shams said:
I think its both. Firstly, there are the obvious fanboys - people will will deny that Sony will "lose" down to the last bitter fight. This is pretty much irrational, as all that does it improve the industry leading to better and more games for all (I doubt anyone here is concerned because they have a lot of Sony stock, and are worried about falling stock prices ;). Secondly, I can understand people being "worried" about the general direction of the industry. These people in general are "hard-core" gamers, and only want to play hard-core games. If the Wii succeeds, there will be a huge push away from these games to casual/simpler games. This really does make sense, and probably would "worry" hard-core'rs. In a way these people see gaming as "their" domain. It belongs to hard-corer's - not casual players. "Those casual players should butt out, and stick to their PC's / solitaire, etc". By seeing all these new casual-ers take over the industry (and the focus of it) they may well feel "threatened". Here is an analogy for you all - say you have a core group of "goth" music followers. They love their music, and hang out in their own club. Next day - a goth song becomes popular. Next thing they know, heaps of people are listening to the same music, and hanging out at their club. But they aren't real goths - they just got caught up by the song. These extra people wouldn't make the goths happy - instead they would threaten them, as the core essense of "what it means to be goth" itself is under fire. ... This is also the main division/difference in the industry at the moment (Wii vrs 360/PS3). Do you focus/service on "hard-core" gamers, and drive your games from their needs? Or take Nintendo's approach, and attempt to widen the industry - getting more casual gamers into it? (surely both approaches are valid - but it also makes sense to imagine that whoever targets the casual console will sell more, and potentially be more profitable). (of course Nintendo's idea is to target the hard-cores AND the casuals - not to excluse anyone, and try and reach maximum market penetration).
|
There were a lot of good answers on here but I think this one sums it all up.
This is what I was thinking. The clubhouse atmosphere. The No-Homers club. The Stonecutters.
I call it elitism. They don't want to share their zone of pleasure and rather have a little world all to themselves. The "Goth" music analogy spelled it out perfectly. It's cool to like something when not everybody likes something. But when the doors are opened up and new not-necessarily-cut-from-the-brooding-mode kind of folks starting digging the tunes suddenly it's lost its appeal. The clique mentality. The velvet rope. VIP customers to be catered to.
I've actually seen people express anger at grandparents playing videogames. It's almost as if a Blood crossed over into Crip territory. This baffles me I guess because I'm an inclusive kind of guy.
I've had so much fun bringing my Wii over and seeing my 84-year old landlady enjoy herself—pacemaker and all—playing Wii Baseball & making her Mii. I'm spending more and more time with my extended family using Wii as an excuse to hang out. 40 year old cousins who would never touch a game controller boxing & rolling bowling balls and everybody young and old watching with common interest. Disparate backgrounds & generations relating on a common focus. As much fun as I have playing games by myself I am inspired at the change this system has brought.
I'm 30 (twenty-ten) and gaming has redefined itself many times in my time taking up the diversion. I've just rolled along with the changes. I like quick play just as much as I like long involved stories. Simple play as well as complex play. I've always been open to a new take on videogaming.
I was impressed seeing Grand Theft Auto for the first time on the PS1. It was a fresh concept & I liked the presentation. Animal Crossing interested me based on its concept. It was always either game concept or control interface/usage that interested me in games first and foremost. Sometimes a popular series or franchise may draw my interest but it's primarily those two things that make me interested in any game.
In 1994 I bought Shadowrun on SNES purely based on its brilliant box art & a quick glance on its concept reading the back. One of the best game experiences I ever had (love the instruction book). I didn't get locked into a mindset that said gaming was only "Mario" or only "Street Fighter" (which we played to absolute death back in those days!). Which is why I dug Populous & Civilization. And Sim City 2000. Oh and my god Romance of the Three Kingdoms! A few years earlier all I played mostly was those NES beat-em-ups. What if I never evolved from that point to even try a new idea on what gaming was?
I think the worry is overkill honestly. Read Sean Malstrom's Theory of Cycles from TheWiikly.com to see that gaming has changed before and it will change again. But games from all types of eras will always be made. As long as there's a market, as long as there's money in it, it will be made. What's to worry about?
People who define themselves as 'hardcore' think they can control the industry & its direction. None of us have a control on this thing to that degree. Zelda fans question the Japanese who surprisingly didn't take too well to Twilight Princess didn't sell very well over there. And to justify their confusion they act as if something's "wrong" with the Japanese. No it just means things are changing. New people or old people are having different interests and sometimes even well made highly produced games will lose their luster. You can't force the populous to glom onto what you want, all you can do is offer a great variety and hope that they'll accept.
I'm sure even some Nintendo fans don't even like the Wii. They got used to Nintendo being a certain way & producing a certain style and don't want them to change.
This is it right here: Unless you are single-handedly willing to fund their billions in revenue you CANNOT expect any company to cater specifically to only you. They are going to seek the best path to gain the most audience & therefore streams of profit they can to stay afloat to make more gaming things. But as the varied audiences speak there will something for everybody. No one controls the entire direction of the industry. That's a fool's errand. You adapt and change with the times or you go out of business.
The Frank Sinatra camp didn't like that new fangled Rock 'N' Roll music coming up on the scene either. Either they went to the attic of culture or they found something they liked from the new music direction.
Niche only works if you don't seek anything beyond the niche. Remember "elite" by definition means FEW.
John Lucas
Essay Pro
