| Demotruk said: Uh, he didn't say that all videogames have to lack depth, or that there shouldn't be games that cater to different tastes. The truth is that the industry is in a narrow spectrum NOW, and by catering to more groups that widens the spectrum. Seriously though, the idea that catering to a wider audience means less depth is a total fallacy. Older people enjoy movies and books with as much depth (perhaps more) as ours, why would games for older people automatically be less deep? Your problem is you've only seen the downmarket of this audience. They've never been catered to and thus never had a chance to upstream. You have, but you were downmarket once too. I'd bet that the first game you ever played was alot simpler and more accessible than the games you play today. |
I started with PC gaming. With simulation games like Apache Longbow, war games like Kampfgruppe, etc, which were actually more complicated than the games I play today.
Also I disagree with you that catering to a wider audience means less depth is total fallacy. I've seen physics presentations given to wider audiences for example in which things had to be dumbed down or not nearly the amount of depth there should have been so more people could understand it. The same can be said about a game like MGS4 and changing it so that a wider audience could enjoy it. You can bet the game would have less depth.
As for the industry being in a narrow spectrum there have always been casual games many people can enjoy, look at Tetris for example. The Wii brought even more people in but that doesn't mean that gaming as a whole should have to change to accomodate it.
