"It still doesn´t make sense, the only slow paced games i can think about are Brain Age and Nintendogs, the first one was created to attracta adults to the console, bringing something more than entertainment and Nintendogs its a simulation game, there is no reason to compare it with an arcade as it clearly wasn´t the intetion"

Although they do have a strong pick-up-and-play aspect.

LordTheNightKnight said: Email: Nintendo shows Sega the way Hello First I want to thank you for replying to my last e-mail (Super Mario Bros. 5 is great; question about region coding) For a long time third parties have complained about their games not selling on Wii. Instead of evaluating the games they make, they take the easy way and say that people only buy Nintendo games. Now Sega wants Nintendo to produce more mature content to help third parties sell their games. http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-455083.aspx To me this does not make any sense. First they complain that people only buy Nintendo games and now they want Nintendo to produce the same games as the third parties. Sounds like it would be harder for the third parties. Also Nintendo wants to maintain an image where gaming is for the whole family. I suspect that if nintendo starts making games like Madworld, this image could be damaged. The way I see it is that Nintendo already has opened a path of endless possibilities. Mario 5 clearly proves that there is a market for 2D games and if Sega actually listened to its fans they would already be developing a new 2D Sonic game for the wii. I imagine there is a lot of oldschool Sega/Sonic fans that owns a Wii and a 2D Sonic game could get insane sales. Many would argue that Mario 5 sells because of its name. I don?t agree with that. I believe those sales are a result og Mario 5 being a great game and very accessible. Just think if Sega could make a Sonic game matching Mario?s level design and accessibleness. I think such a game would do great but it seems that Sega only takes the mature content seriously. I dont understand Sega. They have a lot of classic games in their library that fans would like to see again but Sega just wont do it. A 2D Sonic game would be a day 1 purchase for me. I would also like another oldschool Phantasy star and Skies of Arcadia though they are probably more niche games. Sonic was once the main competitor of Mario. Now is Sega?s chance to make it happen again. Again thank you for your time. - I don?t believe you. I think you DO know why Sega doesn?t make a true 2d Sonic game. You just don?t want to believe it. Sega?s developers just do not want to make a 2d Sonic. It is that simple. Miyamoto did not want to make another classic Super Mario Brothers. How do I know this? Oh, say the 18 year wait since Super Mario World? They are trying to say that they had to wait until the hardware was good enough to do multiplayer simultaneously.  But there were multiplayer simultaneous plaformer side-scrollers on the NES (like Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers). The SNES could certainly handle that type of game as well as the N64 and Gamecube. We learned from Iwata Asks interviews that Miyamoto was not heavily involved with NSMB DS. I find that surprising since it is a major Mario game. It is a sign he wasn?t interested if he wasn?t that involved in NSMB DS. When asked by a journalist in a special interview at E3 2007 or 2008 whether there would be another game like NSMB and saying how ?Everyone wants another one!?, Miyamoto responded that the sales guys at Nintendo were wanting another one. I find that interesting. Miyamoto did not say that Miyamoto wanted another one. He did not say the Nintendo developers wanted another one. It was the sales guys who were demanding one. I thought Nintendo?s mission statement was about bringing gaming to the masses. I thought Iwata said in his ?Heart of a Gamer? speech that developers should not make games for themselves. Yet, when I look at Nintendo?s games on their Core Market side, they all seem games that the developers want to do that are not what the market necessarily wants. Does the Wii need yet another Metroid game especially one that is saturated with cutscenes with a Manga storyline? Does Super Mario Galaxy, which did not sell hardware, need a sequel? Hell, does Wii Music need a sequel? Zelda is a microcosm of what is going on at Nintendo. When I see Spirit Tracks of Zelda with the train, I think, ?Nintendo?s developers are out of control.? This is why I interpret the 2010 release date for Zelda Wii, as well as Iwata telling the triumvirate of developers who made Mario 5 that they WERE going to keep making this type of game, that Iwata is reasserting control and cracking that president whip. I do know there is a new 3d Mario game that has been worked on for the DS. Why is it being made? It is because that is what Nintendo developers want to do. The big problem facing Nintendo, aside from that catastrophic User Generated Content debacle that destroyed Wii?s momentum, is their Core Market games. The Expanded Market games are great and are working fine. Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit, and so on are all doing their jobs fantastically. Aside from the exception of ?bridge? game Mario Kart Wii, the core games are not doing their job. The latest Zelda games are not making Zelda more popular and are not bringing the game to the masses. Mario Galaxy did not do the job Miyamoto expressed it to do to sell like 2d Mario especially in Japan. Smash Brothers doesn?t seem more popular after Brawl. Rather, it appears like the opposite has occurred. Animal Crossing has gone downhill. I cannot imagine Other M or Galaxy 2 breaking this trend. Mario 5 did hit the spot and performed as Nintendo?s core games used to perform. Much is being written as to why Mario 5 is doing the job while 3d Marios did not, but let us use a larger picture. Why did Mario 5 do the job where all of Nintendo?s Core Games did not? I believe Nintendo?s Core Games have collapsed. What we are getting instead of Core Games are Fanboy Games. I have wondered why I wanted to like Smash Brothers yet the game kept repelling me. The game reeks ?fanboyism? as if the game was made for fans and not for anyone else. Nintendo?s Core Games have gotten a nasty stigma which they did not always have. I used to think this stigma was the product of other console companies? marketing departments. But now I sense that the stigma is that Nintendo?s Core Games are being held hostage by fans. I have received hate mail from all three of the pillars that make up Nintendo?s core games: Metroid, Mario, and Zelda. And my complaints was never what these games should do, but how they were going away from what originally made them popular in the first place (which will cause only further decline). Like with Metroid: Other M, I said that we don?t play Metroid to watch cutscenes or to explore the character of Samus Aran. In fact, most people didn?t even know Samus Aran?s gender or remotely care about her ?character?. With Mario, I expressed how I didn?t see why Nintendo kept wanting to make more and more 3d Mario when it shows, time and time again, that it doesn?t sell the hardware (I was referring to sequels to 3d Mario such as Galaxy 2 and the upcoming new 3d Mario on the DS) yet I have to wait twenty years for 2d Mario. Ever since Mario 5 exploded in the market, I stopped getting those emails. And now with Zelda, when I say that Zelda should return to its style of action and arcade roots, I am not saying Zelda should become not Zelda. It is clearly what Zelda used to be. And it is what made the series popular in the first place. But ever since Spirit Tracks came out, I stopped getting those emails too. I think Nintendo developers who work on these games are ?fanboys? of the series as well. Nintendo is very good at enforcing ?customer experience? for their games and not ?fun for the developers?. So I imagine Nintendo developers thinking it is torture to make games like Wii Sports or Wii Fit so they ?let themselves go? and ?do what they want? when it comes to the Core side of the games. Alas for them, they are not going to do what they want on the Core Side as well. But a game developer is a JOB. In what JOBS are there where the employee does what he wants to do? Bus drivers don?t choose which bus route they want to take. Pilots don?t get to decide which airports they wish to land. Cooks don?t get to decide to make only the foods they want to eat. So why is this any different for the game developer? So if you have read this far, you should sense that Nintendo developers may have been ?out of control? on the Core Side. And Nintendo, a Japanese company, is very strict and is good at whipping their employees that the ?customer experience? is what matters. If Nintendo had these problems, just imagine how bad it is in other companies like Sega. Let me give you another example. The creator of Mega Man (forgot his name) is making Mega Man 10. Why? Capcom revealed that Mega Man 10 was being made due to creative interest within the company, not from any interest of its sales as Mega Man 9 didn?t perform too well (it performed well at first but then dropped off). Is there any reason for Mega Man 10 not to use a color palette that is as sophisticated as a 16-bit console at least? The only possible answer is that the developers are making the game for themselves. I believe the Mega Man creator, who believes gaming is finished in Japan and has said so, is just re-living his glory days for one last time. It is about HIM. It is not about Mega Man. It is not about the Mega Man fan. It is not about new consumers. It is all about HIM. Mega Man fans love Mega Man 2 and Mega Man 3. He doesn?t like Mega Man 3 (probably because he wasn?t a part of it). Since his glory days was with Mega Man 1 and 2, Mega Man 9 and 10 must be games where he can make-believe he is back in his glory days. Mega Man 9 and 10 are stuck, in a bizarre time warp, between Mega Man 1 and 2 . And Mega Man 9 was nothing, at all, like Mega Man 2 or even 1. Mega Man games are not Ghosts and Goblins type experiences where the player frustratingly has ?instant deaths? again and again. But this game is getting made because the Mega Man creator is a senior top dog at the company. In the story about Sega you linked, Sega says Nintendo should make ?mature? games. Here is what is really being said: Sega doesn?t want to make Expanded Audience games. Sega developers only wish to make the games they want to make, to publish the games they want to play, and these are all ?mature games?. This ?audience? is not perceived to be on the Wii. So Sega is telling Nintendo to make these ?mature games? to create an audience so Sega can make the games they want. Imagine if all I wanted to do was make games about kangaroos. There is no kangeroo game audience on the Wii. So I demand Nintendo make a game about kangaroos so that audience will be there. Then, I will be able to make the games I want to make. I think game developers are, in general, completely out of control. Sure, there is much blame to be put on publishers and all. But look at the independent developers. Why are the games they are making so freakishly quirky and un-mass market as possible? In other entertainment mediums, most people never succeed at their dream because they think it is about entertaining themselves. Writers have to write things people want to buy, not things the author wants to read. Musicians have to play things people want to pay to listen to, not things the musicians themselves want to listen. The true lesson of PONG is that Nolan Bushnell did not want to make it. He wanted to sell Space War because that is what he enjoyed playing when he was in college. Somehow, Bushnell was either smart enough (or desperate enough) to go with what resonated with customers instead of what resonated with Bushnell. It is that moment, of PONG selling while Space War did not, is when the video game market truly began. Before that time, all video games were made for the inventor?s amusement. We are seeing a reverse which is declining the ?Game Industry? as a whole. Instead of making PONG, they want to make Space War. Instead of making Wii Sports Tennis, they want to make Space Marine games. Here is another insight as to why companies like Sega do not make what is clearly obvious: another 2d Sonic. Games, in my life, are a release and enjoyment. I don?t play games as much which is why I can write on this website frequently. But I also tinker on the development side of games too. Programming is very relaxing to me. It is fun to make the computer do things you want it to do. I have noticed that developers tend to fall in love with their own creations. It is more than just ?All our babies are beautiful? syndrome. The problem is this: In the above picture, it is about the story of a man carving a statue of a woman and falling in love with it. The gods turned the statue, Galatea, into flesh and blood. Poets enjoy this story and allude to it all the time as the story can be used as a metaphor for many Human scenarios. The purpose of a game is to perform the job a game is supposed to do. But I get the creepy sense that many developers get romanticized by their own game. They literally become entranced by it. They want to touch it. They want to explore it. They want to enter it. They want to walk around in it. And this is what it is about. Ever since gaming switched to 3d in terms of how games are programmed and made, developers do not like looking at their ?baby? from one angle. Just as parents annoyingly take pictures of their kid from all sorts of angles, the developer insists the game become ?3d?. Then the developer can walk around his creation and say, ?How beautiful!?.They want to admire their creation from every angle. The thought of the game just being ?2d? makes them cringe. Add on the fact that publishers think 2d games ?aren?t impressive? and ?won?t sell anyway? and first class 2d games become dead. All we get stuck with are experimental games like LittleBigPlanet or downloadable games that are poor at best. Even Miyamoto had to be dragged over to make a new 2d Mario game. If it wasn?t for his quest to make a full multiplayer Mario game, Miyamoto likely would have had zero passion for the project. Do developers of our fabled ?Game Industry? want to make games for the Expanded Audience (of which I am a member)? No. They scream and pout like children when making a game that is not ?hardcore?. In fact, they give those type of games to the second tier or third tier teams. They don?t want to make those games. And it is the same way with 2d type games. They do not want to make them. Note all the anger at Mario5 coming from all parts of the ?Industry?. Why are they so angry at this game? And how in the world did Mario 5 become a ?casual game?? Mario 5 is closer to that Platonic ideal of a game than anything else. I believe much of the ?developer rage? at the Wii and its success is entirely related to dawning reality that game developers are not going to forever make games for themselves and that the games game developers want to play are not the same that the masses want to play. When Star Wars came out in the 70s, the movie makers said that it ruined the movies. In the 70s, movie makers were making movies for themselves which resulted in many people not going to the movies anymore. But movies like Star Wars and Jaws made the movies fun again. The book industry is currently not healthy because of the problem that publishers and writers want to make the books they want to make. They do not want to make what people want to read. The reason why Sega won?t make a 2d Sonic is the same reason why game companies stopped making games for the masses. They believe they are ?creative geniuses? and they see making a game like Wii Sports or even Mario 5 as a ?waste? of their incredible ?creative genius?.

Ok I gave to say..the beginning part about SEGA was spot on...I say it time and time again,SEGA has the ability to be the most powerful 3rd party developer ever, and even the ability to compete with on there own console, STREETS of RAGE, VECTORMAN, SHINOBI, SHUME, a TRUE GOLDEN AX...where are they? ppl would eat these games up..but the part about game development being a Job not a creative arts( like movies, Art,books) is BS....i hope you dont mind but this article needs to be shared..so i think im gonna post again

"but the part about game development being a Job not a creative arts( like movies, Art,books) is BS....i hope you dont mind but this article needs to be shared..so i think im gonna post again"

I would choose better words, but I think what he means is that it's not something for artists. It's about making a product for a large audience, not rich patrons.

elmerion said: It still doesn´t make sense, the only slow paced games i can think about are Brain Age and Nintendogs, the first one was created to attracta adults to the console, bringing something more than entertainment and Nintendogs its a simulation game, there is no reason to compare it with an arcade as it clearly wasn´t the intetion On the other side Mario, Wii Sports and Mario Kart, are clearly fast paced games, i won´t deny they are not as hard, and they lack certain things, but the core of the games is arcade, just compare it to the big HD Consoles game, Assasin Creed, Call of Duty, Final Fantasy XIII etc... they just weren´t to be played for a couple of mins

 

on the other hand, these are the Wii and DS games thats in top 10 of December 2009:

 

 

 

• New Super Mario Bros. Wii at No. 2 – more than 4.2 million sold
• Wii Sports Resort at No. 3 – more than 4.2 million sold
• Wii Fit at No. 4 -more than 3.5 million sold
• Mario Kart Wii at No. 5 – nearly 3.1 million sold
• Wii Play at No. 6 – more than 3.1 million sold
• Wii Fit Plus at No. 8 – more than 2.4 million sold
• Pokémon Platinum Version at No. 10 – more than 2.0 million sold

 

 

 

Yeah, I can see it now arcade gaming revival with what? Wii Sports Resort? Like table tennis? Swordplay? more Wii bowling and more Wii golf? Wii Fit and Wii Fit plus? Yeah, some arcade action right there with balancing or something. Or what about Wii Play with only space hockey and billiards the most people play in that game. And most  games in that title except for Duck hunt and Tanks arent exactly arcade gameplay either. Pick up and play yes but not arcade gameplay. The only real arcade gameplay there was NSMB Wii and Malstrom once said that Wii owners needs content. What content? If most Wii owners never care for content. They never carif the swordfighting in WM plus have dragons and knights and dungeons they care only for WSR swordfighting. Thats it.

 

 

Do you know whats the future of gaming is? CASUALS. Casuals like the Wii console and casuals like Facebook games. If theres someting that Malstrom was afraid to talk of its facebook games. Because all of his dreams and theories are shattered if someone talks of facebook games. This new gen wasnt a revolution its a trend a long fad. Anyone remembered boybands? Even its short lived theyre still in music market for almost 10 years. Same goes to this casual revolution. In the end we never know what the future brings. The age of arcades was over, its a done deal in the late 80s you cant bring that back YOU CANT.

Off-topic: I just watched the Wario Ware: Smooth Moves video inserted into one of Malstrom's blogs.

I think I'm in love...

As nobody has done it, this is his recent blog.

 

Reggie destroys Wii HD

"1) Consumer behavior shows that graphics are not as relevant to the entertainment experience as they once were."

But Modern Warfare 2 has advanced graphics. People can't be buying that game for any other reason.

LordTheNightKnight said: "1) Consumer behavior shows that graphics are not as relevant to the entertainment experience as they once were." But Modern Warfare 2 has advanced graphics. People can't be buying that game for any other reason.

And yet, NSMBWii is selling faster and growing.

Bobbuffalo said: LordTheNightKnight said: "1) Consumer behavior shows that graphics are not as relevant to the entertainment experience as they once were." But Modern Warfare 2 has advanced graphics. People can't be buying that game for any other reason. And yet, NSMBWii is selling faster and growing.

 

 

NSMB Wii was a disruptive product just as like Wii sports and WSR and Wii Fit. It sells because it is. Theres no explanation why it sells but its because one of its kind. If NSMB Wii has a sequel it wouldnt sell as much as the original. I know its beyond logic  analyst's understanding but it is. Even I cant explain it.

 

Well lets just admit it, if not for the wow factor in COD 4 especially the graphics it wont sell. The poblem with IW and Activision was they need lots and lots of money to sell and develop the game and advetised it. NSMB Wii dont even need lots of money to develop or advertised the game because the game is disruptive. No one and I MEAN NO ONE can copy's NSMB wii success. Even Nintendo themselves. If 3rd parties ride on with the retro revival even how better the game than NSMB Wii it wouldnt sell as NSMB Wii was.

 

A mistake that Malstrom points out in his blogs. NSMB Wii didnt sell because the customer dont like shiny graphics or because of arcade gameplay, it sell because of its novelty and its novelty makes the game disruptive. Lets not forget the cases too.

This is probably my favority post of his yet. He explains some of the things that tick me off about many games. I don't want to just sit through a story and not do anything. I don't want to have to spend 30 seconds ever time I want to use a spell (not against magic being flashy, since it's magic, just that the flash gets repetative when I can't skip them).

This is why at least the PS2 GTA games are so awesome (haven't played IV, so I just have user impressions to go on that), as well as Saints Row 2 (which I have played).

You aren't watching Scarface in Vice City. You're running around there having fun. When there is less gameplay and more focus on being on a railroad story is forcing me to be an actor in the game.

As in a railroad story isn't so bad (like Disgaea has great stories), just don't put them over the gameplay (which Disgaea doesn't).

Anyway:

 

 

 

Email: How exactly do you define content?

This is a great question. I am suspecting now that the reason why the Core Market is having so many problems, aside from its out of control budget for games (and even that may be a symptom of this cause) is that there is no fresh content in the Core Market. All the games are the same. Each new generation is the same exact content with new coats of paint. Gamers are no longer surprised.

Computer animation is only entertaining if you are an adolescent or young adult. This is why, I suspect, gaming, which started out with a broad range of ages and both genders, has ended up becoming confined to young males and even middle aged males. Movies, also, have got stuck into that group ever since they relied more and more on computer animation (i.e. special effects).

Star Wars had great content. It had substance AND style. However, the Star Wars prequels, while having very good computer animation, lacked the substance the original Star Wars films had. Children love the new Star Wars films because computer animation is only really entertaining to the young.

The ‘hardcore’ are still enchanted by computer animation. I am not. Older people are not. In a recent Final Fantasy game, when a spell was being cast the camera would swirl around and there would be all this animation. I just said, “I am done,” to put down the controller and walk away. Computer animation is not entertaining to the masses.

People wonder how Mario 5 outsold Super Mario Galaxy so fast. These people think Super Mario Galaxy is “clearly the superior game”. Well, why is it superior? What makes Galaxy superior to Mario 5? Computer animation. Young people are still enchanted with computer animation. People like me lost interest in computer animation since Buck Rogers. The ‘awe’ they felt was nothing but ‘computer animation’. These gamers will age and will wonder why games they once loved has aged so poorly. It is because the games’ “fun” relied on computer animation. A game relying on ‘computer animation’ for its fun will result in the game aging like milk. Think of all those early 3d games.

Gameplay and “Graphics” are performing the same job

For ages, we have heard the debate: gameplay versus graphics. I am here to say this debate is absurd because gameplay and graphics are performing the same exact job.

What is the job of a game’s “graphics”? It is to attract and immerse the player into the game. It is to hold the player into an addiction of seeing what new monster or area will be coming up.

What is the job of a game’s “gameplay”? It is to attract and immerse the player into the game. It is to hold the player into an addiction in seeing what new monster or area will be coming up.

I’ve noticed using analogies of other entertainment mediums seems to express the point the clearest. Books have graphics. A book does have its cover, it may have pictures in the book. Fantasy books often have maps inside the book. All of this is to grab the reader and place them into the book’s world.

A book’s writing style would be the equivalent of a game’s gameplay. Like gameplay, a book’s writing style should be ACCESSIBLE, ADDICTING, and FAST PACED. A good writing style is that the person doesn’t want to put down the book. The reader wants to turn the page. A good gameplay has the person not want to stop playing. The gamer wants to get to the next level, to the next dungeon, or whatever.

Let us throw theater into this. “Graphics” to theater would be the props. It would be the stage set. It would be the costumes. All of this is to immerse the audience into the play.

The “gameplay” or “writing style” to the theater would be the ‘acting’ and the wit from the script. All of this is necessary for a good show.

Content is what the hell the show is about. It is the WHY. Not the HOW.

To the theater, how the lights are on to the acting style to the props are the HOW. Not the WHY. Why should people watch a play? They don’t know. Theater people are only obsessed with the how, not the why. The result is that theater has collapsed as an entertainment medium. Half of all plays put on in America are Shakespeare’s plays which shows you how bad it is.

To the books, the writing style to the book cover and pictures are all the HOW. Not the WHY. Why should people read a book? They don’t know. Publishers are only obsessed with the how, not the why. The result is that the books have collapsed as an entertainment medium. The only reason why people read books today is because they have to due to school. The books that ’sell’ are books sold to schools or textbooks (which you pay a pretty penny for if you are in University).

To video games, gameplay and graphics are both centered about HOW. Not the WHY. Why should people play a video game? This should be the dominant question. Video game pioneers had to address this question during the 70s and 80s. With the NES, Nintendo had to answer why people should play a video game with their new console.

Since then, everyone has taken gaming’s purpose for granted. Why should anyone buy a video game? “Because it is fun.” Why is it fun? “Shooting things is fun.” Every other game is shooting things. How is your game any different? “It has zombies.” Meh.

Especially on their Expanded Market, Nintendo appears to be answering why people should play a video game.

Why should I play a video game? “Because,” soothes Nintendo, “you can get fit and lose weight.” BAM! Wii Fit then becomes a massive best seller.

Why should I play a video game? “Because,” says Nintendo, “you can get smarter and fire up your brain.” BAM! Brain Age becomes a big seller.

Why should I play a video game? “Because,” says Nintendo, “you can do things in it that you cannot do in real life. Like own puppies. Like play baseball.” BAM! Nintendogs becomes a best seller. Wii Sports becomes a best seller.

Wii Sports is special also since a big reason why someone plays it is to engage in the social experience with other people.

Very much, what I mean by content is value of the product. However, I am being a laser on content because that is the reason why the ‘imagination’ games are not doing so hot. I mean the Core Games.

Why should I buy your new Core Game?

“Because it has better computer animation than the last game.”

WRONG ANSWER.

Why should I buy your new Core Game?

“Because it has new gameplay mechanics. Oh, and there is the Meta-Game. And achievements!”

WRONG ANSWER.

When games were being born, gaming was exploring all sorts of different content experiences. How about a video game about you being a railroad tycoon and you can make tracks and buy new trains? Sounds like fun!

How about a game where you are a caveman going through caves, dodging another caveman, dodging cliffs and monsters?

How about a game where you explore the galaxy in a space ship, meet crazy aliens, and be an experience like Star Trek?

How about a game where you are the hero with companions in a fantasy world similar to Lord of the Rings?

How about exploring a rich wonderland like Alice in Wonderland?

Pretend the year was 1989, and you asked a child, “Why do you play Super Mario Brothers?” the child would enthusiastically respond, “To save the princess!”

But lo, a modern game developer would appear and say, “Child, that is not why you play Super Mario Brothers. You play the game because of a Pavlovian reward system that has been systematically metered out throughout the game.”

The child would look at the game developer like he was an idiot. Then the child would say, “Sometimes I do play just to find out what is in the next level! I also enjoy trying to go down pipes and see what secrets I can find in each level!”

The modern game developer would argue with the child. “Yes, but it is not the areas or secrets you want. It is only the process of finding them. It is only the feeling and sensation of it, not the actual result. You desire only the process, not the substance.”

The child would look at the modern developer as if he turned into the HorseHead boss from Zelda II. “That is like telling me that I eat only because I enjoy the process of chewing and swallowing. I eat because I am hungry. I do not play games because I enjoy the process of frustration and mechanics. Just as I eat because I am hungry, I play games because I am bored.”

Gaming is food for the soul. The appetite for gaming already exists in the Nature of Man. Everyone wants to play.

And let us say Miyamoto materialized out of nowhere. He would say, “Super Mario Brothers was never made in imitation of Alice in Wonderland. It was designed to have water, to have sky, to have underground areas all in a fantastical arena.”

And the child would respond, “But it IS wonderland. I play Mario because I love being in Wonderland.”

The child’s definition is the correct one. The child is trying to plainly express that he/she is playing the game for the content. The old fuddy duddies are trying to say the HOW the game works is more important than the WHY. But the child will disagree.

The magic of gaming can be seen in the reflection of that child.

The Content of Gaming

Like books, games can take many forms. I suspect you are not interested in knowing the content of expanded market games like Wii Fit or Wii Sports. (Yet, observe how easy it is to spot the content in those games.) I think you are interested in the imagination games.

Gaming re-writes the theater equilibrium and makes the audience the central actor. In gaming, the gamer is not a passive audience. No. In gaming, the gamer is the player.

Holodeck analogies seem appropriate here. Imagine a holodeck program where you do nothing but sit and watch what goes on. What a worthless program! It wouldn’t rightfully be called a ‘game’ if the player is mostly passive, right?

The content of the program grows depending on how much the player can interact with the program and the program reacting to the player. Can friends join the player in the experience of the program? If so, the program has more value. Its content increases.

How about a holodeck program about paying bills? That would be a crappy program. That would also be a crappy video game. How about, instead, a program about doing your exercise by fighting monsters? Sounds like fun!

Sid Meir once said that a game is a sum of interesting choices. This would imply the opposite, that life is a sum of uninteresting choices. How many interesting choices do you have in life?

Children have no interesting choices. This is why they play games. They are bored. In games, they are free to make decisions.

Adults do not have interesting choices. This is why they play games too. They have boring lives from going to work, sitting in traffic all day, to watching TV. Yawn. This is why they would rather slay a dragon in a fantasy digital land. I suppose this is why the Japanese really latched hard to the RPG games such as Dragon Quest. Clearly, the game was offering an experience more entertaining than their dull routine.

Why do people keep buying Zelda? It is because of expectations of new content. They want to explore the Zelda universe more. They discuss time lines and alternate time lines and then place all the Zelda games into crazy charts. They are clearly buying it for the content.

I remember buying Super Mario Brothers 3 and Super Mario World excited to know what new lands and creatures await for me. I bought Super Mario Brothers 5 for the same reason.

But with Zelda, you spend more time in the game hunting pieces of heart then you do slaying a dragon. I would much rather slay a dragon. Zelda games are in decline because of the content. Slaying a dragon is far more entertaining and interesting than going bug hunting or finding pieces of heart.

No one went to the theater to watch the routine. So why does anyone expect people to buy a video game to play a routine? If Sid Meir is correct, then the choices in games need to be interesting. Deciding which bug to collect is not interesting. Deciding which weapon I am going to kill that monster with IS interesting. This is perhaps a big reason why a game like Monster Hunter completely wipes the floor with a game like Zelda. Zelda has become a snore fest. And while Monster Hunter is a ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’ type game, the reason why people love it is (according to them) all the different types of interesting choices they get to make.

So the content of a game is not just choices. It is INTERESTING choices.

When games imitate movies, they are removing choices. This is why gamers complain.

Unlike theater or movies, the stage set is very important to games. The stage set, alone, can help provide the interesting part. Super Mario Brothers made it big while Mario Brothers didn’t, despite similar mechanics, was because of the Mushroom Kingdom and the setting of Wonderland. The game became INTERESTING because of that. But aside from that, there needs to be choices presented to the player in order for “play” to exist. Does the player jump on the koopa troopa or avoid it? If the player jumps on the koopa trooper, does the player pick up the shell? If so, where does the player launch the koopa shell? A big reason why 2d Mario is way more successful than 3d Mario is because when Mario went to 3d the range of choices available to the player shrank. The player has to get the star a certain way. The player must go this direction or that direction. The player has to kill that monster. In 2d Mario, the player is free to choose his or her own way and his or her own style of play.

The greater the range of interesting play, the greater the content. In Wii Sports Resort Cycling, it would be more interesting if you could shake your Wii-mote to punch the Mii next to you off his bicycle. And people wonder why Road Rash made a big splash when it came out.

A game like Civilization is very boring mechanically and from a gameplay sense. However, Civilization has a gazillion different type of choices available for the player. The choices begin small but grow over time. And the choices are interesting.

When the game becomes repetitive is when the choices become uninteresting. Deciding where a settler is going to irrigate is only interesting when you have a couple cities. When you have fifty cities, it is a pain.

Should that level in Zelda have a cave? The answer is only if there is something interesting inside that cave. If there is nothing interesting in that cave, it is better for the choice to be cut off. Games are nothing but a sum of interesting choices.

And this is why the “Game God” with his ‘vision’ is dead. It is the customer’s vision that is what matters. It is the player who is at the center of the game. The video game revolves and rotates entirely based on the player. The dilemma for game developers is to allow many choices and make them all interesting.

Again, I insist that gameplay and graphics are one of the same. They are both parts of the stage. The gamer is the player. The interesting choices the player engages in (which exist in the player’s mind, not the developer’s mind) is the content of the game.

So content complaints come in two flavors: either the choice is not ‘interesting’ or that there is no choice at all.

If the game is a corridor game where I am constantly led around, people will complain it has no game content despite the voice acting and art assets. Likewise, if a game is where I am doing errands and collecting things, people will complain it has no game content despite all the “rich gameplay”. People want interesting choices, not boring choices!

Tetris is a game stunningly rich with interesting choices. Do you place the block here or there? Rotate it this way or that way? Do you go for a Tetris or not? How do you solve that hole you made? Tetris is consistent with interesting choices from beginning of the game to the end of it.

RTS games are rich with interesting choices. Do you rush? Do you tech? Do you build this unit or that unit? How do you respond to the enemy?

FPS games are rich with interesting choices. Do you attack with this weapon or that weapon? Do you use this angle or that angle? Do you stay on the high ground or sneak around on the low ground? Do you jump around like a bunny or do you snipe from the tower?

A good game has a constant rhythm of interesting choices.  One of the problems with Role Playing Games is that the constant growth or item based gameplay ends up with less interesting choices at the end of the game. In a RTS game, you run low on resources which raises the stakes on your interesting choices. So the end of a RTS game ends up being the climax of the game (if properly done). Unfortunately, RPG games can get more boring as they go on.

Play a game and ask yourself, “What are the interesting choices that I have?” And there is the content of the player experience.