You can head on over to Gamasutra now to have a read of what is hopefully an interesting and honest postmortem report following the development of Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs!
It’s been a while since my last post, dwelling as I currently am in the depths of thesis-writing purgatory. However, on a recent excursion to the surface to obtain coffee and sunlight, I had the pleasure of observing the Flappy Bird saga (no, King. No.) and considering how well it epitomises one of the most consistent issues within the games industry. I’m going to focus in particular in this article on the mobile app marketplace, but this applies to console titles too, although possibly in a slightly different way.
Anybody that knows me will tell you I tend to dislike people.
This isn’t personal. It’s not the person I dislike, usually at least – it’s the dominant discourse within today’s culture that says I have to talk to them. The one that says I should share stuff with them, and invite them to do otherwise. Frequently I am bemoaned by my friends for not answering my phone, or letting it run out of battery, or burying it in a small pile of clothes in the bedroom. But this is my prerogative is it not? I don’t need to be accessible for idle conversation all the time surely? Is society really going to break down into anarchy because I let my email go unanswered for an entire 24-hour period?
This extends to my attitude towards games as well. Gaming time is sacred, relaxing, chill out time, to be shared with others on the rare occasion a game has a worthwhile co-op mode. Other than that, I want to sit down and immerse myself in something that isn’t real life, from a twisting and turning plot through to a rich, deep fantasy world.
I recently stumbled upon an interview with the CEO of developer Gogogic, Jonas Antonsson, with the somewhat inflammatory title “Single-Player is a gimmick, says mid-core developer”. Ignoring the issue of the term “mid-core”, which is frankly, utterly redundant when the use of ‘hardcore’, ‘core’ and ‘casual’ as demographic-defining terms feels fundamentally base and outdated, this title poses quite a bold claim.
Quite possibly one of my more controversial post titles, but I’m going to run with it.
I’ve just finished the first phase of game play testing on Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs and, along with a wealth of massively interesting data for my PhD that I now have the job of writing up into meaningful prose, some very intriguing conversations were spawned from a range of different players.
In terms of the general data gathered, there was a very clear, almost entirely polarised divide between the positive and negative responses to various aspects of the game (none of which I am going to specifically mention, of course, so if you’re looking for tidbits of information here you’re out of luck I’m afraid). The divide was between those players with a lot of experience either with horror games in general, or specifically with Frictional Games’ past work, and those coming to the franchise for the first time. What one group of players liked, the other almost always detested, and vice-versa. Now, that is to be expected in some cases, as the Amnesia franchise’s style of play is not for everyone – as is the case with every type of game, after all. But the extent to which this division existed was very surprising, even extending to things which were on the list of intended changes because they didn’t seem to be working.
So, this, coupled with some conversations over alcohol later on, got me thinking, can truly different, innovative or uniquely challenging gameplay ever comfortably co-exist with the established Triple-A model of development? Don’t get me wrong of course – I enjoy games where I don’t need to think too much – I do enough of that in my job, I often want to switch off when I’m playing a game, and BulletShoot XVI and its brethren fill this need very well. But, why does it have to be up to the independent sector to step away from the established, to step away from the expected, and to do something – anything – different. The independent sector is often viewed by its detractors as providing experimental, academically intriguing, but ultimately less than amazing games – which of course, is a ridiculous and outdated point of view. However, two words do still ring true there; experimental, and intriguing.
I can’t remember the last ‘big’ game that genuinely intrigued me. Thrilled me? Yes, perhaps. Satisfied my rampant blood lust? Of course. Made me sit back in awe of its overall spectacle? Occasionally. But actually intrigued me to such an extent that I was left itching to know more of what was going on in the designer’s or writer’s heads? That is rare. But it shouldn’t be. These are the people, the developers, with the power, resources and know-how to deliver experiences like this in abundance.
The argument that there isn’t a big enough market for it to be a profitable way of doing business is flawed. Of course it is profitable. Perhaps it is profitable over a longer period of time, but it is certainly profitable. There are more demographics within gamer culture than ‘those that play Call of Duty‘ and ‘those that play anything else’. ‘Those that play anything else’ is such a richly varied demographic with multiple facets within it, each one as potentially lucrative as the CoD audience. After all, only so many big developers are required to satiate that group of players. Why is there no rush to be the first big developer to tap into one of the underestimated demographics hidden elsewhere in the industry?
I’m going to be very confrontational here – but, it does appear to me that the big players in the industry are scared. All business, big or small, has risk associated with it, and rewards attached to that risk for those willing to take the plunge. Are you all quite happy to sit back, guard your ever decreasing portion of the demographic pie, and wait until the independent sector comes along with a whole new, far tastier pie? Or are you going to do your bit to drive the industry forward, to drive the medium forward, and to create different types of gaming experience and gaming challenge for all of the eager players?
That which indie games are often very successful in achieving in terms of fresh experiences or types of play can be brought to so many more players if the industry as a whole sees risk not as an incentive to hide under a hat made of sequels, but rather as an incentive to start making lots of new hats for itself. Yes my metaphors are strange today. Shut up.
In one of my very first articles in June last year, I discussed what I consider to be an archaic and unhealthy division between those that society proposes ‘should’ and ‘should not’ play games; to be precise, the blokes that should, and the girls that should not.
Now, the traditional image of the bespectacled teenage boy in a darkened room surrounded by Cheeto crumbs and an intriguing odour is strongly embedded in our culture. However, it is now so utterly outdated with the explosion of games into mainstream entertainment that if anything, more games are played either socially over the internet, or out in the big wide world on mobile devices, tablets and other gadgets. The traditional stereotype may still apply in some cases, but for the most part, games have moved on, and the people that play games have become far more varied in a variety of respects.
This applies in no small part to the gender of gamers today. I would stress of course, that there have always been ‘girl gamers’, or simply, gamers that happen to be female, since the dawn of the medium. However, there has been a notable increase in numbers of female players, especially in this current console cycle. So, why do we insist on still segregating out these players? It is damaging in a number of ways; it makes the industry itself appear archaic, stuck in stereotypes spawned in the 80’s; it makes the male gaming populace look like social morons, so incapable of associating comfortably with the opposite sex that they have to refer to the ‘girl gamer’ like some sort of mythical creature, or alien being; and it encourages ridiculous, cheap and tawdry attachments to our beloved medium such as Maxim’s Gamer Girl competition.
This is, in effect, simply a popularity contest and a beauty pageant that happens to have the words ‘Gamer Girl’ emblazoned on it. The kicker however, is that the winner of this competition will be employed by Virgin Gaming as a sort of spokeswoman – a public-facing industry representative, for all intents and purposes. Now, stop me if I’m wrong, but this seems like hiring someone for an industry role based entirely on their perceived beauty, and, presumably, appeal to this outdated concept of the stereotypical gaming geek.
This strikes me as also being somewhat insulting for those women trying to break into the industry (or that are indeed already in it) that got there, not on their looks or ability to pose in swimwear, but for their passion for games and their ability to design, develop or produce them – you know, the things that matter in a professional context? When we think of notable male figures in the industry – Miyamoto, Kojima, Molyneux, Chen, or just about anybody for that matter, we recognise them for their achievements, not for how much sex appeal they have (sorry chaps, no offense intended!) so why should we treat industry females any differently?
Now some people will argue that we shouldn’t take it so seriously – it’s a competition being run by a classic ‘Lad’s Mag’, intended as a marketing campaign and a way to appease their core readership. However, the fact remains that it is reinforcing a damaging view of the industry, and of the people that have or are looking for careers in it. The media does a fantastic job of suggesting to girls all the way through their upbringing that they can and indeed, should use their looks to get ahead in life – and all this type of marketing does is continue that on into the professional world. With all of the work being done across the industry to encourage more women to take up positions in development roles, it feels like Maxim is actively undermining that in order to further its own agenda and bring in more readers.
Do us a favour, and keep the smut masquerading as a beauty contest out of the games industry, it is nothing but damaging in the long run.
I’m not usually the sort to be posting rumours on my blog, but this one just seemed too good to not contemplate – if only for a moment at the very least.
According to ‘reliable sources’ speaking to gaming news site Kotaku, the new PlayStation 4 – or Orbis, as it is possibly going to be named is possibly going to be due for release in the 2013 Christmas season. Aside from the intriguing name (which, when put in conjunction with Vita, forms the Latin phrase Orbis Vita, or Vitae to be precise, meaning Circle of Life), there are two rumoured ‘features’ that are really rather concerning, at least how I see them.
I don’t know whether us gamers are just programmed to enjoy a good argument – or flame war – but it seems to me that for a social group that essentially all love the same form of entertainment we have a daft amount of internalised divisions.
Console vs PC. ‘Core’ vs ‘Casual’. Single-Player vs Multiplayer. Inverted Y Axis vsNon-Inverted Y Axis…
The particular division that has been discussed multiple times in the space of a few days recently is that of gender. This is not a new debate within games, and this is the fact that makes this particularly odd, because in modern society there are few things where an obvious division between masculinity and femininity would be tolerated. Yet within the games industry there is a trend for making a mountain out of a molehill over the fact that sometimes, the fairer sex also indulge in this entertainment medium.
On the one hand, we have the recent column in Edge magazine by Clint Hocking who says that studios need to encourage more women to join their development staff. As Quinn Dunki rightly points out, making an issue of the fact that there are minimal female staff is part of the problem – any women wanting to break into the industry immediately feel singled out.
On top of this sort of attitude, there is another assumption bubbling under the surface that all female gamers can be tarred with the same brush – the one that drips with Nintendogs, Cooking Mama, and the entire Imagine series. The image above is from a recently announced game from the developers of the Professor Layton games entitled, rather worryingly Cinderella Life. CEO of developer Level-5, Akihiro Hino, also stated that the majority of the development team were female.
This smacks of an incredible level of patronisation. Not only is the subtext here stating that female gamers want an abundance of pink and the ability to dress up their avatars in the same way they may have dressed up a Barbie when they were little, it also suggests that even when these girls grow up and become professional game developers, that all they are then capable of doing is producing more of such games. I’m not female, and even I feel offended on behalf of the numerous female gamers I know that like nothing better than to shotgun soldiers’ faces off…
It is as though the industry is saying that ‘boy games’ – i.e those that contain war, fighting, blood, guns, most sports and generally not much pink – are all far too hard or far too scary for the feminine mind which requires pretty colours, nice clothes, and not a lot else. It is misogonystic to medieval proportions.
The likely reason that there aren’t so many female gamers is precisely because they are prevented at every turning from liking games – because after all, girls don’t play games. It is a never ending cycle. It is an entertainment medium like any other, those that like it, like it, those that don’t, don’t. Stop making an issue out of a non-existent divide and that’ll be that.