<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Super sized? I just want a fucking small!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?feed=rss2&#038;p=82" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:45:21 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Borut</title>
		<link>http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82&#038;cpage=1#comment-162</link>
		<dc:creator>Borut</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:28:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82#comment-162</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a good counter-point with Katamari Damacy, I suppose it&#039;s really more any combination of complex gameplay and/or setting. That&#039;s sort of interesting in and of itself - a film can typically push people away by setting/context, but it seems rarer for one to do so purely by technique (although it does happen).

Blacksite... Yeah. While I haven&#039;t played it yet (it&#039;s next in my Gamefly queue), it definitely seems like the depth they were aiming for was very tacked on (and therefore not very successful in achieving that depth). It&#039;s easy to put some kids in the middle of your warzone, but unless you interact with them, it&#039;s all window dressing. 

Yeah, we are already starting down the road of making games for art snobs. That&#039;s the frustrating part, because I think we are reaching a critical mass of older, more mature gamers, that would apprciate such depth, but they&#039;re turned off by most commercial games - the silly power fantasy, the amount of time they require, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a good counter-point with Katamari Damacy, I suppose it&#8217;s really more any combination of complex gameplay and/or setting. That&#8217;s sort of interesting in and of itself &#8211; a film can typically push people away by setting/context, but it seems rarer for one to do so purely by technique (although it does happen).</p>
<p>Blacksite&#8230; Yeah. While I haven&#8217;t played it yet (it&#8217;s next in my Gamefly queue), it definitely seems like the depth they were aiming for was very tacked on (and therefore not very successful in achieving that depth). It&#8217;s easy to put some kids in the middle of your warzone, but unless you interact with them, it&#8217;s all window dressing. </p>
<p>Yeah, we are already starting down the road of making games for art snobs. That&#8217;s the frustrating part, because I think we are reaching a critical mass of older, more mature gamers, that would apprciate such depth, but they&#8217;re turned off by most commercial games &#8211; the silly power fantasy, the amount of time they require, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82&#038;cpage=1#comment-160</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82#comment-160</guid>
		<description>True - stupid is a harsh word to throw at someone, but I can&#039;t help but think ignorance and stupidity are somehow interrelated.  What makes a game, or arguably its audience, stupid to someone is from my understanding purely subjective.  Surely fans of games I consider not worth my time  would think I&#039;m odd for liking the games I do.  Then again in the context of a game like Madden you are correct, it isn&#039;t a horrible game but simply has a narrow, or very specific target audience that it cares about.  I shouldn&#039;t be surprised; they don&#039;t televise the Superbowl for people who don&#039;t like football.

I don&#039;t think it&#039;s necessarily a relationship between the complexity of a concept and the effort it takes to communicate its worth - a game with core gameplay mechanics as overtly simplistic as Katamari Damacy is still a tough  sell.  You make an excellent point in that the more a game veers away from delivering an experience of fun alone the more you&#039;re going to have to find other ways to convince people of its value.  We&#039;re so used to games delivering on the reward of fun that unless it makes us smile we&#039;re not sure why we&#039;re playing a &#039;game&#039;.  Schindler&#039;s List is regarded as an excellent film, but it certainly shouldn&#039;t produce a burst of happiness; maybe someday a game can say the same.

I think the problem is that when we try to create these more &#039;serious&#039; games we end up countering our own arguments.  Look at Area 51, it attempted to handle some mature issues but the gameplay was the same as any Doom game.  The actual moment-to-moment mechanics of the game and what it proposes to tell with its story contradict one another.  Of course I&#039;m not some genius - everyone has thought of this and some are making games this way, for instance an IGF finalist called The Path which  puts a macabre twist on Red Riding Hood.  People are trying to do this, but it&#039;s reaching the wrong crowd: us.  The industry is already aware of these changes, but the industry isn&#039;t the audience that matters the most.  In effect then we&#039;re already making games for the art snobs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True &#8211; stupid is a harsh word to throw at someone, but I can&#8217;t help but think ignorance and stupidity are somehow interrelated.  What makes a game, or arguably its audience, stupid to someone is from my understanding purely subjective.  Surely fans of games I consider not worth my time  would think I&#8217;m odd for liking the games I do.  Then again in the context of a game like Madden you are correct, it isn&#8217;t a horrible game but simply has a narrow, or very specific target audience that it cares about.  I shouldn&#8217;t be surprised; they don&#8217;t televise the Superbowl for people who don&#8217;t like football.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s necessarily a relationship between the complexity of a concept and the effort it takes to communicate its worth &#8211; a game with core gameplay mechanics as overtly simplistic as Katamari Damacy is still a tough  sell.  You make an excellent point in that the more a game veers away from delivering an experience of fun alone the more you&#8217;re going to have to find other ways to convince people of its value.  We&#8217;re so used to games delivering on the reward of fun that unless it makes us smile we&#8217;re not sure why we&#8217;re playing a &#8216;game&#8217;.  Schindler&#8217;s List is regarded as an excellent film, but it certainly shouldn&#8217;t produce a burst of happiness; maybe someday a game can say the same.</p>
<p>I think the problem is that when we try to create these more &#8217;serious&#8217; games we end up countering our own arguments.  Look at Area 51, it attempted to handle some mature issues but the gameplay was the same as any Doom game.  The actual moment-to-moment mechanics of the game and what it proposes to tell with its story contradict one another.  Of course I&#8217;m not some genius &#8211; everyone has thought of this and some are making games this way, for instance an IGF finalist called The Path which  puts a macabre twist on Red Riding Hood.  People are trying to do this, but it&#8217;s reaching the wrong crowd: us.  The industry is already aware of these changes, but the industry isn&#8217;t the audience that matters the most.  In effect then we&#8217;re already making games for the art snobs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Borut</title>
		<link>http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82&#038;cpage=1#comment-159</link>
		<dc:creator>Borut</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82#comment-159</guid>
		<description>Well, I think there is a difference between stupid (or lacking taste) and ignorant. I mean yeah, some game concepts are inherently limited in their appeal, but no matter how limited a game&#039;s appeal might be, you&#039;ve got to do work to tell people what&#039;s interesting about it. 

It&#039;s just that the more complex the concept, the more work it takes to simplify communicating its value. And the more the game&#039;s focus goes away from straightforward, random reward schedule &quot;fun&quot;, the more you have to think about to show it&#039;s value to someone who&#039;s going to pay money for it (assuming you&#039;re selling it).

I mean, what you say about ideas shifting from more &quot;advanced&quot; design sensibilities to more &quot;popular&quot; ones is true, I think, as a general trend. But part of that process is because individual creators take the effort to &quot;market&quot; their game (where the verb &quot;market&quot; is much larger spectrum of activities than is typically considering under average game marketing, mind you). Word slowly spreads, more people are exposed to it, etc. and eventually it becomes a more accepted thing.

And part of their appeal is, true, that you, or any gamer that plays them, can feel &quot;in the know&quot;, hip, or better than people who just play Madden. In my book, playing on that appeal of the associated status is a perfectly fair trick to getting people to play your game. But if you go to far down that route, you&#039;re not making a game to communicate something meaningful, you&#039;re making a game for art snobs. Not that there&#039;s anything wrong with that either, I guess, but that point it&#039;s a different problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I think there is a difference between stupid (or lacking taste) and ignorant. I mean yeah, some game concepts are inherently limited in their appeal, but no matter how limited a game&#8217;s appeal might be, you&#8217;ve got to do work to tell people what&#8217;s interesting about it. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s just that the more complex the concept, the more work it takes to simplify communicating its value. And the more the game&#8217;s focus goes away from straightforward, random reward schedule &#8220;fun&#8221;, the more you have to think about to show it&#8217;s value to someone who&#8217;s going to pay money for it (assuming you&#8217;re selling it).</p>
<p>I mean, what you say about ideas shifting from more &#8220;advanced&#8221; design sensibilities to more &#8220;popular&#8221; ones is true, I think, as a general trend. But part of that process is because individual creators take the effort to &#8220;market&#8221; their game (where the verb &#8220;market&#8221; is much larger spectrum of activities than is typically considering under average game marketing, mind you). Word slowly spreads, more people are exposed to it, etc. and eventually it becomes a more accepted thing.</p>
<p>And part of their appeal is, true, that you, or any gamer that plays them, can feel &#8220;in the know&#8221;, hip, or better than people who just play Madden. In my book, playing on that appeal of the associated status is a perfectly fair trick to getting people to play your game. But if you go to far down that route, you&#8217;re not making a game to communicate something meaningful, you&#8217;re making a game for art snobs. Not that there&#8217;s anything wrong with that either, I guess, but that point it&#8217;s a different problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NIck</title>
		<link>http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82&#038;cpage=1#comment-158</link>
		<dc:creator>NIck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=82#comment-158</guid>
		<description>I hate to say it because it&#039;s so cliche, but ignorance is bliss, right?  The guy who owns a console just so he can buy a new copy of Madden every year has no idea why anyone would want to play Lumines - he doesn&#039;t even know what that is, or how to pronounce it.

Does that make the majority of people, of consumers, stupid?  To an extent maybe but it seems to be a more a fault of the game.  Games that are trying to do something different aren&#039;t as easily accessible as games that everyone already knows how to play, and that&#039;s just a fact.

With that in mind I think these kind of games will remain in the background, slowly and quietly influencing the mass market as their design sensibilities are picked up and absorbed by the mainstream.  Unless there is some radical shift I don&#039;t see that ever changing, but maybe that&#039;s not such a bad thing.  Maybe I wouldn&#039;t like some of these games as much if I couldn&#039;t be a pretentious asshole when talking to people who play Madden.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hate to say it because it&#8217;s so cliche, but ignorance is bliss, right?  The guy who owns a console just so he can buy a new copy of Madden every year has no idea why anyone would want to play Lumines &#8211; he doesn&#8217;t even know what that is, or how to pronounce it.</p>
<p>Does that make the majority of people, of consumers, stupid?  To an extent maybe but it seems to be a more a fault of the game.  Games that are trying to do something different aren&#8217;t as easily accessible as games that everyone already knows how to play, and that&#8217;s just a fact.</p>
<p>With that in mind I think these kind of games will remain in the background, slowly and quietly influencing the mass market as their design sensibilities are picked up and absorbed by the mainstream.  Unless there is some radical shift I don&#8217;t see that ever changing, but maybe that&#8217;s not such a bad thing.  Maybe I wouldn&#8217;t like some of these games as much if I couldn&#8217;t be a pretentious asshole when talking to people who play Madden.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
