Games are ubiquitous. I don’t know if they’ve quite eclipsed movies and TV as the world’s entertainment medium of choice but they’re certainly close. Pretty much everyone plays games, to a greater or lesser extent.
Which is why I think it’s slightly unusual that a.) people tend to refer to “the gaming community” as a whole, and b.) tend to position it as something weird/edgy/underground/geeky/pick your adjective.
Now don’t get me wrong– gaming communities exist. Obviously. These, however, tend to be focused on a game or series, a genre, or a company. Or they’re centered around some other sort of common ground: a blogosphere, an idea, or what-have-you.
These communities have one base thing in common– a passion for games– but after that, you’re dealing with a very wide range of individual people with differences in opinion, taste, and so forth. And I think that sometimes, everyone forgets this. Players forget this. Companies forget this. The “non-gaming world” (as it exists) forgets this.
Just as one can’t make sweeping generalizations about any group of people, one cannot make sweeping generalizations about “gamers”. For example, not all gamers like DLC and microtransactions– but not all gamers hate those, either. Some like them a great deal. Some have complex opinions on them.
Likewise, not all gamers play Call of Duty or WoW or TF2, but some do. Not all gamers dress up and go to cons, but some do. Not all gamers think Portal jokes are still funny, but some do.
When you have a group of people that is this diverse in tastes and interests, you’re going to have a lot of differences in both opinion and background. And that’s a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, stereotypes exist, and so depending on who you ask, “gamers” all do this or “gamers” all want that. Even we, as game players, are guilty of making these generalizations sometimes. It’s okay, it’s a part of human nature. But I think the world as a whole would do well to try to remember that it’s a bit more complicated than that.
…anyways, not sure where I was going with that. I just thought it might be an interesting subject to toss around. I will tell you one thing that all these different communities have in common, though: friendships (and more) are forged in them. Heck, Mister Adequate and I met on a video game forum seven years ago, which explains how a couple of kids on opposite sides of the pond got together in the first place.
And that’s pretty fantastic.
The gaming community is not alone when it comes to broad generalizations.
Not all “couch potatoes” watch the same shows. Not all “movie fanatics” watch the same movies. Not all doctors practice the same type of medicine. Not all engineers design the same things. And, as you stated, not all “gamers” play the same games.
They’re just general terms for when one speaks about the medium/profession/etc. as a whole. And while it is sometimes frustrating to get generalized like that, it’s likely necessary for people to do so. It’s too involved and far too complex for one to get a comfortable grasp on it all, particularly if you’re standing on the outside of said generalization.
Yeah, I agree that it’s one of those things we sort of just have to live with. Generalizations are, for better or for worse, how the world works!
Yeah, silly “people”. ;)
I read an article some years ago; I forget the post, but it was basically bemoaning how games got to be so popular. Not necessarily flash games like Runescape or something, but the idea was that the more that serious game companies try to appeal to a broader base of people (the people who play games, but who are outside of the “gamer community” at large), the more they water themselves down. The less epic they become. You lose the feel it originally had, in trying to broaden your scope and sell more copies to more kinds of people. I think the point was kind of how Final Fantasy went downhill after a while, and now nobody (well, according to the author, anyways) likes the new FF 10+ games, because they got to be too poppy and too slick looking and forgot their roots. Or how Mario has degenerated into this nonsensical morass of Sunshine/Tennis/Baseball/Hopscotch whatever. Is that really necessary? I mean, yeah, Mario Kart was and is great, but do we really need Mario Golf? Seriously?
And that’s the point. If you like golf and Mario, I’ll bet you’d think Mario Golf was cool. But, the “gamer community” doesn’t care about golf, by and large. And, as XBOX live takes the gaming world by storm and integrates itself into every house…the constant ding of achievement points and the constant chatter of your friends over the headset kind of takes away from what you were doing in the first place, which was actually playing the game.
Or look at MA’s post about D3. Do you think D3 would have all of these silly loopholes and dopey restrictions in it if Blizzard wasn’t just trying to milk it for all it was worth? Real money auctions?!? Gimped single player?! Seriously?!
The argument was that if gaming was more insular, then it would actually be better, because it would not try to be mass entertainment, and it would instead be what it was in the SNES golden era. It would be more about the games and less about the hype trying to cash in by modifying the games that the core community DOES care about to sell more copies. Gaming has “sold out”, in a sense.
It’s like that favorite band you had, who used to have their own unique sound, but then they went mainstream and now they just sound like everybody else. Now the band is popular, and it’s great that they have a huge fanbase, but at the same time…it was cool when they were underground, and their sound was better.
I’m not sure if I agree wholeheartedly, but it was an interesting point. On the one hand, you can’t deny that it’s better now that game are ubiquitous. But on the other hand, you can definitely see how the focus has changed in gaming. Look at the XCOM fiasco that has come up in your blog posts. If gaming companies focused less on selling out and more on making quality stuff, then this wouldn’t happen.
I think the solution is more about having a few gaming companies who will be willing to sacrifice broader appeal and sales in order to make more solid games for the “core gaming community”, in the same way that the solution to everybody sounding the same in the music industry is to have indie bands. The problem is that those sorts of games might not be as profitable, so those games are pushed off the console market (where they originated) and into the open source world in computers (where they might not fit quite as well).
I think I just hit you with a wall of text when I could have just said “It’s cool that everybody plays video games now, but the industry sold out to accomplish this end.”
Thoughts?
I sort of see two different sides here:
On the one side, branching out, if done well, can work out nicely. You used Mario Golf in your example: some people who didn’t like golf to begin with will learn to appreciate it, at least a little, if they enjoyed a new version of it. And it gives players a new experience that they might not otherwise have. I think that’s why I enjoyed Mario Golf, anyway!
However, I do see where you’re coming from with the idea of keeping “specialist” companies around, and also how they’re often relegated to, say, the PC scene or indie scene because it’s easier for them to work that way. At least us hardcore strategy geeks will always have Paradox Interactive, for example. (At least, I hope we do!) I hope these specialist companies don’t go away, or try to generalize too much.
I miss when Blizz purchases meant a difficulty curve, not a timeshare in a virtual socialistic regime.
While I like it better now because I don’t have devote hours upon hours over weeks upon weeks to feel like I’ve accomplished something.
I can appreciate a challenge, but I have maybe a maximum of 3 hours a day that I could play (assuming I do nothing else but eat, work, eat, play WoW, then sleep).
Gaming has sold out? Maybe to some degree, but there still lies two general truths with gaming:
Broader audience = more sales and more revenue.
High quality game = more sales and more revenue.
The difficulty for companies is the balance between the two. And while the amount of high quality games may feel more diluted because companies are trying to make enough games to appeal to that broader audience, I don’t think games have really gotten any worse. There is just more of the crap games out there, but that’s always been a reality. Just as there have been gems out there, too.
And it’s so damn subjective. Just like Donovitch’s and my feelings vary towards Blizzard’s products now.
(As for D3’s real money auction house… at least it’s optional.)
Wow, I didn’t think my wall of text would generate so many responses, and good ones too XD. Thx all!!
And yes, it is good that gaming is becoming so broad that it’s almost a given like movies (as greenskye was saying), but I just wish… I dunno, I guess I’m wishing for more original classic games, in the same a way a movie buff might wish for more silent films. And unless you really dive into the inde scene, you won’t find either silent films or classic FF – esque games. There was an artful simplicity that you can appreciate in both silent films and 8-bit era games that is now lost to us, and it would just be nice to see if back once in a while.
And sorry, I didn’t mean to bash your Mario Golf, Pike :P I didn’t mean it was a bad game, I just meant that maybe Mario had branched out a little too far from his platforming roots in the name of sales, that’s all.
Don’t worry Bamos, I got your point! :)
I agree, there was a certain magic to some of those 8-bit games. These days, I’m willing to bet that most “gamers” would find a lot of those older games a bit boring these days (myself included). Well, maybe not boring…but the joy would be relatively short lived; mostly because they lack the depth we’ve now become accustomed to with games. But I digress.
Going back to your point, I tend to agree, it seems hard to find genuine innovation in the gaming market (or music and movies, really). I was going to suggest Portal as a modern example…but I would say that’s more of a very innovative twist on FPS’es. I also really enjoyed Red Dead Redemption, but that was a old-West version of the GTA series (still excellent, though).
I’m having a hard time thinking of recent “mould-breakers” for games…I’m sure they exist, but I’m still lacking coffee. :)
I have generally found that humans cannot function without generalizing (I just generalized generalizing…). We just wouldn’t be able to communicate effectively or quickly without generalizing some things. The problem then is that many people (especially those found in online forums/comment threads/etc) abuse this tool and generalize when they really should be more specific or at least declare that they are generalizing in some form.
I do find that the gaming community is experiencing some growing pains. You’re correct that the community has grown very large and I would say that most under the age of 30 have played at least some form of phone video game in their lives. The problem, as you put it, is that whereas the community used to be so small that they could rather accurately be described with a few adjectives, there are so many of us now that the term “gamer” is so broad that it is next to useless.
I imagine the movie industry must have experienced similar issues as it grew in popularity. I’m not really familiar enough with it to provide specific examples, but I’m sure that no one equates the term “Cinephile” with “Twilight”. In fact we don’t even label people who attend movies with any special term. It is just assumed that an average human being will attend movies. We typically say that someone likes “chick fliks” or “action movies” or “horror films”.
We only label those who are especially in love with movies because of their above average interest. I believe this will become the new norm. Only those who are very, very invested in the medium will have a special name. Might I propose “Gamephile”?
I think “Movie buff” is the accepted term, at least as far as my friends are concerned.
I see where you’re coming from, and I like your idea about a new term for someone who doesn’t just play games as a sometimes hobby, or even a main hobby, but someone who really… appreciates games, if that makes sense. Game aficionado, perhaps? Or gamephile, as you said! Or something similar.
If they didn’t make sweeping generalisations, I would probably have to find something else to complain about.
And while they’re being all broad and encompassing, I’m picked sections that I don’t think deserve the same title as the rest of us and disowning them. Naughty Jiro, you’re not the boss!
You’re sort of the boss. On a certain forum. That sort of counts, right?
*coughs*
In my own head, I am ruler of the world. But I think most people can relate to that!