next »

[JimmyBignuts]

With my parents the problem isn't so much the learning curve, it's that they tend to see games as either childish or low-brow and violent. To be honest if they are clever enough to work out how to drive one of those senile scooters in their old age then they should be able work a game within a few minutes. Even if I managed to get them to sit in front of a game their prejudices would prevent them from willingly exploring what the game has to offer.

It's for this reason that I'm careful about who I mention my hobby to. For fear of being looked down upon.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Games generally are childish and low-brow and violent, though. I don't think it's just prejudice. If you want to work against that, maybe you could show them some games that don't revolve around fighting. Adventure games might be a good place to start.

[ColossusEntertainment]

The Wii is brilliant at getting non-gamers to play games. I'm thinking of Wii Sports and

specifically. Of course, the controller is a big help, but it's not just that. It's colorful, simple, and there's always a very clear sense of what you should be doing (and why )

The same clarity of objective goes for the GTA games btw, and I think it's that more than anything else that have made them so successful. At any point in the games, you know exactly where to go and what to do, which lets you focus on the fun.

There's something to be learnt from this..

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think that's a good point -- people who are new to games need to be hand-held, you can't just drop them in the middle of a huge non-linear world and expect them to figure it out as in, say, Fallout. Final Fantasy X by contrast had a huge red arrow pointing out where you have to go next which appeared on the mini-map at all times, and it was played by a lot of people who never liked the series before.

This doesn't mean those games make the best games necessarily, since it's often more rewarding to figure something out than to be guided through it, but I think games that hand-hold you are the best for beginners. A lot of the reason gamers hate casual games is because they feel that casual games treat players as if they were stupid: there's bright stars and fireworks and CONGRATULATIONS for simple tasks, there's friendly arrows telling you what to click, etc., but beginners really need that stuff, it's not assuming they're stupid, it's just what works for people who didn't grow up playing games.

Gamers become desensitized to this a bit, but people who don't play games that often get joy from a simple "You Win!" message. I've seen that myself when playtesting Immortal Defense with people who don't normally play games, like my mother. It was amazing how happy a simple message like that can make someone. Some games don't even clearly let you know when you've successfully completed a level or mission, they just go on to the next one without incident, and people used to playing games might be annoyed by those messages anyway, but to people not used to playing games those messages are important because they let them know that they've actually succeeded in what they were doing and that the game recognizes that success.

[JimmyBignuts]

Games generally are childish and low-brow and violent, though. I don't think it's just prejudice. If you want to work against that, maybe you could show them some games that don't revolve around fighting. Adventure games might be a good place to start.

The threat of violence in any medium is a readily available source of narrative tension. I don't think there's anything wrong with it at all, it just makes things more exciting and entertaining most of the time though not more fulfilling.

I think that adventure games might actually be more difficult as they provide less of an immediate positive feedback for the player. A low difficulty abstract shooter might be a better choice but to be honest portal is pretty good as long as the player is actually willing to participate actively.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

The threat of violence is different from people being killed roughly every few seconds of game time, that's more characteristic of a game consisting of nothing *but* violence than a game that uses violence to achieve anything more than blood lust. Of course there's nothing wrong with violence, but when it's the only thing in a game and the backbone of a game, it's correct to say that a game is violent.

Even the most violent movies and stories don't have things being killed every few seconds. With the possible exception of the Iliad.

[Gainsworthy]

Mario Party was also a disaster.

Mario Party is ALWAYS a disaster. Maybe it's just that me and my friends seem to exclusively play it at 3am, but, hey.  Confusing as Feck, comrade.

[kyn]

I just read through this thread, really enjoyable discussion.

When my parents got me my first console, the Master System, they used to play Alex Kidd and Sonic The Hedgehog all the time, but mainly Alex Kidd. They even sneaked up at my room at night very quietly so I won't wake up, and secretly played it. And although they played the hell out of that game, I don't think they ever got past the first level, maybe once or twice, but never passed the second level. I think the easy to understand dynamics of the game is what pushed them to continue playing, simple game, jump and punch, but the fact is, Alex Kidd as simple as it looks, it's in fact one of the hardest games i have ever played. And that's maybe what kept them going, the challenge of it, with simple mechanics, but they eventually became frustrated with the game and I don't think they ever touched a game since then, except tetris and solitaire, the epitome of casual gaming.

As hard as I tried in the past to get them to retry playing video games, it always failed, so by now I have already given up. I even installed a pack of hundreds of card games so they would find and alternative for solitaire, but even that they ignore, they just don't want to learn a new thing.
It's precisely the same thing as my dad says "hey, you should come fishing with me, it's pretty exciting when you catch one", I tried once, I loved the idea of it, but the truth is, I was bored out of my ass most of the time. And as he even nowadays keeps insisting I should go fishing with him, I really don't want to, as he doesn't want to play video games.
I think the generation gap is just too big.

[skaldicpoet9]

It's funny, my parents play games occasionally and I sometimes offer them suggestions. Just recently they were playing Shining Force and I suggested that they try out Final Fantasy Tactics. The thing is they were completely content with just playing Shining Force rather then the much more fleshed out FFT. I think a lot of why many in earlier generations don't "get" the whole idea of games is because they are perfectly contented with what they already have experienced. It is somewhat like the Wii Sports phenomenon I believe. I just sold my Wii to my girlfriend's sister and her husband and the only thing they wanted to do was play Wii Sports. They play the game, get tired of it and then don't play again for awhile or ever. Hell, I am still surprised that Shining Force has had such a high replay value for my parents, I mean they've been playing it since it first came out lol. I guess that playing games regularly is like being an avid reader where you are always looking for the next good novel to read and then there are those out there that will read one novel and be done with it for a good long time after that.

[deadeye]

Also... "sold his SNES before I was born."  Christ, I feel old.

A life without NES, let alone SNES!? You kids...

I feel the same way about most of you guys and the Atari 2600 -- now that was a console. I think I enjoyed that more than the NES.

Oh, I was around then too.  Hell, I actually had a Pong machine before my 2600, with a total of 4 settings (including Jai-lai), and the knobs were built into the box itself, so you had to sit on the floor three feet from the TV screen.  And you had to trudge ten miles uphill in the snow just to get to it.  But if Ol' Man Jenkins wasn't too laid up with the rheumatism he'd let you ride back in his hay wagon.  Oh, and there were dinosaurs.

[Tanner]

Also... "sold his SNES before I was born."  Christ, I feel old.

A life without NES, let alone SNES!? You kids...

I feel the same way about most of you guys and the Atari 2600 -- now that was a console. I think I enjoyed that more than the NES.

Oh, I was around then too.  Hell, I actually had a Pong machine before my 2600, with a total of 4 settings (including Jai-lai), and the knobs were built into the box itself, so you had to sit on the floor three feet from the TV screen.  And you had to trudge ten miles uphill in the snow just to get to it.  But if Ol' Man Jenkins wasn't too laid up with the rheumatism he'd let you ride back in his hay wagon.  Oh, and there were dinosaurs.

Tell me more about this bygone era.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

What's jai lai? I haven't heard of that.

[deadeye]

What's jai lai? I haven't heard of that.

From what I remember it's like racquetball.  You use a white rectangle to bounce a white square against a white wall, and then player two (which is your other hand because you have no friends) has to bounce it next.

[policedanceclub]

(which is your other hand because you have no friends)

 :D

[Valter]

Umm. That's actually not even a little bit correct. Wiki it, if you really want to know, Rinkuhero. These pernicious rogues wish to lead you astray!

[deadeye]

Umm. That's actually not even a little bit correct. Wiki it, if you really want to know, Rinkuhero. These pernicious rogues wish to lead you astray!

Nope, that's pretty much the way it was.  I just looked up the wiki too because I was curious.  I dunno, you tell me how you'd make a Jai Lai game with just a handful of pixels, and only two control knobs.  You'd pretty much take turns bouncing the ball off the wall to keep it in play.

[Valter]

Huh? I just looked it up. It involves throwing balls at people using wicker-basket hands.

[deadeye]

Huh, apparently I've been spelling it wrong.  I guess it's supposed to be "Jai-alai."  Oh well.

Anyway:

Huh? I just looked it up. It involves throwing balls at people using wicker-basket hands.

The object of the game is to throw the ball at the wall in such a way that it is hard for the opponent to catch and return.

I dunno, it seems like you should know this because you have a Jai-alai player in your avatar 

(PS:  You're at postcount 299... make one more post.  I dare you.)

[Valter]

A: That's a banana sword. Sheesh
B: You're probably right. The wiki article actually has very little to say about how you play. I just know it involves wicker-hands.
C: Level 3!

D: We should probably get back on topic at some point.

[agj]

Otaku42, I just believe that you're approaching this the wrong way. Instead of shoving a game that you particularly like or find interesting, first ask yourself a few questions: Why do they not play videogames? Why would they want to play them? What would they find appealing in a game? The best approach is to give them something that they can relate to, instead of something immediately alien and unappealing to their non-gamer tastes.

Regarding the Wii, yeah, Nintendo sure is pulling a good one. This article has a lot to say on their strategy. It's long but a good read!

Regarding intuitivity, I think that Jef Raskin got it right: intuitive equals familiar. Gamers, with a vast background of learned control mechanics and gaming vocabulary, can approach a game like Portal and find it fairly straightforward, simplified in comparison to other games in the genre. But to someone who only plays, say, Tetris and Brain Training, it's a hell of a step to take. What this all means is that 'intuitivity' is highly relative, so it's no wonder your dad had no idea what to do.

I've often found that comparatively novice players tend to put game semantics (instructions, narrative) and gameplay at odds, and this would explain why your dad could not understand immediately that he was the character he could see in front, or simple instructions like having to press E to do something. They want to play, which is opposite to receiving and analyzing information. This sounds backwards to us, who perceive the medium as something that involves both, but inexperienced players approach every game as if it was Tetris.