I’m going to discuss three main aspects related to my questions and this topic: The game design approach/ how the games are being made (“The Good”), The Business side of games/publishers (“The Bad”), and the players/target audience (“The Ugly” sorry I’m sure you’re beautiful really). Here I explain in more detail regarding these topics:
The Good (Game design approaches)
Looking at games these days, very few titles are future proof. The definition of “future proof” is a title/engine that is valued for years to come through via open game design, allowances for creativity, diversity of gameplay styles, etc. Halo 3 and Orange box (Half Life 2/Source engine with “Team fortress 2” and “portal” side projects) are good examples of “Future proof” titles but you look at titles in the same genre like “Call of duty 4” or “Stranglehold” which are fun but very current affairs which could be easily expanded or improved with a sequel but surely these titles would want to compete with the two Big H (Halo and Half-life) Brothers? Game designer wannabes (myself included) always debate whatever games outdate due to the continuous constant evolution of technology or the evolution of gameplay mechanics/ideals as we as games players demand?
I believe it is both, the evolution of gaming is pushed by these two factors which is why we are seeing a very transparent divide towards the approach of game design from game developers for what they're trying to achieve with their games. For an example, a good companion (which may not be fair to compare as they are very different in nature) would be Halo 3 and Call of duty 4, Halo 3 expands functionality and interactivity with it’s community based modes such as “forge” (level editor) and “theatre” (make your own video/you tube) modes appealing mostly to the dedicated gamer (hardcore) using advanced technology techniques in creative ways to bring new ideas (future proof design) to the table. Halo 3’s innovation design ideas don’t directly change the traditional gameplay/mechanics for shooters (or halo in fact) but certainly changes the player’s experience overall for a shooter and how the player interacts with/ approaches a shooter which encourages community creativity within seamless accessible environment. 
Call of duty 4 has the overall approach of if it ain’t broke, why fix it (Although the game has introduced the XP system which is fresh clever addition for shooters but the game’s overall mechanics/ideals/gameplay are inspired by it’s peers such as Ghost recon and other games in the same sub-genre) appealing mostly to casual gamers being their first competitive online gaming experience/ army shooter using solid but old school FPS mechanics (current/yesterday game design). Due to the nature of Call of duty it makes the game instantly playable with the principles of easy to pick up and difficult to master making far more accessible in regards of gameplay over Halo (especially if you aren’t familiar with shooters in the first place) with it’s slower pace and in-depth weapon mechanics . The developers have very different intentions from a gameplay/ game design viewpoint. Like I previously stated before shouldn’t both of these titles be disposed of by now as there’s so many titles out there worth playing?The Bad (The business)
These days, the whole industry seems to be cut into three parts aiming for three different audiences: Hardcore gamers, Casual gamers or non-gamers. Publishers are vey focused towards investing money for games that cater for these demographics due to this; the games market is very competitive and compressed with many games in same genres fighting for the same customer’s attention.
The usual story from the industry is a indie developer comes along creates a unique well crafted game (highly received by the games media) which usually gets lack of financial support leading to a loss and ends up being in debt to the publisher who expects the developer to whip two to four games per year hoping one of these titles will be successful gaining the money lose as well as a big profit margin. Obviously the titles created end up rushed and non-polished leading to a huge number of disposable titles on game store shelves but does this do the industry any harm in the long term?
This is worrying trend within the industry have to say but I believe its necessary evil for a creativity industry; this does happen often within the film industry where the studio forces a director to make certain films cause of their previously films have tanked. You know that “Micheal Bay” didn’t want to make “Transformers” but was forced to as his last film “The Island” tanked (which I quite enjoyed for a sci-fi action flick) and the film industry isn’t suffering from this, its still very financial stable industry (sources say that film industry is losing money but it still overall very profitable and successful, look at Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy sales for an example). You could say the film industry is old and big enough to have such notion going on within its business as it’s so broad with diversity appearing to many different types of audiences that this method of business works but with computer games being a young industry (10 years mainstream with Playstation I say) compared to other entertainment mediums, does this give people the wrong message/mentality towards games as a entertainment medium?
The usual story from the industry is a indie developer comes along creates a unique well crafted game (highly received by the games media) which usually gets lack of financial support leading to a loss and ends up being in debt to the publisher who expects the developer to whip two to four games per year hoping one of these titles will be successful gaining the money lose as well as a big profit margin. Obviously the titles created end up rushed and non-polished leading to a huge number of disposable titles on game store shelves but does this do the industry any harm in the long term?
This is worrying trend within the industry have to say but I believe its necessary evil for a creativity industry; this does happen often within the film industry where the studio forces a director to make certain films cause of their previously films have tanked. You know that “Micheal Bay” didn’t want to make “Transformers” but was forced to as his last film “The Island” tanked (which I quite enjoyed for a sci-fi action flick) and the film industry isn’t suffering from this, its still very financial stable industry (sources say that film industry is losing money but it still overall very profitable and successful, look at Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy sales for an example). You could say the film industry is old and big enough to have such notion going on within its business as it’s so broad with diversity appearing to many different types of audiences that this method of business works but with computer games being a young industry (10 years mainstream with Playstation I say) compared to other entertainment mediums, does this give people the wrong message/mentality towards games as a entertainment medium?
Currently the games industry is going through a transition “boom” period where non-gamer market has taken off big time within last few years with the “Wii” and “DS” and a lot of developers/publishers are trying to cash in on this “market revolution”. I haven’t seen such turn of events in the market since Playstation 1 which was the first console marketed towards adults making gaming cool. There are many casual games like “Ponies”, “My Word coach” “Imagine: Babies”, etc where you do feel that (being a gamer) they are taking advantage of the situation with people don’t know much about games. Don’t get me wrong I think “Wii” and “DS” are both great for gaming, its breath of fresh air this revolution but the lack of creativity on these titles worries me which may make this trend like a gimmick not something that people should take seriously. . At end of the day, it is business and industry like any other which is out to make money to put food on the table like Music and Film industry there is lot of disposable trash but do get your gems too, that’s how the entertainment business works.The Ugly (The people who buy games and the social acceptance to games)
Though what worries me more is the actual design mentality behind by these casual games, I believe these games are being made too functional; by functional I’m referring (not to the mechanics of the games) to the nature of why people are playing/buying these games to get something directional from the game.
Like for an example “Guitar Hero” to learn/play a guitar or “Brain age” to gain intelligence (that’s what I like to think when I’m playing it) but isn’t that like trying to win over or persuade people that it’s ok to play games as you getting something in return? As a gamer I don’t want games be functional like food, like an Italian chef would say “We live to eat” not “we eat to live” I want them to have feeling/expressing something, may sound pretentious but be an art form. Any entertainment medium considered an art form; people enjoy and learn from in sub-conscious form and people don’t go in expecting to gain something directional from it. For an example, “Lord of the rings” (books or films) is set within fantasy theme/setting where viewers may gain knowledge about the themes explored such as politics, honour, love, etc making it both complex and fulfilling with depth and emotion. Looking at this topic through a viewing glass not from my perspective as a gamer, I think it’s very positive in the long term of things these type of games are being made. These titles may not be “art” and be considered by myself as temporary, but isn’t that what consumer wants from titles anyhow?
Some escapism for a short period chill out from a hard day’s work, ok its not hardcore deep escapism like “Lord of the rings” filled with deep meaning but who’s to say that its any less form of entertainment or in this case escapism? This approach of design is bringing new people to play games that wouldn’t touch a game in the first place without these casual games. This is a good start to expanding the games market to other audiences and I can see these design ideals/approaches behind these games evolving to other exciting things appearing other groups of people. Though I believe its good start in expanding the market though I remain to believe that these games need to have more substance with broader themes where people can relate to which is why the games haven’t become accepted as art form/ apart of western pop culture yet. A lot of people can not understand or relate to themes/contexts explored that are typically in games as games don’t normally explore current affairs and worries/fears of society like film and music do. These casual titles are very non-offensive and family focused which everyone can play, but they aren’t expressing anything to the audience which is where the issue lack of mainstream acceptance of video games truly lies.Good example of pop culture which uses society’s current affairs and fears is torture horror films such as “Saw” “Hostel” “The Hill have eyes 2”, etc that taps into people current fears of being kidnapped and well possibly …. well you know. This may be an extreme example as I don’t certainly think that I’m going to get kidnapped (I’m not that rich nor that good looking, honest) but a lot of people can relate to this and that’s why these films have proved so popular and profitable. Here is a link of an article about these films and how they become cultural/societal accepted, you should read it: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/804/804194p1.html
It’s interesting but its ok if don’t want to but anyhow I’ve taken a quote from it.
Quote from: “Jennifer Ashlock”, a professor of sociology at the College of Notre Dame
"You have a potential to make more money with torture (horror films) now because that's what actually scares a mainstream audience today," she says. "I don't think that they were very popular before because it just seemed so far off base. Like, 'That could never happen,' and it seemed very fringe back in the '70s and '80s. Not that you didn't have gore back then, but now that is something that we know is going on in the world. We know about certain atrocities in Guantanamo, for example. Even in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein supposedly, and even in our own American prison system, we know that torture goes on. Because of the Internet and the global media, we know that torture is a way of life really. That information is just more accessible to us. I also think it's more fundamentally frightening to us, because it's sort of a given now that torture is happening around the world."
This is why film/music industry has been (or probably will always be) successful art forms/apart of pop culture for years as they making changing the themes of their products to fill the new trends/current affairs. Is this type of horror films temporary trend? Yeah sure and so they are these casual games which is where I would say this is the beginning of games entering the pop culture to due it’s nature of filling a current trend. With time, these types of games will evolve into something else that will fill the latest trend of current affairs like these horror films. Until games do this more often, the medium won’t never be accepted as an art form and games will need to able fit into people’s psyche/mindset for all types of audiences/tastes for commercial acceptance. All this takes time as people need to be willing to allow games to enter pop culture and along with their mindsets but at the same time, games need the themes and subject matters to get their juices going to accept it in the first place, as you can’t expect everyone to love Halo and Call of Duty with it’s confident balls in mouth attitude of “Let’s kick some ass”.
It’s interesting but its ok if don’t want to but anyhow I’ve taken a quote from it.
Quote from: “Jennifer Ashlock”, a professor of sociology at the College of Notre Dame
"You have a potential to make more money with torture (horror films) now because that's what actually scares a mainstream audience today," she says. "I don't think that they were very popular before because it just seemed so far off base. Like, 'That could never happen,' and it seemed very fringe back in the '70s and '80s. Not that you didn't have gore back then, but now that is something that we know is going on in the world. We know about certain atrocities in Guantanamo, for example. Even in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein supposedly, and even in our own American prison system, we know that torture goes on. Because of the Internet and the global media, we know that torture is a way of life really. That information is just more accessible to us. I also think it's more fundamentally frightening to us, because it's sort of a given now that torture is happening around the world."
This is why film/music industry has been (or probably will always be) successful art forms/apart of pop culture for years as they making changing the themes of their products to fill the new trends/current affairs. Is this type of horror films temporary trend? Yeah sure and so they are these casual games which is where I would say this is the beginning of games entering the pop culture to due it’s nature of filling a current trend. With time, these types of games will evolve into something else that will fill the latest trend of current affairs like these horror films. Until games do this more often, the medium won’t never be accepted as an art form and games will need to able fit into people’s psyche/mindset for all types of audiences/tastes for commercial acceptance. All this takes time as people need to be willing to allow games to enter pop culture and along with their mindsets but at the same time, games need the themes and subject matters to get their juices going to accept it in the first place, as you can’t expect everyone to love Halo and Call of Duty with it’s confident balls in mouth attitude of “Let’s kick some ass”. Conclusion (The Beautiful)
For the industry to achieve such a thing, games need to evolve their game design approaches to the subject matter of the game and understanding what their target audience is, customizing the style and content to their tastes. I believe the industry as a whole has problems achieving such a goal due to the lack of risk and the understanding how to go about breaking into pop culture. I believe games also lack the confident behind their ideals and creativity embrace their concepts through unique visual design and clever research and development approaches from both developers and publishers giving the devs the funding they need to fully realise such games. My best example is “Grand Theft Auto 4” which is one of the very few games that is breaking this boundary of pop culture. “Rockstar” are known for taking risks and having confident in their ideals and one of the few companies that has good understanding of the surrounding current pop culture using it as it’s inspiration as well as it’s identity. This is one of the reasons for its success using current pop culture so people can relate to and understand it and making easily marketable for a target audience.
For the industry to achieve such a thing, games need to evolve their game design approaches to the subject matter of the game and understanding what their target audience is, customizing the style and content to their tastes. I believe the industry as a whole has problems achieving such a goal due to the lack of risk and the understanding how to go about breaking into pop culture. I believe games also lack the confident behind their ideals and creativity embrace their concepts through unique visual design and clever research and development approaches from both developers and publishers giving the devs the funding they need to fully realise such games. My best example is “Grand Theft Auto 4” which is one of the very few games that is breaking this boundary of pop culture. “Rockstar” are known for taking risks and having confident in their ideals and one of the few companies that has good understanding of the surrounding current pop culture using it as it’s inspiration as well as it’s identity. This is one of the reasons for its success using current pop culture so people can relate to and understand it and making easily marketable for a target audience.
The games industry currently reminds me of 50’s rock and roll where it is the beginning of rock music being limited but cheered on by Elvis with lots of wannabe bands just like competing with the current trend, it wasn’t till the 60’s and 70’s where rock music really become diverse and defined with different styles and genres which was fully accepted by all types of people where the freedom of creativity came in with bands like “Led Zeppelin” and “Pink Floyd”. Experimenting became the natural progress of making organic artistic music. I look forward to the future of the games industry as I can imagine it in 10 or 20 years time and I look forward into being part of that and fully I will introduce something new to games like 60’s and 70’s rock bands did to the music industry.
Written by: Jonesy
(P.S please leave comments as I would enjoy discussing and debating this topic, this is my first of many to come! Thanks for reading I hope enjoyed reading it )
No comments:
Post a Comment