The "Reasons for play" thread has been a great debate, so far.
Reading it and other threads, a few generalized debating points keep
springing to mind. I'm pointing to this particular thread and more
specifically this particular post because it contains so many of the
points I'd like to make. I'm certainly not picking on Sean, Damien,
or Mike. All of you have made excellent points and counter points
and I really like most of what you three guys have to say,
especially when you disagree with each other;-)
In particular, my appologies to Mike, up front, as I'll be quoting
him - though many of you guys tend to make the same points from time
to time.
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:29:23 -0500
Michael Sellers <mike@onlinealchemy.com> wrote:
> Single-point anecdote explains nothing. Look at the population;
> look at what they buy. You can't generalize from what one person
> likes.
You MUST generalize from what one person likes....otherwise, where
would any ideas begin? One person had to like "something" before
another person could figure out that, "hey, maybe more people like
that something and will pay me to provide it".
Single-point anecdotes DO explain some things. They may not be
indicative of the largest population, but they point to smaller
markets. Some people do very well selling to a niche.
> There's an image problem, sure -- but it's caused by the kinds of
> games we produce!
I just don't think that's true. This is one of those single-point
anecdotes, so take it for what it's worth.
I have single-handedly brought "gaming" to my place of business.
I've gotten 5 different people in my company to start playing MORPGs
and a couple to start playing shooters like TFC. Currently, I'm
trying to get my boss into playing TFC. I know he'd love it if he
tried it, but his problem is getting past the hardware barrier and
understanding that the game isn't as complicated as it looks. He's
watched me play it a couple times, but isn't sure about installing
it on his own and blundering through the controls.
Point? He's almost 40, much higher on the socio-economic ladder
than me, yet his interest is piqued by a game played mostly by teens
and 20-somethings that involves slaughtering your friends on-line.
His reluctance has nothing to do with image, and everything to do
with just being "old and out of the loop" when it comes to "doing
that on-line stuff". That's a technology/confidence problem, not a
game-image problem.
> Frankly, that you don't seem to see the significance of the gender
> issue here is an exemplar of the blindness endemic in many game
> developers.
This is a personal pet-peeve. As my high-school German teacher
always said, "Words have gender, people have sex." See? It's very
easy to remember. When speaking about the difference between men
and women, it is inappropriate to use the word gender. Just because
some knee-jerk ninnies have made it popular, doesn't make it right.
You can use the word sex. We're all big kids. We can handle it.
Thanks.
> I've worked with people in the past who discounted women's general
> distaste for games as coming from anything in the games or the
> industry itself.
Totally agree. Too many devs are content to "blame the players"
instead of focusing on the real problem; the devs.
> It couldn't possibly be because our games are made by, for, and
> with a young white unmarried male world view, could it?
SUPER big pet-peeve of mine. Please explain what my world view is,
since you seem to have the handle on it? I'm married though, so
does my world view differ significantly from unmarried, white males?
When people who use phraseology such as that speak, they sound
sexist, racist, and socialist.
I'm willing to bet money that black men are pretty much excited by
the same game elements as white men. Maybe what you meant to say
was "rich, white, unmarried men who grew up and live in the
suburbs"? Because then maybe those kind of men aren't turned on by
the same things that "poor, black unmarried men who grew up and live
in the inner-city" are turned on by. Or maybe they are. Either
way, it makes my skin crawl to hear someone who's probably a young,
white unmarried man talk about a "world view" as if he can speak for
everyone else.
> There is abundant data that men and women vary neurologically from
> the gross anatomical to molecular scale, in structures ranging
> from the cortical sulci to the amygdaloid nucleus in the limbic
> system to the corpus callosum and cortical neuronal density.
> There are significant gender differences in attention, reaction,
> verbal and spatial reasoning, bilateral activation, and memory
> formation, among other areas.
I'm surprised Sean wasn't already more aware of just that. You can
hardly watch the Discovery channel or pick up a copy of Scientific
American without seeing information to this effect. I thought
everyone was already on-board with these concepts. The fact that
Mike points out the social injustices tied to the research is just
an annoyance. For one, I don't care. For two, I'm sick of hearing
it. For three "social injustices" just aren't that un-just and have
already faded in American society for most reasonable
people. </rant>
Men and women are very different. They can still have the same
personality types, but those categorizations are typically broader
definitions of human behavior. I think it's important to examine
both sides of how the sexes are alike and different in their
emotional/psychological responses to games.
> I wasn't aware we were in the business of creating gamers.
In fact, I'm quite sure you are aware, Mike. You DON'T want more
people to start playing games? I thought that was the sole purpose
of the corporate angle on gaming. The more people who game, the
more money your companies make. If your companies AREN'T in the
business of drawing in more clients, then they ought to be.
> More to the point, I think we're better off creating games that
> *people* will play, rather than trying to create new kinds of
> people.
Oh....I see....more of that mentality. Ugh.
You can't categorize *people* because that dehumanizes them, or
something? What do you think you've been doing already, Mike?
Leave the politics and ideology out of the discussion. Your logic
starts to wane when you attack the problem from this perspective and
it just sounds like wishy-washy hippie-talk.
> Drive the game to the people, don't try to make the people conform
> to the game.
See what I mean? "Don't label me, man."
What I think you're trying to say is "devs shouldn't want the player
to be a better player for the game they create, they should want to
make the game cater to the player they're trying to draw in", or
something like that. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.
I just want to drag the conversation back into the realm where
red-staters like me won't turn off as soon as we read your posts.
> The 'low-end machine' thing is interesting -- EA execs were
> concerned that its graphics looked dated when it was released.
> And yet, it went strong for several years, eclipsing hundreds of
> games with "killer graphics" but same-old same-old gameplay.
Interesting in that we've already heard a lot of this already.
Graphics and immersion don't seem to be as important as content, or
mechanics.
I think Sean's real point was that the game sold big partly becuase
it ran well on cheaper and older machines, regardless of whether
that was because the graphics didn't require the hardware. Memory
and speed don't always get eaten up with graphics.
Maybe there are really TWO very good points here.
> I was at Maxis when The Sims was released, and I can tell you,
> it's nothing like what you assume (and interestingly, at the time
> the studio had more women in senior positions than any other major
> game studio I know of).
I don't have an opinion on that part of the discussion, except to
say that what you point out about women in senior positions just
helps to underscore my points above regarding sex and social
justice. No matter how "just" or "equal" our society becomes (or
vice versa), human beings will still make bad/good decisions.
Those are the points I wanted to make. I hope I was able to draw
the line and succesfully seperate the politics from the
philosophical points. We can keep the discussions theoretical
without getting "liberal".