Is there an intermediate gamer?
BBC News | At-a-glance | State of Play has a bunch of neat stats about the UK gamer — nice job, Alice! I love the graphs.
The thing that always jumps out at me about these is that once you include “light” games, puzzle games, etc, the overwhelming majority of folks consider themselves gamers.
And the secondary thought that there’s a really big gap between the extravaganzas like most blockbuster PC and console games, with their complexity, their millions spent on presentation, their demand of dedicated hardware, and so on — and the light casual games, which are derisively referred to as “minigames” by the more hardcore.
Where’s the on-ramp? Where are the games that are intermediate in difficulty, in complexity, in demands on reflexes? As people age, the trend for their play right now seems to be out of the typical blockbuster market, which is equivalent in so many ways to the summer movie blockbuster market.
For that matter, why aren’t there more games that are like winter movies: artistically demanding, but perhaps not blockbusters; labors of love, intended for prestige?
11 Responses to “Is there an intermediate gamer?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Blogroll Joel on SoftwareRaph Koster Sunny Walker Thoughts for Now Sex, Lies and Advertising
Where is the onramp? It is being built down from the top.
Few realize that Pogo has customizable avatars, persistant land holdings, and achievement badges.
Those things don’t make the games themselves intermediate. As Damion has observed a whole bunch of times, there are hardcore casual game players. Hardcore is a spectrum of commitment, not of complexity — there’s an intersection point where hardcore commitment meets games designed for that level of commitment, but you can be a more casual player of “hardcore” games, and you can be a really devoted player of light games.
Pogo’s features cater to the fans of those sorts of game, in the way that PvP ranking ladders cater to the fans of that sort of game. Neither has much to say about what the game itself is like.
Is it an onramp, or just a big gulf between them where people may or may not move freely?
I mused about the same thing recently ( http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/2005/11/what-kind-of-gamer-are-you.html ). I feel like I am in this same twilight zone between levels. I don’t have the time anymore to be the hardcore gamer I was back in college or when I was writing games for a living. I still like the occasional hardcore game – but I’m finding my patience wearing thin with too many of them. Things like awful save-game structure designed to challenge the player by making them invest more time into “solving” a substantial section of game over and over again, or requiring a skill level honed by playing DOZENS of games from a similar genre before. I also like the occasional “casual” of match-three type games – but those aren’t satisfying enough to me.
There are several “indie” game developers out there who would like to be this “onramp”, but since the market is not understood, is incredibly diverse (at least so we believe), is being partially serviced by both hardcore and casual games, there’s not the money to really market to this group. So I end up playing last year’s hit games purchased at half-off from the bargain bin, because that’s what I know. And I do pick up the occasional gem of an indie game when I can find one that isn’t just another bubble-popping match-three game.
My concern is that the hardcore games keep getting “harder” to satisfy the voracious, jaded gamer… and the casual market just keeps pumping out the same “introductory”-level games. But guys like me – who can’t realistically return to “hardcore” mode (at least until I retire, which – unless I strike it rich – is still decades away) – aren’t looking for an “onramp” to hardcore, because we’ve already been there.
So what do I want?
* A game I can get into quickly without prior experience in the genre. A lot of sports games have this problem, IMO. MMORPGs are notorious for having a tough learning curve in the beginning. A casual game can be understood and played with some degree of competence within 30-60 seconds. Too many hardcore games require an hour or more of play before the player feels like the game is responding properly to his desired controls.
* A game that I can play in 15-30 minute increments. Not just play, but MAKE PROGRESS IN. That rules out many MMORPGs beyond the beginning levels (EQ was notorious for taking an hour to just find a group). It also rules out MANY console games, that have save game points spread so far apart for “challenge”.
* A game that has enough depth and breadth to “sink my teeth into it.” That’s where casual games don’t do it for me. Five hours into a game (which for ME might be spread out over a week or two, rather than just a single night for the target “hardcore audience) I still want to be learning new tricks and strategies, or developing new skills.
Anyway, sorry for the rant on your page. But I’m a grown-up gamer with a life and I want better games for ME, durn it!
I’m more intrigued by the direction of the on-ramp.
Casual games have a much larger audience than the hardcore. Perhaps our niche hardcore games are really just an on ramp to casual games? Perhaps we’re really looking for games that move toward casual from the hardcore, not the other way round?
A theoretical advantage of games based on a first-person human perspective (such as an adventure game, CRPG, MMORPG) is that players already know how to “play” since they already understand real life. Chess, cards, etc. are much less attached to real-life experience, so they’re actually harder to pick up (theoretically).
Of course, this theory falls apart (for the next several decades) because (a) players can’t do everything they can in real life, and (b) players are inhibited by their IO devices.
At the moment, graphical adventure games are the easiest of the avatar games (CRPGs, MMORPGs, FPS, etc.) to pick up.
As far as ramping down and making MMORPGs easier to learn… I agree somewhat, but there’s a limit. The fact is, most people that DIDN’T grow up playing video games will NEVER play them. People that DID grow up with video games tend to know the rules of interaction and don’t find them too difficult to operate, although they may not enjoy playing the games for whatever reason.
It seems to me that Nintendo puts out many games of the sort you’re describing – the first WarioWare, Geist, Eternal Darkness…
Hmm… It’s hard to tell whether a given game is of that sort or not, I suppose. Eternal Darkness seems too “core” in its thematic content, and WarioWare has always seemed to me to be aimed in large part at gamers simply because it’s an elaborate “inside joke” of game design, so to speak…
“why aren’t there more games that are like winter movies: artistically demanding, but perhaps not blockbusters; labors of love, intended for prestige?”
I have a question along this line of thought. When I think of a high fantasy mage I think of two things:
1. Someone who ponders the mysteries of the universe.
2. Someone who blows stuff up with fireballs.
As you might imagine, I’m more interested in the first definition. I imagine, however, that most players and game devs are only interested in the second. Where’s the game for people like me (assuming there are other people like me :p)?
Raquel:
What are your verbs? Find some verbs! See, here’s the trouble. I can code “blow stuff up.” I can’t code “ponder,” in any meaningful, or useful way. So, what does this mage do, exactly?
I think that the game mechanic for a pondering mage is one of exploration — not necessarily of physical space. Rather, he could explore the laws of the universe, and the nature of his art. He could research new spells and potions. He could try to solve age old mysteries through the application of his new arts.
The challenge of making games like this, you see, is finding a game mechanic that won’t fall flat.
Tess:
Yeah, “explore” is much better. 😉