Remember When Developers Just Made Games?

Real life and some other business has kept me away from blogging here for a while. But I'm back now. and look, another post about gaming. Well, it is E3 week, and I promise I don't always rant. I will be talking pleasantly about gaming soon enough.

I read this a short time ago:

Ubisoft Unveils Imagine(TM) Video Game Series for Girls
Thursday July 12, 3:06 pm ET
First Video Games in Series Available in October

SANTA MONICA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Today at the Electronic Entertainment Expo, Ubisoft, one of the world's largest video game publishers, announced its all-new Imagine(TM) series of video games targeted at girls ages 6 to 14 years old. The Imagine line allows girls to explore their favorite interests and hobbies – as indicated in extensive lifestyle research on this audience – in an interactive and entertaining way. Ubisoft's Imagine series is part of the company's strategic expansion into the casual video game market.

Source: Ubisoft   

The first games in the Imagine line will launch in October 2007 for the Nintendo DS(TM) system: Imagine(TM) Fashion Designer, Imagine(TM) Animal Doctor, Imagine Babyz® and Imagine(TM) Master Chef. Imagine(TM) Figure Skater will follow in early 2008.

"Ubisoft is excited to finally offer young girls a line of games that give them the chance to explore their hobbies and interests in interactive and creative experiences," said Helene Juguet, senior director of marketing at Ubisoft. "Our consumer research revealed that the young girls' market has been relatively overlooked. We are happy to introduce a variety of titles relevant to what girls in this age group have indicated they are most interested in."

Imagine(TM) Fashion Designer invites players to become hip Manhattan designers handling all aspects of the fashion business, from creating their own line of clothing to directing photo shoots. Online gameplay allows players to share their designs and ideas with friends and fellow aspiring young fashionistas.

Imagine(TM) Animal Doctor puts young players in the role of a veterinarian, not only by treating and curing all types of animals, but also by creating new facilities to expand the veterinary hospital.

Imagine(TM) Babyz® is the first simulation game focused on caring for babies. Players take on the challenges of raising a baby throughout all stages of development and will also be able to take photos and exchange tips and clothing through a unique online component.

Imagine(TM) Master Chef allows players to create recipes from all over the world using the stylus to prepare, stir and cook ingredients. Players can customize their kitchens with utensils and appliances. Fun mini-games include cooking quizzes and kitchen challenges.

In Imagine(TM) Figure Skater, players live the life of a champion who needs to balance her life between training, school and friends. Girls take on the role of a professional figure skater and use the stylus to perform jumps, spins and a variety of skating combinations.

source link: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070712/20070712005947.html?.v=1

I remember back when developers just made games and we all played them. I'm sure some little girls would have a blast with these, but do we actually need such specialized titles and marketing? Why not just market games to everyone? I swear, the games marketed to little girls are some of the cheesiest, cheapest sounding titles out there. I think if these were the types of games that I played when I was a
little girl, I wouldn't be a gamer today. They're mostly sims. Yes, these are backed up by market research, but there's a problem: many gaming focus groups exclude females completely unless the company behind them specifically decides to make a game with females in mind. Who's to say that those other games wouldn't appeal to female players, even little girls? Don't they deserve better?

New York: Attempting to Replace Parents with Legislation

I honestly wonder if any of these legislators have actually ever played video games. Or were they simply spoon fed 30-second clips of acts, taken completely out of context, that you would not have to search hard to find in a book or a film? Fed scare tactics and one-sided surveys that say video games are dangerous or ruining children? I honestly wonder what led them to vote for these two related, yet completely misguided bills.

Last year, I abstained from voting in the New York Senate race because of a video game related issue. Hillary Clinton supported measures to criminalize the selling of M or AO games to minors, after jumping on the "Hot Coffee" controversy bandwagon. She even included this point in her campaign, and on that issue and Iraq, I could not vote for her with a clear conscience, so I abstained, knowing she would win, but that I could not choose her to represent me this time around.

Let's take a look at the facts here for a moment. The MPAA rates movies, and theater chains enforce those ratings as a matter of company policy only. There are no laws that criminalize or force compliance with movie ratings. Music is also rated independently. Some stores choose not to carry music with Parental Advisory labels, but not selling such music to minors is, once again, merely voluntary and subject to store policy. Books are not rated or regulated, and can be purchased by anyone, of any age. Some library systems offer parents the ability to restrict their children from borrowing outside of the children's section, but that doesn't limit what they have access to while in the library itself. Books are full of violence, sex, drugs, and other things that one will also find in games, but no one is going to try and criminalize book sales. Imagine the uproar.

There needs to be a similar uproar. These politicians are fast-tracking bills that will take away a parent's right to raise his or her child as that person sees fit. For example, my mother is disabled, and she couldn't always accompany me to rent or see movies, but if I cleared it with her beforehand, then it was permitted. Blockbuster had then, a provision where a parent could sign off on allowing a child on the same account to rent any materials from the store. My mom did that, but I still advised her about what I was seeing, and she knew she could trust me.

That is parenting for you. But if these politicians have their way, what my mom allowed wouldn't even be possible when it comes to video games. Such a thing would be a criminal offense for the person behind the counter. So much for mobility-impaired parents' right to raise their kids how they wish. So much for any New York parent that wants to take responsibility for their own child.

How ridiculous would it seem if these senators decided to take it upon themselves to try and outlaw minors from purchasing Shakespearean works, for example? They're full of murders, bawdiness, revenge plots, and many rather adult themes.

Books, like video games, are a form of interactive entertainment. As such, many adults with little gaming experience or knowledge, like many of these legislators, are scared by all the hubbub made in the media and by instigators like Jack Thompson, and fear that such interaction is dangerous. I read Lord of the Flies at the age of twelve. I didn't start having murder and coup fantasies about my classmates. I play Grand Theft Auto. I've never killed anyone or stolen any cars. What these politicians need to do is to sit down and learn more about the subject. Yet, how can we expect such a thing when only six out of 100 Senate members read a classified intelligence document prepared as a justification for the current administration's decision to invade Iraq?

Many of these legislators are parents, and it's understandable that
they wish to protect children, but this is an incredibly ridiculous,
uninformed, and shortsighted approach. Legislation does not replace good parenting, and yet encouraging parental responsibility is not on these people's agenda. Sadly enough, it looks like
they've even roped Governor Spitzer into their camp. I hope if these bills are signed into law, that they're quickly slapped with injunctions and declared unconstitutional. It makes me so
ashamed that my state is doing this. That it's my fine state, usually
the ground of many freedom-protecting laws and progressive thinking, is
falling flat on its figurative face with what is no more than
a hypocritical knee-jerk reaction to an element of modern culture that
most of those responsible simply do not understand.

On Gaming Press and Gamers’ Attention Spans: Denis Dyack


"Legacy of Kain had about sixty hours of play, but games have changed. People don't want that any more."

So says Denis Dyack, president of Silicon Knights, in a recent interview. Dyack spoke on several topics, including the company's long-delayed Too Human, which received negative press after being previewed at E3 2006. The game, originally announced in 1999, has hopped platforms and publishers before landing at Microsoft. He also speaks of what he considers to be gamers' shortened attention spans, which is a rather bold statement to make.

Too Human is one of those games that has been in development hell for a while. One of those vaporware titles that one wonders if it will ever see the light of day. Whenever it is released, we'll know whether the reception is warm or not. However, Dyack says the company likely won't be releasing any more on the game until it's done or at least close to done. With those statements, he criticizes gaming press as a whole:

"We're probably at a much further advanced stage than a majority of
games that developers are showing to the press right now but we're just
not talking about it. And the reason for that is after E3 2006 we
really started to rethink previews and the way games are shown to the
press.
We're getting to the point where we don't ever want to show a game
again until it's finished. It's almost pointless. The media has a hard
time with looking at games before they're done. If you take the movie
industry as an example, how often do you see a movie before it's
completed? You don't."

Now, some of his criticisms are valid, in that some reviewers and press outlets might be too judgmental in previews, either positively or negatively, before a title's release. However, even movie studios show preview clips, still photos, or inside looks while the film is still in production. Teasers are quite common. Starting the buzz early is a marketing tactic used even with the most successful franchises. Take something like Harry Potter, or the recently released Spider-man 3. Promotional releases for those were up and in front of potential consumers' eyes before the films finished production. One of the most powerful marketing tools is word of mouth advertising. It's vital and it's free. Studios, whether they're producing films or games, need to try and take advantage of that. They need the "Did you see that?" talk the next day, even if it's weeks, or even months ahead of release. To me, it sounds like the drubbing his game received in 2006 led to an "I'm taking my toys and going home" type of attitude.

Dyack's other major point of interest is his assertion that gamers have somehow moved beyond long titles:

"[G]ames have
changed. People don't want that [long titles] any more[sic]. I don't care how good the
game is[,] I don't want to play something that's one hundred hours long.
As much as I love World of Warcraft [,] I pulled myself out of it.
If we're going to craft an epic story[,] we decided we had to divide it into manageable chunks for the consumer."

Making any game is a risk. Most titles don't go on to become blockbusters. However, it's a valid suggestion that it's not gamers that want shorter games, but studios are producing fewer epics due to budgetary concerns. The gaming industry is in a state where it's very successful in terms of revenue, but there's a constant balance struggle between  creative ingenuity and appeasing the bottom line. Making any game is a risk, but producing a longer game is a bigger risk, since it generally involves more production time and money. Many titles these days are shorter as a result. Final Fantasy is still around, but more and more games are clocking in at under 10-15 hours these days, while still getting more expensive to produce and to buy on the consumer end.

Personally, I love a good epic. If the gameplay is quality and the story is well-planned and written, there's almost nothing better. I also feel like I'm getting more bang for my buck, so to speak, since I'm paying less per hour. of enjoyment. When I get an 8-hour game that ends with the door open for a sequel (I'm looking at you, Halo 2), it sometimes feels like a ripoff. Granted, I enjoyed Halo 2 very much and actually didn't mind the cliffhanger ending so much, but there's no denying it was a short game, albeit a pretty satisfying one.

Dyack explains how Too Human will now be a trilogy. Is this a cost-cutting move? Instead of releasing one 100-hour game, you release three 3-hour ones, so you potentially make triple the profit, although marketing costs might be tripled as well; less if you get that coveted word of mouth and maintain buzz. Each game is supposed to feel self-contained, lending credence to the idea that this was a budget decision, at least in part. "That was the flaw in The Lord of the Rings movies," he claims, which is misguided, since those films were intentionally meant to feel like parts of a whole, and that "flaw" captured people's attention. So much so that all three parts cleaned up at the box office despite being a distinct beginning, middle, and end, and and over three hours long apiece. The comparison is a false one and supports the reverse of what he's claiming: that people will accept lengthy, involving entertainment provided it's made well and pay for it. That there's no need to compartmentalize and chop our entertainment into "manageable chunks" in order to spoonfeed it to us, especially as a cover for trying to pad the bottom line.

Game developers, please continue making epics. Diversity can only be good for gamers and for the industry as a whole. People with a narrow view like Denis Dyack, unfortunately, cannot see that.

“Strangers in a Strange Land”

"A woman paying $130 for a pair of shoes is one thing, but one paying $130 for the Legendary Edition of Halo 3 is something else altogether."

This is one of the best lines in Susan Arendt's recent piece in The Escapist. It's a perfect summary of how many non-gamer women see those of us who love to spend chunks of our leisure time blasting away zombies, solving puzzles, saving the day, and grinding out XP. Most of the women I know don't play video games, and such things aren't even on their radar. It can be difficult when I'm excited for a new MMO or a console release and can't really discuss it with them.

I've been gaming for most of my life. Our family got out first console when I was about two or three years old. I cut my gaming teeth on the classics on Atari and NES and haven't looked back since. I've had female friends that played games, but I was often the only one that was pretty hardcore about it. These days, I'm part of online communities aimed at women that play games, but in real life, outside of our niche, sometimes we get what Arendt deftly describes as "[being] constantly asked to explain and justify our hobby, a requirement
rarely placed on those who choose trips to the movies or pickup games
of basketball as their pastimes of choice".

Another point she touches on is the reaction of family to a woman that plays games. We're more apt to receive comments about "growing out" of games, where the males aren't expected nearly as often to somehow give up this particular hobby. When it comes to my family, they don't quite understand either, though they haven't been as harsh as to ask when I'd grow out of it. However, when all of my younger cousins received Nintendo DS systems one Christmas, and I got slippers and pajamas, as cute as they were, I was disappointed. Last year, my family talked about trying to buy Wii systems for my younger cousins. 'What about me?' I thought. But they don't consider buying me games or systems because I'm an adult.

Arendt's piece, which is highly recommended, goes into many other situations applicable to us female gamers,  and includes testimonials from several women. When I read it, I kept thinking "yes, that's exactly how it is". No one would bat an eye at a woman spending $130 on shoes, and yet that's something I probably wouldn't do. New Silent Hill release on the way? Sure.