Interesting that Zucker's comment seems to assume that "easy" means "for little kids." The biggest current growth in the game industry is happening with 40+ year old gamers, most of whom are women. It will be interesting to watch Midway and other big publishers scramble to retool their marketing once they start smelling the money.

I had a similar reaction.

http://www.damnedmachines.com/archives/2005/05/e3_report_day_f_5.html

http://www.damnedmachines.com/archives/2005/05/e3_report_day_t_6.html

I'm starting to think that the reason behind the growing disconnect is that the game industry is finally starting to mature. I'm still trying to figure out how this would work from a market perspective, but one of the buzzwords on the floor right now is "casual gamers." Everyone's talking about it, and to see Yahoo!'s booth here is definitely interesting. They're pushing poker, and out of every booth competing on the "casual gaming" market I think they're doing the best job.

Problem with the "Casual Gamer" moniker is that no one (with money) can see beyond Bejeweled and poker games.  There is something in between Bejeweled and Halo 2 that these people will love, and sorry for showing my extreme prejudice, but I strongly believe that adventure games can fill that void, if given the chance (and a good kick-in-the-ass make-over, and I ain't talking 3D).

One of the biggest fields in "casual gaming" is obviously mobile gaming, and they claim that the biggest thing driving design was that their market research showed that they were programming to mothers, to either play when they're waiting for something like picking up their kids or something that they can give the kids to play to shut them up. It's changing slowly, but an adventure game on a cell phone would be very, very interesting -- and a good value since it seems like games are designed for 15 minute intervals. I'd definitely play an adventure game on a cell phone if it's even possible to design for that world.

While the idea of cell phone gaming is interesting, I wouldn't really be too optimistic about it. People wouldn't buy a specific phone just for games, at least not on a large enough scale for it to be marketable. As it is now, you'd have to buy a cell phone to play the games. If you could buy games for cell phones instead of cell phones for games, it'd make more sense.

I like the idea of a make over for adventure games though. All of the other genre have improved themselves, but the adventure game, save a few tweaks, has stayed much the same.

Since I heard that John Carmack's gotten interested in mobile games, for me it's the wave of the future.

I think mobile gaming could really play a very important role in the future. Together with my brother I bought a Nintendo DS last week and was stunned how these very simple games actually were a lot of fun. You can take handhelds everywhere, start them up quickly, play some minutes, save the progress you made and shut it down again. Quick and easy.

But have a look at Sony's PSP: They try to put console gaming on a handheld system, leading to loading times of several seconds and short battery duration. Both should be avoided in mobile gaming I think because they annihilate the simple handling and "instant gaming" of handheld systems.

I'm quite curious to see how Carmack's mobile games will work and how gaming on handhelds will evolve in the next years.

I take it you're in the US, Fuzzy.  In Europe/Japan, mobile phones are now pretty much the most ubiquitous electronic device.  And to be honest, I would imagine that even in the US games-capable phones are more numerous than hand-held gaming devices.

The point is that in order to make cell phones into a true market for games, you have to sell the games.

Right now, games are marketed mainly by the company of whatever phone you get. So, in effect, you're buying the phone to get the game.

It would be more effective to build a games market on phones if you could buy games for the phones, rather  than the opposite. (as I stated before)

I'm sure it's just me, but until phones support screen resolutions of around 320x240*, I'm just not that interested.  I've bought 3 games for my phone and played them for 10 minutes each before loosing interest.   There is nothing compelling and I have to work too hard to figure out what's going on.  They cram way too much information into that little screen.  I spent a lot of time playing the built-in snake and breakout on my old B/W cell phone.

Although I don't know all the in's and out's of this, it is my understanding that there are also issues with the phone companies being tight gate-keepers on games.  You can't just make a game and sell it (billing it to the phone account) without their blessing, and, like all mindless publishers, they love licenses.

*Yes, I know some phones do (Treo, Sidekick, etc).

Yeah, most game designers are trying to do too much in the space available, and haven't really got to grips with the relatively poor control mechanisms available as yet.  Sensible Soccer for phones was a terrible let-down because of the latter - one of the best games of the late Amiga era turned into something that would have been a let-down on the Intellivision.

With regard to phone companies being gate-keepers for games, again it might be a different situation in the US, but in the UK I don't think it's that hard.  There are text gateway billing facilities available, and the back pages of magazines are filled with adverts saying "Text Monkey to 41423 to get MonkeyMan ringtones/wallpaper/game".

I'm not sure I get what you mean, unless you're talking about games built into the firmware of phones?  But you can download new games for any modern phone, so you are buying games for the phone rather than vice versa.

There actually exists adventure games for your cell phone. For the proof, try looking at AdventureGamers nice little feature of some: http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,513

Right on.

Such a good kick-in-the-ass make-over, perhaps, that they almost seem like a new genre, I'd say.

To put it simply, adventure games of late have focused on the worst aspects of the genre, while downplaying the aspects that have the potential to reach a large audience. I think it's time to turn that car around.

But who, if anyone, can really make this happen?

I am a casual gamer. I grew up on the Lucasfilm/art classics, and had my hands on the stuff Sierra produced back when they had some quality in the firm.

I was an adventure gamer till I met Civilization. Today I watch as they streamline Civ4 from a list of game feature- requests put forth by Civilization Fanatics (source: www.civfanatics.com). Although Civ has not been mainstream, even Firaxis has fallen into the 3d, easy-to-play category of developers. Unless we are critisising publishers here, and not developers ;)

I guess the new direction of Civ is a mixed blessing, even in 3d, the game has been about gameplay and not graphics, and looks like it still will be.

Today I am still an adventure gamer. I ve yet to complete Grimm Fandango (embarrased to say so too) - because I have to focus on that which will open up for work to provide food on the table in the future (education). But even with greater and more extensive access to information about new games, I cant deny that I feel left out for some reason.

The real reason I chose to comment on this specific post is that I find myself playing games like Bejeweled. I am no FPS freak ;) Except for 2 deviations in the past (where I bought AoE and RoN), I ve stayed true to turnbased strategy and adventures. They seldom make good adventure games these days (and hardly any titles are TBS), and media coverage is not on such titles, since the Halo kind of games draw more attention. I play quite a bit of free online flash-based games. It could be that lack of time is what prevents me from looking into other types of games. It could be that game production is centered on some representative consumer(s) that are not representative for me.

I dont know, but I have a feeling that you are onto something in your post.

Someone just recently aquired the Discworld licence for use in mobile gaming. Perhaps somebody is listening, or perhaps someone is just trying to milk the name for every cent it's worth. I suppose only the quality of the game will tell.

"they'll pay for it if anyone would listen."

You know who IS trying to listen, don't you?

No.

It's occured to me that the best way to get ahead in the MMORPG market for smaller developers is to go for niche markets, rather than trying to compete in the one-size-fits-all arena. Aim for a smaller number of more committed players, and scale your needs appropriately.

Yes I remember back in the days when "hardcore gaming" hadn't really been defined yet. Anyone remember the OLD PC adventure games? The ones that actually had a sense of humor, an entertaining, clever story, and a touch of emotion?

I know not all of them were good...but there are a few games that stick out in my mind. And they didn't rely on big explosions or heavily armored mercinaries or sword-swinging heroes either.

Also, this is why I stay away from online deathmatches/shooting so much. If you lose in a good single-player game, you A)were entertained by your death and/or B) understand where you went wrong and correct yourself the second time. If you lose on X-box Live you get 12 year olds telling you how much you suck. This is unhealthy gaming. :>

I've played Puzzle Pirates for some months and I liked a lot, but there is something interesting in this MMORPG, this little world made on puzzle games is full of 30-40 years old people, I found just few people with 18 or 16, and something more interesting is that there are more women than men in the game.
This game is very easy and if you lose, u don't get fustrated, but this game could be better... but anyway it's a very good game for peopel between 30-40...

sorry about my bad english :|

I'm one of those credit card holding guys who would like to play something if there was anything out there not only worth to spend money for but also worth to spend TIME for. It' s a weird situation: My long-time "hardcore" friends do not play videogames so with them I can't talk about it. Other guys I happen to talk to are extreme videogame addicts always buying the new GTA, id game, Halo and so on, playing 5 hours a day and calling me a wannabe-gamer. I mean, I love videogames, but it just happens only once in a popes' lifetime that a game I like is produced. Did anyone play Beyond Good & Evil? It get's crappy at the end but the first hours are fascinating. There is good tecnology, good gameplay, nice characters but most of all: Love. You just feel that a couple of people put all their energy in this project and believed in it. Have a look at Zelda: Ocarina Of Time or The Wind Waker. Or look at Grim Fandango and Shenmue. I'm quite sure that the production of these games did cost a pretty penny but a lot of other games also did and yet most of them lack this kind of "creative spirit" only passionate people can put in.
And so it happens that now, though having more money by now then when I went to school, I'm nearly not buying games anymore because I just think that even watching a hamster running in his wheel for ten hours has more sense than spending a minute with games.

About that difficulty-thing: I think you're pretty right, Ron. I like playing games because of the beatyful experience it is to immerge in an interactive environment and live the events in a much more intense way due to your "special relationship" to the main character. And something I can't stand is to be killed buy some almighty-looking bastard with his unblockable beat-the-players-brain-out-of-his-left-ear-attack. And being killed again. And again. As far as I remember Shenmue adjusted the difficulty level everytime you got killed what I think is a good idea. Otherwise, if you're not one of those guys who devoted their lifes to pumping up their gaming skills, it get's frustrating. You spent a lot of money, energy and time and all you've got is the next level, a heart-attack and no need to go to the hairdresser's anymore. If I want frustration I just need to open the newspaper. I don't want to get 10 years older in 10 minutes just because of a game.

Ok, don't worry, the nurse is coming with the tranquilizers, I'll be cool within the next few seconds. That's all for now, enjoy the beautyful world out there and don't take gaming too serious!

Greetings and apologies for my bad English,
Filthy

So I think that well yeah, casual gamers don't want this. My generation will always stick with gaming. You yourself have become old and lost insight on how gamers now prefer it. I own the gamecube very rare is there a mature title on gamecube. You, have washed up it seems as for Tim Schafer, he has come up with new brilliant titles. Thanks to drunkymonkey for giving me a chance to tell you this. You have flopped up look at the last Monkey Island not well recieved your style of gaming has gone out because you know nothing of funny any longer your age has totally brought down your sense of humor. Monkey Island is a very child like game with simplicity built in. I dont care if my games have violence or not but childish puns are stupid to have and a total waste. You my friend as I will never call you again have dried up since leaving Lucas Arts, Tim Schafer has come out with a brilliant new gaming rivaling the classic Grim Fandango. Thanks to drunkymonkey for allowing me to tell you just how washed up you have become

Snoova, I don't want to argue with you, though I disagree. I just wanted to point out that you said "Look at the last Monkey Island" as an example.

Fun fact that you don't seem to know: Ron has had nothing to do with the Monkey Island series since Monkey Island 2.

Seems like you've spent more time playing Halo than taking english classes.
And please when making a post talk for yourself and not for your "generation" as not everyone is as stupid as you are.

HAHAHAH!  You have just proven Ron's point about ass-hole hardcore gamers.  Your post is just a big personal attack.  And you don't even use your real name.

sorry? are you mad? snoova? have you gone into total idiot mode?
have you?
ron didn't make monkey island 3 or 4.

I'm sure there is a multiude of people on this website who are quite willing to take you on on thse points, and destroy your argument.

"Most adults spend all day failing at the office, the last thing they want to do is come home and fail at their entertainment".

Actually I like this quote better the way it is. The use of the word "fail" makes it more dramatic and theatrical. Like the world is in the balance.

Quote from the article: "Core gamers have a huge appetite for challenge and casual gamers want less difficulty," Nintendo President Satoru Iwata said in a speech earlier this year.

I believe Iwata was mainly referring to fading simplicity in games and less on the difficulty of them.

Quote from the article: "Thirty-year-old guys don't want to play as a Pikmin picking up mushrooms," said Zucker, referring to Nintendo's half-plant, half-animal "Pikmin" characters.

I may be far from thirty, but I want to punch this guy in the face. Nearly every person wants something different, few want the same exact thing, those that follow the "trend" aren't real individuals with creative thinking, they're the mindless (and sadly, the majority) gamers who just like people to call them gamers because they think it's cool. I don't like to be called a "gamer" because I may affiliated with those people (also, I hate that word).

I really don't think that games being too difficult is one of the biggest problem the industry has. lack of creativity is one of the major problem and the fact that the majority of story and writing in games are just plain awful and many developers and (the aboved mentioned) gamers seem to think that they're good, they're not. I also think that games may became more complex, but they're actually easier these days in my opinion. But since we're discussing it I may as well play along.

A couple of months ago in the IdleThumbs forum there was a thread about Sid Meier's (I think I misspelled his name, but whatever) Pirates being too easy, I posted that Pirates was one of the best PC games I played in years and that I didn't really care about it being too easy. The person that started the thread posted later: I'm preplexed, I thought people like their games harder these days. I posted: I don't play games to be challenged. I play them for the fun of them, for visiting world and sight seeing, and for frivolous charactes and great music (I later tapped myself on the back, I felt proud for some reason). I'm sure this person knows games, but I never really understood why difficulty is so importent, I realize that it's nice to be challenged and to feel like you accomplished something (or in many cases; to brag), I enjoy it too (to brag), but it's terrible to be frustrated (though, it's inevitable not to be frustrated in games, for me, it's not just difficulty that causes frustration, there's many other factors to discuss. Bad writing in a game that claims it has a story as before mentioned or just bad controls for example).

I have to say; Gilbert, Monkey Island 2 was one of the most frustrating games I've played. Using a monkey's tail on the pump to stop the water flow? A monkey's tail? Did that make sense to you people when you made it? DID IT?

Quote form the article: Ron Gilbert, an independent game designer, said he is trying to create less expensive games that can be completed in four hours, which is about one-tenth the time of many games today. Gilbert said he is in the process of shopping story-based adventure games to publishers.

4 hour games. I hate to sound like a gamer, but MEGATON!!! Unless you already mentioned that here, if you did, MEGATON! LOL MEGATON!

The only think about MI2 that I didn't get was the phone on the island asking whether the "stump joke" was necessary. I didn't have a problem with the monkey tail.

I've since learned what the stump joke is, but they removed it from some later versions of MI 1.

"I have to say; Gilbert, Monkey Island 2 was one of the most frustrating games I've played. Using a monkey's tail on the pump to stop the water flow? A monkey's tail? Did that make sense to you people when you made it? DID IT? "

IMO, that was pretty obvious, it's a "Monkey Wrench", a tool to tightening and loosening nuts, screws etc. I thought it was one of the more clever puzzles in the game

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blwrench.htm

I didn't get that. Curse my slow mind!

The joke was obvious.... if you were a native english speaker. I am not and as most of my spanish colleagues we didn't get it and had to use the hard way (so to say, use all objects you have until something works).  What you call  "Monkey Wrench" in english is for us "una llave inglesa = an english key" so as you can imagine no way to understand the joke neither in spanish nor in english.

I enjoyed MI2 a lot, but language related humour cannot always be exported, and that was quite frequent in adventure games for us.

Midway is not even for a 18-34 male audience; it's for a 18-34 woman-less nerd hardcore male gamer (Unreal) or pre-teens who think Mortal Kombat is the shit (I thought so back when I was 10 but mostly because I could play with my friends together!) and they somehow buy it from stores who don't give a shit about selling M games to kids.

I would continue on to talk about the Sims, but we all know what it's all about.

I've been playing games since the NES. I'm 23. I'm starting to become bored.

Sure, I like games like Counter Strike, and Half Life 2... but I started when I started playing, I played Quest For Glory and Monkey Island.

My problem with the industry right now is that it's almost completely dominated by FPS and RPGs. I like RPGs, but many of them are trying to be RPGs with no story.  I play to be entertained, for the most part, and I need something with a little bit of story. I can only shoot things for so many hours before I can't do it any more.

Even a bit of innovation would help end the stagnation. I was wondering, Ron, if you've played Katamari Damacy on PS 2. It's so simple, but at the same time it's great fun.

I'm just getting tired of playing the same game with better graphics every year.

All of the other genre have improved themselves, but the adventure game, save a few tweaks, has stayed much the same.


No. It went from exciting storytelling to formulaic crap. But it's getting better. I hope.

I play to be entertained, for the most part, and I need something with a little bit of story.

Silent Hill, Kotor, Jade Empire, BG&E, Ico,  Psychonauts... Upcoming: Dreamfall, Call Of Cthulhu, Fahrenheit,  Gothic 3... Especially Dreamfall and Fahrenheit should be worth mentioning here. Both games, in which the narrative dictates the gameplay. At least, that's the plan. I'm so excited!

A game i'd recommend if you want a decent storyline, Vampire: Bloodlines, it's very well written, and your decisions in the game impact heavily on the storyline. Though it's buggy in places and it does tend to resort to annoying combat sections in places there's a lot of fun to be had (and some Vice City style humour, the radio stuff), if you liked Deus Ex 1 you'll enjoy the freedom of this title.

No it's not a breakthrough, but if you want to avoid the normal dross on the market it will tide you over until something better hopefully arrives (another Broken Sword for example =))

Yesterday at E3, I walked by LucasArts, and wept a single tear.

I don't disagree with the thrust of this argument, i.e. that their is a middling gaming demo that isn't being served outside of the Sim series.

But I do think it should be said that not all challenging games meet the negative connotations of 'hardcore'. The civ series, galactic civilization, etc all call for concentration, but they aren't headbanging excerces. I think their is an aesthetic difference between the more cerebral strategy games and the action or min/max rpgs in that they (strategy games) tend to draw attention to their mechanics and make you appreciate them as a game.

I think one of the defining features of headbang games in addition to the challenge is the immediacy; the need for full on immersion and ultimatly escapism. I don't really believe the the casual demographic is willing to immerse themselves in a game like that to the detriment of reality. Which is why games with a greater pretension of simulating a full reality, whether it be rpgs, point and click adventures, or first person shooters will ever appeal to a wider demo. Do you really believe a casual gamer would be willing to sit through reams of dialogue and a truly weird, convoluted story? I don't. They want a game that they can actually allude to when chatting with their friends and not feel embarrassed  for obsessing over something so frivolous.

It's not challenge, it's the geek factor. I actually think a game like Civ 3 will garner more cred outside gaming circles than Syberia. The more transparent the mechanics, the less pretension, and thus the tacit conscenssion that the game itself is a simple brainteaser, a diversion, and not a form of escape.

18-34 - this range of ages is the exact range Action-RPGs are made for. They sell like hell, but everyone else is neing neglected. Mature games like PS:T don't sell in that category, so similar games aren't produced anymore.

I foresee that games aren't going to have any depth anymore, because the industry thinks that this age doesn't need/want it. Simple hack 'n' slash games sell much more that mature games with depth and wits, and that's a lesson the industry gets. Don't need to put money into complex games anymore, because simple games sell sell incredibly good.

Another point is indeed the sex of gamers : Most are still male. Well ... except with the SIMs, maybe. I really don't know, but I expect the SIMs gamers mainly to be females.

The images of male and female behaviour and looks in games are mostly outlined by males. Game developers are mainly males, I think, so tjhe games are more or less biased.

I had once a discussion about the social setting in Gothic I. The character is thrown in as a prisoner into a kind of prison, where there are only males and only two or three females, who are treated almost like slaves. I asked what would be if the setting would be totally the other way round, and then the fanbois struck.
I received replies that represented almost every cliche about fanbois I had known back then. Most of them even didn't want to play a female character at all !

This is another point : Most games are made so that you can only play male characters. I think that's because the developers are mostly males as well. Someone I know (a female) says that she wouldn't play a game where she cannot play a female character - as a priciple. So, how many games does she miss because they are only male-oriented ? I wondered.

The RPG "Kult - Heretic Kingdoms" is the other way round : You can only play female characters there ! Well, I wondered, so how many males aren't playing this game because they cannot play a male character ?

I fear that there are too many games too male oriented and for only a limited range of ages.

P.S. : Another thing that strikes me is the current fashion of Action-oriented games. Nowadays games are very action-oriented. and that involves shooting, war, destruction, violence. I don't know any games with themes like healing, rebuilding, restoring, themes that are the opposite to war, destruction and violence. This is very bad from my point of view, because these aren't good examples for the youth. I mean, if the younger gamers only learn that you can solve problems by using destruction and violence, then they might get wrong signals for everyday life. But that's a different story.

I tend to prefer male-oriented games as well, but I'm pretty sure it's due to the fact that female characters are usually depicted in a tacky manner. Even if a female character is strong and a leader, any qualities that would appeal to a feminist are cancelled out by the fact that she has enormous breasts and wears little more than makeup into battle.
It makes sense to depict females as oppressed if that is part of the world in the game, especially if it's meant to be 'medieval', since that does reflect real history.

"I don't know any games with themes like healing, rebuilding, restoring, themes that are the opposite to war, destruction and violence."

There's Emergency series which is all about the very things you list. There's also Sim City and its alikes, and games like Harvest Moon which also revolve around creation and restoration... there isn't many of them, but it might be because it's actually harder to invent gameplay around these themes.

And as far as teaching the young ones about ways to resolve conflicts goes... just check the regular offerings in TV and movies. games aren't something special in this aspect.

This is off topic, but if the topic is Failing at Entertainment, I saw Star Wars III tonight.  I think this may be the worst movie ever made.  SHAME on the reviewers who George bought off with trips to the ranch to get the good early reviews.

My GOD it is SO awful!  My grasp of the English language is not sufficient to describe the horror of the thing.

Just curious - if you hated Episde III that much, did you enjoy the previous two?  How about the originals?

More off topicness (but in an appropriate place): I just introduced my girlfriend to CMI tonight - having only ever played a tiny bit of X-Box or Nintendo, she's been pretty blown away by the concept of an adventure game!  No fast reactions required, she can sip a cup of tea as she goes, and theres actually some laughs to go with it!

Its so frustrating to know theres so many people out there that would enjoy (even old school) adventure games.  Unfortunately most of those potential customers don't even know what an adventure game is...

And as far as teaching the young ones about ways to resolve conflicts goes... just check the regular offerings in TV and movies. games aren't something special in this aspect.

I know. And I'm quite concerned about that.

AND I've read about the concept of "mirroring neurons".

If that concept is true, then I'm not surprised with quite a lot of recent developments in so-called "western societies".

For me,Episode III was absolutely awesome.
I almost cried several times and i don't think that any reviewer had to be paid.
I can't  understand,not to appriciate this masterpiece.
I'm gonna watch I and II once more,than visit the theater many more times,to finally enjoy the old episodes out of an absolutely new point of view.

I thought the story in Episode III was very good.  There is some nice and powerful story-telling going on there, but I felt the directing was mediocre, TV quality fare.

The story contains very very powerful scenes, like the one where all the Jedi are killed, but Georges directs it like it's just an event to be documented.  Imagine was a brilliant director Quentin Tarantino, or Stanley Kubrick or Steven Spielberg would have done with that.  I felt no connection to those Jedi, they are was faceless as the clones that were killing them.

The movie had too many of these wasted directorial opportunities for me to call it good, which a shame since I think the story was so strong.

Maybe George's daughter or son will grow to be a great director and make Episode VII (and release MI from the grips of the empire)

I thought the final trilogy was the fall of Luke to the dark side....

I heard that once anyhow... if that's the case, it wouldn't get made.

I find the Episode III phenomenon to be pretty interesting as a study in branding.  Even the best reviews say, "Turn off your brain, ignore the awful dialog and directing and enjoy the ride."  Yet in this very thread someone referred to it as a masterpiece.

I think this comes from the fact that humans are tribal animals.  In modern day, our tribes are defined by the brands we favor.  Episodes I-III are popular among the young.  

I think there are numerous explanations for this, but the least insulting are:

1. The adults hate them.  (Making it really cool for youngsters to like)
2. It has some measurable superiority to the 1st trilogy, in terms of the technology used to create it.  This gives them a factual foothold to launch their defense of the films.

Even though there were many, many groan inducing scenes in the film.  Many involving Padme, ALL involving Anakin these will be ignored.

People like Star Wars because they are supposed to like Star Wars.  George Lucas is a genius, dammit.  (American Graffitti II, Howard the Duck, Radioland Murders).  

If this were another auteur, the producer/writer/director would be excoriated a'la "The Matrix 2 and 3."  But there's the George Brand.

I first saw an example of this syndrome after watching: "1492: Conquest of Paradise."  A REALLY dismal film, by all accounts.  But, it was directed by Ridley Scott.  At the end of the film, with everyone rushing to get out, one college age kid stood up at the back of the theater and gave a single person standing ovation.  Clearly, it was for the Ridley Scott brand.

It's the same kind of mind set that keeps Berkeley kids protesting doing anything useful in People's Park, long after the symbolism is gone in a place that is mostly useful for scoring heroine.

It's the same reaction when, after choosing Pepsi in a double-blind tast test, quickly change their vote to Coke after their choice is revealed.  (This actually happens).

Eventually, time will catch up with the generation that loved Episodes I-III.  They will gradually learn how bad these films are and will come to the same recognition that my generation learned about "Escape from New York."

It's a bitter pill, but Revenge of the Sith is simply a tale told by a fool.  Full of sound and fury and signifying...nothing.

THANKS! You finally hit point I've been trying to find since I saw it last night!

(And interestingly enough, the three names that came up, when I afterwards discussed what a better director could've made of it, was the same you mentioned. :) )

I'm dead curios what Tarantino would've made of it.
Or what Peter Jackson would've made with the Jedi slaughter, if he just would give in to the same urges he had when he made Brain Dead or Bad Taste. Probably a bloody hell...

I regards to the faceless jedi, that's exactly part of the problem. Too many people/characters are introduced as nothing more than props.

I once read that Spielberg offered to direct one of the prequels. Imagine that. I think the one he could help the most was the first one, considering the fact that its the worst of the three, and Spielberg is pretty decent with child actors (and actors in general, as opposed to Lucas).

I have a bunch of problems with Revenge of the Sith, though the largest problems are problems with the prequels in general. Considering that, for these prequels to work we're supposed to care about Anakin, and he's supposed to be a decent, likable guy in at least one of them. He's not. Ever.

The second problem is the fact that the prequels now ruin all the mystery and fun of the original trilogy for the next generation. More or less, all of the mysteriousness of The Empire Strikes Back is gone, because we already know Vader is his father, and we already know that Yoda is a Jedi Master. You also know that Leia is "the other one" but that was never a big point.

Wow, I'm too late for this discussion. Oh well.

i play games for enjoyment and fun, i'm definetly not a hardcore gamer, but i love games, i love the entire monkey island series, anything by blizzard, great imo games like the 'no one lives forever' series, neverwinter nights, broken sword and the tragically flawed, yet brilliant vampire bloodlines. when i play a game i want want it to have good difficulty arc, ie never too easy, never too hard. i want a involving storyline, interesting characters.... something that takes my mind off work and life for a few hours.... thats just me though  

as for star wars..... i agree about the directing, the acting was terible.... could have been much better, with the story that was there.

There are some good adventure games on the web if you need a fix:

http://www.gamegarage.co.uk/games/adventure/

and try this underrated one called "neptunes nest" :http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/sd_brand/games.jsp?frompage=sitemap

"offered is high-testosterone head-banging"

doesn't that imply simplistic games?

random top 3 fave games (I have a lot of top 3's)
- xcom
- fallout
- max payne 2

I have no idea what that means.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of all games are created for that golden demographic (males 18 - 34), totally ignoring the fact that women, and older people actually do have money to spend, but there simply aren't that many games that appeal.

If you look at the mobile phone market, you'll see that there are so many women playing those games. They don't call themselves gamers, but I assure you they can be just as addicted to gaming as "hardcore" gamers.

My mother's friend, who's about 30 years older than me (I'm in my 20s) was showing off her new Sony Ericsson phone. When she got to the games menu screen, I swear she turned into a geeky gamer right then and there, but if asked, I'll bet she wouldn't call herself a gamer. It's this market that games makers should be tapping into. There are just a wealth of opportunities to reach people, and yet they continue to release re-hash after re-hash... Propagating the target market and thus the types of games, ad infinitum.

I've spent the last 12 years trying to create a game magazine for all of you "older, more mature gamers." You know what? You don't buy it.

Maybe the magazine sucks, but the reality is that 18-34 males are easier to find, considerably less discriminating, and more loyal to brands. You can basically market crap to them and they'll buy it if it makes them seem more cool.

It's a whole lot harder to reach adults, and maintain them as customers. Where do you find them? They're all over the place, but they don't congregate together like the young male demographic.

It's also worth considering the possibility that gaming really is for a demographic of which you are no longer a member. Even if you think you're interested in games, are you actively spending time looking for those that might interest you? Or do you just sit on the sidelines complaining?

Adults do this all the time. They complain that there are no movies being made for them, yet they rarely turn out in number for so-called "adult" movies. "I can watch it on DVD," they say. Or they don't want to drive to that theater that's too far away. Or they can't get away from their kids. Or they didn't know about it.

Also, while I definitely agree that games are too hard (and have written multiple editorials on the subject), a lot of people are essentially yearning for a time when gaming was fresh for them.

For most, it was when they were... 18-34 or so, the exact demographic that's currently being targeted. We'll never feel the same way about any game as we felt when we were discovering them for the first time. And for those people discovering gaming today, don't forget that it's just as fresh, new, and exciting as it was for us in 1980 or 1990.

"
For most, it was when they were... 18-34 or so, the exact demographic that's currently being targeted. We'll never feel the same way about any game as we felt when we were discovering them for the first time. And for those people discovering gaming today, don't forget that it's just as fresh, new, and exciting as it was for us in 1980 or 1990.

"end of quote


Yeah, that's the problem. This notion of discerning gamers who want more mature games, doesn't exactly provide a rewarding market. If the only games that you are interested in buying are Ico, Planescape, Rez, BUT you don't even buy them, then developers are going to concentrate on more fiscally rewarding markets.

Likewise, the whole idea of this site GRUMPY GAMER, doesn't that contradict the whole idea of games.. ie. that they ARE lighthearted, entertainment, fun. What is there to be "grumpy" over, the whole idea misses the point.  Maybe it IS time to give up on games if you are that upset about the state of them?

RE THE QUOTE:
Yeah, there is only so long that you can play variants on the SAME old block pushing puzzles I'm looking at you Zelda, or games with the same old gameplay.  But if you were encountering these puzzles for the first time, surely you would be ecstatic?
The longer you play the more discerning (jaded?) you can become. You think you are a conosseur, but the developers think you are a grouchy person.

Ron is clearly grumpy, yes. But there is a difference between casting a critical eye and giving up on games altogether. If he didn't still love them, I doubt he would bother to host this blog. When I want a dewy-eyed Pollyana view of the game industry, I can always go to any major site.

Music and movies are entertainment too, but we don't question whether a critic (or writer, or director, or producer) loves their medium, even if they say caustic things about it. It's when there are no dissenting voices that we should start getting worried.

The problem of marketing to a demographic like "adult" is not realising the vast range of people that actually refers to. It's no good treating people like an age range -- I personally dislike 90% of the people in the "18-34 male" age group despite being in it. It's insulting being pigeonholed in that way.

It's harder to reach "adults" because that's a completely nebulous concept. Appealing to adults means either appealing to universal tastes, such as the growth and nurture games like the Sims (which is very hard!), or to very specific (but large) groups of people with a particular interest.

Independent movies survive because they know that they won't get "all adults" but people who are interested in a particular kind of narrative or aesthetic. They have a smaller budget, reduced scope but appeal directly to a smaller group. Equally, old-fashioned adventure games may not necessarily appeal to everyone but they can directly target a particular passionate audience through their style of storytelling.

The industry needs to grow out thinking all gamers want the same kind of games. The market's only going to grow by appealing to groups, not age ranges.

I'm a 33 yo working (full time) mother of a 1 year old... and I guess I'm not understanding the gripe here.  I know I squeeze in under the wire in terms of target age, but I certainly find no shortage of games to play.  And I also don't play nearly the hours that I played when I was 27 and single and childless.

I understand if there are more games geared towards those single 20 somethings with hours to burn.  They play more.  

At the same time, as someone who plays games less than 10 hours a week these days, I certainly find no shortage in games to play.  And I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a really skilled gamer who can handle things like Half-life.

My husband and I play DOA 3 and Super Busta Move.  I had a pretty good love affair with DDR and I recently played Prince of Persia and am now enjoying Guild Wars (HUGELY).  And of course there are are all the iterations of Sims... which I've gotten weary of, but they seems to entertain my girlfriends for hours on end.  The god games are fun too - played the Mythology ones...

I'm plenty entertained.

For me, the games have become way too simple.   I cling to the rare niche titles like galactic civilisations and laser squad nemesis for my game time budget.  I really can't stand console titles these days, with the exception of some nintendo games.

I'm hoping the new generation is going to explode in their faces and clear out the fat, bit like the dotcom bubble.

see my (Ketch)'s reply to Steve further up the page.

I think,the Bioware games like KotOR and Jade Empire brought back a little bit of the good old days,when games had spirit.
Of course,you can't compare them to the old Lucasarts Adventures and and they also felt "empty" somehow,but in this age of Halos and Dooms,
I liked them somehow

I'm 30 years old and would consider myself quite a geek. What seperates me (and quite a buncha other guys) from those high adrenaline bangers is that I totally dislike "arcade bunny hopping rocket jumping bullet spamming strafe" kinda games.
I like to have my games be mature ... as in realistic. I want to be immersed ... I want to have the impression the game world I am in is real. Along with that come physics, along with that comes decent behaviour of whatever it is you play in the game and some other stuff.
As an example, I'd like to point out the next game from Bohemia Interactive, the game formerly known as Operation Flashpoint 2 (they have to use a diff name now since they split up with publisher Codemasters).
Judging from what those guys are up to, a non mission based war simulator in which the AI plays a major role (together with a good mp part), that is gonna be the game I will be playing  like a nutcase (like I played and still play Operation Flashpoint 1).
There are a couple other games that keep me entertained, but stuff like Counterstrike just cannot cut it for me.

yeah, aside from gratuitous name-dropping shenanigans, I would like to assert the ever-growing need for multifaceted engine malfuncional sororities.

The almost TOO placated ne'er do-wells that seem to inhabit manifold multifunctional domains of intrepidity never fail to seem beyond reparational anxiety concerning progress in the name of password simplicity.

Operation wolf beaters would instinctively know that beyond the pale tooth eating philosophy lies a whole other brand of semi-conscious literacy in the field of game designer critique. Even Steven could tell you. Goodnight. I'm Drunk. Wherever you are, the pale moon laughs at every toothache.

What I consider a good "immersive" game is Zanzarah. You might not like it, because it looks like a fairy tale, and some even consider it a "pokemon-like game" (because you've got to collect and train fairies in it), but it's the best game with the deepest athmosphere and immersion I know of. The feeling is simply incredible when you run with the character through a wood ... I have never seen a game that was so ... emotionally immersive.
For those who are interested in it : www.zanzarah.de

I got my Amiga out of storage today, it had been there for almost half a decade.

The game I instantly wanted to play was Lemmings. It's my favourite childhood game and if they remade the game in proper 2D format with improved graphics and enhanced music, I'd pay any price for it. (Well maybe not more than $50 NZ dollars).

I'm 23 and there's nothing on the market for consoles at the moment that would make me want to buy one.

There is a 2D lemmings remake in the works at Team17  (worms guys, leftover amiga oldskool developer yay)

Oh... My... God. Team 17 still exists? And they're remaking Lemmings? And it's in 2D?

It's almost like someone, somewhere is trying to make me happy.

I downloaded it for free and finished it two years ago. Highly recommended. I also recommend http://www.psychonauts.com for the PC or XBox.

Ron, do you know how 'frustating' it is to play Monkey Island 2 for hours and not make any progress? That's why I like MI 1 much more, its easier, less frustrating. But my favorite Adventure (which you don't know) is even easier than MI 1.

Thats why I like sports games. They're fun and you can't stuck somewhere. I think adventure games should be more easy. Most easy adventures are short though, so I guess you made MI 2 so hard because it shouldn't be over after 10 hours of thinking and clicking, aye?

Conclusion:
I am stupid and want adventure makers to be less lazy :P

Ron,how do you like Psychonauts?
When you said,you played it for real,did you mean the full version of the game? ;)

Right on!

You're right... I stopped playing games when they started forcing me to invest every waking hour perfecting my aim/jump/hacks/whocaresanymore skills just to get to the end of a level. I'm not even going to bother with the online experience because the circle-jerkers have infested that playground too.

Bejeweled and games like them are entertainment - pure and simple.

Don't need bigger hardware to do that... maybe if game developers and publishers started using the hardware between the ears a little better instead of chasing demographics we could get truly innovative and exciting games!

I think your main problem is that there are two types of gamers who are diametrically opposed. There is the gamer who enjoys being challenged by the game and there are those who want to relax. Those who are looking for a challenge are the guys who play every game on the hardest setting and laugh when people say that games today are too tough, telling them that they don't know the meaning of hard, and referring them to NES Battletoads. These guys take a game design as an obstacle course challenge. They will look for every little exploit or loose end that you the game designer may not have thought of in order to complete their goals. Anything to find the path of least resistance through the game. In my experience, people who play games for a long period of time starting in childhood (before they have other responsibilities) tend to eventually fall into this category. These people love to be challenged.

Casual gamers are looking to relax. For these people, coming up against an obstacle (especially one that is a real threat to progress) is not relaxing. These people find a different kind of enjoyment in simply taking in their surroundings and being carried along through a game.

There may be a ton of casual gamers out there who are willing to spend money on easy games that tell a wonderful story and offer no real resistance, but there are very few people who A) would now about these games if they existed since the hardcore shout so loud B) would be willing to invest so much time creating something they were not passionate about and C) willing to invest in something "risky" like it

The more of your life you devote to games, the more likely it is that you will end up in this hardcore category. So it is no big surprize that those who have invested enough of their lives to actually create games are going to mostly fit in this category. People want to make games that they themselves will enjoy. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. I hate those in the industry who say we are not making games for ourselves but our audience. That is a bunch of crap. If you want something to be good, you better be passionate about it and care about the end product. That means making a game that you yourself would enjoy.

I myself have been gaming my whole life and, as you might have guessed, love a good challenge. What I loved about adventure games were that while others would challenge the player's dexterity, reaction time, patience, memory, or speed, adventure games would attempt to challenge one's ability to reason and deduce. Some say the story is what everyone loved, but I think that puzzles had a lot to do with it as well. Puzzles have been around a long time for a reason. Some people must like being challenged and get satisfaction in overcoming those obstacles. There is nothing more satisfying in life than to think something is impossible only to prove yourself wrong. I think it is ridiculous to say that resistance in games should be eliminated because it detracts from some users' enjoyment. (Those people who say games are too hard to appeal to everyone) You can't feel relief if you don't first feel pressure. Just like you cannot feel satisfaction if you waltz all the way through a game. Figuring out a tough puzzle is very satisfying. Part of why solving mysteries is fun is that you have the feeling that you did something unique that no one else (or a limited # of people) could do. If this feeling is genuine, then realistically, a large group of the populace would not be able to solve the mystery, their adventure would end then and there, and they would be dissatisfied. This is the problem. We want to feel superior to others, but we want to sell things to everyone. That does not work. You have to alienate someone. This feeling of unique accomplishment can be achieved though other means in games. (ie. I just created a Sim house different/better from all others ever created or... I just explored this area of Morrowind that is so far off the beaten path that I doubt 1% of players ever have seen it) Just like I didn't truly appreciate Halo 2 until I played and beat it on Legendary.

I know some people may disagree, but I really believe that this sense of accomplishment/superiority that comes with solving a puzzle or overcoming an obstacle is a huge part of the reason why adventure games have a small but die hard fan base that still exists long after the genre has all but croaked. Those who were able to navigate and reason out the puzzles got a huge reward (great stories and sense of accomplishment) for their efforts.

If you casual gamers want light/no resistance gaming so badly and believe in it, why don't you go ahead and make these games? Oh that's right, you're casual gamers and aren't devoting your lives to video games.

I think the gaming industries biggest mistake was the four button controller. Everything just got more bulky and stupid from there.

I think that someone will come along and make the equivalent of a blockbuster hit with heart. That is they will provide all the things that people want, big explosions, cool heroes, but they will do it with an eye to mature storytelling, characters who aren't just paper cutouts, and an understanding of how gameplay and level design affect aesthetics and the feel of the game.

Think of the difference between Men In Black and Alien Resurrection.  All shooters don't have to be hearless or based on Xenophobic ideas, conflict can be motivated by something beyond "Mad Man X wants to destroy the world, for no apparent reason".

... and you forgot the tiny group of gamers who are both casual and challenge gamers ... ;)

fun is universal

It seems I'm coming to this party a bit late, but I had exactly the same feeling wandering around e3.  For years I wanted to go, and by the time I get there, complete with my keen (or at least purple) press pass, I was just bored.  All the games seemed the same overviolent mindless stuff, hyped towards an audience that I refuse to beleive is 18-34 males, given that I am 23 and male.  The audience that these games will hit is not even 18-34 at all - it is 14-20.  I couldn't find a much that was appealing on any level beyond the visceral.
I used to show games to friends and others, who would be impressed by their level in ingenuity and wit (games of this blog's owner included).  Such is not currently the case.  I now find myself searching the web for someone selling adventure games from a decade ago for a reasonable price.  I have to think that the very paucity of such sellers is a powerful proof that the demand for such games of quality is perhaps stronger than ever, and that in a zeal to become hollywoodized game studios have forgotten this formative genre.

Let's face it. the 18 to 34 male demographic can bearly shit without losing interest with what's in front of them. UNLESS...it's mind numbingly repetitive has guns, gangsters(badguys) and tits.

Sameness and repetition seems to be the standard course of action be it video games, primetime television and lets not forget good old top 40 musics... err make that top 14 played every 22 minutes!

M$ and SONY may be successful in the very near term but in the longer life of the console market this stratgegy will ultimately have them fighting over an ever decreasing market demographic as the majority of this dempgraphic moves on to the next, big gunned, huge titted, masturbatory adventure.

Oh and BTW. If war is so god damn glorious and profitable maybe EA and the rest should share a significant portion of their profits from these war epics with the family members of those who actually fought in this wars. It sicken me to see these ads that reduce the sacrifices made by TOO many down to a slick headlines like "I was there. - Now you can be too!" Ahh I doubt it butt munch and I think headlines and these games like these insult every vet in North America.

i don't know where to put this, but i just wrote a blog entry about the game industry and hollywood.
it's in my blog

I was trying to show my girlfriend Tetris and Dr. Mario yesterday without much luck, even these supposedly universal games are pretty difficult to people who haven't played a game in years!

and the double-jumping and death falls in Quack Attack were too much too.

So what I'm saying is that the interface if not traditional point and click, needs to be simplified enough that players can use it.  Maybe using "cards" to select your action???

http://xhdybar1.servik.com/index.htm
http://xhdybar1.servik.com/2.htm
http://xhdybar1.servik.com/3.htm
http://xhdybar1.servik.com/4.htm
http://xhdybar1.servik.com/5.htm
http://kbbdy09.splinder.com
http://kbbdy02.splinder.com
http://kbbdy03.splinder.com
http://kbbdy04.splinder.com
http://kbbdy18.splinder.com
http://sun988.site.voila.fr/1.htm
http://sun988.site.voila.fr/2.htm
http://sun988.site.voila.fr/3.htm
http://sun988.site.voila.fr/4.htm
http://sun988.site.voila.fr/5.htm
http://ftpad.eclub.lv/hsdy.html
http://ftpad.eclub.lv/sjp.html
http://ftpad.eclub.lv/sqdy.html

I think u all just cant stop complaining over the stupidest crap. I yet seen a game I dont like and I play plenty of games believe me. I'm 15 and I've played ALMOST every game there is and my words to u all are "F OFF". Y'all complain too much for people to understand one damn thing y'all say. U need to just quit your bitchin about everything and live life right. People like u guys dont get no where but in prison, so just shut it. Now what do u like about that.

This blog is about ways we can improve the industry, not about complaining for the sake of complaining.  I think Ron was right when he talked about how many gamers like you just shut your ears and say "Fuck you if you don't like Halo 2."  I only say gamers like you because you told me to fuck off.  And I do like how you proved Ron's point btw.