Gaming isn't "Dumbing Down", it's Out of Time

[Wargamer]

There have been many, many debates about gaming. Some people say it makes our kids into murders and rapists, others that it causes obesity and poor eyesight. Gaming has had so many faults placed at its doorstep that even Gamers themselves cannot resist hammering it.

How many of you have heard something like this...
"Oh my god! I hate you console retards! It's because of fuckers like you PC gaming is full of dumb-as-shit games now!"

Yes, it's time to play the age-old Cliché of "Blame Halo" once again!

The thing is, for once, Halo isn't to blame. Halo is successful not because it is a great game (it isn't), not because all 360 owners are retards (they aren't), Halo is popular because it is short.

Allow me to explain with a story...

What Wargamer Did Last Night:
It's half past eight. At nine o'clock, there's a really good show on TV. For now, though, it's all re-runs, crap, and re-runs of crap. The TV is most decidedly off for now.

Half an hour to kill... I'd go talk to someone, but the only people in the house are the pets, and cats don't hold a good conversation. I could walk the dog, but it's cold and dark and probably pissing it down again. Besides, she's had a walk not ten minutes ago.

My bedroom beckons. I survey my desk for a source of entertainment. The PS2 squats there with its broken disk-drive, reminding me I need a new one. Then there's the Gamecube, surrounded by Zelda games. Wind-Waker is always good, and it's about to get really good, but I want a few hours of 'quiet time' with the Gamecube; I really don't like being interrupted during a major turning point of the fate of Hyrule. There's a bonus disk in the machine with Zelda 1 on it, but by the time I figure out where Level 7 is, and figure out how to beat that bloody dungeon, the sun will be up.

LittleBigPlanet is currently in the disk drive of the PS3. Extremely tempting, but once again time's the issue; I spent two and a half hours on it last weekend adding to my custom level, and it is still not finished!

I settle on Resistance 2. Game boots up, Co-Op begins, all hell breaks lose. 25 minutes later the PS3 is off and I'm settled in front of the TV in preparation for an hour of enjoyment, with ale and cookies for company.

What's the point of that story?
Are the Zelda games bad? No. Is LBP bad? No. Why did Resistance 2 win out? Because I only had half an hour.

This is why the gaming world is being simplified. Between work, friends, family, pets, hobbies, obligations, compulsory shopping, spontaneous shopping, days out, weekends away and everything else in my life I really don't have time to complete an RPG a night. I really enjoy a lot of the more 'arty' games, but to really appreciate them you have to settle down and give them the time they deserve.

It's no different to television; it takes a lot more forward planning to watch Lord of The Rings than it does to watch The Simpsons. The former's a multi-hour epic, the latter's a half-hour of simple fun.

I want intelligent games. I want gripping story-lines. I want vast, open worlds where you can spend hours wandering in the wilderness. The problem is, I don't want to play them of an evening when I need something to do between coming home from work and dinner being ready. These 'High Class' games are for the weekend, when it's just me, the PS3 and three-to-six hours of peace and quiet. I want to be absorbed into the game, to savour every nuance as if it were fine wine... and you can't do that on the fly.

So, to those who continually ***** about how gaming is going to hell, consider this; would you enjoy your 'superior' game half as much if you only had thirty minutes a day to play them? Thirty minutes on Halo 3 might be as intellectually stimulating as cranial trauma, but at least you can get a couple of rapid-fire games off before you have to leave.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

Yeah that is a good point, but for me there are alternatives. Such as Day of Defeat or Call of Duty 4.

 

[I3uster]

People like you are the only ones who really GET fighting games.

 

[raichuman]

The comparison to TV episodes vs. feature length films is pretty much spot on, but if you're looking to note that "shorter and shallower is better", don't stop at Halo! The current success of casual games is often attributed partly to the ease with which you can start or stop playing. I know that whenever I'm thinking of a game to play during the day, Peggle or TextTwist pop into my head before any of the epics like Mass Effect or Half Life 2. You could fit in a round of Peggle before HL 2 finishes loading!

This of course isn't to say that I don't like those longer titles; they simply don't fit into the small time chunks like casual games do. It's simple scheduling.

Now, with regards to Halo, as Marty noted above, I think the usual complaint levied against it is that there are no shortage of superior alternatives. Personally, I'm quite fond of the series (as well as single-player PC FPSs like HL or Far Cry), but that is neither here nor there.

 

[Xaryn Mar]

I would. Some days that is all I play if I play at all and my games at the moment are Fallout 3, Silent Hunter III and Mount & Blade (soon DoW II as well).

EDIT: Long live the ability to save whenever you want.

 

[LethalBargi]

I Agree with you but there are some games you need to use your brain and they are short the game that pops to mind is Left4Dead atm you and your team members need to kill zombies(fun) then run fast (more fun) and enemy players playing as super zombies (super fun) the thinking part is how to pass the level without shooting your teammate and not dying(which is what happens to me the most).
you can always casual game (yes i said it), games like gunbound and chess yes they r not shiney but the make you think.

 

[Nazulu]

I disagree, you have to be motivated to even play games, if you are having fun with a game even with the slow progress then it won't make a difference no matter what type of game you play.

 

[atol]

If you watch TV, you're not a gamer.

 

[Ionami]

I Agree with you but there are some games you need to use your brain and they are short the game that pops to mind is Left4Dead atm you and your team members need to kill zombies(fun) then run fast (more fun) and enemy players playing as super zombies (super fun) the thinking part is how to pass the level without shooting your teammate and not dying(which is what happens to me the most).
you can always casual game (yes i said it), games like gunbound and chess yes they r not shiney but the make you think.

Please dear god, use more than one freaking period per paragraph.

OT:

I work a 9 to 5, and yes, time can be hard to locate, but I play games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion, Mass Effect, etc. In fact, I mostly JUST play long RPG games. If you really want to find time, you can.

Oh, and enough with the halo-talk. (I say this as someone who never bought a copy or ever will) If you don't like it, fine. But from a technical design standpoint, it's an incredibly well designed, solid game. I personally don't care too much for the series, but I can admit when a game is made with care. Which these are. They are good games, just not for some folks.

 

[Simriel]

If you watch TV, you're not a gamer.

Oh look its a bull. and it appears to be defecating.

 

[Mafiya]

I see this very often with myself. I'll have an hour or two to sit and do nothing. I don't watch TV so that isn't a problem. It's more of the, well i have homework to do, and the girlfriend doesn't like it if it takes me 10 minutes to respond to her on aim, if i'm playing a game full screen.

I wouldn't say im a casual gamer at all. I take my gaming pretty seriously, I play a good amount, and when a new game comes out i play it for a while. An example would be when i got Eve Online, i played that game for 175 hours in two weeks. This most likely was because i was done with college, and i got a 3 day suspension from High School (for unplugging a network cord.) This just show that i can play a game for a lot of time, and really work on it.

And very usually in about 2 weeks I'll play Day of Defeat Source for a good 30 hours a week. A part time job i guess? But I can never get more then 30min in a sitting. And i usually get off. It's not the lack that i get frustrated that i'm losing, i'm usually not. I can keep a decent 2:1, sometimes a 3:1 Kill Death Ratio. It's that i just get bored and find something else to do. I used to play, WoW. But the problem there was, when i first started i would put in a good 100 hours a week into it. This was mainly early morning and late nights since i had Lacrosse right after school. And now i'll install it and only play 30min here or there.

I can just never sit down and play a game like I used to. Maybe its because i don't have a console, and the PC has so many distraction?

Time is the constraint. I think games that you can sit and play and shut off after 30min are going to be needed with more people going green and thinking about what were doing. And trying to be healthier.

Sorry about the rambling, next time ill try to make it more structured.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

People like you are the only ones who really GET fighting games.

Not true, COD4 was awesome, I played through the entire campaign in one go, and I can do stints of over 5 hours solid easily (edit: multiplayer reference here). Same goes for L4D. Other shooter games maybe but those are current favorites.

But I do get where he's coming from... I just hope I never get a properly demanding job after uni or I'm stuffed. Another thing is that any older game it usually takes a lot longer to finish a match. Hell look only back to warcraft 3. It's average custom game match is 30 minutes, but some can last all the way up to and over 4 hours (troll tribes - good times). It's just that people don't have the time to be playing games like this anymore.

This is probably also the reason game companies really like to leave huge periods of time between games then release them all at once, so that people can play when "they have time". I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but all of this really rubs me the wrong way :/.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

If I have half an hour to kill, I usually just go for a couple rounds of Dustbowl, 2Fort, or Turbine on TF2. There's nothing like BACKBURNING a Heavy to get you in a good mood.

EDIT: I agree with you on the games with epic storylines; they're meant to be savored, not rushed. That's why I only play KOTOR on the weekend, when I'm not in a time cruch.

 

[Count_de_Monet]

I think the OP has something. I always make decisions on which games I want to play based on a number of factors the major one being time constraints. If I am taking a 20 minute study break I jump onto Counter-Strike because rounds are a couple minutes, it only takes 30 seconds to get into a server, and I can quit without annoying anyone. If I have an hour I'll usually jump into CoD4 or any of my many RTS's because you can do a level in the campaign or an online match or two in an hour (except Company of Heroes). If I have an afternoon I'll throw in Bioshock, Company of Heroes, or something similar but since I rarely have an afternoon Bioshock hasn't advanced for a week.

Even though CS:S has the most playtime out of all of my games I probably only average 14-20 hours every two weeks on my Steam account which is a fraction of what I used to put into games. Because of that I've been buying far fewer new games, a fraction of those games are RPG's and RTS's, and everything has to have an online version so I can jump on and off without mission constraints.

 

[Archaeology Hat]

This is what the "SAVE" function is for. It is also the reason I favour the ability to save anywhere anytime. Even at the price of possible save-scumming.

 

[Valiance]

When I have half an hour, I tend to look towards shooters or guitar hero/stepmania.
I'd gravitate towards an Ikaruga run, but my gamecube isn't at my house right now.

Currently I just do a couple practice sessions on UT3 or something, or starting/finishing a level in DoW II usually doesn't take long.

 

[Wargamer]

Thinking on this a little more, I was reminded of Metal Gear Solid, and why it is one of the greatest games of all time.

What happens when you've had a week of hell? You give thanks to the Gods the weekend is here, slump in front of your console, put in your favourite game... and try to remember where the hell you left off.

The longer the gap between sessions, the worse it gets. I've got memory cards full of save files that will never see the light of the Loading Screen because I've completely forgotten everything I did to get that far, everything I was going to do, and so I'd have to start over to make it all make sense.

This is one of the problems the 'High Class' game faces. Warhawk does not; you log in to the Server, you grab the nearest fighter, you blow shit up for fifteen minutes. There's no plot, no characters to relate to, nothing but shallow mayhem.

It is inherently difficult to retain the Suspension of Disbelief when the illusion is being shattered at regular intervals. That's why theatrical performances dim the lights and bolt the doors. What makes Cinema so much better than home viewing is not the big screen, or the popcorn, it's the fact that for the next ninety minutes there will be no phone calls, no annoying neighbours, no needy pets, no adverts and none of the myriad of other interruptions that get between you and how awesome 300 is.

One of the ways Metal Gear Solid countered these problems was to Recap. Whenever you loaded your Save File, you were given a "Story So Far" that brought you right back up to speed and explained everything you'd done recently. Whilst it didn't immerse you back into the experience off the bat, at least you weren't trying to remember who the hell Donald Anderson was.

 

[latenightapplepie]

Most of what you have to say here is pretty spot-on really.

However, the difference of time-investment/involvement between your 'superior' game and your 'Halo-style' game is, to a greater extent than you perhaps might think, a product of your own doing.

Playing each level of Halo 3 reverting back to checkpoint often to experiment with a new approach for every group of enemies - for example trying out different weapons, tactics, cover locations etc - can easily be quite a time-consuming affair.

Compare this to playing Mass Effect avoiding all the side-quests, skipping all the conversations and ignoring the game's lore/backstory to sprint to the finish.

I couldn't lie to you and say that Mass Effect and Halo 3 are roughly the same game. I couldn't even say that most people would play them the same way, or that the developers wanted them to be played in the same way.

But you clearly can play either one in a meticulous, in-depth, explorative way, or a quick-fix, flashing-lights-and-colours, easy entertainment way.

 

[Noone From Nowhere]

Videogames did start off in bite-sized portions with incredibly simple objectives that could be completed anywhere between a few seconds to a few minutes. At the time, they enjoyed a fairly large customer base, covering everyone from school children to businessmen on their lunch breaks and the only difference between the casual gamer and the hardcore gamers was how many quarters they were willing to sink into the machine...and what they were willing to do to get more quarters when they ran out!
It just looks as if things are coming full circle again, only now the games which can be taken at a fittingly leisurely pace are much more sophisticated and there are save features to preserve one's progress for when Life comes calling as it always must.
Now if only they'd ditch those long unskippable non-interactive cinematics one can not save one's game throughout the duration of, things would be right where they seem to be wanting to go.