Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

What types of gamers are there, based on how gamers approach games and gameplay experiences?

A debate yesterday on IRC highlighted a division between "experiential" and "performance" gaming, where the former group enjoys playing through the game, while the latter group enjoys improving their skill at the game. (And obviously, different types of games appeal to these different types of gamers.)

What other divisions are there?

(Cross-posted to the TV Tropes Fora.)

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Well, there is the obvious divisions of specialization. There are gamers that stick to a certain variety of games, whether they be First-Person Shooters, RPGs, Side-Scrolling Adventures, Real-Time Strategy, Fighting Games, Puzzle Games, or even my personal addiction: Rhythm Games (Even tho I suck at DDR, Rock Band is truly my poison of choice.)

So aside of how you play, there is always what you play.


Another comment I would like to make looking at your Experimental/Performance comparison: ALL GAMERS MUST THEN START OUT AS EXPERIMENTAL. And they must then fall into at least one of my above categories to progress onto Performance gaming.

So really, I've described the types of gamers for you, what you have describes is evolution and progression of gamers.

--------------------

If internal struggles were as enjoyable and glamorous as the self conflicted wars within video game characters, we would all be statues, reveling in perpetual self war. -Me

Play me on Rock Band 2, GH-WT, or any other Xbox GH!
Xbox Gamertag-MeanJerry

Quote (leilong @ 25th April 2009 12:20)

Another comment I would like to make looking at your Experimental/Performance comparison: ALL GAMERS MUST THEN START OUT AS EXPERIMENTAL. And they must then fall into at least one of my above categories to progress onto Performance gaming.

So really, I've described the types of gamers for you, what you have describes is evolution and progression of gamers.

Uh...I'm not sure if you misread or mistyped, but I wrote "experiential", not "experimental". As in, "experience", not "experiment".

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

I think that experiential/performance is the main division. I think it's different from casual/hardcore. This is my opinion. The four groups are...

1. Casual - person that does not play games much, or plays only a few games a lot. i.e. people who only play Madden or other sports.

2. Hardcore - plays a lot of games regularly, a game fan if you will, that keep up with new releases, news, etc. Fanboys are a subgroup.

3. Performance - tries to beat or master the game, and enjoys the competition in games.

4. Experiential - players that don't want competitive or challenging games, but instead wants simply the experience of gaming, such as the story, visuals and sound, or fun of the game.

I think you can be any mix of these groups, and it can change from game to game. I'm normally a hardcore/experiential gamer when it comes to adventure games and RPGs, but games like Super Smash Brothers I'm competitive with, so it's about performance. How about that?



--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 25th April 2009 11:45)

Quote (leilong @ 25th April 2009 12:20)

Another comment I would like to make looking at your Experimental/Performance comparison: ALL GAMERS MUST THEN START OUT AS EXPERIMENTAL. And they must then fall into at least one of my above categories to progress onto Performance gaming.

So really, I've described the types of gamers for you, what you have describes is evolution and progression of gamers. 

Uh...I'm not sure if you misread or mistyped, but I wrote "experiential", not "experimental". As in, "experience", not "experiment".

Oh... My God...

Hukt on fonix rully werkt fer mee!

I am... an Idiot. And I... am sorry.

Save this for future generations to learn upon, as much of a grammar nazi as I can be at times, sometimes I read too fast.

Wow, that makes so much more sense now too!


I'm dumb. And I feel really awesome.

--------------------

If internal struggles were as enjoyable and glamorous as the self conflicted wars within video game characters, we would all be statues, reveling in perpetual self war. -Me

Play me on Rock Band 2, GH-WT, or any other Xbox GH!
Xbox Gamertag-MeanJerry

Don't worry, we've all been there. Some more than others though.

Moderator Edit

And some of us post things in threads that belong in PM! - R51

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 26th April 2009 06:11

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

leilong: Aww, it's okay.

BlitzSage:

1. So you're proposing a two-axis system, with casual/hardcore on one axis and experiential/performance on the other?

Makes me wonder what other axes there are. Perhaps social vs. solo and gameplay/mechanics focus vs. atmosphere/plot focus. Though that last one might correlate strongly with experiential vs. performance.

2. Here's how to avoid getting chided: Actually spend part of your post talking about something relevant to the topic.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Well, I think there are hybrid gamers, too, who follow both.

I like to spend the first playthrough of a game just having fun, seeing what all cool stuff it has, and eventually, maybe, beating it.

Some games I'll start over and over, new games, and never really get anywhere in them, but I'll still have fun (haha, I'm ridiculous)

But! If I liked it enough to beat it, I replay it with a perfectionistic affection, powerleveling and getting rare items/secret characters, and making all the 'right' choices in the game so as to have the best ending.


I've actually seen all the Chrono Trigger endings, and worked my butt off to get the best weapons :/ I'm kind of embarrassed of that, especially considering I was glued to walkthroughs to figure out how to see them.

But I still start every game with a more lax, adventuresome attitude. It just doesn't stay that way if I like the game.

[Edit] My post just sounded like I was just gabbing about myself, but I had a point:

That although each gamer is different, I think their playing attitudes usually fall into subcategories, like as Sage mentioned, depending on genre, experience with THAT game/series, and really personal opinons on these.

I was stating that I start out as one, but with some games end up as another.


On another note, you could probably also break down how the gamer finds help. I know some people who consider walkthroughs as cheating, some who won't play a game without a walkthrough step by step, and others (this is me), who'll only use a walkthrough as a last resort, especially if you're getting tired of the game because you're in such a rut with the spot you're in.

This post has been edited by RelmArrowney on 26th April 2009 19:35

--------------------

You're telling me that there's no hope.

I'm telling you you're wrong.

Yeah, I really find it hard to believe that everyone can be stuck into a single category. Personally, I will only play a game if the story can really get me involved, and there are times where I wish certain games weren't as hard as they were made so I could just get to the end and find out if the main character dies or if he gets the girl. On the other hand, there are certain games to me like Ninja Gaiden, and StarFox that don't really have a lot of story to them, but I play them religiously when I get the chance just to stay on top of my game, and make sure I'm better than everyone I know at them. Sometimes I'll even go as far as to watch videos of people doing speed runs and stuff to pick up on little secrets and skills I didn't know about before. So, I can't really say that one category would fit me. Some games I just want the experience, and I want them to be like reading a book or watching a movie while I want others to be bone crushing to develop skill.

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

The general consensus seems to be that people can ba a mix of preformance and experiential gamers, and I would have to agree.
Personally, I play games primarily from an experiential standpoint (I love a good story and purty graphics), but I have fun with the performance aspect as well (trying to get full bestiary in FF remakes and ports, as well as improving my skills in Super Smash Bros., Halo, etc.)

That's my two cents.

--------------------

"My name is Atma...I am a power both ancient and unrivaled... I do not bleed, for I am but strength given form...Feeble creatures of flesh...Your time is nigh!"

Quote (THE_MAN @ 27th April 2009 10:39)

but I have fun with the performance aspect as well (trying to get full bestiary in FF remakes and ports,

I don't think I'd necessarily count getting a full bestiary as "performance". I think it's more of a "completionist" thing.

Though I guess could either be part of experiential gaming (being able to tell your friends you accomplished something by finishing the bestiary) or performance gaming (aiming for perfection).

Edit

Off-topic, but I think I've just uncovered the 2900-posts rank: Paladin.

This post has been edited by Glenn Magus Harvey on 29th April 2009 19:29

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 29th April 2009 19:28)

Quote (THE_MAN @ 27th April 2009 10:39)

but I have fun with the performance aspect as well (trying to get full bestiary in FF remakes and ports,

I don't think I'd necessarily count getting a full bestiary as "performance". I think it's more of a "completionist" thing.

Though I guess could either be part of experiential gaming (being able to tell your friends you accomplished something by finishing the bestiary) or performance gaming (aiming for perfection).

Edit

Off-topic, but I think I've just uncovered the 2900-posts rank: Paladin.

I think completionists would be a subset of performance gaming, because it's all about beating the game.

Then again, I see your point. You could complete the beastiary for the experience of beating it. This must be where the lines blurr between the types of gamers. I do like a two-axis system, that's what I was trying to get at with my post, but you put it in better words. You can decide what you play, and how you play it. There might be a need for another axis actually.

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey)

2. Here's how to avoid getting chided: Actually spend part of your post talking about something relevant to the topic.

Yeah I know. I meant to do that. I try to stay on topic, most of the time. Srry, R51.

Edit

btw, cool Paladin thing

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 1st May 2009 03:52

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I think the 'casual' and 'hardcore' labels are about as concrete as we'll get. I'm not totally convinced by 'experiential' and 'performance' because of the exact reasons BlitzSage describes above.

Both casual and hardcore players can be playing for the experience and the challenge simultaneously. The divide is: how much time we play, how much money we're willing to spend on gaming, and how much of the game and challenges we're willing to complete. If you multiply each of those factors together you get a fairly clear picture of what kind of gamer you are.

Take World of WarCraft as an example. Every player online will be both experiential and performance. You need to put your nose to the grindstone to complete the quests, and you need to complete the quests to improve at the game. Also both groups will be enjoying the new areas, bosses and monsters as they explore further. However, if we look at it from a hardcore/casual point of view, the deciding factor is on time, money and level of completion; a more accurate way of comparing people in my opinion.

You could argue that games like LMA Manager and Madden are exclusively performance, and I would dispute that because there is the experiential aspect of winning a tournament or league. Also, BlitzSage you say that Madden is a game for casual players, but it could also be hardcore because there's always a higher difficulty or a weaker team to choose. Back at school, an old friend of mine played Rugby 2000 just about every day for a year. He won the World Cup with Romania on the hardest difficulty just to give himself a much greater challenge. I would never think of him as a casual player.

So, in short, I mostly agree with BlitzSage, except that I would disregard experiential and performance because I've never met anybody online or off who is distinctly associated with one category more than the other.

Quote (leilong @ 25th April 2009 12:20)

Another comment I would like to make looking at your Experimental/Performance comparison: ALL GAMERS MUST THEN START OUT AS EXPERIMENTAL. And they must then fall into at least one of my above categories to progress onto Performance gaming.

There's no difference between experimental and experiential in these terms. You'd have to experiment in order to enjoy a new game and a new story, but the performance group would not be experimenting in the least. Similar to what I've described above, everybody plays for the experience of a game, whether it's an Unreal Tournament or a Half-Life 2. As you explain, a good experience will inspire people to continue to play for the performance aspect. I don't think you're an idiot for misreading, but I think you're a bit silly for going back on what you'd written when it still makes perfect sense.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 1st May 2009 12:49)

So, in short, I mostly agree with BlitzSage, except that I would disregard experiential and performance because I've never met anybody online or off who is distinctly associated with one category more than the other.

I am. I don't play games to beat them, I play for the story, or just for the experience of playing the game. I play FFVI for the story, characters, and scenes.

I said Madden "players" are often casual players because they only play one game or a few games. Like if one of us only played Square or FF games.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage)

Yeah I know. I meant to do that. I try to stay on topic, most of the time.

I didn't mean to sound harsh or anything; I was just mentioning a (frankly legitimate) way that'd kept me out of trouble around here.

Quote (BlitzSage)

I said Madden "players" are often casual players because they only play one game or a few games. Like if one of us only played Square or FF games.

See, this is another interesting thing. (I think that) people who play only Madden games are far less likely to consider themselves gamers than people who play only Final Fantasy games, when comparing people who plays these games in similar intensities (amounts of time, money spent, etc.).

I think this distinction (if it exists) seems to be associated with the fact that sports are considered "mainstream" than the epic semi-animé-style plots of RPGs.

So maybe that's another axis: "mainstream" versus "subculture".

This post has been edited by Glenn Magus Harvey on 2nd May 2009 14:34

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 2nd May 2009 14:33)

Quote (BlitzSage)

I said Madden "players" are often casual players because they only play one game or a few games. Like if one of us only played Square or FF games.

See, this is another interesting thing. (I think that) people who play only Madden games are far less likely to consider themselves gamers than people who play only Final Fantasy games, when comparing people who plays these games in similar intensities (amounts of time, money spent, etc.).

I think this distinction (if it exists) seems to be associated with the fact that sports are considered "mainstream" than the epic semi-animé-style plots of RPGs.

So maybe that's another axis: "mainstream" versus "subculture".

I think that's true about Madden players. There definitely is some sort of distinction, within the players at least, of each type of game. I think, actually, that would be under the casual/hardcore axis. Casual could be mainstream, and hardcore could be the subculture (or us!).

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 2nd May 2009 03:54)

I am. I don't play games to beat them, I play for the story, or just for the experience of playing the game. I play FFVI for the story, characters, and scenes.

We play games for many reasons including the experience, at least to begin with, unless it's a board game or something. To be purely experiential you'd have to be playing games in very restrictive conditions and I don't think that's possible. Even just by finding the characters and seeing the hidden scenes you are taking on the attributes of a performance player. Hey, a purely experiential player would not even look on the CoN guides because to do so is to improve your playing of the game in some form or another. Or maybe you should not even play the game at all and instead watch somebody else playing it on YouTube. I think that I've only played FFVI for the experience of the story, but I also want to fight all the dragons. Now do I want to fight them for the experience or the challenge?

There are no arbitrary rules which dictate if a person is experiential or performance. The hardcore/casual variables of time, money and percentage of the game completed is much more factually sound and therefore a better way of lumping people into categories.

Quote ( BlitzSage @ 2nd May 2009 03:54)

I said Madden "players" are often casual players because they only play one game or a few games. Like if one of us only played Square or FF games.

They are mostly casual players I agree. The point I was making is that there are some hardcore players which only play Madden or other sports games, whereas you had said they are all casual.

I think you could build an axis for every difference, but I'm not convinced there are ways of exclusively labelling a person with one or the other. I'm both mainstream and subculture. This thread reminds me of a debate on genres I had a while back on another board. When you take away objectivity it becomes very hard to define anything.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 4th May 2009 20:41)

I think you could build an axis for every difference, but I'm not convinced there are ways of exclusively labelling a person with one or the other. I'm both mainstream and subculture. This thread reminds me of a debate on genres I had a while back on another board. When you take away objectivity it becomes very hard to define anything.

I understand that. We all should march at the beat of a different drum, be our own individual, think our own thoughts. Lumping people into categories creates hasty generalizations that often perpetuate the ills of culture. I agree that if we didn't openly categorize people then our society would be better.

However, for the sake of fun, creating categories of gamers would not hurt anyone, even if they're not true.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

True. I don't mean to be a killjoy, I'm just promoting the hardcore/casual axis as the most conclusive. The problem is that I imagine developers categorising people into the same false subgroups. If people keep buying the games then they don't see any reason to change the formula which, supposedly, will appeal to their market and sell. For example, FF players will always enjoy scantily-dressed men and cheap, teen American voice acting, correct? And people who play Halo surely don't need much of a story because there's no way they would be able to follow it.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 6th May 2009 17:10)

For example, FF players will always enjoy scantily-dressed men and cheap, teen American voice acting, correct?

I don't.

Quote (sweetdude @ 6th May 2009 17:10)

And people who play Halo surely don't need much of a story because there's no way they would be able to follow it.

I play Halo, and I have no trouble following complex stories?

That was my point. False categories of gamers results in the wrong games being made. If Halo had an extremely complex plot it would not put anybody off the game. I imagine that the writers had some excellent ideas, as everybody always does, but were squashed because it would make the game less marketable.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 6th May 2009 19:29)

That was my point. False categories of gamers results in the wrong games being made. If Halo had an extremely complex plot it would not put anybody off the game. I imagine that the writers had some excellent ideas, as everybody always does, but were squashed because it would make the game less marketable.

That's always going to happen. This is the video game "industry" after all. Square is a company first, game developer second. They Will only produce a game if it has a chance to be popular. It's sad, but that's how it is.

The only way it can change is if you have a company that thinks more artistically, which means being more rebellious and independent. It might even help to make categories of games, such as mainstream/independent, so that certain game companies will support more artistic games.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Well, I think that the greatest descriptor (which is a little unfortunate since it's hard to simplify too much) of a gamer's type is the type of games he/she plays.

As for experiential vs. performance, I would say that being more performance driven does not necessarily imply being less experientially driven, and therefore, an axis for these two variables would not work, however, they are definitely very important descriptors. They could have separate axes, but for the sake of the limits of my ability to visualize more than three dimensions, I would not go that route.

So, I think if I were to make a diagram in order to categorize individual gamers, along the lines of one of those psychological profile tests, is to have a single axis, with hardcore on one end, and casual on the other end, and a symbol to mark where that individual is on the axis. The color of the symbol would represent the type of games the gamer likes to play, as colors can be combined for gamers with more than one favorite type of game, the value (brightness) of the symbol could represent how performance driven the person is, and the shape of the symbol could represent how experientially driven the person is, with a circle being the most experientially driven, and a triangle being the least, and you just add more sides to the polygon the more experientially driven the person is until it's virtually a circle.

--------------------

Oh tell me why
Do we build castles in the sky

Quote (sweetdude)

To be purely experiential you'd have to be playing games in very restrictive conditions and I don't think that's possible. Even just by finding the characters and seeing the hidden scenes you are taking on the attributes of a performance player. Hey, a purely experiential player would not even look on the CoN guides because to do so is to improve your playing of the game in some form or another.

No; I might be checking the CoN guides to figure out the solution to some puzzle or dead end so I can get to more of the game--thus effectively bypassing intended difficulty, in some cases.

Quote (sweetdude)

I think that I've only played FFVI for the experience of the story, but I also want to fight all the dragons. Now do I want to fight them for the experience or the challenge?

Well, here's where intent matters. Do you want to fight the dragons because that lets you see one more facet of the game, or do you want to fight the dragons because they're challenging bosses?

Quote (sweetdude)

There are no arbitrary rules which dictate if a person is experiential or performance.

I'd say it depends on a case-by-case basis.

Quote (sweetdude)

They are mostly casual players I agree. The point I was making is that there are some hardcore players which only play Madden or other sports games, whereas you had said they are all casual.

Well, I would guess that there are probably big-time American football fans who spend a lot of money on Madden games but consider themselves football fans rather than gamers. Though I doubt there's that many of them; that sort of fan-obsession fan behavior seems to be more observed with animé fandoms than with sports fandoms.

Quote (sweetdude)

I imagine that the writers had some excellent ideas, as everybody always does, but were squashed because it would make the game less marketable.

It might not just be marketability, but also timing. You've heard all those stories of games rushed to market, right? It wouldn't surprise me if they had to choose between gameplay and plot when pressed for time, and chose gameplay because that was closer to the "point" of the game.

If not pressed for time, I would absolutely LOVE to see a game that has very fun gameplay and very well-designed interface but also great depth of plot (and characterization if applicable) and a great sense of atmosphere through graphics and music. But sometimes they don't have the time.

Quote (fleetingsight)

Well, I think that the greatest descriptor (which is a little unfortunate since it's hard to simplify too much) of a gamer's type is the type of games he/she plays.

No, I'd disagree.

I'd say the greatest descriptor of a gamer's type is why the gamer plays the games he/she plays.

For example, you might be playing Sailor Moon RPG: Another Story. Are you playing this because:
* you and your friends were bored out of your mind in college dorm lounge on a Saturday night, and one of you suggested that you play through that for the lulz?
* you are interested in RPG algorithms, and have heard that it has a particularly screwy one?
* you are a fan of the Sailor Moon series?

Quote (fleetingsight)

but for the sake of the limits of my ability to visualize more than three dimensions

I usually visualize four dimensions by thinking of a three-dimensional set of axes as traveling through "time" or as traveling along an axis outside them, and following how a point/line/plane/object moves relative to the first three axes as the whole system moves down the "time line".

Quote (fleetingsight)

So, I think if I were to make a diagram in order to categorize individual gamers, along the lines of one of those psychological profile tests, is to have a single axis, with hardcore on one end, and casual on the other end, and a symbol to mark where that individual is on the axis. The color of the symbol would represent the type of games the gamer likes to play, as colors can be combined for gamers with more than one favorite type of game, the value (brightness) of the symbol could represent how performance driven the person is, and the shape of the symbol could represent how experientially driven the person is, with a circle being the most experientially driven, and a triangle being the least, and you just add more sides to the polygon the more experientially driven the person is until it's virtually a circle.

That...is a very interesting system you've thought up there.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvery @ 7th May 2009 19:48)

No; I might be checking the CoN guides to figure out the solution to some puzzle or dead end so I can get to more of the game--thus effectively bypassing intended difficulty, in some cases.

That is anti-experiential because the experience of completing a puzzle or learning a map is therefore lost. Performance is where you don't care about the experience of discovery, and instead just want to either plough on to the harder parts or improve your game by completing a section in the most efficient or quickest manner.

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvery @ 7th May 2009 19:48)

Well, here's where intent matters. Do you want to fight the dragons because that lets you see one more facet of the game, or do you want to fight the dragons because they're challenging bosses?

My argument is entirely based on the fact that I, to begin with, want to fight them for both reasons. I believe that everyone appreciates the extra scenes (experiential) and the extra difficulty or reward (performance). To be purely one or the other is impossible.

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvery @ 7th May 2009 19:48)

I'd say it depends on a case-by-case basis.

That is exactly what I'm saying. There are no general categories which everyone inherits aside from the hardcore/casual groups I laid out. That doesn't need to be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 6th May 2009 21:42)

That's always going to happen. This is the video game "industry" after all. Square is a company first, game developer second. They Will only produce a game if it has a chance to be popular. It's sad, but that's how it is.

There are plenty of titles which buck the trend. Every time a BioShock or Assassin's Creed comes out it proves that interesting new ideas are welcome in this industry. Square-Enix pumped FFXII full of unorthodox mechanics, and it still sold in ridiculous numbers. To make a game popular doesn't necessarily mean fill it with tried and tested content. That's just a poor excuse.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude)

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey)

No; I might be checking the CoN guides to figure out the solution to some puzzle or dead end so I can get to more of the game--thus effectively bypassing intended difficulty, in some cases.

That is anti-experiential because the experience of completing a puzzle or learning a map is therefore lost. Performance is where you don't care about the experience of discovery, and instead just want to either plough on to the harder parts or improve your game by completing a section in the most efficient or quickest manner.

Well, I guess that depends on perspective. For me, I might see it as a puzzle blocking me from experiencing more of the game and getting bogged down in gameplay mechanics.

Which just means that a single event of player-game interaction has far more than one possible meaning to it.

Quote (sweetdude)

Square-Enix pumped FFXII full of unorthodox mechanics, and it still sold in ridiculous numbers. To make a game popular doesn't necessarily mean fill it with tried and tested content.

Well, arguably, Squenix could have an expectation that something with the Final Fantasy banner would enjoy at least some sort of baseline level of popularity.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (sweetdude @ 7th May 2009 20:40)

Quote (BlitzSage @ 6th May 2009 21:42)

That's always going to happen. This is the video game "industry" after all. Square is a company first, game developer second. They Will only produce a game if it has a chance to be popular. It's sad, but that's how it is.

There are plenty of titles which buck the trend. Every time a BioShock or Assassin's Creed comes out it proves that interesting new ideas are welcome in this industry. Square-Enix pumped FFXII full of unorthodox mechanics, and it still sold in ridiculous numbers. To make a game popular doesn't necessarily mean fill it with tried and tested content. That's just a poor excuse.

I think you missed my point. Bioshock and Final Fantasy can have innovation; so can a Martin Scorsese film. But the industry is all about money either way.

It doesn't change the fact that Scorsese is an artist, but the businessmen in the industry make that a selling point to make a profit off of his films (so, even saying something is not mainstream is a mainstream tool).

They wouldn't make a Bioshock 2, for instance, if Bioshock 1 wasn't popular. All entertainment industries are filled with stuff like that.

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey)

Well, I guess that depends on perspective. For me, I might see it as a puzzle blocking me from experiencing more of the game and getting bogged down in gameplay mechanics.

Which just means that a single event of player-game interaction has far more than one possible meaning to it.

I agree. That is the whole thing about the experience, it depends on you and how you experience it. In FFVI and other FFs, I try and pay attention to the story instead of the gameplay, and I'll normally reach for cheatcodes if I can. But most people don't do that.

The whole axis is: if you play the game to beat or master it, or do you simply play it to be entertained, listen to a compelling story, and so on.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 9th May 2009 04:40)

I think you missed my point. Bioshock and Final Fantasy can have innovation; so can a Martin Scorsese film. But the industry is all about money either way.

I don't think I did. Before, you effectively said that big-budget games will always be driven by profit and therefore only in independent companies can developers flex their most ingenious ideas, and I said that plenty of mainstream games have shown that new ideas can also be profitable. Of course companies are driven by profit, that's obvious, but it doesn't mean that good ideas always have to be squashed to make room for tried and tested methods.

You're now saying that profitable games can have some innovation, but only in relation to how much popular content is included. Again, I would argue that this isn't the case. Games can be completely new and take the mainstream market by storm. Look at The Sims for an example. In a profit-driven marketplace, companies will try to stick to selling factors like beautiful women, turn-based battles and teenage protagonists. We all understand that. What you're forgetting is that this is not always necessary in making a popular game - regardless of whether it's good or not. It's like we've come to expect generic running and shooting games because the industry tells us that's how it makes its money. That's a poor excuse and I'm not satisfied with it.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 9th May 2009 04:40)

The whole axis is: if you play the game to beat or master it, or do you simply play it to be entertained, listen to a compelling story, and so on.

If you're playing it to beat or master it, does that not entertain you? And it still doesn't cover people who play games for all those reasons. You might play Shadow of the Colossus one day then a 100-hour Pokemon save on the next. I'm yet to see a good reason why everybody is divided on either side of this axis.

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 9th May 2009 01:27)

Which just means that a single event of player-game interaction has far more than one possible meaning to it.

What do you mean?

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 9th May 2009 16:48)

I don't think I did. Before, you effectively said that big-budget games will always be driven by profit and therefore only in independent companies can developers flex their most ingenious ideas, and I said that plenty of mainstream games have shown that new ideas can also be profitable. Of course companies are driven by profit, that's obvious, but it doesn't mean that good ideas always have to be squashed to make room for tried and tested methods.

I didn't say that only nonpopular independent games are the only innovative games. And I'm not saying that the people who make those popular games are not talented, nor did I say that they are not artists in their own right.

For instance, look at one of my favorite filmmakers. Steven Spielberg has made countless big budget movies that have appealed to mainstream audiences. But that doesn't change the fact that he makes incredible films that are are personal and sound through his art and his craft.

What I meant was the businessmen who publish the games, those wonderful execs, for example, at Nintendo, who make games just to where they can be easily accessible and "fun for the family" (and the family's money!).

Quote (sweetdude)

Quote (BlitzSage @ 9th May 2009 04:40)

The whole axis is: if you play the game to beat or master it, or do you simply play it to be entertained, listen to a compelling story, and so on.

If you're playing it to beat or master it, does that not entertain you? And it still doesn't cover people who play games for all those reasons. You might play Shadow of the Colossus one day then a 100-hour Pokemon save on the next. I'm yet to see a good reason why everybody is divided on either side of this axis.

Yes it does. It is not whether you play it to be entertained or not (all of it is entertainment), it is how you are entertained.

That is an unpopular notion in the artistic community, that art can (or even has to be) entertaining. But when I watch or play a story, it intrigues me, moves me emotionally, so I am entertained by it.

To me it is the difference between watching the NFL, and reading a book. Both are entertaining, but in different ways.

And I said that you could be a different type of gamer for different games. The axis is not supposed to be literal.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 6th May 2009 21:42)

Quote (sweetdude @ 6th May 2009 19:29)

That was my point. False categories of gamers results in the wrong games being made. If Halo had an extremely complex plot it would not put anybody off the game. I imagine that the writers had some excellent ideas, as everybody always does, but were squashed because it would make the game less marketable.

That's always going to happen. This is the video game "industry" after all. Square is a company first, game developer second. They Will only produce a game if it has a chance to be popular. It's sad, but that's how it is.

The only way it can change is if you have a company that thinks more artistically, which means being more rebellious and independent. It might even help to make categories of games, such as mainstream/independent, so that certain game companies will support more artistic games.

I'm confused now. Right there I said false categories result in innovation being withheld in the interest of appeasing market demographics, and then you say that will always happen in the video game industry, with the exception of the independent market or a company changing it's production policy to allow for more arty ideas. On that note, I argued that I don't think that's completely true and there are examples to prove it. I don't think I've misread anything... I understand if you want to change your opinion or clarify what you've written, but I don't understand why you keep saying I've misinterpreted your posts.

I doesn't even matter. I know what you're saying now. The point is that we need less emphasis on marketability, which I believe can be counter-productive, and more emphasis on new ideas.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 10th May 2009 15:38)

And I said that you could be a different type of gamer for different games. The axis is not supposed to be literal.

Different types for different games makes sense, and I agree with it to some extent, but it still doesn't explain people who play all games for both the experience and the performance aspects. I mentioned Pokemon before, that can be played for both, correct?

I'm making a habit of this now, but you did say that 'The whole axis is: [experiential and performance]'. Also, you did say that you are a 100% experiential player, which I'm arguing cannot be true. Did you mean you are a 100% experiential player on some games (you mentioned FFVI) and 100% performance on others? It seems to me that you did mean the axis as a literal divider. If you've changed your opinion now then we're in agreement.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.