Notgames Forum

Written by notorious ludologist Tadhg Kelly, but I do agree.
http://www.whatgamesare.com/2012/11/games-dont-need-saving.html

My conclusion: games are for children. Grown-ups need something else.

Or in capitalist terms:

I've read more articles of this sort than I can remember, not that I disagree with their basic principle. Of course, before getting excited, one should prepare to be heavily disappointed by what the authors would consider an adult game. As I see it, there's a whole new and perhaps more meaningful discussion in that.

If you trust these studies they conduct, the majority of players in a market such as the United States is above thirty years of age and in a substantial percentage, nearer to the age of forty. If these players are investing their time in the games we know to exist today and which dominate that market, then we must therefore rethink the entire concept of adulthood in that (our?) society. Personally, I'm rather convinced that video games have been consistent and efficient, together with other entertainment media, in preventing consumers from coming of age intellectually, from broadening their horizons by holding them captive in a loop of purported novelty and the familiar comfort of a controlled environment. In fact this circular pattern is so powerful it has long begun to shape the face of independent game productions as well.

So, yes, we need something else.

 ;) I misread : Games do not need save(points)... like no saving of progression.
Let's make games without saving

cheers

I read it like that too first :)


I wonder what this article was really trying to say though. I mean he says that some age group are underserved, but yet makes no effort to say how you could serve them. Then he also sort of hints that this is just a phase, and when you get through it you really understand the beauty of games again. He might unconsciously making the argument that Michael made too :)

Being a fanatical ludologist, I think he just means that games are AWESOME OMG and everybody who thinks differently is an old fart.

But as I personally deeply enjoy growing older, I read it as a sign that perhaps that whole games-are-sports-are-awesome-yay gang is going to leave me alone.

I agree with Bruno that the author and his brethren might have a surprising idea of what constitutes an adult videogame. But that's his problem, not mine. I find it very important that even people on his side of the fence acknowledge the distinction. Without explicitly dismissing "the other kind" -other than the implication that being young is cool yay.

I sympathize with your worries about the state of art in our times. To a large extent this is what motivates me as a creator: to make things that help people grow in a significant way, a way that enriches their existence and helps them contribute to society in a constructive manner.

Chris Pruett mentioned (https://twitter.com/c_pruett/status/267548714590162944) something interesting though. He pointed out that only now this older generation is fluent enough with games to be a viable audience.

I disagree somewhat since I only started being serious about videogames at the age of 35 and I had plenty of experience to fall back on having played Pac Man in the arcades and Wolfenstein on my PC. And that was 10 years ago. And I was in Europe (always a bit late to the capitalist parties and more moderate in its embrace).

I also feel that it is a designer's job to be as inclusive as possible. Especially when working for an adult audience where one can expect more variety. Game controls and structures should be simplified so that the player can concentrate on the content. I don't think we can already count on everyone knowing how to use a gamepad or WASD controls.