I couldn't agree more. Malstrom's stuff is always interesting to read, but ye gods! What an insufferable ass. Like his 2008 election posts, where he called all of the pollsters who were predicting large Obama victories "hacks" - and then refused to apologize afterwards when he was wrong and they were all right. I'm not sure why he goes so far out of his way to insult people... I guess he's deliberately trying to stir up reactions. Not my style.

I think the overall point, that core gaming is stuck in a perputual "counterculture" that views any attempts to go mainstream as "destroying the industry", is substantially correct. Nintendo's not the savior Malstrom makes them out to be, however, and they're not all that much different from the rest. His line about "I feel like I'm perpetually stuck in the 16 bit console generation" resonated with me - it's one reason why I get so tired of all the fanboy garbage these days.

Malstrom's right about one thing: gaming needs to grow up, and that doesn't mean more games like Metal Gear Solid. Grown up means a game that your parents would enjoy, not what a 17-year old anime fan thinks is the greatest thing ever.

I wonder if the people who post quickly to things like this, bragging about how they didn't actually read the thing but know it's garbage anyways, know how it makes them look?

OT: I'll salt it to taste, like all of Malstrom's writing--you almost get the feeling that he sees zero value in the things most people would call "cultured" (in one context or another), like Opera, or Metal Gear Solid. A step too far.

But it's certainly true that people often define themselves according to their preferred culture and look down their noses at those outside of it. They even think it a virtue to be *ignorant* of what the great unwashed might find of value in an American Idol, Harry Potter, or Wii Sports: not, "I don't agree with those who love them," but "I can't understand why they love them... and I don't want to!"

Same. If theres anything else to the article, I couldn't see it because I was *facepalming* way too often.

Good posting. But I can't help remembering that for many years there was a lively debate over whether photography could be considered art. The debate was, of course, never settled but died out when people gradually realized that arguing over a label doesn't change reality. It was particularly important to know whether it was art because it's place in culture and society was so well established that everyone knew what it was and what it did and what it meant to them; none of which depends on know whether or not its art.

Are video games art? Who gives a rat's ass. They are only worth whatever pleasure they provide to you, be it esthetic or visceral. It is what it is.

Malstrom recognizes this but he is also writing to outrage people. He often  is over the top but he also is a genius and one of the few, or perhaps only, analyst that correctly anticipated and understood everything that has happened to video gaming. Just because he is controversal and often outrageous does not mean he is wrong.

I like reading him because whether I agree or disagree, I always come away with a new perspective. To me, that makes reading what he says often delightful, even hilarious, sometimes disturbing, but always instructive.

I'm sure there are movies that your parents don't enjoy so why is it that videogames have to be different?  I just don't understand the people that feel all videogames should lack any real depth.  Or that a game is flawed if it's not suitable for everyone.

In my opinion it just shows ignorance of what videogaming has truly become (much like the ignorance we witnessed in comic books when many people once equated them with children, and some still do).  Growing up is exactly what videogaming is doing and I think Malstrom is off the mark just as much as his 2008 election predictions.

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.

What was your very first game?

Of course physics presentations for the public are simplified, but physics isn't something that ordinary people do for recreation. And if it wasn't simplified, nobody would take an interest. You don't start off with statistical mechanics or quantum field theory, you don't even start off with Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation, you begin with simple ideas that a newcomer can understand, like the basics of momentum, gravity etc. Open the first science book you learned from, and find the first physics section. What does it start with? The Schrodinger Equation?

Tetris is a fun game with simple controls. The problem is that the games that are made today have complex, unintuitive controls. But the idea that a wider audience wouldn't enjoy deeper games is wrong. A game can be very deep without having complicated controls that you have to learn all at once. Look at Mario Kart Wii. Much of the audience that played Wii Sports is now playing that. It's a deeper game than Wii Sports with more content. If the new market can upstream to Mario Kart Wii, why do you think they won't move on to bigger, deeper games, which still have intuitive controls and an easy learning curve?

Also, your final statement reeks of selfishness. "The Wii brought even more people in but that doesn't mean that gaming as a whole should have to change to accommodate it". The only reason you think this is because the games industry treats you as a preferred customer, and you like it that way. But by what right should you really be better accommodated than anyone else? It happens to be that way now, but it won't stay that way. Don't worry though, games will still be made that you'll play, and they'll be just as deep as they are now. They just won't be controlled with classic controllers.

Huh?

For those who don't get it, Malstrom believes he's aware because he studies, he is aware of his studies; I'm really not sure if there is a better way to say that. I believe I could say that Malstrom writes as if he is a professor, or to be more precise - a passionate professor.

He's confident in what he knows because he is always in juxtapose and well researched. So it's not offensive it's just that he is emotionally attached to himself and his wraps himself around his arguments. To support himself he apparently has confidence in his own ability to think critically.

I mean I'm not being paid to expand on whom Malstrom is but that really is the angle on what he writes.

OT: He’s right and I’m not refined enough to understand his complex ways XD.

Most people who observe and share their observations are considered assholes and most of what they say is ignored. In oral cases, these people are placed under the category of ramblers first, then in the non-casual case these people are understood as assholes or frank. (Depends on context and density of what is expressed.)

Truth be told, Malstrom only sounds so accurate because he understand what he’s arguing against, he also understands what the arguing points of his competitor will be and the logic behind it.

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles..." - Sun Tzu

I agree that the range of expression of video games should include violence and sexuality. However, you shouldn't confuse mature themes with depth. There's as much depth in The Little Prince as there is in Hemingway.

Part of growing up is recognizing that not everything made for children is childish.