next »

[unsilentwill]

The players tried for a forward pass
With the jester on the sidelines in a cast
Now the half-time air was sweet perfume
While sergeants played a marching tune
We all got up to dance
Oh, but we never got the chance
Cause the players tried to take the field
The marching band refused to yield
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?
Don McLean ~American Pie

There's been several topics of debate going on, and since I got a ton of game work done this weekend I feel like I can take the time to share my thoughts. The arguments about making a game good or compelling, or even whether or not to use pixel art, seem to about two completely different types of games. I think it's time to reflect on not only what games we want to make, but who we make them for.

The games we make and what we do in games says a lot about us as a person, what we enjoy, and what we want to do with our lives. I have friends who play different kinds of games, and have started watching Twitch.tv, thinking about what different people play, how they play, and most importantly why they play. I think all of these questions can give us insight on the games we decide to create.

"Make the games you want to make" is a good start, but it might mean a game some other skinny nerd who played the NES would make. Games inherently have a direct relationship to their audience, this is what makes them art, what allows for the greatest amount of communication of any medium. Ignoring this is your choice of course, but if you have something to say you should also listen to who you're talking to.



Imagine if John Denver's campy folksongs about lost love and harvest were thought of as being in the same medium as Scotty Pippin's dunks. There would be some conflict, people debating about dunks not being emotional enough, music being boring because you can't dominate fools. Video games already have an fairly diverse audience, way beyond "hardcore vs. casual", and the potential to be about literally anything. Sports, board games, all genres of music and film and books and art can all be made as games.

So when you decide to make, play, or talk about "a game" you could be talking about anything. Beyond the sarcasm and indie feuds, this is what makes being on this forum or gaming site or even playing a game so incredibly annoying. Considering audience is a good way to clarify what game is trying to do what and how.

For example, I've never competitive, ever. Sports are generally dull to watch. I don't care about high scores and when I play games it's never to win them, it's to do what I want to do in the game rules/world. Games do not have to be winable, they can just be about a world, or an experience, or a feeling. When narrative driven games use mechanics from arcade style games, I stop enjoying the game if I can't ignore the fact that killing humans or animals gives me points, generally conflicting the with themes of the game. Despite it being a "good" or "fun" game, it wasn't made for me I guess.


So, what kinds of people play games? I'm not going to make a definitive list, that'd be reductive and just anger people, so anyone could play games but not everyone does, and off the top of my head there are:

Speed runners, casuals/time wasters, escapists, addicts, gamblers, retro fans, thrill seekers, sadists, masochists, completionists, competitors, gun-lovers, tolkien nerds, creators, destroyers, musicians, dancers, story readers, micromangers, educators, children, etc. That's just currently. All it takes to attract a new audience is to make a game that's personal, unique, or not for the average gamer market.

Also obviously games can, and in my opinion should, be for more than one specific audience. If you have something to say, why not tell everyone instead of just preaching to the choir? Spelunky is a great example of a game built for separate audiences: it has a high score, but it also fits perfectly with the world and narrative. You can also make games for just plan humans, who feel and imagine. You can design around the things that make us human, and tell an important story about life.

However games where the mechanics, themes (or lack there of), music, art, and sound work together are successful at communicating the message of the game, whether its just fun or something more interesting. There is a strangeness when there is a disconnect of elements however, going back to my last big text post. It's a conflict of designer, game, and audience. People speedrun everything, whether it was built for it for not. You watch someone beat Shadow of the Colossus in five minutes, it's like watching someone trying to win at Shakespeare. You play Call of Duty and get rewarded for murder, why does it try? Starcraft is not about plot, why does it try? You play RPGs about moral choices and are left with a linear experience, why does it try? Because these games are trying to do two completely different things for different people.



Not only are game audiences confused, they are often limited. Mostly because of the word "game" and history of the medium, there is a large majority of the population who there are very few games built for. This is easy to see by being dropped in a modern game world and the majority of your options are jump, shoot, crouch, grenade, swing sword, attack, roll for cover. I wish I was simplifying, because of how limiting of an audience (not to mention shallow picture of what humans do) this attracts, but I'm not. More people will love games where you can do more with them. Hug buttons, dig buttons, eat buttons, cook buttons, smile buttons, sing buttons, most of these existed, so people do want to make games about other things, but designers follow the mainstream or retro-indie trend. If you're going to be indie, be indie!

Think about other people in your life, who you'd like to be able to play games. This doesn't mean to dumb it down, make it Zynga or "girlfriend mode". It means you should think about other people, respect your player, consider what things are important to them, what sort of experience, story, or message you can share with them. Do not stereotype, do your research.

Not only will this enrich the medium, make more effective games, and get more people playing good games, it will get more and different-minded people involved in development, of several different types of games.

Reflecting on your audience helps you refine what game you really want to make. If you're a new designer, think for a moment. What sort of unique things can you say? Games can be about anything, for anyone. Be unique, be yourself, think about who you want to talk to. We have plenty of games for gamers, it's time to starting thinking about everyone else.

[unsilentwill]

Looks like it's been two years since I made this post--pardon the bump--but I still think about it every single time there's a game debate. I still strongly feel this topic is at the core of the majority of issues with video game art and culture. Especially now, at it's more heated and dangerous.

I didn't get a single reply, which is fine and good, but I'll give this debate another try amidst the current controversies. Note: I do not mean to belittle the unacceptable harassment and sexism, but rather look at the core issues of "gamer culture" and talk about if there are inherent problems and/or the mixed messages of games and the people who play them.

"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."
John Carmack

So I'll make this post brief and start with a simpler quote. I feel that in many ways, Carmack and other creating Doom used the "just a game" theory when creating their violent content. They openly defending their content in the wake of school shootings. The plot, visuals, and content were there to make the programming more exciting and intense and fast and to blow your mind. Specifically not to tell a story about good vs. evil, angels and demon's, man's place in a violent world, real life choices and consequences of violence. The story was expected to be there, so they made it Cool.

However, things have changed since Doom (and it's obvious many designers didn't agree with Carmack and went on to create plot heavy games with serious consequences and real life commentary). I recently saw someone say "gamers fought to see games as art, but now cannot handle the social/political scrutiny of art", or something similar to that in a more sarcastic and inflammatory way. And I feel that is completely true. The majority of successful games have gotten a way with the "just a game" approach to negate any real-world criticism about their content. I connect this in a similar way to the controversy about using Native Americans as a sports team mascot. The game is not about the mascot, it's not about the content, it's not about the plot its about audience who simply wants the action, the strategy, and fun.

So today, as politically and socially active people are gaining their voice, feminist critiques are joining  the antiviolence critiques to approach video games as something more than fun, as art, as a culturally active media and expecting more than porn-plot. However, I do not mean this negatively, I feel there is often the element of an outsider perspective in these critiques. Popular video games are violent and generally lowbrow fantasies and were built as such for that audience (similarly to comic books and sports), so applying high art critique doesn't quite make sense, and is seen often as a personal attack on that audience.

Personally I feel this is the core of several issues today and is worth a reasonable debate among all of us who care about games. Do violent and sexist games have a place as mindless entertainment as action movies (who get a free pass for some reason), or do all games now have the responsibility of being culturally healthy and messages with rounded characters and full plot? It seems clear there are (at least) two audiences: the I-just-got-home-from-work-and-want-a-beer-and-want-fun "gamers", and the I-want-to-immerse-myself-in-a-new-perspective-and-environment-to-experience-a-deep-moral-story audience. And of course, there's just people who play games from Pong to Mario to Monopoly where story doesn't matter and what matters is the friends you're with. Do these have overlap, or is there dangerous in mixing these goals to avoid responsibility to one group or another?

Anyone care to discuss with me?

Ludonarrative Dissonance: I'm sorry.

[rj]

video games have as much cultural responsibility as any other mode of expression. if you're making something that is going to have an audience of any kind (and it is crucial what audience that is; is this something directed towards children? young adults? etc?) you need to make certain that the messages given to that audience are socially ethical and are digestible without confusion; a child seeing any form of political satire will not understand it like an adult will.

at the same time, satire can, even directed at an adult audience, be completely irresponsible if not parsed as satirical. south park falls into this problem quite a lot; eric cartman is a vile human being, but he's often laughed with, not at, because the audience that watches south park is comprised of people who are set in a mentality that considers being offensive one of the highest forms of humor; this sends a toxic message.

video games that display extremely violent or politically charged imagery without nuance or effort to contextualize it in any way fail, ethically. bioshock infinite displays a cartoonish "racism is bad" bent without discussing why racism is bad or how racism exists in more insidious forms. we all know, in the abstract ("we" being the audience of bioshock infinite) that racism is bad; but do all of us recognize the cultural systems that support racism? the fact that despite its removal from the time and place we exist in now that racism is wholly prevalent in either case?

the lack of nuance not only talks down to the audience but supports preconceived notions among the audience; those playing who are, at their core, racist in more subdued ways see that and can say "that is bad" and feel that they are in no way wrong because they are morally superior to an obvious bad.

the problem with gamergate and its whole ilk is that this discussion and discussions of its like are things that are unacceptable to a culture that largely doesn't like questioning its own moral failings. if you read a piece of criticism of grand theft auto v that exclusively discusses purely kinaesthetic measurements of quality and ignores all else that makes up the content you are free to pretend that such content is immaterial. this, of course, is absurdity, especially as games mature and become more sophisticated. considering a social context is crucial to examining both art and audience's connection with culture, and helping to promote better personal understanding. fighting against criticism, especially fighting against criticism that bases itself on ethical values, is fighting against personal growth.

[Preece]

With regards to your original post, I can't really see a cohesive, central point you are trying to make. Something along the lines of, we should expand the types of audience we are making games for? It ultimately feels like you're trying to say that you are either doing that, or you are a "skinny nerd who played the NES", making "games for gamers" of which we already have "plenty". That to me is very dismissive of games as a medium, and of people who play games. It also smacks of the tired argument that novelty is the only value a game can have. What about authorial voice? What about craftsmanship?

You also say that games can be about anything, which is true, But you also imply that they are not even trying to realize that potential, which is not true. And really, any medium can be about anything. You don't need to compare folk-music to basketball when something like "insult rap" exists in that space. And the same is true in video games, you already can do things as varied as build and maintain a farm, to "dominate fools" (havest moon / counter strike). Which to me, makes what you're saying somewhat pointless.

In other words, it seems like you're focusing on the argument positions of the people, rather than the reality of the state of the medium. And people always adopt a sort of smooth-crotched prototypical position in arguments, which is hardly related to the reality.

[unsilentwill]

I'll just quickly respond to not derail too much, I feel both of my posts have the same core: conflict of audience.

Preece you seem to have taken it rather personally, and I'm sorry I didn't mean anything harsh, though it was a pretty opinionated post. I'm a skinny nerd who played NES, and I like games for gamers. The question of the post is do you look outside that audience? Do you feel like you should? I kinda feel like you should, if you don't, alright cool. And I wasn't comparing folk music to basketball, I was just illustrating how crazy it is if both to be considered the same medium, as video games are broader than any other medium considering genre. The new game culture was looking for ways to attract women, older people, mobile players in order to be more inclusive, so I was riffing about that two years ago. The reality of the medium is, as you said, a pretty broad range of games, but a general feeling of inclusiveness especially to the mainstream market.

And another quick response to rj™: "a culture that largely doesn't like questioning its own moral failings" is fair, and yet very broad. The question here, which I suppose you may have answered, is "games" sounds like fun, sounds like kick-back, and maybe that makes it a sucker punch of moral values, like the holocaust train themed board game which seems odd to be in the same category of "board game" as Monopoly. Some may not question the capitalist values and backstabbing of Monopoly under a moral light, because it's a game, etc. Not trying to defend, just fluffing up the strawman to make it a bit more bulky.

[Kytin]

This reminds me about the time I was asked if I thought young kids would like the game I was making. After a bit of thought I replied that I think that kids would love it... but I'm not sure parents will.

I didn't have a clear audience in mind when I designed my game. I still don't. I guess I mainly made this game for me (or maybe a younger me). It's possible that this lack of a clear audience will come back to bite me when I find almost nobody else is interested in it, but... I didn't get into making games for the money, but because there are games that I want to make. If I didn't make games for me, then I wouldn't want to be making those games.

This might be different when your're part of a team instead of a solo developer, but even then I have trouble imagining that I would collaborate to design a game that didn't appeal to me. Your target audience must always include yourself, or you won't put in the care that art needs from it's creator. Besides, how else will you know if you are making something that the target audience will like?



Regarding cultural responsibility in games... I tend to regard the problem as being that not enough people, particularly game creators, regard games as art (or at least, don't regard their games as art). Art communicates to people on an extremely profound level. The 'It's just a game' defence can only be offered up by someone that doesn't believe the game is saying anything.

[starsrift]

I don't think you can take responsibility for your audience unless you exhort them to do somethings.

But I'd feel very uncomfortable with an audience.

[Pfotegeist]

What would a bunny do?

Seriously.

A bunny can pretend to be a weasel. But no matter how he hops, he'll always be a bunny. If he wants to imitate a weasel, that's his prerogative.

[rj]

what

edit: i understand your analogy, absurdist as it seems, but i really do not see its purpose in the context of this thread

[Pfotegeist]

I was thinking how a game would affect the audience. That was part of the discussion in the second post.

In order for there to be moral obligation, you must have some influence to do good or bad. But if your influence is purely existential, and you believed there is an inherent obligation to intuit the happiness quota for each person playing, you're not going to do too well.

[rj]

you clearly do have influence to do good or bad, though, i'd argue, if we can assume (and i think we should) that games are a valid form of art; art inspires people, even if it does so in subtler ways than you'd wish. it has tremendous influence on how the world works.

if the medium of games is going to be advanced further then you must assume that you have a moral obligation to create work that isn't at odds with your own code of morals and ethics, i argue. if you're actively subverting those ethics or trying to justify work that is at odds with those ethics (instead of actually making work that comments on such) then i'd argue that's a setback for your work, because you're not creating something you believe in.

that's not to say that you can't enjoy work that is at odds with your moral code but you should recognize its flaws and not attempt to defend them for what they aren't if someone criticizes the said work for it.

55

[starsrift]

Seems relevant to point that this thread in the Games subforum is pretty closely linked to this one, about Hatred.

[Pfotegeist]

There are a few assumptions in play.

1st. When someone says "it's just a game" they made a game, and spoke literally. (this is the assumption)
-Few people say what they really think.

2nd. The product that ships is the intended product for consumption.
-Software is rarely fully formed and understood by everyone involved. What you end up seeing is the morals reflected by someone who believes in keeping their company alive, and getting a paycheck.

3rd. Our art is purer than the art world, or more influential, or somehow better.
-To gain influence quickly, artists release controversial work all the time.

[Pfotegeist]

The topic's gone quiet. We should also face it, the audience reflects on us.

Is free media coverage that violence and "unpopular" behavior gains too much incentive for attention seekers?

Bunnies can be hunted today,
a stranger becomes more famous for reporting it tomorrow; proportionately, to the amount of violence used, or the resistance the bunnies gave.

If a bunny fought back, he'd probably get mass media coverage titled "Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog incarnated", and include a description of how he was swiftly euthanized.

[adrix89]

I am a GamerGate supporter.

I also played pretty much any types of games. I have played Interactive fiction, dating sims, visual novels, obscure artsy games, whatever it is I know of it(I may not have played them all but I at least know of them).

Depression Quest is a pretty good game with good design, I do not have a problem with it.
I have a problem with Zoe Quin as a person and some questionable actions she has done.

I am also pretty pragmatic when it comes to marketing your game. I do not care what you do to market your game.
You can fuck, bribe,make favors, join cliques, have friendships,rig the system, attention whore, whatever when it comes to marketing your game.
It is not a game maker's job to be ethical when it comes to marketing, that is a journalist/bloggers job.

What journalists can get away with is what their audience lets them.
You can brand yourself in any number of ways and journalists, depending on that branding, can get away with many things.
No, if a journalist is not "ethical" its not the end of the world, but it might be a start depending on the audience expectation(which you get from the branding).

I also have a problem with both the message and the person that is Anita Sarkesian.
If the message was more good female characters or make more games woman like then I wold agree. But its not. It is pure insidious third wave feminism propaganda and fight the patriarchy idiocy.

With all that said GamerGate is about the failure of San Fransisco to understand demographics.
It is about people with a particular ideology being isolated from the views of the rest of the world.
It is about the difference between what games women like and what games men like.
It is about an ideology trying to equate both men and women when that is not the case.

We know from movies what women like,what men like, what movies both like in common.
There are lots of demographics women, men, intellectual, dumb fun, children, adults, etc. They have their own requirements and things that are acceptable.
Th problem is the ideology that wants to propagandize everything so that everyone fits their view and so they take flack from all types of demographics. Not Your Shield.
As a free society we should vehemently oppose making everything the one true ideological demographic.
We should support all types of demographics and all types of games.
Do not support Anita Sarkesian, do not support censorship of any type, do not support people being offended.

[rj]

sigh

you're a fucking dumbass and this thread's over a month old, but cool, thanks

[adrix89]

sigh

you're a fucking dumbass and this thread's over a month old, but cool, thanks

It was still on the first page in the design subforum for fuck's sake. It's not like there are that many topics.
But thanks for showing you are a condescending prick.

[rj]

you're welcome, sweetie <3

sarkeesian has two ees

[JWK5]

Sometimes you know what you are fishing for and you have to pick the right kind of bait, but there is nothing wrong with putting something new on the hook just to see what (if anything) will bite it. Sometimes the audience comes before, sometimes the audience comes after (and if it's porn, sometimes the audience comes during... ZINGOOOOOO!!!).

[Schoq]

there's no way adrix isn't a gamygator parody account