Why is no one making quality games aimed at families and children?

[Something Amyss]

The irony here is Disney is flooding the market with superhero films, Star Wars and remakes.
We do get other stuff in a decent wolume, but I think thatthe narrative portion is somewhat debatable for a lot of that content. I think Disney's kid stuff is mostly the Nintendo of the film market.

I think Sony and Microsoft have just accepted that their target demographic is pretty much everyone outside of Nintendo?s, because they realized they?d never capture it anyways. Who the hell can compete with Mario/Zelda/Pok?mon/etc. I mean, they?ve tried but Viva Pi?ata/Spiro/Crash Bandicoot/etc. fall considerably short.

I think part of the problem is that Microsoft, Sony, and Sega all tried marketing themselves as "grown-up" consoles to appeal to children who wanted to prove they were big boys and in order to deal with the criticism that games are childish. This helped shape what a lot of games are and what a lot of gamers expected.

Nintendo, on the other hand, is not only fine with a child-like image, they're often behind the crowd when it comes to popular features. This isnb't inherently a bad thing, but it is a little frustrating when they're only now getting around to cloud saves and leaving out some big games. On the other hand, it means they don't desperately try and clutch at every trend, which is a good thing. On the third hand, it also means they have a tendency to shoehorn in their own ideas, like motion controls, which can suuuuuuuuuuuck.

 

[CaitSeith]

Wasn't this thread already made before? (something like Bioware for children)

 

[CaitSeith]

I dunno. Children don't care about cinematic or character depth? I don't remember being very demanding with story back in my SNES days. Just give me a password or save file system and let me retain some control over my character while it's jumping.

This pretty much. The reason Fortnite is huge among kids is because it is easy to pick up and play, has engaging moment to moment gameplay and is easy to play with friends. The reason Minecraft was/is huge among kids is for the same first two reasons (and a lot of kids also figured out how to get multiplayer with their friends). Kids up to their teens aren't particularly demanding of their games, as long as the moment to moment is engaging them, they will keep playing.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of enjoying stories or getting engaged by an intriguing plot; otherwise no one would remember the RPGs from NES and SNES era. Heck! You could say the same thing about adult gamers just by comparing the popularity of good gameplay versus good story.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of enjoying stories or getting engaged by an intriguing plot; otherwise no one would remember the RPGs from NES and SNES era. Heck! You could say the same thing about adult gamers just by comparing the popularity of good gameplay versus good story.

I didn't mean to imply they are incapable of it, but we should remember that prior to their late teens, humans are pretty bad at grasping things like subtext and themes and they are easily manipulated by basic emotional manipulation (rising musical cues, characters exclaiming that it is very dire now etc.) and unlikely to care much whether the stakes are "end of the world" or "will the dogs make it back home?". Hence, from a purely developmental perspective you can either make your own life really hard and make a compelling story that is nuanced (but not too nuanced), with great actors (who are not to subtle) with a complex (but not too complex) plot or you can make it much easier and make a game that has a simple to learn but strong core loop, and maybe introduce some light plot elements to provide a reason to go forward.

It is not that children don't enjoy stories in their games, it is just that writing for children is a lot harder then it seems and unless your writing is really good the children won't be interested. Especially if they could be playing a game that's much cooler. In essence: Why dump hundreds of thousands of dollars on a narrative that's unlikely to increase the appeal of the game to the core demographic?

 

[CaitSeith]

Why dump hundreds of thousands of dollars on a narrative that's unlikely to increase the appeal of the game to the core demographic?

Again, the same disingenuous question can be applied to M-rated games. And yet, Nintendo spent much more than that on Pokemon lore since the debut of the very first game. Do you think that was worth it?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Again, the same disingenuous question can be applied to M-rated games. And yet, Nintendo spent much more than that on Pokemon lore since the debut of the very first game. Do you think that was worth it?

Does it matter what I think? Well, maybe it does since you and I hare having this discussion. I think the difference is that Pokemon has a wider fanbase then just pre-teen kids. They will play it, but so will teenagers, young adults and even a ton of adults these days (especially those that have been following the games since the first release and are now adults). Fleshing out your game world if you intend to make an unending franchise seems like a good move, no?

As I thought about this topic I recalled something that came up on Shamus Young's blog a few months ago, where he discussed children and cues in media. Specifically, he remembered how he had seen Gennaro (the lawyer in Jurassic Park) as an asshole and had felt it was karmic retribution when the T. Rex ate him, because he had picked up on all the cues that Gennaro was a disposable character the audience should feel good about watching die. His kids, however, had been horrified to see Gennaro get eaten, because they did not pick up on those cues and only saw some poor guy get eaten by a T. Rex.

And that's the problem with writing for kids. As I said, it is really, really hard. You can't be too extreme in any direction, you can't be subtle, you need to be really on the nose (but not too on the nose or the kids will hate it). You can't be too violent, but the kids wants some action, etc. etc.. I don't find it disingenuous to consider if a major investment into the narrative is worthwhile when aiming at pre-teens, because it is a fundamentally different demographic from all the older demographics. And that's even before we get into the fact that pre-teens are notoriously capable of making up their own stories without any input. Why waste money on making a story for your game, when the kids will make up their own stories if you leave it out? Teenagers and adults will likely want some kind of story to keep them hooked, but pre-teens are unlikely to care. Just put their favorite thing in the game and they'll make their own story.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Why dump hundreds of thousands of dollars on a narrative that's unlikely to increase the appeal of the game to the core demographic?

Again, the same disingenuous question can be applied to M-rated games. And yet, Nintendo spent much more than that on Pokemon lore since the debut of the very first game. Do you think that was worth it?

That's not a good example. First of all, "lore" is not the same as narrative or story. Second, Pokemon games have been around for two decades, each building and expanding on the last so some growth is inevitable...heck, if it didn't expand it would've died from stagnation.

Third, the core game is not about deep lore or complex narrative. Pokemon appeals because of cute graphics, "gotta catch 'em all", competition/combat, progression and lots of other mechanical things that get players engaged. Fourth, lore can be taken or left, can be read in detail or ignored entirely and kids are quite capable of absorbing that.

My young 8 y/o cousin is an encyclopedia of sports knowledge...specifically premiere league football. At eight, he's obsessed with football and can name all players, which teams they play for, all the uniforms/sponsors, who won/lost which games, which players got bought/sold/transferred, etc. I know other kids who know everything about cars, Star Wars and the like. At school they can talk to their friends about how x is better than y, how z would never beat w in a fight, why Pikachu is better than <idon'tknowanyotherpokemon> and so on. They love that stuff.

M-Rated games are also aimed at adults, who demand more from their entertainment. Adults are quite capable of enjoying games with adult themes, like sex, drugs, violence, swearing and simpler games without compelling stories are less appealing. We all enjoy different games, ranging from cathartic ARPGs like Diablo, thrilling shooters like Doom or Titanfall 2 or strategic challenges like Civilisation or XCOM. Adults have different needs from children, or on the flip-side, children have different needs than adults.

Adults grow out of comic books because at some point, they stop appealing to our adult sensibilities and we need stories that have meaning, where characters develop, have arcs and change over time. Kids won't sit and play or absorb a Telltale or old-BioWare story. TBH, most parents wouldn't knowingly buy their kids a game like that either since a lengthy game will interfere with dinner, homework, bath and bedtimes.

Mechanics are more important than story in kids, but appealing sound and visuals help. Why would a child enjoy a Star Wars game? Because they get to hit a stormtrooper with a lightsaber while R2D2 runs around. It's that gameplay loop that engages.

One thing I think could work, as demonstrated by episodic TV shows would be a more "serialised" system of games. In the same way Harry Potter readers would read all the books, because they're invested in the world/characters, I think have a good cast of characters who appear in multiple, similar games would actually appeal. Have easily identifiable, archetypal, colourful characters (think Guardians of the Galaxy, Simpsons, TF2, Futurama, X-Men etc) who have simple, fun-filled adventures with clearly delineated monsters/villains and Splatoon/Lego games style violence (ie. family friendly), I think those could do really well as kids will enjoy the "latest instalment" of the thing they like.

 

[runic knight]

Games themselves aren't often cinematic or plot driven to begin with. Outside of the Triple A industry, it is often the gameplay itself that is front and center, with plot just justification for the game's play. I suppose you could argue something like undertale counts, since it was very character-centric, but when it comes to cinematic, as in specifically seeking to emulate cinema style of presentation, that tends to uncommon. Likely tied to expense of that, and the nature of companies to target profitable demographics more when they are investing more.

As for possible story and cinematic games, Kingdom hearts comes to mind. And Nintendo, as you mentioned already.

 

[Saelune]

(Not that it matters but still)

You cant ask a question then say you cant give the actual right answer.

Nintendo makes quality all-ages games, and actual all-ages, like, even if you're an adult, you can enjoy the games that young children might too. Though they are slipping with Pok?mon lately...

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

You cant ask a question then say you cant give the actual right answer.

Socrates would really disagree with you, as would pretty much an dialectic schooled educator. Asking questions you don't know the answer to is both the basis of learning things and the foundation of the Socratic method. The idea is that whether the person asking knows the answer or not is not as important as if the person answering the question does.

 

[CaitSeith]

That's not a good example. First of all, "lore" is not the same as narrative or story. Second, Pokemon games have been around for two decades, each building and expanding on the last so some growth is inevitable...heck, if it didn't expand it would've died from stagnation.

Third, the core game is not about deep lore or complex narrative. Pokemon appeals because of cute graphics, "gotta catch 'em all", competition/combat, progression and lots of other mechanical things that get players engaged. Fourth, lore can be taken or left, can be read in detail or ignored entirely and kids are quite capable of absorbing that.

My young 8 y/o cousin is an encyclopedia of sports knowledge...specifically premiere league football. At eight, he's obsessed with football and can name all players, which teams they play for, all the uniforms/sponsors, who won/lost which games, which players got bought/sold/transferred, etc. I know other kids who know everything about cars, Star Wars and the like. At school they can talk to their friends about how x is better than y, how z would never beat w in a fight, why Pikachu is better than <idon'tknowanyotherpokemon> and so on. They love that stuff.

M-Rated games are also aimed at adults, who demand more from their entertainment. Adults are quite capable of enjoying games with adult themes, like sex, drugs, violence, swearing and simpler games without compelling stories are less appealing. We all enjoy different games, ranging from cathartic ARPGs like Diablo, thrilling shooters like Doom or Titanfall 2 or strategic challenges like Civilisation or XCOM. Adults have different needs from children, or on the flip-side, children have different needs than adults.

Adults grow out of comic books because at some point, they stop appealing to our adult sensibilities and we need stories that have meaning, where characters develop, have arcs and change over time. Kids won't sit and play or absorb a Telltale or old-BioWare story. TBH, most parents wouldn't knowingly buy their kids a game like that either since a lengthy game will interfere with dinner, homework, bath and bedtimes.

Mechanics are more important than story in kids, but appealing sound and visuals help. Why would a child enjoy a Star Wars game? Because they get to hit a stormtrooper with a lightsaber while R2D2 runs around. It's that gameplay loop that engages.

One thing I think could work, as demonstrated by episodic TV shows would be a more "serialised" system of games. In the same way Harry Potter readers would read all the books, because they're invested in the world/characters, I think have a good cast of characters who appear in multiple, similar games would actually appeal. Have easily identifiable, archetypal, colourful characters (think Guardians of the Galaxy, Simpsons, TF2, Futurama, X-Men etc) who have simple, fun-filled adventures with clearly delineated monsters/villains and Splatoon/Lego games style violence (ie. family friendly), I think those could do really well as kids will enjoy the "latest instalment" of the thing they like.

Thank you, that's what I have been (unsuccessfully) trying to say.

 

[Saelune]

You cant ask a question then say you cant give the actual right answer.

Socrates would really disagree with you, as would pretty much an dialectic schooled educator. Asking questions you don't know the answer to is both the basis of learning things and the foundation of the Socratic method. The idea is that whether the person asking knows the answer or not is not as important as if the person answering the question does.

I mean that you cant ask 'What is 2+2 but don't say 4'. I am not talking about asking questions to get people thinking.

 

[Marik2]

Seems the guy got banned, because he looked like a bot?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Seems the guy got banned, because he looked like a bot?

If he looked like a bot and quacked like a bot, he was probably a bot. Or possibly a duck.