Do some gamers want to exclude others from gaming?

[Pink Gregory]

Thought I'd pose a question that's bothering me.

All the talk of 'dumbing down for consoles' and dumbing down in general regardless of how well it's handled, and people whining about what's wrong with the industry relating to the kind of people that enjoy video games; it's making me wonder, do some people actually want to exclude others from this hobby, and why?

I'd like to hear some opinions.

 

[IvoryOasis]

It is an issue of resources... people are afraid that the rise of other gaming (such as casual gaming) will shift larger companies to produce for that segment (instead of for their own segment of gaming).

You saw this happen when consoles grew more and PC game titles started to drop a lot.

When things start to be "dumbed down" , it is starting to play to lowest common denominator ... and the gaming experience (for those who can handle more) becomes watered down.

You see it a lot. A lot of games are scaled back in terms of what they try to do or what they challenge players with because developers are trying to capture a bigger audience and don't want to lose people with more complex systems (so the more complex games become more niche market and the resources to make them are much smaller).

 

[Keoul]

Yes I do.
But it's such a tough call, I simply think games SHOULDN'T be catered to everyone. Of course the people I'm targeting are kids. 15 and under specifically, most above that age are mature enough not to be a twat.
Furthurmore I bet you've all seen parents complaining about their kids and videogames being blamed for it instead of bad parenting. I'm just sick of it.

A lot of people would probably disagree and that's fine, I just think the current generation of kids are extremely immature and giving them the option to go online with anonymity on a virtual environment probably isn't the best idea.

 

[Phasmal]

Duh.
Gaming is full of people who want to exclude others because they were excluded.

Also, I think they worry if games become more accessible then no one will make the games they like any more.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I don't like the immediate assumption that only niche audiences can deal with nuanced systems; also the assumption that complicated = better.

Also, if casual/simpler games are where the sales are, surely larger companies would only have those increased resources for an extremely short time before they had to scale back the budget because they inevitably wouldn't sell as many as the radio-friendly unit shifters today.

There's nothing wrong with streamlining, admittedly yes it can be handled badly, but the impression that I'm getting from some people is that any streamlining at all is the death-knell of a game and couldn't be anything else.

 

[krazykidd]

Well there are less Jrpgs this generation . Whoever is responsible , i hope they get hit by a truck . Seriously , iv'e been relying on my ps2 for my jrpg fix

 

[More Fun To Compute]

In terms of the dumbing down argument the problem isn't that there are no games that "everyone" can play but that all games now apparently have to be for everyone. If someone somewhere can't play a game because it is too hard or confusing then it's apparently a disaster.

But on the flip side of that you do hear people who are annoyed by the dumbing down argument just come straight out and say that games have moved on from the old "elitist" days and if you can't find anything you like then just shut up and leave.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I'm not sure i want other people to be excluded but i am one of the hardcore gamers who suffers from everyone elses lack of skill the most. I can literally finish a game in 2 days because the average skill of most players is far removed from my own...it's infuriating in many respects. I am of an age where gaming wasn't popular and my contribution to gaming was to help establish it as a popular form of entertainment and now that is undermined by gaming companies ignoring players like me and catering for the lowest common denominator.

I want games to go back to being hard like they used to be but i don't think the problem lies with the games industry dumbing down games as much as i am getting past the point where computer games can actually challenge me anymore. So upon reflection i guess the problem with the games industry is my own perception of how it has evolved...not that poorer players are more common and mean i don't get what i want from games. It's not a question of if i can finish a game anymore...it's a question of when. But that makes me laugh when other people complain about something being too hard...it's an ego boost rather than a problem with other gamers.

 

[Pink Gregory]

^ Personally, that seems to me like a strange viewpoint (not that you shouldn't have it, s'just as relevant as mine), that you would purchase a game not expecting to see all the content therein.

Expecting seeing it all to be a challenge, and for it to last longer than two days, yeah I can relate, or at least I can empathise (I've never finished anything in two days), but changing the possibility from if to when being anything but a positive? I'm not sure I can really relate; I mean it's apparently a challenge to get people to play to the end these days, and that's with modern 'standards'

Oh I'm all for being about the journey rather than the endgame, but the premise that you might not get everything it offers out of it seems like an odd thing to desire.

Taking your thoughts into account, do you reckon that, if some devs started catering to you (and by you I mean making the kind of thing that you would prefer) they would actually appeal enough to justify any kind of large budget?

 

[dimensional]

I dont think the vast majority of gamers want to exclude anybody they want gaming to grow and diverse but they dont want it to change so much that maybe the games they liked to play just dont get made anymore because they are no longer seen as feasible or they dont target a large enough audience to make a significant profit. So its not so much as wanting to exclude people as being upset about the shift of focus a lot of developers have in pandering to the wider pool.

If everyone could get the game they wanted easily and in plentiful supply no matter how huge or small I dont think anyone would have any problem with who games and who dosent but when you see a deluge of crappy gimmick games which sell like hot cakes but 2 months later no one ever plays or recalls because they were crap or reiteration after reiteration with little change between each installment of a franchise and yet it still sells to the same people who usually play little else causing others to try and ape its success thats when people get pissed off or alot do because they feel like they are being excluded now the market they have supported for years is just flipping them off and saying screw you we are going to try and get with the richer crowd thanks for the support but your money is not enough for me to bother with you really.

Personally I dont want to exclude anybody change will always happen but I can understand the sentiment of some people I just buy the games I like regardless if they are popular or not in the hope that more of the games I like get made and cross my fingers that enough other people like and support that type of game to make it a reality.

 

[Evil Smurf]

yes, some people discriminate (I call these people dicks) Imhowever want as many people to game as possible. Spread the fun!

 

[Evil Smurf]

yes, some people discriminate (I call these people dicks) I however want as many people to game as possible. Spread the fun!

I swear the forum hates me, I meant to edit my previous post but it went and quoted me. FANTASTIC!

 

[Fappy]

Many gamers want video games to be "their thing". If they see the popular cheer leader at school playing Angry Birds on their phone they may feel enraged because they feel she is encroaching on their hallowed ground and the take that anger out on the casual game she was playing. It's human nature unfortunately.

 

[L0dest0ne]

Call me an elitist, but I really wish casuals would just leave gaming all together. Games started going downhill when gaming became (more) mainstream, so I wish it would really become a more specialized hobby again.

 

[snekadid]

Duh.
Gaming is full of people who want to exclude others because they were excluded.

This is line is kind of ignorant and blanketing. The second one I have no problem with and so it isn't quoted.

There has always been casual games, tetris, various pin ball games, a slew of puzzle games and more for people that only want to sink in a half hour at a time or aren't interested in anything they have to learn and this is fine.

The problem arises with the increasing trend of games that aren't considered casual being dumbed down to appeal to a casual audience. This creates the situation where games that are cheaper to make due to less work needed to be implemented are being bought and when played by casuals, it becomes the norm for them. The industry sees this as a easy buck and we do effectively lose out on good complex games, as witnessed by the sparse handful that come out each year.

As I see it, we as gamers are not looking to exclude casuals from gaming, however there is a definite negative to the induction of casual as an official and "popular" genre. Again, this isn't so much their fault due to action but because of their existence the greedy corporations see the opportunity for easy money and the "gamers"<not a specific bias, I just hate the term hardcore and I've already classified the other party as casuals> are suffering for it.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I think that what bothers a fair number of people is watching people play causal games like angry birds or popular games like call of duty and feel pissed off because of how accepted they are for that. Gamers have gone through tons of shit for their nerdy pastime, but now being a "nerd" is suddenly acceptable, assuming that you are the kind of nerd portrayed on the big bang theory. They can assume the title of "nerd" without really "earning it" and only assume the mantle on a shallow superficial level (never taking the socially unacceptable parts of it).