Working Title 02.27.08: Working Both Sides

Posted by Jordan Williams on 03.06.2008

One console to rule them all? Casual Gamers taking over? I sound off on some of the talked about issues in the gaming world.

Welcome back to the #1 Column to get think that Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles completely redeemed itself in its finale, WORKING TITLE.

This week we have another little bit of a rant going on here; they are becoming so common that I'm not even going to bother tagging them as Working Rants anymore. All columns not tagged with a series name will be Working Rants by default. As I was setting back thinking to myself about what to write this week...I went through every possible cliché topic I could think of; Fanboys, Sequels, Downloadable Content, Console Wars...and I really couldn't find one that stuck.

So I decided to use them all.

The Gaming World and the industry itself have a lot of questions but surprisingly too few answers for us. Is Casual Gaming the wave of the future? Would a single console be better for the gamer in the long run? Is there too much 'follow the leader' going on in the industry? Well I figure it's time for me to argue with myself on some of these topics. Not only because I have nothing else better to do...but because I'd like to see how YOU all weight in on these topics as well.

I'm going to look at some big questions that keep popping up in various magazines and forums and see what the pros and cons of these are, as well as my personal opinion on the matter. I'll keep it to just four this week, but if it turns out to be a pretty good deal I'll use some more next week plus whatever you all give me.

With that said, let's get this show on the road.

Working Both Sides

The Casual Gamer is growing, and more casual games should and will be made to accommodate them

As much as some of the other gamers would like to think this is all a myth and just a fad, the casual gaming market is indeed growing. With consoles like the Wii and DS there are more games being attainable to the non-neck bearded crowd. But what does that mean for the people who are accustomed to hardcore games? The ones who can play any game on any console and still be able to pick it up in about thirty minutes and still have fun. Will Casual gaming become a new hit genre in itself?


Pros :
- Casual gaming expands the user base for gamers out there. While there are still more hardcore gamers than casuals, it's a growing trend and means more money for developers and the industry thanks to a whole new demographic to tap into.
- Casual gaming is attracts females, something that the industry has been trying to do since day ONE. There's female games out there, make no mistake about it, but casual female players are starting (or already have) outnumbered hardcore female players.
- The cost of making a casual game so far is A LOT cheaper than the sometimes movie-like budgets of the standard hardcore game. A company could crank out about 2 times more casual/simple games in the price it would take for Gears of War.



Cons :
- Casual games, by their very nature aren't very long or deep enough to satisfy many people beyond its audience. The industry shifting more to that will alienate the hardcore gamers that made it what it is.
- There are enough hardcore gaming females out there. If companies really wanted to attract more female gamers they would make more games that relate to females. It just takes a bit of effort so see what female gamers tend to like.
- The cost of making a casual game is a lot cheaper, but it shows. Simplistic graphics sometimes think gameplay and no real lasting value besides picking it up every few days. The industry blows a lot of money on the development of hardcore games, but you get what you pay for.

I say :
I'm going to side with CON. I agree that the casual market is growing, but it's not NEARLY as big as people are thinking it is. The Wii is the only real major outlet for the casual crowd right now and its selling fine. But then you look at its GAME sales and you can see that the majority of games being bought are the first party titles you would've no doubt seen on any Nintendo console. Cooking Mama, Raving Rabbids, and the other casual games aren't breaking any sales records. It proves how small the casual market really is.

As for attracting female gamers, if you pop a Wii in at a party, sure some casual gaming girl might try to play it. But the industry knows what the female hardcore gamers like. Look at Final Fantasy, Cloud was introduced, females responded, and now every Final Fantasy hero(and other cast mates sense) have always harkened back to him. And while you might find it hard to believe, some chicks DO play Halo and Gears, some chick DO like explosions and blood and gore. There might not be enough of them to offset any scale but trust me when I say they ARE out there.

As for the money problem? That's something I'm a bit torn on because the game prices are kind of up there, but then again when you buy a budget title, most of the time you get a budget game. Casual Games do save a lot of money, but more often then less it's at the expense of the other bells and whistles people have become addicted to such as graphics and other big production values. For those who say that graphics don't make the game, stop kidding yourself. Graphics don't make the game great, but they damn sure catch a potential buyer's eye.

Having all developers work for one console is the best bet for the future of gaming

It's something that's been rumored and talked about for ages. What if in the future the console wars just became the developer wars? No more Xbox, Nintendo, Sony consoles. Instead there would be one home console that all three companies put time and effort into and the war shifted to who makes the better software for the console. Is this something that the industry needs and is it something that should happen?

Pros:
- Finally, the "MY CONSOLE IS BETTER THAN YOUR CONSOLE" shit will come to an end. It's entertaining, but it's getting old.
- The developers themselves will have more money to use on the actual games rather than dev kits for three consoles which end up in lackluster ports and remakes.
- No more worries about online capabilities. You can finally play your Nintendo made game online for once.
- With every developer working on the same console it also eliminates the need for consoles to monopolize developers. Rare can make good games for Nintendo again, BioWare can do some deals with Sony, and ZOMG MASTER CHIEF IS BRAWL!11

Cons:
- Consoles create Wars. Wars create competition. Multiple consoles force gamers to make a choice and stand behind it. If there was just one console, the developers would no longer have any medium to compete over.
- When you have people funded by Microsoft and Sony, there's no money problem there. Dev kits for three consoles can be a tad expensive, but so are other things that go into the game making process. It's just something you have to deal with
- I highly doubt anyone outside of the Wii owners worry THAT much about online capabilities. If online is the sole reason you but a console, you might want to just stick to the PC.
- With every developer working on the same console, it means that every big developer like EA and Activision are going to start eating other companies. The war will continue but instead of Sony vs. Nintendo vs. Microsoft it will be EA vs. Activision vs. Nintendo. You'll just be changing one battle to another.


I say:

This one is a TIE for me. Both have an equal upside and down side to me. On one hand ending the console wars would get rid of a lot of the useless fanboyism, but people forget that fanboys come in the form of developers and publishers as well. Developers are making enough money as it is across three consoles. If anything they'd LOSE money on just one console. If you put a game out across all three consoles you are guaranteed a bigger buyout than just slapping it on one console unless the game is BRILLIANT.

I highly think the online problem will be solved by the end of this generation. XBL and PSN are already there and Nintendo is finally wising up and learning that at some point the Nintendo fans are just going to have to bite the bullet and cough up some dough. I don't think we'll see any worries about online capabilities in the next generation.

Every developer working for one console actually does end the need for consoles to monopolize the developers, but in turn it also just gives developers more power to monopolize themselves. You'll start to see EA and Activision buy out the smaller houses and bring them into their families and the war will simply continue between the powerhouse developers. But also having everyone under the same umbrella does mean that potential enemies could now work side by side to achieve one common goal: To entertain us.


Following the leader, i.e. the current trend of gaming, is always going to get you better results than taking a chance with something completely new. It's just the safest bet.

This isn't the first time it's happened. First it was the Space Shooter trend, then it was fighting games, then it was RPGs, now it just happens to be shooters. However there's always been one thing in common with these trends; there are winners and losers. For every Street Fighter II there was a Pit Fighter or Primal Rage. For every Call of Duty 4 you have Vampire Rain. Is it a safer bet to follow the leader or do they need to man up and take some chances?

Pros:
- Recognition. If you are a fan of the genre, odds are you will at least give any game in that genre a quick once-over or a rental. Where as you might not pick up that game you've never heard of.
- Greatness by association. Call of Duty and Medal of Honor. Doom and Prey. Halo and Resistance. Sure, they are all the same game but when you stick to close ideas you achieve. You'd be a lot more tempted to buy a game if someone said "It's a lot like [game]" instead of saying "I don't know what this is."

Cons:
- If you are the fan of the genre, you will know a shitsinking game when you see it. If you LOVE FPS games, you will know just from reading the box that Vampire Rain is a steaming hunk of shit. If you LOVE fighting games, there's not a doubt in my mind you passed on Pit Fighter.
- Greatness by association is a lot like fans by osmosis. If you hang out a Star Trek convention it doesn't make you a Star Trek fan. Knowing the history, the mythos, the episodes, the characters. THAT makes you a fan. Simply being a game that's 'kinda' like another great game doesn't make it a great game. It just makes it a copy. A good copy, but a copy nonetheless.

I say:
CON. A million times CON. The Pro side makes a good point, but the over saturation of a genre, at least in my mind, does more harm than good. Halo, Call of Duty, BioShock. They are all great games in their own right, but then you look at the copycats and wannabes they have spawned and you can start to get sick of the whole trend and genre. Taking a chance is risky because if it fails then there's not saving it. But when it works. IT WORKS. Portal was a big chance and it worked, The Club was another chance and if you read my review you'll see that it worked too. Just like when everyone started to get tired of WW2 shooters. People will eventually get tired of seeing the same brown, grays, and gunmetal games and want something new. And when that happens, a new trend will start.


Gaming has finally grown up, and the sooner people realize this, the sooner the media portrays the game industry in the same light as movies, television, and music.

The Gaming Industry makes as much money, if not more, than the movie industry. Why it is still frowned upon by many and still looked at as a hobby or a toy? Has Gaming not proven itself enough to be taken literally as an art form yet? Gaming has grown up...or has it?

Pros:
- Gaming will finally get the respect that is given to other mediums like movies, television, and music.
- Gaming will become socially acceptable. Going to a movie on a Friday night is normal behavior, but staying in and playing a video game is still met with negative responses.
- With the rise of "Geek Culture", Gaming can find a niche in the mainstream world that will lead to it being taken more seriously.

Cons:
- Gaming arguably has already earned the same respect of movies, television, and music. It just receives it in a different way.
- Gaming, just like any other hobby, will not be universally socially acceptable. At least not into we try harder to break the many stereotypes that come with being a gamer. Stereotypes made me untrue, but they all started SOMEWHERE.
- Geek Culture already has a niche in the mainstream world, but that doesn't mean gaming itself will be taken more seriously. It just means now there's geek girls out there for geek guys.

I say:
Con put up a good argument, but I'm going to go with PRO. Gaming has proved itself. The amount of money it brings in and the ideas they use deserve to be right up there with films and TV. Yet if you tell someone you play videogames you automatically get a negative connotation tagged onto it. Sure, the 40 year old virgins who live in their mothers basements and spend their lives on WoW exist, but it's safe to say that they don't represent the lot of us.

Geek Culture is a good thing, it starts to let others see that being smart and technologically inclined isn't a bad thing like it was in high school. Sure, you might not have everyone on your jock about your brand new Macbook Air, but SOMEONE will take notice and think of you as an interesting person for it.


Asia Carrera. She plays Unreal Tournament, is a member of Mensa, is a Webmaster, and builds her own PCs...Oh yeah, she's an ex-porn star, too.

If there is one thing I have to disagree with is that while I think GAMING has grown up, I don't think GAMERS have. Largely a lot of them are still the fickle console crybabies you see all too much who don't care about much else than e-cred. Just take a look at the Fox News incident with Mass Effect. You had some people being organized and filing letters, but you had triple that amount bashing the doctors book and flaming her in reviews as some form of petty payback. This is not the way to do things if we as GAMERS want to be considered as 'grown up'.


Working Feedback



For game genres I've never been into... It's simple... Halo... It's not because it's popular, but to me it's just another run of the mill run and-gun shooter with a mostly mute character. As for Master Chief you can envision anyone you want under the helmet, as they give you no damn character evolution to him... He's always the same quiet "badass" (Not hard to be a badass when you only have a few lines...) with a gun... Then again I am a RPG guy and expect good story lines with games. ~Travis


I'm inclined to agree. I really didn't care about Halo until Halo 3. And even then, while Halo 3 was a fun game I didn't really care about the story or anything that went with it. I just liked the game. I find it really weird that Master Chief is regarded as one of the best characters in game history considering he does next to nothing outside of your actions. By that logic the paddles in Pong and the space marine from Doom should be there too.

Working Question: Reviews and You

I've noticed that people tend to let reviews decide the purchase of a game. I recently have acquired a game that I think is great and while the reviews weren't too friendly to this game I am still have a great time with it. I personally only use reviews as a bit of a guideline of sorts. If a game is getting pretty great reviews, and it's something I know I like, I might give it a test run. This, however, doesn't mean that I won't pick a game that the critics completely bash to death.

How does that work with you? Are reviews determining your purchase of a game and your enjoyment or is there something else at work there?

Until next week, I'm Jordan Williams...and Jansen(Lost Odyssey) is the funniest video game character I've encountered in awhile.