Our Scott Krol posted this in our Blog. Thought it was interesting enough to place here (for those few that don't read our Blog - and why don't you?). Comments are welcome!
The Escapist has an interesting article, Pawn Takes Megabyte, written by Tyler Sigman (designer for Age of Empires: Age of Kings for the NDS). The gist of the article is that the world of digital gaming needs to look at the success of German board gaming to expand the marketplace. Take a moment to czech it out and then come back here. I’ll leave the light on for ya.
All right, welcome back! Now, the first oddity I find is that digital games need to reach a bigger market. If anything, it’s the world of board gaming that needs to reach a bigger market. Finding numbers on board game sales is difficult, but from anecdotal evidence even the best selling mainstream board game (all inclusive) titles don’t sell anything close to worst selling digital titles. Breaking board games down into individual categories gets even worse. We all know how well wargames sell, right? If you manage to sell a couple hundred copies it’s a success nowadays. Heck, Grenier Games, whose Operation Weserubung game I reviewed a while back started off selling a modest 60+ copies of a game and chalked that up as victory!
Next he brings up an observation about gaming in the States that any gamer is aware of: gaming carries a stigma. Tyler then suggests to overcome this negative connotation we need to look at the German game market, and explains that:
“The most important factor that contributes to the German game industry’s success is a simple one of demographics: boardgaming in Germany is not niche. Quite the opposite, it’s seen as a healthy, family-oriented activity suitable for after-dinner entertainment. And “family” means cross-generational; grandmas through granddaughters can all be expected to play in the same game.”
Okay, let’s first think about the stigma issue. By tying in the observation that German gaming is family-orientated there’s an implication that’s one of the reasons why Americans have a stigma about games. Unfortunately he doesn’t really ever explain why gaming is still considered uncool, so that’s just my interpretation of his linkage. Let’s take a look at the stigma issue though.
Over the years I’ve heard a number of reasons why gaming, no matter how popular it becomes, is looked down upon. One reason is the belief that board and digital games are for kids, and that once you start to grow up and assume the responsible role of an adult you should put the games down. An adult doesn’t sling dice, or conquer Moscow, an adult balances his checkbook, watches American Idol, and sits on his couch every Sunday watching other adults play a game. But that game is okay, because it’s far better to idolize “athletes” (got steroids?) playing a game, than actually challenge yourself mentally with a board or computer game.
The entire “games are for kids” argument tends to boil down to people who don’t have the mental capacity to enjoy games, who are stuck in their mundane, unimaginative lives, to criticize what they cannot comprehend. Screw them.
Other reasons tend to dovetail into the first reason. Your time is better spent on tending your lawn, et cetera. And then there’s the nutjobs who think that games are evil, or lead to violence.
Jumping back to Tyler’s quote I am not sure if it really boils down to a family matter, or simply a broader cultural difference between Americans and Germans. Kevin Zucker, well-known wargame designer, remarked once on the subject, “I could guess that Europeans are a lot more social than we are: Americans are often isolated.”
And we are. Community is all but gone, we spend more time in our cars than we do at our jobs, and typically any social get-together becomes a chore. I once had a friend who I gamed with that lived but five miles from my house, but on a Saturday it would take a good 45 minutes to get there, simply because of the traffic. Sometimes you think about that and say, “Forget it, what’s on TV?” Families become parasites to many, as does work (hint: never, ever, give your office your cell phone number).
So yeah, okay, maybe there’s a family thing going on in Germany, but I think Zucker hits the target closer. Americans live in their own little zones of control.
Now the rest of the article concerns itself with explaining exactly why Tyler thinks that “the truth is the Germans are onto the Holy Grail of the videogame world.” And what is the Holy Grail of the videogame world?
Gruel.
Okay, sure, that’s not what he says, but that’s what I’m reading it as. The Holy Grail is bland. Tasteless. Makes something as non-offensive as you can. Don’t exclude anyone. We all just need one big happy hug. If only every games was packed with sunshine and rainbows the world would be a better place.
As the article winds down you begin to see what his gaming utopia really is: the casual game market. Gotta make the cheddar. Break into that mass market. After all, why create games because they’re fun, or creative, or educational (as in historical recreations, not A-B-C) when you can create something that sells to millions!
That bothers me. As someone who loves games, who probably spends more time discussing games, game design, and game theory, more than actually playing them, I don’t like seeing messages that the key to a successful game is to make it as mainstream and casual as possible. Why? Because the underlining message is that it’s more important to fatten your bank account than it is to be creative. Consider my earlier post this week about EA. Do you think they’re looking at the casual market because they’re really tired of churning out Command and Conquer titles, or because casual is now the new buzzword?
There’s also a message that in order to be mega-successful you have to make games that are catholic. Why can’t you be creative and be mega-successful? Why assume your audience won’t follow you down the golden path? Look at Dungeons and Dragons. Here’s a game that brought something completely new to the tabletop. Will your grandma run through Against the Giants after dinner? Chances are no, but who cares? Do you really need to have grandma playing, or is it enough that you have a game system that has been around for decades, and that everyone—even if they don’t play it—is well aware of?
To be clear on something yes, games are also a business. You want to make money, if for no other reason than there are bills to pay. But it shouldn’t be the driving factor, which is what I keep hearing in this article, and in the EA one. I don’t hear people saying, “I want my game to reach millions because I believe it’s a fantastically enjoyable game to play!” but “I want my game to reach millions because that’s where the revenue is. Ka-ching!” Where are the articles in which designers expound their pure love for gaming? There are still people in the biz ‘cos they like gaming, right? Or does everyone just want a Ferrari?
If your game is good people will play. If only twelve people play it, but those twelve think you are the god of all gaming, does it matter that you’re 999,988 shy of that magic million? Financially maybe, but from an artistic perspective?
So all right, maybe if you look at the article from the standpoint of someone who is in the game business for purely mercenary reasons the article works. I suppose every creative field has the same problem. Anyone think Michael Bay got into films because he wanted to create works of art that would last centuries? Did Poison form to follow in the footsteps of Beethoven, or to nail chicks and ingest chemicals?
One final note. I don’t believe casual automatically equals bad, nor evil. But I’m typed out for now so I’ll throw out some thoughts on the world of casual games tomorrow…
Read Shrapnel Games' Blog
Mass Market, The Holy Grail of Gaming
Hybrid Mode
