Jump to content
Fogel

Gamer - Defined

Recommended Posts

Silly me...i thought this thread was just for the fun of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gamer is more than just someone who plays video games or board games, which it appears most everyone here thinks. A pure gamer has a different way of thinking and seeing the world. They will always find a game in what they are doing which makes a possibly boring task into something engaging, allowing them to get through it faster, happier, and with a better result. It is important enough for a book to be written about it: Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. It talks about games that clean graveyards, let you be someone's hero, survive plane flights, if you don't like them, and more.

Let's consider an example I know you know about. Remember how by playing games Valve was moving up the release of Portal 2? That was an augmented reality game that made the act of playing the games a game itself, instead of playing within the game. That would have only barely worked if Steam has casual gamers because very few would have bought the Potato Sack to play the games they don't have. Light, medium, and hardcore gamers would all have spent more time playing the games, to get the potatoes and try to see the bars move further, the clock wind down, and the number of potatoes increase. They also would have bought the games they didn't have, to play the ARG more and get a greater sense of accomplishment. Also ,an ARG like that would give a stronger sense of accomplishment than playing the games in the Potato Sack because you can actually see your impact changing the world. The current Summer Camp Sale and tickets are another ARG and while it doesn't change the world it makes just the act of playing games a game, as we try to get the tickets. To get more tickets people will buy the games and by having the games on sale people are more willing to purchase the games.

These and other ARG's are made possible by research into how gamers think and knowing what they will most likely do. Steam would need to know they have enough core-gamers (light, medium, and hardcore) to make money from the tickets, or else they wouldn't have done that. No, you don't hire people to play games for you; they pay you to play games.

While 20-30 people on a forum may not better the world (or will we?) we are bettering ourselves.

Well I guess this either means, I don't care enough about myself, or I find better ways to better myself. :lol:

 

Also, that other stuff you're talking about is purely marketing, there was no actually challenge or game to the Portal 2 early release, for anyone that saw it near the end, you probably noticed that games that were crawling for days and days had suddenly made up for the other 50% of their bar in the last few hours. Every bar was filled by the time it was released, which would indicate that the bars filled up according to the release date, not the release date according to the bars.

 

As for the way the current sales marketing works, it's a much better system because the reward is actually there, however it doesn't necessarily mean you have to pay in at all. This kind of marketing is pretty much aimed at what you call the Hardcore or Medium gamers, because light or casual gamers most likely will go for the free tickets or simply the ones they actually want.

 

I know someone posted a link to MLG earlier but I didn't really feel like responding to that because the post had no depth or real commentary, just a link. However I want to bring that up because like I said before, you can turn gaming into a job, whether that be as a player or as a creator, in which cases I could understand the want to come up with definitions and categorizations. My point was that maybe only 5 people in this thread are part of those groups, most of us aren't game developers or MLG players, so those of us that aren't part of these groups don't benefit from this knowledge in other way than self assurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess this either means, I don't care enough about myself, or I find better ways to better myself. :lol:

 

Also, that other stuff you're talking about is purely marketing, there was no actually challenge or game to the Portal 2 early release, for anyone that saw it near the end, you probably noticed that games that were crawling for days and days had suddenly made up for the other 50% of their bar in the last few hours. Every bar was filled by the time it was released, which would indicate that the bars filled up according to the release date, not the release date according to the bars.

 

As for the way the current sales marketing works, it's a much better system because the reward is actually there, however it doesn't necessarily mean you have to pay in at all. This kind of marketing is pretty much aimed at what you call the Hardcore or Medium gamers, because light or casual gamers most likely will go for the free tickets or simply the ones they actually want.

 

I know someone posted a link to MLG earlier but I didn't really feel like responding to that because the post had no depth or real commentary, just a link. However I want to bring that up because like I said before, you can turn gaming into a job, whether that be as a player or as a creator, in which cases I could understand the want to come up with definitions and categorizations. My point was that maybe only 5 people in this thread are part of those groups, most of us aren't game developers or MLG players, so those of us that aren't part of these groups don't benefit from this knowledge in other way than self assurance.

But your an anti-gamer, remember. I haven't put the thought into it to fully flesh out a definition but I'm thinking that's a gamer who desires only a specific experience and sense of accomplishment, and when a game will not satisfy it changes the game, by cheating and/or modding, to have a desirable experience or sense of accomplishment. Like a gamer will play a game and and get that experience but an anti-gamer will play for an experience and change the game to fit it, if necessary.

Yes, it is marketing but it is based on augmented reality games; that's what ARG stands for after all. Also, the Portal 2 thing, the bars were being filled by the potatoes. In the end the bars grew as the potatoes were consumed. That effect just started so long before the actual release. By having the immediate rewards also fits exactly with what I was saying earlier (or at least thinking, I wrote it long enough ago that it is a little blurred in my head). Gamers want the sense of accomplishment and the rewards give it while the Portal 2 release thing really didn't. So it launches early, it's not like it wouldn't launch otherwise. These rewards are something you may only be able to get this way and something you choose.

In any case, you did verify my point by saying "This kind of marketing is pretty much aimed at what you call the Hardcore or Medium gamers, because light or casual gamers most likely will go for the free tickets or simply the ones they actually want." If you don't have an understand of that kind of person, which for greatest efficiency requires a definition, then you cannot appropriately market to them. Further, this shows the study of gamers being used outside of science and traditional game creation (an ARG is a game, but not like L4D2 or MNF). Also, I think it will shift some gamers towards hardcore to get those tickets. It could get someone who may only play an hour or so a week to play more just to get the tickets for games they already own. That extra effort could end the day after the sale, but it could continue.

Eh, that's enough for now. Want to work on some news articles. This sale is really making me unproductive outside of Steam. If not today then tomorrow there will poassibly be news items on students educating people on proper computer posture, a video game to boost science literacy, and invisibility cloak. Not sure though because I haven't read those articles yet, but the titles are interesting enough for my attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your an anti-gamer, remember. I haven't put the thought into it to fully flesh out a definition but I'm thinking that's a gamer who desires only a specific experience and sense of accomplishment, and when a game will not satisfy it changes the game, by cheating and/or modding, to have a desirable experience or sense of accomplishment. Like a gamer will play a game and and get that experience but an anti-gamer will play for an experience and change the game to fit it, if necessary.

Yes, it is marketing but it is based on augmented reality games; that's what ARG stands for after all. Also, the Portal 2 thing, the bars were being filled by the potatoes. In the end the bars grew as the potatoes were consumed. That effect just started so long before the actual release. By having the immediate rewards also fits exactly with what I was saying earlier (or at least thinking, I wrote it long enough ago that it is a little blurred in my head). Gamers want the sense of accomplishment and the rewards give it while the Portal 2 release thing really didn't. So it launches early, it's not like it wouldn't launch otherwise. These rewards are something you may only be able to get this way and something you choose.

In any case, you did verify my point by saying "This kind of marketing is pretty much aimed at what you call the Hardcore or Medium gamers, because light or casual gamers most likely will go for the free tickets or simply the ones they actually want." If you don't have an understand of that kind of person, which for greatest efficiency requires a definition, then you cannot appropriately market to them. Further, this shows the study of gamers being used outside of science and traditional game creation (an ARG is a game, but not like L4D2 or MNF). Also, I think it will shift some gamers towards hardcore to get those tickets. It could get someone who may only play an hour or so a week to play more just to get the tickets for games they already own. That extra effort could end the day after the sale, but it could continue.

Eh, that's enough for now. Want to work on some news articles. This sale is really making me unproductive outside of Steam. If not today then tomorrow there will poassibly be news items on students educating people on proper computer posture, a video game to boost science literacy, and invisibility cloak. Not sure though because I haven't read those articles yet, but the titles are interesting enough for my attention.

I'm not quite sure why you call it anti-gamer, but your description is fairly accurate for me. I like to play games for the story first, that's the main appeal of most games for me. I usually like to cheat because it helps me get through the story faster, that's often my main reason for cheating through a game. Your description also fits me well for modding, I love to mod games, a great example of this is Left 4 Dead, there was actually a mod in that game where you could spawn props into the game, like sandbags, fences, jeeps, buses, and even puddles, and I used to play on servers with that mod all the time because it just made it a lot more interesting.

 

As for the Portal 2 thing, you definitely have an interesting theory there but I still think none of those games or potatoes affected it, I think they simply picked the time and had the bars fill out as they saw fit.

 

As for the marketing, you say that we need to have a better definition for gamers, but if the main use of defining gamers is marketing, doesn't it make more sense to broaden the definition as much as possible? I mean you want to be able to market to as many people as possible after all. Which by the way, this sale doesn't really do, I know some people that are simply ignoring it because it's mostly indie games that are being put into the camp activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure why you call it anti-gamer, but your description is fairly accurate for me. I like to play games for the story first, that's the main appeal of most games for me. I usually like to cheat because it helps me get through the story faster, that's often my main reason for cheating through a game. Your description also fits me well for modding, I love to mod games, a great example of this is Left 4 Dead, there was actually a mod in that game where you could spawn props into the game, like sandbags, fences, jeeps, buses, and even puddles, and I used to play on servers with that mod all the time because it just made it a lot more interesting.

 

As for the Portal 2 thing, you definitely have an interesting theory there but I still think none of those games or potatoes affected it, I think they simply picked the time and had the bars fill out as they saw fit.

 

As for the marketing, you say that we need to have a better definition for gamers, but if the main use of defining gamers is marketing, doesn't it make more sense to broaden the definition as much as possible? I mean you want to be able to market to as many people as possible after all. Which by the way, this sale doesn't really do, I know some people that are simply ignoring it because it's mostly indie games that are being put into the camp activities.

There are two reasons I'm calling it an anti-gamer. At first I saw it to have a similar relation to gamer as hero and antihero have. Second, I just thought it would be funny to call you an anti-gamer :P

Without asking Steam/Valve about how they did the release of Portal 2, we'll never know.

For marketing I'm pretty sure you'd want as specific a definition as possible, because you don't want to waste money on people that aren't what you're aiming at. Of course Steam's marketing can be a lot different than most companies because a website costs as much to have if ten or ten million, so they can afford being broad. Now I ask you two things concerning your friends; what kind of gamers are they and are there enough to extrapolate to all Steam users? You say you have friends ignoring it and I can say my friends are doing much the opposite. Of course we are not buying games solely for the ticket, but games that we will enjoy too. The daily deals are what are mainly getting us though, with some of those A titles. Of course, this could be intentional. The tickets get the lighter gamers and the daily deals get the harder gamers. Also, may I ask why are your friends ignoring the indie games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two reasons I'm calling it an anti-gamer. At first I saw it to have a similar relation to gamer as hero and antihero have. Second, I just thought it would be funny to call you an anti-gamer :P

Without asking Steam/Valve about how they did the release of Portal 2, we'll never know.

For marketing I'm pretty sure you'd want as specific a definition as possible, because you don't want to waste money on people that aren't what you're aiming at. Of course Steam's marketing can be a lot different than most companies because a website costs as much to have if ten or ten million, so they can afford being broad. Now I ask you two things concerning your friends; what kind of gamers are they and are there enough to extrapolate to all Steam users? You say you have friends ignoring it and I can say my friends are doing much the opposite. Of course we are not buying games solely for the ticket, but games that we will enjoy too. The daily deals are what are mainly getting us though, with some of those A titles. Of course, this could be intentional. The tickets get the lighter gamers and the daily deals get the harder gamers. Also, may I ask why are your friends ignoring the indie games?

I'm not an anti-gamer, you're just a meanie! :P Honestly though I don't think anti-gamer fits me well enough, which is part of the reason I don't even like the idea of trying to define people as gamers, it's never really what you label them as I don't think. For example, you call me the anti-gamer because I like to cheat or mods my games, yet I'm extremely against cheating in multiplayer games, I believe multiplayer games are almost better on consoles even because you're less likely to get any cheaters. however I don't this applies to all multiplayer games, mostly just the ones where people play against each other, at the same time though I do like mods in these vs games if it's kept fair. I'm not saying you can't label people but just that it will never be as simple as the labels are made out to be, which is why this thread was created but if you look at everything I just wrote, plus all of my previous posts and opinions on gaming, I don't think game marketers want that specific of a definition, I think that's part of the reason they keep it open. By the way, I see you playing some Batman AA right now, and that's definitely anti-gamer. :P

 

As for friends, I'm not sure what to call them as far as gamers, probably AAA snobs or something like that. They're the kind of person that looks at indie games or cheap games and think of them as generic and a dime a dozen, they really only pay attention to those big AAA titles like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Left 4 Dead, Prototype, Batman AA, Portal 2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, just about anything that is released for $50. No, they're probably not a big group, it's just like 2 or 3 of my friends that do it, but they were just an example as well, I also have friends that are ignoring this sale for other reasons, I was just using a couple friends for an example as to how the sales don't work very well when aimed at only certain groups of gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of curious about something here, I just can't seem to wrap my head around the point of this thread so I'd like to ask, why does anyone feel the need to label, separate, categorize gamers?

 

It's simple - same reason anything is categorized. Why do people who like baseball want to be called baseball fans? Why do people who cheer for the Packers want to be called Packer Fans/Cheeseheads?

 

When people share a similar interest with someone else there is immediately a bond there that didn't exist before. All of sudden there are things to talk about where as you may have looked at each other with a blank stare before. When you share a common interest with someone you can guage their personality with their interests within that hobby.

 

So for example if someone identifies themself as a gamer and says they are into Radiant Suns, Final Fantasy and Fable I know they are an RPG fan and game on consoles. I know where to take the conversation next. If someone says that they play BC2 mostly and are a Steam addict I know to talk about PC games. On the point of this topic on who I consider a gamer and who I don't - if someone says they only play Tiny Wings and Angry Birds, I will change the topic of conversation as there is really nothing to talk about even though I've played mobile phone games myself.

 

 

I mean the kind of stuff that Jim is saying sounds nice, for science and all that, but realistically it doesn't really matter if you categorize or define this stuff. The only way this even matters is emotionally, the only thing you might improve by going through all of this is your confidence in being a gamer or not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people making themselves feel better about something but I just don't think it should be misunderstood that it doesn't really better the world if 20 or 30 people on a forum come up with a system for defining something like who is and isn't a gamer.

 

So your definition of a good topic on any forum is one where we can better the world? I started this topic and despite what anyone else says I never claimed this would better the world. I do find the gamer community disjointed with zero direction. It's the one community where people are more likely to point out others flaws and what they don't share in common versus what they do.

 

While at face value this topic may be trying to keep that trend going its not. How do you focus on what you share in common with people if you don't know how to define yourself? My definition of gamer is all about people defining themselves. No one can label you but you. So if you don't want the gamer label than you don't have it. And despite what I've said in this topic about mobile phone games and how I personally view them, if someone who only plays mobile phone games identifies themself as a gamer because all they do in their freetime is play games than it is still 100% their call.

 

But if you can't define yourself, how can you focus on what you have in common with others? I have a lot of hobbies but not all of them define me. I may snowboard but that doesn't mean I would know what to say if I met Shaun White other than, :wave:DUDE YOU ARE AWESOME and we both ride regular stance OMGosh!

 

Silly me...i thought this thread was just for the fun of it.

 

It still is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple - same reason anything is categorized. Why do people who like baseball want to be called baseball fans? Why do people who cheer for the Packers want to be called Packer Fans/Cheeseheads?

 

When people share a similar interest with someone else there is immediately a bond there that didn't exist before. All of sudden there are things to talk about where as you may have looked at each other with a blank stare before. When you share a common interest with someone you can guage their personality with their interests within that hobby.

 

So for example if someone identifies themself as a gamer and says they are into Radiant Suns, Final Fantasy and Fable I know they are an RPG fan and game on consoles. I know where to take the conversation next. If someone says that they play BC2 mostly and are a Steam addict I know to talk about PC games. On the point of this topic on who I consider a gamer and who I don't - if someone says they only play Tiny Wings and Angry Birds, I will change the topic of conversation as there is really nothing to talk about even though I've played mobile phone games myself.

 

 

So your definition of a good topic on any forum is one where we can better the world? I started this topic and despite what anyone else says I never claimed this would better the world. I do find the gamer community disjointed with zero direction. It's the one community where people are more likely to point out others flaws and what they don't share in common versus what they do.

 

While at face value this topic may be trying to keep that trend going its not. How do you focus on what you share in common with people if you don't know how to define yourself? My definition of gamer is all about people defining themselves. No one can label you but you. So if you don't want the gamer label than you don't have it. And despite what I've said in this topic about mobile phone games and how I personally view them, if someone who only plays mobile phone games identifies themself as a gamer because all they do in their freetime is play games than it is still 100% their call.

 

But if you can't define yourself, how can you focus on what you have in common with others? I have a lot of hobbies but not all of them define me. I may snowboard but that doesn't mean I would know what to say if I met Shaun White other than, :wave:DUDE YOU ARE AWESOME and we both ride regular stance OMGosh!

 

 

 

It still is :)

I guess the way I see it is that most gamers, like many of us on this forum, probably have a definition in their heads for all of this stuff because we are passionate about it. I guess that's why I don't see why we need to discuss, I kind of figure we all already know what we think about gaming in our heads and probably know each other's ideas fairly well from past threads.

 

I kind of agree about the conversation/interests aspect, but I don't it's quite so method like, it is just a conversation, it could easily change from talking about BC2 to 2girls1cup, you never know, I've had stranger topic changes than that before. :lol:

 

I don't mean a topic is pointless if it doesn't better the world, if anything I'm probably anti-world bettering, I don't believe in global warming or recycling. :lol: All I think is that maybe this topic is a little too serious about the idea of defining gamer, to me it almost seems like some of the people in the thread are upset because gamer has a generalized definition, as if the professional gamers are being clumped in with the phone gamers, that's the impression I get from this thread. Like saying it's for the sake of science is like saying the Powerpuff girls were created for the sake of science, but really that guy was just really clumsy in the kitchen. :lol:

 

Also I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth here, like I said, it's just the impression that I get, it's just what's going on in my head, not what's really happening.

 

I think the the zero direction thing is pretty accurate for this hobby, it's not like Martial Arts where you can have two opposing teams duke it out and then be buddies afterwards. Gaming is a kin to computers I think, it's a battle of words by nerds, words never win anything really, compromise perhaps, but never win. That's pretty much why you won't see a lot of gaming coming together and saying "console, pc, or phone, who cares, we're all gamers in the end!" instead of that what you usually get is something like "console, pc, or phone, who cares, at least none of us game on the mac." it's mostly made up of compromises.

 

Here's something I don't quite get, I know you're saying it's for the sake of self learning and self understanding, but if no one can define you but you, then how is anyone else supposed to understand you? You were saying that you have a conversation based on similar interests but if you consider the person that plays phone games to be a phone gamer, but they consider themselves a casual gamer, you don't have a conversation, you have a conflict.

 

I think you can focus on what you have in common with others more easily if you don't make definitions more definite, like say I'm talking to someone and they like Metro 2033, but I like Plants vs Zombies, if when I tell them that, they don't play any casual or indie games but get the impression that's what I am, they may choose to simply change the subject instead of going "what other games do you like?". Which sucks because what if we both really like Yakuza? We missed out on a really enjoyable conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's why I don't see why we need to discuss, I kind of figure we all already know what we think about gaming in our heads and probably know each other's ideas fairly well from past threads.

 

...and yet we don't. Some people changed their definition of a gamer as they thought about the subject. I thought the tone of the replies would be completely different and I have been coming to this forum awhile now. There are two people I called out in my mind exactly right on. Even if I had a general idea of some others they usually brought up points I hadn't considered. I enjoyed reading the responses.

 

 

All I think is that maybe this topic is a little too serious about the idea of defining gamer, to me it almost seems like some of the people in the thread are upset because gamer has a generalized definition, as if the professional gamers are being clumped in with the phone gamers, that's the impression I get from this thread.

 

The problem is if we don't know how to define ourselves then how do we expect the industry to create the best products for us? Let's use consoles because I think they are the perfect example. The Wii's goal was to appeal to everyone and turn non-gamers into gamers. What was the result? Sales proved to be a success, but the people the industry calls "core gamers" (which i simply call gamers) were put off by the end result. Very few games had any substance to the point Nintendo fans were dissapointed. So a lot of people own a Nintendo Wii but have gaming library that isn't really something they brag about. Sony and XBox see the selling success so they come up with their own Motion Control devices. And what is the direction of the new Nintendo coming out? They are trying to go with a device that is powerful enough to include "core gaming/AAA" titles back into their gaming library and regain the market share they lost with the Wii.

 

Now the industry is saying Phones and Tablets will take over the market despite the fact that all gaming companies have licensing constraints. I see a very confused industry. When consoles were simply consoles and PCs simply played PC games everything was clear cut and there was zero confusion. I can't say that now. Right now I would say companies are trying too hard to go in 5 different directions at the same time and lost their orientation. I think it is mostly due to the fact that they don't know how to define the market properly. Why label people as Gamers if they don't want to be considered gamers? If you label a 40 something soccer mom who plays Angry Birds while she is at her kid's soccer game a gamer and start developing games/devices with people like her in mind you are developing a very short term product with a small margin of success. Not to mention you are leaving out the core of the market so you risk losing long term fans who may feel alienated, as proven by many long time Nintendo fans who now want nothing to do with Nintendo anymore.

 

Jim may be using the word science, but don't take that word for face value only. Science may not help you or I, but by the time the products get to us it definitely affects us.

 

 

Here's something I don't quite get, I know you're saying it's for the sake of self learning and self understanding, but if no one can define you but you, then how is anyone else supposed to understand you? You were saying that you have a conversation based on similar interests but if you consider the person that plays phone games to be a phone gamer, but they consider themselves a casual gamer, you don't have a conversation, you have a conflict.

 

I think you can focus on what you have in common with others more easily if you don't make definitions more definite, like say I'm talking to someone and they like Metro 2033, but I like Plants vs Zombies, if when I tell them that, they don't play any casual or indie games but get the impression that's what I am, they may choose to simply change the subject instead of going "what other games do you like?". Which sucks because what if we both really like Yakuza? We missed out on a really enjoyable conversation.

 

I think we can both agree there are exceptions to any rule when humans are in the mix. A conversation is still limited to how well each person communicates regardless of the topic.

 

You and I are both gamers, yet we have had some long winded disagreements in the past. Though I still respect your opinion. Because of your interests as well the debates we have had on those subjects I have a better perspective on you versus if I only posted in the Modding/CPU section of these forums.

Edited by Fogel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and yet we don't. Some people changed their definition of a gamer as they thought about the subject. I thought the tone of the replies would be completely different and I have been coming to this forum awhile now. There are two people I called out in my mind exactly right on. Even if I had a general idea of some others they usually brought up points I hadn't considered. I enjoyed reading the responses.

 

The problem is if we don't know how to define ourselves then how do we expect the industry to create the best products for us? Let's use consoles because I think they are the perfect example. The Wii's goal was to appeal to everyone and turn non-gamers into gamers. What was the result? Sales proved to be a success, but the people the industry calls "core gamers" (which i simply call gamers) were put off by the end result. Very few games had any substance to the point Nintendo fans were dissapointed. So a lot of people own a Nintendo Wii but have gaming library that isn't really something they brag about. Sony and XBox see the selling success so they come up with their own Motion Control devices. And what is the direction of the new Nintendo coming out? They are trying to go with a device that is powerful enough to include "core gaming/AAA" titles back into their gaming library and regain the market share they lost with the Wii.

 

Now the industry is saying Phones and Tablets will take over the market despite the fact that all gaming companies have licensing constraints. I see a very confused industry. When consoles were simply consoles and PCs simply played PC games everything was clear cut and there was zero confusion. I can't say that now. Right now I would say companies are trying too hard to go in 5 different directions at the same time and lost their orientation. I think it is mostly due to the fact that they don't know how to define the market properly. Why label people as Gamers if they don't want to be considered gamers? If you label a 40 something soccer mom who plays Angry Birds while she is at her kid's soccer game a gamer and start developing games/devices with people like her in mind you are developing a very short term product with a small margin of success. Not to mention you are leaving out the core of the market so you risk losing long term fans who may feel alienated, as proven by many long time Nintendo fans who now want nothing to do with Nintendo anymore.

 

Jim may be using the word science, but don't take that word for face value only. Science may not help you or I, but by the time the products get to us it definitely affects us.

 

I think we can both agree there are exceptions to any rule when humans are in the mix. A conversation is still limited to how well each person communicates regardless of the topic.

 

You and I are both gamers, yet we have had some long winded disagreements in the past. Though I still respect your opinion. Because of your interests as well the debates we have had on those subjects I have a better perspective on you versus if I only posted in the Modding/CPU section of these forums.

I think the definition is fine but you're definitely right about game developers an publishers trying to go in too many directions at one time. Personally I don't think it's that hard for them to figure out what people want. For example Crysis 2 should have been the easiest thing in the world to understand what the PC community wanted out of the game, but they didn't deliver those ground breaking graphics, I don't think any amount of definition would have helped there, I believe that was just pure neglect of the PC community by Crytek.

 

On personal level, the graphics don't matter to me a bit in that game or any game really, but that was the thing that the majority of PC gamers really thought was going to happen with that game I think. I think that's purely poor judgement though, it wasn't hard to figure out what the PC community was expecting from that particular game. I also believe that to be true with any game that is the successor of a single platform game by the way, I think if a company makes a game exclusive to the PC, 360, PS3, they shouldn't have much trouble figuring out what that platform wants the next time around.

 

I only see that with big games too though, a lot of smaller and indie games are actually pretty well done even if they are multiplatform. I think the real problem with the industry is a lack of passion for art and game making, all these AAA titles that everyone loves, those are simply products, that's just something EA or Activision has to make and get out the door by a certain time, they don't really hop on forums and interact with their customers about the games like a lot of indie devs do. A good example of a great indie developer is Cold Beam Games, the guys that made Beat Hazard, they made the first release of the game a ton of fun and everyone loved it, then they improved on the game based on what their community wanted, they actively watch the Beat Hazard threads on the Steam Forums and respond to their fanbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fogel, what you're proposing it taking away the art form of making a game. Shakespeare didn't model his plays around the audience that was watching it. I'm extremely insulted by this thread now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fogel, what you're proposing it taking away the art form of making a game. Shakespeare didn't model his plays around the audience that was watching it. I'm extremely insulted by this thread now.

You sure about that? The front row of the Globe had no seats and was where the poorest of people could sit, and if they didn't like the play they had the mud beneath them to throw, and their feces. If Shakespeare was smart, he would have tried to write plays that everyone can enjoy, with points for the poor and the rich to enjoy, possibly together and possibly separately.

I never realized you were such a romantic, Cowking! Believing in art for art's sake, past the ability to sell said art. Let's see what my cynicism can do. It's just a much an art to be able to make a game that appeals to multiple groups, just as it is an art to make a movie or a story appeal to multiple groups. Guess which one will make more profit and allow for the art to continue? The one that appeals to the audience. True, you may some day make a game without any audience in mind (impossible by the way, because you will make it for yourself, and you then are the audience, but that's a tangent) and you may even be successful with it. Or that game could end up sitting on your hard drive waiting for a publisher, but none will touch it because they don't know how they could sell it. Maybe you publish it yourself, but without marketing for it and without an audience you know will enjoy it, how can you make any money off of it?

To put it simply and quickly, Cowking, my opinion right now is that if you are genuinely insulted it is by your choice and not really because of anything said here. Oh, and I don't recommend you try to argue against my thoughts on the audience of art because you're not the only one in this thread that has aspirations and experiences of being an artist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...