Why are many leaders in today's institutions so concerned with making games serious. The industry is massively successful and has created many millionaires. No other industry has had to deal with its academic counterpart in such a stand-offish way. Many academics it seems want to apologize for the industries success and focus their students on the smaller parts of the industry and seem to think that fun equals immaturity.
While I understand what you're saying, I've yet to hear an authority on game design make any distinction as silly as "fun = immaturity". I'm also not sure what being financially successful and exploring mature themes have in common with each other. Please give something for us to work with. This isn't a platform to write an article about baseless claims. – Austin10 years ago
I too have not heard anyone saying that fun is immaturity. I think it would be good if you used a source for your claim. – SpectreWriter10 years ago
Fun is immature isn't something that is overly stated its more of a mindset that I have noticed as an academic. This is a topic that needs a more even handed voice than my own as I may be jaded to this topic. I was hoping that other people involved in academia choose flesh this out. So I must give a better example of what I'm implying. In some institutions many times departments will speak of their game design programs and quickly point to the research in serious games that they are doing. It is as if they are saying the fun stuff is just a cover for real work. I didn't mean to imply that these words were actually said it's just a mindset that I have seen and been around and tried to convey quickly perhaps to quickly. This mindset is usually not carried by professors in the feels but by deans and vice presidents. The reason why the financial state of games matter is because no other successful industry has an academic branch that tries to distance itself from then as much as games (opinion not a hard fact). Perhaps the topic should have been called games finding legitimacy in academia on there own merit. As I said while I can speak on my own stories about this topic as evidence, being invited to to the forum because of my positon as a game design professor, I thought that other academics could provide their take on it.
Certainly it isn't baseless to see that literature is more respected in all its forms than games are with one prevailing bias ( but by whom) being games are for children. This old mindset is changing slowly but there is still that apologetic we do real research too when speaking to non game designers.
– fchery10 years ago
I apologize, I typed on my phone which visually made it look like my last note was in paragraph form, seems I can't edit after its been submited. – fchery10 years ago
Maybe it's the fact the overriding emotional response from games is fun and that is all people in the lay public or other fields see it is capable of. As such encouraging the development of other responses a game can elicit is part of the broader goal of not letting games be limited to such narrow categorizations. – rj2n10 years ago
I'm having a hard time understanding what you said in your post, fchery. I'll work with what I can get though.
I agree with rj2n, and would like to add something else. All media have had to work their way into formal prestige. Books have been in existence for centuries, and literacy was something achieved only by the wealthy and powerful since the advent of written language, and even after the spread of literacy, many stories of grandeur and philosophical challenges were written, stories that accredit the medium and justify its classification as art. Film wasn't considered an art form until roughly 20 years after the inception of the medium, and that was through a film that explored the moral dilemmas of its characters. There are reasons that make these media academically prestigious, which you recognize, and those reasons form a standard that hasn't been met by games consistently yet, though I'd argue that we've made huge progress over the past decade. So, it makes sense that your fellow academics, who are *interested in games* strive to make games a medium that has the respect of their fellow academics. How do they do that? They give their students, who are the ones who will make future games, the tools and experience to make games that allow academic leaders acknowledge the fact that game can be art. This also goes with the fact that what's "fun" is often arbitrary, innate, and personal. It's not hard to make a fun game for a subset of people, and it's also hard to teach what is fun without devoting yourself to research that'll most likely be obsolete in a few years. So, what to teach instead? Formal education, one based in liberal arts and science such as psychology and philosophy, stuff that's been around for ages and will always be practical to teach when dealing with media.
tl;dr: academics teach and strive for formality because it is in their best interests AS ACADEMICS to do so – Austin10 years ago
I think your starting to understand the position. If I could some it up quicker. Videogames are multidisciplinary. Instead of utilizing the best people from different disciplines one thing that occurs often is a school decides it will focus on computer science in games or the effects of games. Very few have a holistic approach our a good understanding of the industry and what they need to train students to do to get into the field. This is also something I've heard from animation facilities, that they see good experimental at animations from some colleges but the students don't understand production workflow add some even lack basic skills used everyday in studios. The school answered this by hiring another person who past their rigorous interview which mostly dealt with mute experimental animation and their process. One would think the process they were looking for would match what commercial studios were looking for but that still east the case. I gues another way to look at the wuestion as I've seen this phenomenon in at classes as well. Why are some schools less inclined to train people practical skills that industry wants, focusing on the liberal at and humanities side of creativity without showing students the basics and explaining them in detail. If compared to engineering, it would be like speaking of high concepts and asking student to think of big revolutionary thought while only giving them little to know information about the laws of physics or the manufacturing process. – fchery10 years ago
A serious game has a decent story, breathtaking art, and wonderful music. It plays with imagery, literary devices, metaphors, and strong themes. Example, Final Fantasy XIII. Who cares if some of the gameplay is anstrengend(stressful). That's what youtube cutscene films are for. Now sometimes gameplay will make a game unfun if not done correctly. I think games should focus on excellent gameplay but story for me is key. – Starvix Draxon10 years ago
Could you please let us know where your statistics are coming from? – T. Palomino3 years ago
Nope, I quickly came to understand that no one at artifice was playing in field as me. But I have a long history in academia and came to discover the answer is of course money and funding, NSF,DOD,DOE. That's the data, follow the money. – fchery3 years ago
As a fan of fighting games and someone who has been described as "overly competitive," I would like to see someone's take on the idea that allowing people to essentially fight out their problems virtually is as rewarding as any physical confrontation. I have friends within the FGC (fighting game community) who work out all their aggression for the people they hate by playing them at a round of Street Fighter or going a set in Marvel Vs. Capcom. While they never throw a punch, they claim to feel all the satisfaction and their opponent all the humility as their chosen character beats the other. I have felt this feeling before, but I would like to challenge someone to put it better in words, or at the very least comment on this phenomenon.
I believe this was discussed in part in the book hasn't theft childhood. The authors were studying 8-14 year olds though and the effects of violence on their minds. – fchery10 years ago
I guarantee that any game with truly competitive combat can act as a genuine stress relief mechanism. That is a two way street, however. While it can and does alleviate some tension, it can also (especially in the case of MUDs, which are something of a specialty for me) make it far worse due to the emotional investment one tends to (almost subconsciously) throw into games of this nature. I've seen in my 8 years playing Avalon for instance, a LOT of rage - and I'm talking the shouting screaming "I'm going to kill your mother" type fury. An interesting phenomenon for sure. – Elsalvador10 years ago
Kirby is one of the cutest characters in all of gaming, but he is also one of the most funnest characters because of his wide range of powers. The interesting thing is that he is pink, the color automatically associated with girls. Yet, boys and girls love this character equally, and young boys usually stay away form anything pink, because it is too girly. How does Kirby not fall into this stereotype?
Picks connection in Japan is different than the American system of gender identification. They pick cold soley based I how did it fit into a color scheme. This is why in anime darker skinned characters tend to have light unsaturated colors for hair. One reason is that blue and punk used to be more associated with eye color than sex this switch happened in the 1940s. Before then many labels for pink and blue as baby and toddler fashions were in vogue in fact for a tone those colors were reversed. Pink also tend to be a great color on dark skins but is not used because of the modern idea. So of a designer made pink clothes to compliment dark features and used darker skinned models, they could be accused of trying to effeminate then. – fchery10 years ago
Former Professional Wrestler Bret Hart was famous for wearing Pink and Black. It is interesting to note that he was one of the biggest stars in Pro Wrestling and his Hitman persona was the children's hero during his WWF-run. I think the important thing is to make sure the character's actions are not bound to the color stereotype. While Kirby is in pink, he gets to perform cool actions throughout the game, so the boys can feel the appeal even if they think the color pink is unappealing. Similarly, Bret Hart fought big goons and emerged victorious, and no one could make any negative comment about him wearing pink. So I believe the appeal of character's action can reduce the resistance to some of his/her traits, and Kirby is the good example of this. – idleric10 years ago
The rise of video gaming as a spectator sport is very interesting. Platforms like Twitch have become enormous in their popularity. While some might think this is simply a matter of gamers watching other gamers, there is a demographic of non gamers who enjoy watching as well. It would be interesting to better examine the demographics of spectators for gaming and compare it to demographics for watching sports. For instance, are there more non gamers watching adventure based games or racing games? Do females gravitate to a particular genre of gaming over others? etc
For a lot of lets players it's not about the games at all (at least in my opinion). That's shown in the incredible popularity of Let's Play channels like Game Grumps or Achievement Hunters who change what game they play daily, but still bring in lots of incredibly dedicated fans. Sure there will always be people who only want to look at a game they're interested in, but for many its the people playing the games they like. They like the comedy, the way that certain groups interact with one another or the knowledge that someone has about something they're passionate about, and the gameplay is just something that gives those people a topic to be knowledgeable/funny about.
A good example of this is Two Best Friends Play, where 2 guys play a different game each time and argue back and forth in comedic ways about the game they're playing. Its funny, its fun and its entertaining, but its not a specific game that makes it so. Its the 2 guys laughing and being entertaining that keeps hundreds of thousands of fans coming back no matter what game it is. – Cojo10 years ago
Throughout the game Dark Souls there are nods and mentions to Nordic Mythology. Provide a look into how Nordic Mythology plays into the lore of Dark Souls
This is definitely something I would look into. As a Celt from Ireland with Nordic ancestry as well, the topic of Nordic mythology is an important one especially since it is misunderstood. – CemeteryLikeAStage10 years ago
Just a heads up to anyone that wants to look into this, the Dark Souls lore is very... thick. It'll help if the person who wrote this has played the game and spent time exploring its lore already. – Sunbro10 years ago
Developer of the critically acclaimed The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, CD Projekt Red, recently made headlines for its stance on downloadable content. The studio has been praised for its pro-consumer approach to a business practice that is usually surrounded with a negative stigma. They feel that small content – such as extra weapons, outfits, small quests and in-game items – should be offered for free, rather than at a premium. Projekt Red says that as gamers themselves, they understand that people are paying a lot of money for their product and want to reward the consumer as a result. Therefore, they're offering 16 pieces of DLC for free to anyone who purchases the game.
This raises a larger question about the state of DLC in modern gaming. Is it really such a bad thing?
Usually, gamers seem to feel that DLC is a cheap method of monetizing a game and gouging players for additional money on top of the large amount they already paid for the base game.
On the other hand, proponents of such premium content might argue that if done in a meaty, substantial way, DLC can be a meaningful incentive to prolong your enjoyment of a game you might otherwise stop playing. It also can give the developer ways to improve upon or expand what they did in the core, taking player feedback into account. It can also be used to experiment with new and creative ideas that may end up being used in future titles.
You could look at perceived "cash-grab" DLCs such as character skins, extra weapons, etc that are common in several genres such as FPS games.
In contrast, larger DLC content – additional story missions, characters, expansions, etc – are usually more positively received by the gaming masses.
You should talk about instances – like in The Witcher 3 – where DLC is done "right," and others where it is not.
On a broader more, it might also be good to compare the practices between many large gaming publishers – EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Warner Bros., Square-Enix, Bethesda and more.
I think most gamers agree with you. There is more incentive to purchase something if the consumer believes that the creator put their heart and soul into it. CD Projekt Red has shown that they aren't just in it for the big bucks, but the quality of their content as well. I recently finished the game and I can say that the game was absolutely fantastic. You could appreciate the effort that was put into every little detail and that made the experience so much better.
Then you look in comparison to games like Call of Duty where they re-skin different weapons and charge two dollars each, then rehash popular modes in different settings and charge fifteen, you kind of get the feeling that the immersion of the gamer is not the priority.
Recently, DLC has been abused by AAA titles to make a quick buck but 2015 seems to be the year of quality games and Witcher 3 might have marked the beginning of that. – CameronEaton10 years ago
One may draw attention to a distinction between content relevant and aesthetically relevant DLC. The latter is generally smaller, consisting of weapon/character skins and largely superfluous elements. The case can be made quite convincingly that this is the least grievous form of DLC, as it is beholden to and limited by personal preference. Content such as areas, missions, and even characters or fighting moves are somewhat more insidious as they bear greater potential for abuse. The developer is capable of designing a section of their game to be more difficult, lax with content, or perhaps in its more serious form completely impossible, without the purchase of content driven DLC. This is particularly more important to multiplayer or competitively focussed games by which the winning side may be determined less by skill, and more by their wallets. Thank you for reading,
-Jake. – JakeTomosLewis10 years ago
CD Projekt Red purposely designed the economy in Witcher 3 so that Geralt can never get stinking rich. For a game built for a paltry 15 million, what does a poor protagonist mean in a multi-billion dollar industry?
Recently, we've seen a large influx of hero-brawler games from all corners of the industry, from Ironclad Games' Sins of a Dark Age to Valve's/Blizzard's/The Modding Community's/whoever's Defense of The Ancients, to Blizzard's poorly-named Heroes of the Storm (c'mon, guys, you just released an expansion pack with exactly the same acronym!). It has gotten to the point where many people within the industry have become absolutely sick of everything to do with them. What is it about wizard murdering simulators that makes them so popular with developers, and why can't anyone come up with a name for the genre that actually makes sense?
