up. Sites who do not do this will often get complaints saying that "their points are unclear or "include too much unnecessary details." What these complaints are really saying is "Your review makes me think." The purpose of reviews nowadays are not to make people think, just to tell them what to think. So it really doesn't matter if you read reviews or not.

I'd argue against this as well, as while GameSpot and IGN's reviews can be very poorly written (the latter more so than the former, usually), they are not "dumbed down" -- many of the writers simply aren't capable of churning out good work. The only reason one of their articles is dumb is because they are, as they have no journalistic integrity, no desire to spit out anything better than what you'd read on a message board (which you alluded to).

As a matter of fact, the sheer size of them makes them completely inaccessible to the average gamer. It's a snooze fest, with paragraphs that drone on and on about nothing, or meticulously detail things that the average person won't care about. And what happens in the end? They're bashed anyway.

I think she is right about almost everything she says in the comparison to music, but again she misses a very big point. That middle ground is what's being reported, not so much the cultist.

"Middle ground" does sound right to me, though. I believe, in general, that we probably have similar feelings about a fair amount of these issues. Enthusiast sites and magazines are what I prefer to read because I'm their target audience, middle-ground gamer sites like IGN and GameSpot are acceptable for whatever those don't cover, and other shit... I don't bother.

Also, if I want game industry news, I visit Gamasutra and other sources, not GameSpot's blog or Kotaku.

[BRP]

When you use the terms "nongamers" and "casuals," you seem to be using them interchangeably -- correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Actually I am specifically not. I consider them two very different things. That whole spoiler part was just me contrasting them.

Honestly, the term "hardcore gamer" is one I take issue with, as people have all sorts of different judging sticks they use, and in the end it's all a matter of e-peen argument. If you have fairly comprehensive knowledge pertaining to multiple genres, can play almost anything thrown at you at least competently, and enjoy playing at your best through research and attentiveness, I would say that qualifies as "hardcore."

Granted. Hardcore isn't exactly the best word for this, but unfortunately it is the term everyone uses to opposite casual. Depending on your definition you could say the dude who has played everything as hardcore or the autistic shut-in who has played 1200 hours of Busby 3D hardcore. Saying the latter isn't HARDCORE is kind of hard itself.

I'd argue against this as well, as while GameSpot and IGN's reviews can be very poorly written (the latter more so than the former, usually), they are not "dumbed down" -- many of the writers simply aren't capable of churning out good work. The only reason one of their articles is dumb is because they are, as they have no journalistic integrity, no desire to spit out anything better than what you'd read on a message board (which you alluded to).

I can't deny this entirely, but I don't think it is all unintentional. I believe basic things are purposely absent in these reviews.

I was looking up reviews for Super Street Fighter Turbo II HD Remix. It was after writing the post in this thread and I thought I would test something. I believed not a single one of these reviews would mention WHY sirlin's(game designer, proclaimed "balancer", of the game) balances are good and they wouldn't mention anything about Spacing either(Spacing is probably THE most important aspect of many fighters and it couldn't be truer for SFII). Well I couldn't find any details about the balancing beyond that it had happened. And I could find one instance of the word space. It was in sentence that went like this "tips on... space control can be found in the tutortial mode." Like balance changes, they mentioned it existed, but not how it is handled.

You don't have to be so intense as to study exact damage numbers and similarly minute details to be considered a real gamer.

I think you misunderstood me here.

The fireball and uppercut: These are two very different attacks with very different uses. What isn't too important is the exact damage numbers but rather the (tactical) value of the moves and their difference. People who care about actual numbers are those in the "hardcore"/"enthusiast" camp or very close to it. Nongamers think "PRETTY MOVE!". Casuals might make only obvious or direct observations, like their hitboxes. It's only when people start getting a little serious where they see beyond the attack itself and they start putting the pieces together. Perhaps I should have said "properties" instead of "damage properties."

[Kohan]

Granted. Hardcore isn't exactly the best word for this, but unfortunately it is the term everyone uses to opposite casual. Depending on your definition you could say the dude who has played everything as hardcore or the autistic shut-in who has played 1200 hours of Busby 3D hardcore. Saying the latter isn't HARDCORE is kind of hard itself.

Right, and this is part of the reason I've such a distaste for the term. There's no turning back the clock and preventing its use, but I too often find people applying the hardcore label strictly to people who are, truthfully, enthusiasts. It's the same difference between people who appreciate a wide variety of cars and love to drive them, and the people who can build one from the first piece on up.

I can't deny this entirely, but I don't think it is all unintentional. I believe basic things are purposely absent in these reviews.

To some degree, this is true. There are certain terms that are discouraged, topics you're told to not discuss (and this doesn't strictly apply to IGN). Editors normally don't report on polygonal counts, or use other potentially polarizing terms and subjects. Anything that's viewed as "industry speak" is normally seen as a bad addition to an article, something that should best be left to the aforementioned enthusiast sorts.

Now, this is bad because if a writer is talented enough, they can use such a term within informative context that will enlighten the user to its meaning. You can use uncommon words and never confuse the reader if you wrap them up in an easy-to-understand package. This is a basic part of writing -- it disappoints me that regulations in the industry prevent people from exercising it.

There are other, less "internal" terms, but I think this does generally discuss the issue -- that many things are omitted which should not be, for one reason or another, to simplify and deaden the article. The problem of course is what this does to the article's quality. A talented writer can make due, but most of the writers out there are, well... not talented.

This is also difficult for me to discuss as I'm a writer in the same industry myself, and certainly, criticisms have been levied against me as well. However, a lot of these things -- especially the aforementioned matter of explaining things within context -- should not be barred.

I was looking up reviews for Super Street Fighter Turbo II HD Remix. It was after writing the post in this thread and I thought I would test something. I believed not a single one of these reviews would mention WHY sirlin's(game designer, proclaimed "balancer", of the game) balances are good and they wouldn't mention anything about Spacing either(Spacing is probably THE most important aspect of many fighters and it couldn't be truer for SFII). Well I couldn't find any details about the balancing beyond that it had happened. And I could find one instance of the word space. It was in sentence that went like this "tips on... space control can be found in the tutortial mode." Like balance changes, they mentioned it existed, but not how it is handled.

That is something I'd definitely expect from an enthusiast site, but not one like IGN. As a matter of fact, it's coincidental that you mentioned this, because one of the editors-in-chiefs that I write for is a very hardcore SF enthusiast. He and another member of the crew like to report on SF to a more meticulous degree than most, and they're not industry nobodies. He's worked with Game Informer, IGN, various other outlets, and is in general a media darling.

So this isn't exactly related to the topic, but here's one of his articles: Super SF II Turbo HD Remix Preview - The Next Level

It may at least give you an idea of his in-depth adoration for SF, even if it doesn't perhaps contain the exact things you're looking for (although he can and would write about them if he could put it in a good article -- TNL does not prohibit things like a lot of other outlets do).

I think you misunderstood me here.

The fireball and uppercut: These are two very different attacks with very different uses. What isn't too important is the exact damage numbers but rather the (tactical) value of the moves and their difference. People who care about actual numbers are those in the "hardcore"/"enthusiast" camp or very close to it. Nongamers think "PRETTY MOVE!". Casuals might make only obvious or direct observations, like their hitboxes. It's only when people start getting a little serious where they see beyond the attack itself and they start putting the pieces together. Perhaps I should have said "properties" instead of "damage properties."

Maybe (on the last statement), but I do understand what you're saying now.

[zoobernut]

Very interesting article. I agree with it that as gaming is becoming more mainstream and the idea of a "gamer" is becoming less of a cliche and less of a negative stigma, the types of gamers out there are changing and broadening. There are a lot of different types of gamers and we still try to categorize them as "hardcore" or "casual" pretty soon those terms will be outdated.

[Maxxthepenguin]

And it seems that few companies are trying to fix this problem. The ones that do seem to fall under 2 umbrellas: those that want to make games into the cultural equivalent of a summer blockbuster and those who want to create bridges.

The blockbuster makers are what most of the modern "AAA" games are. The "AAA" games are not defined by quality per say (World of Goo is not a "AAA" game but is better than most) but by the hype machine. The corporations hope people get swept up in the hype and, wanting to fit in and be with it, buy their game. The problems are twofold: first there are far more barriers of entry to experience a game than there are to a movie, book, or music and second the subject matter most games follow are not generally mainstream. The barriers of entry are undeniable: while it takes 3 minutes listening to the radio to catch a hit song, it takes 10+ hours on your own using an expensive device to experience the game. The subject matter is a bit more arguable, but still is a big problem. The fact is, not everybody is into roided up space marines shooting things, elves slashing things, or other fantasy/sci-fi archetypes that dominate gaming. Even the few things set in reality generally follow archetypal fantasy/sci-fi plots that don't appeal to everyone.

The other approach that companies are taking is the infamous Nintendo approach. They create a trojan horse of gaming mainstreamization and try to get people used to gaming conventions without forcing the sci-fi/fantasy tropes onto them. Wii Sports has no such plot and is not hardcore in any way, but has tremendous appeal because it is more easily related to. Where this has failed is it hasn't become the trojan horse that it was envisioned to be. People stop at the easily relatable things, not stepping into the hardcore territory. Despite only being one investment away from trying Metroid Prime: Corruption, they don't take that step and experience it because they just don't care about the subject matter.

These different approaches show different problems. I don't think gaming can be as ubiquitous as music since it will always require the additional investment of time and money, but it can be more culturally relevant than it is today. The first thing would be cutting down the barrier of entry. Nintendo has done this pretty well, but they still require the console purchase and large investments in every game. We need to cut costs significantly and make the games more available to play on devices people already have or can easily access. The future, to me, seems to be in PC and possibly "Console Arcades" that allow you to save progress online and log on anywhere to continue your game. We also need to expand the subjects and stories we get into. When we find ways to explore the subjects of love, loss, and other emotions better and more efficiently, we will find our medium expand. We need to find a way to make games about human triumph over adversity that doesn't involve violence. We need to find a way to express stories like those of Good Will Hunting or even those annoying love stories in a uniquely and powerfully "gaming way". The only genre that really has that potential in gaming at the moment is adventure (like "Sam and Max" or "Phoenix Wright") games and they are not especially mainstream (though they could be with clever game makers and marketing.)

Tl;dr: Until we find a way to better serve the public at large's interests, abilities, and budgets, gaming won't be as culturally important as we want it to be.

[Beckwin]

Games are at such a weird place now, socially. I see three general categories- casual, mainstream/brogamers, and gamers. This is where the music comparison in the article falters, because there isn't really a "casual" equivalent for music fans- there'd have to be a group of people whose only music listening/purchasing was atmospheric background music or something. Interestingly, the casual market, despite the shovelware, is arguably pushing gameplay further than the mainstream and is much less tied to narrative structure. The whole demographic of people who very casually play puzzle games on their computers or maybe have a wii in the livingroom is unique to gaming.

Then you have the mainstream (affectionately referred to as brogamers). This group is adequately compared by the article to the average music listener, and also I think the strictly-hollywood moviegoer. This gamer sticks to the comfortable, well-advertised, almost homogenous types of games- your space marine shooters, gta clones, sports sequels, etc. Not to say all those games are bad- in fact, some of them are very good- but they tend towards comfortable formulas (which are becoming banal to the hardcore and still not interesting to the casual) and rely on narratives. He'll deviate both ways in small to moderate amounts- he's got a copy of wii sports and maybe has Fable II or something. I don't put this guy in the "gamer" or hardcore category simply because of a lower information level/critical sophistication (as the article makes note of) and the fact that he's never gonna grab Okami or Valkyria Chronicles or Fallout1&2, despite the fact that they sit right next to Halo and Resistance and GTA in their local Gamestop. <- this is important!

The last category is the gamer/hardcore group. the hipsters of videogames (although inescapably less cool/romantic). I think the most important thing to say here is that the classic identifiers are worthless nowadays; guys you'd expect to be a brogamer at best can end up playing way more J-RPGs and indie PC games than you do- and can tell you all about them. Housewives are playing MMOs and Zelda and writing blogs about it or posting on forums.

I guess all that is sort of a retread of the article, but I think it's more valuable to make the clearer distinctions instead of trying to lump the first two or consider the hardcore/gamer crowd just a subset of the mainstream because both will shell out 60 bucks for a AAA title.

I guess the most interesting part to me about the videogame industry is how it's all sold and marketed. Like I noted earlier, the more obscure, hardcore oriented games are sitting right next to Halo3. This is markedly different from music or film, where you have to go rather out of your way to get a physical or digital copy- indie record stores, art house cinemas, IFC, dive bars and small venues, net-elitist torrent sites, etc. And aside from that, to even hear about a lot in film and music you need to make extra effort, whereas popular gaming mags/sites review just about everything barring indie PC titles (even if overall coverage isn't equal among titles) and yet again, you can check out the box at the store.

I'm not sure if gaming journalism is just shitty or if there's still too much stigma attached, or if it's just a matter of too many people settling for comfort and an independent scene that can't quite develop a game like 4 dudes in a garage can put out a record. A huge problem is the console monopoly and huge development costs to put out something that can hang with the 20 mil blockbusters- we're not at a point where lo-fi or 8mm in gaming is attractive enough to players, but I think we'll get there. We're "half way to who-gives-a-shit" when it comes to visual realism, so soon enough the visual direction will have to go outward instead of upward, which will hopefully result in cheaper dev costs (and maybe consumer costs as well?).

Max, you have an intersting point about the Good Will Hunting of games. But frankly, I don't see it happening in a Good Will Hunting fashion- if anything, it's going to happen in a more abstract context a la casual gameplay. You're right about adventure games providing the best avenue for a GWH equivalent right now, but the thing is, you're basically putting pictures and little animations to a choose your own adventure book, and losing control over narrative structure in the process. not to knock adventure games too hard, but I think trying to emulate the kind of writing and stories of film is going to inevitably fall short. As for other genres, you have the problem of making not-silly gameplay in the context of a not-silly story: how do you have gameplay of Will drinking with his buddies or sitting in the park when Robin Williams tells him how his wife died from cancer? You're basically forced to put the gameplay inbetween those key narrative events, and that means Niko is going carjacking to collect hidden packages.

[Maxxthepenguin]

A few things I want to point out:

I guess the most interesting part to me about the videogame industry is how it's all sold and marketed. Like I noted earlier, the more obscure, hardcore oriented games are sitting right next to Halo3. This is markedly different from music or film, where you have to go rather out of your way to get a physical or digital copy- indie record stores, art house cinemas, IFC, dive bars and small venues, net-elitist torrent sites, etc. And aside from that, to even hear about a lot in film and music you need to make extra effort, whereas popular gaming mags/sites review just about everything barring indie PC titles (even if overall coverage isn't equal among titles) and yet again, you can check out the box at the store.

Most movie review sites review tons of movies you are never going to hear of. The game equivalent of the unreviewed movies ARE the indie PC games and mods. Most albums are reviewed too. The difference is the gaming community lends itself to being obsessed with reviews because of the hardcore nature of it. Games also don't sit side by side in game stores any more than movie stores, the only difference is the primary market for games is more similar to the secondary market for movies, DVD sales.
You don't really need to make more effort to follow movies. You just have a smaller percentage of the movie watchers who want to follow the movies.

I'm not sure if gaming journalism is just shitty or if there's still too much stigma attached, or if it's just a matter of too many people settling for comfort and an independent scene that can't quite develop a game like 4 dudes in a garage can put out a record. A huge problem is the console monopoly and huge development costs to put out something that can hang with the 20 mil blockbusters- we're not at a point where lo-fi or 8mm in gaming is attractive enough to players, but I think we'll get there. We're "half way to who-gives-a-shit" when it comes to visual realism, so soon enough the visual direction will have to go outward instead of upward, which will hopefully result in cheaper dev costs (and maybe consumer costs as well?).

WORLD OF GOO DISAGREES.

Max, you have an intersting point about the Good Will Hunting of games. But frankly, I don't see it happening in a Good Will Hunting fashion- if anything, it's going to happen in a more abstract context a la casual gameplay. You're right about adventure games providing the best avenue for a GWH equivalent right now, but the thing is, you're basically putting pictures and little animations to a choose your own adventure book, and losing control over narrative structure in the process. not to knock adventure games too hard, but I think trying to emulate the kind of writing and stories of film is going to inevitably fall short. As for other genres, you have the problem of making not-silly gameplay in the context of a not-silly story: how do you have gameplay of Will drinking with his buddies or sitting in the park when Robin Williams tells him how his wife died from cancer? You're basically forced to put the gameplay inbetween those key narrative events, and that means Niko is going carjacking to collect hidden packages.

You don't give adventure games enough credit. They also can be a great framework to house many disparate forms of gameplay without having to shoehorn everything into one style. They also have their own narrative structure. Plots that work in adventure games frequently wouldn't work in other mediums. They could be adapted, sure, but adventure games thrive on details that don't translate well to other mediums. I've been playing the Sam and Max episodes for the past few days (HIGHLY recommended, funnier than you would believe) and I can tell you: the games thrive on being able to click on something and get an aside. The pacing is so different from other mediums that it has its own advantages and disadvantages that are not imitated.

I also don't say that adventure games are necessarily going to be what carries the plots with more mainstream appeal. I just say that they are pretty much the only genre that currently has the potential for a Good Will Huntingish story. A personal, touching story where you don't have to overthrow an evil person/company/government/whatever. A story that doesn't have far reaching implications on the world. A story that is personally relatable without being some sort of hero worship.

[LD]

If the reviewer understands that the seething consumption of information is the heart of a culture, what is she really expecting from the 'uncultured' and how is this any different than the other forms of entertainment? Much like the casual TV-watcher or film-goer, the true casual gamer isn't going to inform him/herself beyond the first impression. Most people don't read movie reviews, most people don't pay attention to TV reviews, no one pays attention to music reviews. Asking then to do so is asking them to be absorbed into that culture.

Conversely, not every movie, TV show, or song is going to attach itself to someone's brain, no matter how good it is or obnoxious it becomes. God knows there are games that shouldn't have graced the light of day and/or have been advertised to Hell & back, but we, as the video gaming culture, may not realize that the games we consider the peak of art may not be as dick-bendingly awesome as we think, and wont transcend all cultures, races, and creeds in a maelstrom of psychic harmony.

I think what we really want is for everyone to have some sort of opinion on the medium; you can talk about a movie and have a conversation with practically everyone, because even if they didn't see it, they probably saw something within the genre that they can compare it to. Music is even simpler, all you have to do is listen to a bit of something and you almost instantly have a valid opinion. However, that wont happen with video games, because video games take a commitment of time greater than 5 minutes, an hour, or 3 hours. Another problem is unlike the other forms of entertainment, a large part of the experience is engaging in it, and you can't run a clip of your hand-movements or thought-processes when fighting a ridiculously tough monster. That IS what demos are for, but you can't run a demo 50 times a day per channel on every channel.


I don't think the video gaming culture will get proportionately larger. I do that that video gaming will become more complex and that will probably have the desired effect.

[Kohan]

We need to find a way to express stories like those of Good Will Hunting or even those annoying love stories in a uniquely and powerfully "gaming way".

As you're interested in more unique games and have mentioned "World of Goo," I wonder, have you played this?

the Graveyard. A Tale of Tales..

I am considering proposing that I review this to my EIC; I do personally believe that titles like this deserve more attention.

[Beckwin]

Most movie review sites review tons of movies you are never going to hear of. The game equivalent of the unreviewed movies ARE the indie PC games and mods. Most albums are reviewed too. The difference is the gaming community lends itself to being obsessed with reviews because of the hardcore nature of it. Games also don't sit side by side in game stores any more than movie stores, the only difference is the primary market for games is more similar to the secondary market for movies, DVD sales.
You don't really need to make more effort to follow movies. You just have a smaller percentage of the movie watchers who want to follow the movies.

I think you might have misinterpreted... Valkyria Chronicles is currently sitting right next to Madden 09 in virtually every gaming retailer. Braid is sitting in XBL right next to everything else. Deerhunter is not sitting next to Fall Out Boy at major retailers. The latest Bollywood musical or Hong Kong drama or Sundance winner is not sitting next to Wall-E or Iron Man at major retailers or next to Twilight at major movie theaters. I'm trying to point out that there's no real barrier for actually experiencing the more hardcore/obscure titles like there is in music an movies- not talking about the journalism here. The only exception is the PC indie title/mod. I think it's a phenomena worth mentioning.

WORLD OF GOO DISAGREES.

Sadly, World of Goo is a rarity. As great as it and other semi-successful indie titles are, they're still very difficult/costly to produce and circulate.

You don't give adventure games enough credit. They also can be a great framework to house many disparate forms of gameplay without having to shoehorn everything into one style. They also have their own narrative structure. Plots that work in adventure games frequently wouldn't work in other mediums. They could be adapted, sure, but adventure games thrive on details that don't translate well to other mediums. I've been playing the Sam and Max episodes for the past few days (HIGHLY recommended, funnier than you would believe) and I can tell you: the games thrive on being able to click on something and get an aside. The pacing is so different from other mediums that it has its own advantages and disadvantages that are not imitated.

I also don't say that adventure games are necessarily going to be what carries the plots with more mainstream appeal. I just say that they are pretty much the only genre that currently has the potential for a Good Will Huntingish story. A personal, touching story where you don't have to overthrow an evil person/company/government/whatever. A story that doesn't have far reaching implications on the world. A story that is personally relatable without being some sort of hero worship.

Sorry if I came off too harsh towards adventure games; it wasn't really my point. The point is that I think you may need to look in new directions for what constitutes significance/innovation/art/culture when it comes to games, because I don't really feel like mimicking film is really gonna go off too well. Adventure certainly has potential for unique storytelling, sure, but until we get to VR/Holodeck kind of shit, abstraction is generally the name of the game in games, and in many respects there's a limit on what you can abstract into something that's fun for the player without being silly (which is perhaps why humor is gaining ground in games).

[Maxxthepenguin]

I think you might have misinterpreted... Valkyria Chronicles is currently sitting right next to Madden 09 in virtually every gaming retailer. Braid is sitting in XBL right next to everything else. Deerhunter is not sitting next to Fall Out Boy at major retailers. The latest Bollywood musical or Hong Kong drama or Sundance winner is not sitting next to Wall-E or Iron Man at major retailers or next to Twilight at major movie theaters. I'm trying to point out that there's no real barrier for actually experiencing the more hardcore/obscure titles like there is in music an movies- not talking about the journalism here. The only exception is the PC indie title/mod. I think it's a phenomena worth mentioning.

Valkyria Chronicles is a relatively mainstream title, in a sense. It has a built in audience. Over time, the separation between mainstream game and non-mainstream game does happen, but let's look at your specific examples to show the flaws in your reasoning. Braid was semi-heavily promoted by Microsoft and the gaming press and turned mainstream despite its indie development, kind of a gaming world Clerks (that's why I chose World of Goo instead; it had very little promotion and was almost all word of mouth. Soulja Boy aint gonna be playin World of Goo any time soon.) Bollywood and Hong Kong movies are regional; we don't have Japanese or Korean only games on our shelves, do we? Sundance is relatively well marketed and can be found in the independent sections of many video stores. Also remember: the cost in both time and money to experience an unconventional game is higher than the cost for a movie. People are less inclined to try new games of foreign concepts, only personal pressure is really effective in getting people to try new games, which is why Nintendo's methods have been so wildly successful in bringing new people into the fold and why all of the console makers focus on social aspects.

Sadly, World of Goo is a rarity. As great as it and other semi-successful indie titles are, they're still very difficult/costly to produce and circulate.

2.5 guys in a coffeehouse, personally made. It was all self-employed work. The cost of a game is largely the cost of hiring the people who worked on it. Afaik the WoG devs haven't gone into financials that heavily, but I'm sure it wasn't a huge cost.

Sorry if I came off too harsh towards adventure games; it wasn't really my point. The point is that I think you may need to look in new directions for what constitutes significance/innovation/art/culture when it comes to games, because I don't really feel like mimicking film is really gonna go off too well. Adventure certainly has potential for unique storytelling, sure, but until we get to VR/Holodeck kind of shit, abstraction is generally the name of the game in games, and in many respects there's a limit on what you can abstract into something that's fun for the player without being silly (which is perhaps why humor is gaining ground in games).

Storytelling is an important aspect for every medium. Adventure games are the current best avenue for involved plots that aren't implicit/retarded (hi Braid's ending). Also, adventure games are more heavily invested in quality story than any other type of game. They hinge on an involving story. Even JRPGs have character building that can be addicting without an involving story. Anyways, my main point about the adventure games is that they have a better ability to tell a less geeky plot than other genres.

Abstraction is important in every medium ever. EVER.


Also, my gaming plug of the now is Sam and Max Season 1 and 2. Play them and love them.