
Who killed videogames? - cavalcade
http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/
======
snprbob86
I used to play _way too many_ video games. I broke the habit by refusing to
buy games that didn't fit a very particular set of criteria:

They have to be...

\- single-player,

\- story-based campaigns

\- with a target completion time under 30 hours

\- and a Metacritic score above 85%.

This way, I can play 5 to 10 games per calendar year without a dramatic dent
on my social or professional lives. I've been doing this for the last 3 years
and my annual gameplay time is probably somewhere around 100 hours.

Some tricks:

Convince yourself that all side quests are for losers without better things to
do. That may or may not be true, but it's helpful to avoid spending way too
much time on any particular game. Aim for the ending credits & then when you
get there, stick the game back in its case and put it on the shelf. Don't
leave it in your console.

Don't even try the multiplayer versus modes. Just don't do it. Pretend that
menu option isn't even there. Those modes are intentionally addicting.

And if you really prefer multiplayer, or if you simply can't avoid that
attractive menu option... then set an alarm before you start playing. Press
snooze when it goes off, finish your round, and then STOP PLAYING. If the
snooze alarm goes off, turn the console off mid-round.

Try to find great co-op games & schedule time with a friend to play them. This
lets you overlap human-contact time & gaming time.

~~~
Too
> Convince yourself that all side quests are for losers without better things
> to do. That may or may not be true, but it's helpful to avoid spending way
> too much time on any particular game. Aim for the ending credits

While I agree that side quests usually are waste, what is the purpose of your
playing? Is it because it's fun or because you have to finish? One could argue
that the main quest is also a form of side quest and only for losers without
better things to do...

~~~
ChrisCooper
I think his point is that you'll still have fun playing the main story, but
it'll take far less time away from you, and still leave you with the
satisfaction of completion.

If you go for finishing side-quests, you may not feel satisfied until you've
finished them all. That can take considerably longer and be considerably less
worth-while than the main game. (e.g. saving princess and defeating nemesis
vs. collect all 500 random blue hidden items. Both fun, one takes far less
time, and is more "worthwhile".)

~~~
archangel_one
Fair point, although it depends on the game; I enjoyed the sidequests in
Oblivion more than the main quest and would submit that most players would be
really missing out if they didn't finish them.

Of course, that's quite a different thing to timesinks like "find all 400
hidden widgets" which can get pretty tedious...

~~~
mortenjorck
Assassin's Creed II has some good examples of worthwhile and non-worthwhile
side quests. I cannot imagine completing the game to one hundred percent, but
half of that is activity which reveals more about the story (tombs, "truth"
encodings), while the other half is just numbers (collecting feathers,
weapons, and paintings, although I admit to having taken interest in the last
one having been an art history minor).

------
jonnathanson
I have to wonder when this whole trend is going to come crashing to a halt.
When, if ever, the social-gaming population will wake up one day and think,
perhaps aloud, and perhaps at great volume, "What the _fuck_ am I doing with
my life? _Why_ do I need more virtual corn patches?" And, perhaps, "You know
what? I'm not accepting the Facebook invitation into little Mikey's mafia
family. Fuck that noise. I'm out."

By this, what I really mean is: when someone finally gets sick of Farmville,
is he going to move on to the next Farmville, or is he burned out on the genre
for good? Seems like there should be a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on me" dynamic at work with players of these games. Which would
mean that the genre is destined for oversaturation and burnout, and that there
will be diminishing returns awaiting any marginal entrants into the field.

I'm sure the genre, as a whole, is still growing by leaps and bounds. But do
we have any leading indicators about the playerbase? Such as their likelihood
to be investing in more than one time-sinkey social game at a time? Or their
likelihood to pick up another after quitting the first?

I'm not wishing for the demise of the genre, but rather, am hoping that it'll
hit a plateau from which it will be forced to innovate, experiment, and
evolve. Seems to me that the cold, reductionist design philosophy of
addiction-by-the-numbers should eventually dig its own grave in the form of
mass player burnout on games produced as such. Then again, that's never
happened with casinos. So this may be woefully naive thinking on my part.

~~~
lucasjung
I had an experience similar to what you describe (waking up and thinking "What
the _fuck_ am I doing with my life?"), but it predates these games.

I was in college (can't remember which year, probably my junior year) and my
roommates and I were all hooked on Diablo II. So were our friends across the
hall. We'd often play together as a group on the LAN, but we also enjoyed
playing independently. We all played on headphones so as to not have the
sounds of several simultaneous games clashing.

One afternoon, we were all playing simultaneously but independently. I decided
to take a break, paused my game, removed my headphones, and stood up. Then I
heard it: the sounds of rapid clicking coming from my roommates' mouses (and
the mouses of the guys across the hall--we usually kept our doors open). I had
decided to take a break right then because I had just leveled up, and that
fact combined with the sound of the clicking gave me a moment of clarity: the
whole game consisted of me clicking a mouse as fast as I could in order to
make an arbitrary number (experience points) go up. Everything else is just
embellishment. The fundamentals are: you click the mouse, the number goes up.

I felt like one of those lab rats or monkeys that has two buttons: one that
delivers a serving of food, and another that stimulates its pleasure centers.
They starve to death because they neglect the food button in favor of the
pleasure button. Except I was worse, in a way: I wasn't getting a jolt to my
pleasure centers, I was just watching a meaningless number get higher. Of
course, I wasn't completely neglecting my well-being, either, but I was
wasting a lot of time that could have been spent on more rewarding pursuits.

I uninstalled the game immediately and gave it away as fast as I could. I
didn't give up video games, because not all games are such complete wastes of
time, but ever since then I have set the bar very high for any game I play
(similar to the post by snprbob86 about strict selection criteria). I'm
especially watchful for signs that a game is just an exercise in "repeat
simple task, increment arbitrary number."

~~~
deski
So what games do you play now? Just wondering, not only because I've come to a
similar realization, but because I'd like to know what passes the test for you
now. I think I'd trust your judgement.

~~~
lucasjung
To be honest, snprbob86's criteria are a lot more robust than mine and
probably work for more people, but since you asked, I'll share.

My initial policy was to look for old games that had been so successful that
they were re-released in new bargain versions. For example, my senior year I
bought a jewel-case pack of Fallout and Fallout II. Basically, my thought
process was: If it's so good that they're still pressing new CDs, I'll give it
a try. Of course, I still had to apply my "repeat simple action, increment
arbitrary number" filter, because Diablo and Diablo II were released in a
similar way.

I still generally only play older games. It makes it easier to tell the good
from the bad (plenty of reviews) and it saves me money. EDIT: Another
advantage of old games is that when you buy a stinker (and you will, no matter
how picky you are, occasionally buy a game that turns out to be no fun at
all), you don't feel the same pressure to finish the game anyway that you
might feel if you had dropped $40+ on a brand new title.

After college I removed the Windows partition from my computer and stopped
dual-booting, so ever since then I've only played games that I can run on
Linux. I prefer games that actually have Linux versions, but I run plenty of
stuff on dosbox and even some stuff on wine. I played a _lot_ of Neverwinter
Nights: it has an amazing community that still produces new modules even
today. I'm also a big fan of Descent (all three versions). For a long time, my
main criteria was only to pick games that really resonated with my imagination
(and, of course, apply my filter to avoid exercises in "incrementing the
number"). For example, I'm a sucker for steampunk so I picked up Arcanum, and
it was excellent. I couldn't get it to run on Wine, but I wanted to play it so
badly that I set up Windows on VirtualBox so I could play it.

I like first-person shooters, and find that they're not as prone to the
"incrementing" problem; ditto for strategy games. Story-driven games are
generally immune to that problem, but can fall prey to a different problem:
excessive linearity (i.e. you might as well just read a book). About four
years ago I went on a kick where I re-played a bunch of old Sierra adventure
games on ScummVM. I think that there are some indie developers out there now
making similar games.

We had our first kid three and a half years ago, and as a result I've had to
change my gaming habits yet again (work also got way busier at about the same
time, so it's not just the kids). I now prefer games that I can play for short
spurts. I was playing QuakeLive for a while, but got bored with it eventually
(and all the trash talk didn't help). I re-discovered nethack (I still suck at
it, but that doesn't make it any less fun), and you can't go wrong with
minecraft. I played Steambirds on Android, and that was a lot of fun but
didn't last long. Also on Android I've found a couple of pretty good games
that remind me of "Incredible Machine:" "Clever Contraption" and "Electric
Box."

EDIT: I forgot to mention Wii! There are a lot of Wii games that are just
plain crap, but there are a few real gems. _Wii Sports Resort_ is simplistic
but still lots of fun, and fits great with my "short spurts" approach. It's
also something my wife and I can enjoy together with our eldest. The only
really "serious" game I've enjoyed on the Wii was Red Steel II (don't play the
first one--it was awful!).

~~~
lotharbot
There are still a few dozen of us who play Descent 3 online. Actually, my
Descent clan runs a Minecraft server, too.

------
palish
Probably off topic, but hooey on that:

If you want to play an absolute gem of a game, go grab Cave Story. It's free,
and it's "fun", in the most distilled form.

<http://www.cavestory.org/>

It's one of those games that makes you wish you could wipe your memory ---
just to re-play it again for the first time.

~~~
thristian
The author of the original post also wrote a review of Cave Story. It's long
and rambly and exasperated, more impressionistic than informative, but it's a
good read:

<http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=416>

 _Why did Pixel make this game? Like, why the fuck? The amount of loving
attention to detail that went into this game indicates that the man, beyond a
shadow of a doubt, possesses the mental fortitude befitting a researcher in a
facility in Antarctica, delving into the permafrost, seeking the Cure For All
Cancers. Why did Pixel bother making a videogame, when God had given him this
situational opportunity to Literally Save The World? At the very least, the
man could have sought out the Ultimate Toothbrushing Solution — a three-
second-a-day quick rinse that eliminates the need to brush your teeth, while
also keeping them sparkling white. (It’d be like those antibacterial hand-
wash-lotion things, only for your mouth.) Instead, he made a videogame._

~~~
3oheme
I nearly lost my eyes trying to read that blog :-(

~~~
thristian
Clicking the "action button" at the top (the big orange one) cycles through a
few different themes; if all else fails, Readable/Readability work OK.

~~~
3oheme
Thanks!

------
michaelbuckbee
We, myself most definitely included, are all part of this.

On this site we love (ohmygoddowloveit), AB Testing, metrics tracking and all
that goes along with it.

"Games getting more addictive" is very similar to "We used Abingo and this is
what got the most responses."

I'm not saying this is bad so much as it doesn't represent everything and that
there is a point between pandering to people and providing a service.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Excellent observation. A/B testing has no implicit morality. Indeed, driven to
its logical conclusion it could result in your business engaging in spam,
fraud, or encouragement of addictive behavior.

A/B testing is best used as sandpaper, to round off sharp corners, if you just
let evolution guide your product with a free hand you are just as likely to
end up with a giraffe as with a black mamba.

~~~
marshray
Oooh I want to play that game! Somebody please make it:

Giraffes vs Mambas

------
asr
A good Saturday read. The incentives developers face when designing free-to-
play games do indeed lead to games that are no fun.

But I actually think many game genres are getting _less_ addictive. It used to
be that distribution of games was so expensive that there was little money to
be made without catering to the hardcore gamers (I use that loaded term to
mean someone who is willing to spend huge amounts of time on a game)--so games
often took forever to complete and were designed to be most fun if played in
5-hour chunks.

Now, with internet distribution and marketing, some indie game designer can
design smaller games and sell them for $10. So there's a place in the market
for smart games designed to be played in less time.

And, unlike the pusher-addict economics of social games, the low cost of
distribution is win-win and not going away. Indeed, as it becomes easier and
easier for a small team or single developer to make good games, this trend
should only accelerate.

~~~
rhizome
I imagine the reason why free-ish games tend toward the unfun si that "fun" is
defined in a business model as a profit center. For them to be fun, you have
to pay, and I'm guessing this is actually a specific goal in these companies.
Any feature that is brought up to be introduced has all the fun elements
methodically shunted into the pay-zone.

------
HaloZero
The sad thing is, it's not even social games anymore.

TF2 and Heroes of Newerth both became free in order to sell more premium
"can't wait" for it goods.

Valve even has job listings for economists and psychologists now.

~~~
patricklynch
In the case of TF2, this has really hurt my ability to enjoy the game.

Since they made it free and added a thousand new items, there are vastly more
new (less skilled) players, many games are spammed in both text and voice chat
with offers to trade, and every game is a circus act of ridiculous hats.

With the exception of private clan servers, there's really no way to make sure
you're joining a game with focused and skillful players.

~~~
po
Totally agree. I also think that TF2 lost the simple rules and focus that made
it so much fun. My theories on this:

* The hats break the usability of the game: characters used to have very easily distinguished silhouettes. Now it is harder to tell what is going on in the game.

* The hats visually and thematically damage a game that once had very strong art-direction.

* The variations in weapons makes the game harder for them to balance and harder for the player to find an optimal strategy.

* Allowing players to individualize their avatar encourages people to devalue the team aspects of the game.

It's still fun, but I want to play in _classic mode_.

------
5hoom
This kind of thing is admirable in a machiavellian evil kind of way.

It is amazing to think of the thought & effort that goes into making a title
as infuriatingly awful (yet unarguably profitable) as some of these
ville/hotel/zoo grinding games.

I bet someone somewhere is laughing & twirling their moustache.

------
cavalcade
I am not sure if the comparison holds but this FEELS like how bankers created
derivatives. Its warping something from the inside out just to get some greed
fuel.

~~~
jim_kaiser
This could be the next generation of casino games.. the house always wins.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
Not casino games.. CASINOS

2 limitation that casinos have right now is that they are only allowed to lure
in people over the age of 21, and that it takes time and work to travel to
one.

These "games" are trying to put a real-life, genuine casino in the pocket of
every man, woman and child and get them hooked. Slot machine and roulette
tables are being replaced by imaginary farms and petting zoos.

~~~
patio11
We also have thousands of years of social antibodies for gambling, but none
for FarmVille. Nobody in my family would offer a nephew the opportunity to get
into debt to a casino in return for a pink roulette wheel, but the FarmVille
analog hasn't been e.g. the focus of Sunday sermons for a lifetime.

------
zobzu
And there I am still playing Quake because: \- achievements don't matter \-
instant play \- a game is 10min \- its fun \- no experience points \- no DLC
\- nothing to collect

Subscription brings you more maps.

Oh shall I mention, that Quake doesn't make enough money ?

~~~
jeffool
I was saddened when Carmack mentioned at QuakeCon that there were no plans to
give QuakeLive.com the love it so obviously needs. Being so skill-based (as
opposed to loot based) though, it really does seem to lack the appeal other
games have for many players. That's a shame.

------
rooshdi
Last fun game I played was Shenmue II about 8 or 9 years ago. It had it all -
story, gameplay, art direction, cinematics, soundtrack, emotion, everything,
that is, except profitability. Thus, Sega cancelled the series and I haven't
played a game as genuinely enjoyable since. It's sad to say, but some fun
games just don't make good business games.

~~~
dereg
I feel the same way about Heavy Rain. No other PS3 game has brought me close
to the feeling of playing that game.

~~~
rooshdi
Yea, I haven't played Heavy Rain, but I heard it resembles Shenmue in a lot of
ways with the QTEs, branching story, and cinematics. Might have to save up for
a PS3 now, especially since Shenmue III will probably never see the light of
day.

------
mcantor
I find games like this utterly vapid and without any appeal whatsoever. I
wonder if there's a name for the condition in which you are psychologically
immune to these games, for whatever reason. I'm thankful I have it.

~~~
roryokane
I was cured of the desire to play these kind of games by playing the game
Upgrade Complete, at <http://www.kongregate.com/games/ArmorGames/upgrade-
complete>.

I played Upgrade Complete until the abrupt ending. I found I felt annoyed that
the game was over, and asked myself why. I realized all the playing of the
game I had just done was pointless number-increasing – I think conveying that
message is the point of Upgrade Complete. That inspired me avoid games with
too much grinding and not enough more interesting parts like puzzles or story,
and to use cheats whenever possible to skip the grinding.

~~~
jholman
ArmorGames has actually sponsored a number of those Flash games (all actually
developed by the same guy), making fun of the obsessive tropes of the browser-
based Flash mini-game crowd. Which is kind of bold, since ArmorGames is
entirely in the business of profiting off that market. c.f. Upgrade Complete
(I and II), Elephant Quest, This Is The Only Level (I and II), Achievement
Unlocked (I and II).

The really amusing bit to me is that not only are they bald-facedly mocking
this addiction-oriented gameplay, they are simultaneously self-referentially
some of the most fun games in that genre.

------
tatsuke95
This was a pretty good read, and I agree with much of what was written.
However I can't help but think a macro piece of the puzzle has been left out:
status.

WHY do people pay money for virtual goods? WHY do people assault friends with
requests they know are annoying? WHY do people play games that aren't fun? The
answer is status. From the outside looking in, we might think people spending
real money within these games are crazy. But from the inside, there is a
different game with different rules. And the players of theses game have
accepted these rules. It may seem ridiculous to outsiders, but within the game
there are sometimes millions of other players who create a culture of who and
what is "good" or "bad". So just like in real life, "average" people are
concerned with nothing more than accumulating crap and generating envy; being
"good" at the game.

The model for any Facebook game is easy: Provide a platform where people are
able to quantitatively measure their value versus other people. Provide a
clear means to increase that value. Sell them the means, and do it for $1 at a
time. For most people, that's easier than putting a new BMW in the driveway
for your neighbors to oggle.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
Perhaps _this_ is the nagging doubt I have about Facebook in general: with
mainstream acceptance, it functions not as a platform for 'connecting' with
one another, but instead as another vehicle of conformity and norms
enforcement.

------
marshray
I find Dwarf Fortress quite hard to get into, but smart friends are talking
about it.

So how would one describe DF in this framework?

~~~
pshc
The creator of DF has spoken out against the evils of these games. I can't
find the link though.

And yet: There is just so much depth in DF that if you can play it at all,
there is always something interesting to do, build, explore... I've pulled
all-nighters playing it, trying to build the next coolest thing. With each
season the game throws new triumphs and failures at you. It's not a social
game, but the dwarves are individualized to the point that you might start
empathizing with them.

Disclaimer: I work for a social games company.

EDIT: This may have been what I was talking about (though it's not actually a
statement by Tarn): [http://www.industrygamers.com/news/braid-creator-finds-
socia...](http://www.industrygamers.com/news/braid-creator-finds-social-game-
development-evil/)

“Some kinds of games are very clearly made [to give something] – like Dwarf
Fortress is definitely trying to give the players something and not exploit
players. That’s very obvious to me in the way that it’s made. [Most of these
social games are] the opposite of that,” explained Blow. “It’s trying to take
the maximum amount while trying to give the minimum amount. So that’s an
ethics of game design question. To me it doesn’t matter if people feel like
they’re having fun or feel like they want to play the game, because the
designers know what they’re doing.”

~~~
marshray
Yeah, that's it. Thank you for explaining it that way.

It reminds me of how I used to like movies and film, until I started noticing
that money was changing hands to put product placements in them. Nothing ruins
a move for me like the characters stating a brand advertising slogan or
drinking from containers strategically positioned to display the label. It's
more than just feeling cheated about having paid for the ticked and ending up
watching advertising. It's the knowledge that the producer/director wasn't
making the movie to be the best it could be.

------
taybervoyer
As someone who balances a free to play social game on Facebook everyday I find
this kind of generalization short sighted and demeaning.

The nuances of creating a social free to play game go far beyond this
simplistic narrative. A compelling user experience that engages non-paying
users and convinces some players to convert is WAY more challenging than most
people understand. ESPECIALLY if you care about your community.

The tools you HAVE to use are based on metrics and data. But you don't
sacrifice fun. In the end you are still selling fun. If it isn't fun, people
won't PLAY it...

In the end though... it isn't art, it's all just entertainment.

~~~
henrikschroder
> If it isn't fun, people won't PLAY it...

The whole point of this article is that yes they do, and yes you can extract
money from them anyway.

------
ericdykstra
This is what makes a game like Starcraft 2 so great. Every player, regardless
of time spent in the game, starts out with a level playing field. There is no
incentive to play the next game except to get better.

So how does Blizzard extract more money from you? They balance the game,
update it frequently, and then don't charge you. And they hope your experience
was so great that next time a Blizzard game is released you will know that
it's a high quality game that will be supported for years.

No gimmicks, no shortcuts, just gameplay.

~~~
recursive
> So how does Blizzard extract more money from you?

Because World of Warcraft.

~~~
notJim
Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft are different games. This poster is
referring to Starcraft 2, which does not charge a monthly fee.

------
jneal
There are multiple awesome video games every year. This post seems to be
describing Facebook games or one genre of games in a generalization of the
entire industry. As an avid gamer and big fan of the industry this post's
title/conclusion is appalling.

Also, it's quite easy to play video games and still have time to learn things
and further your skills for your career. I'm a dad, a gamer, and a programmer,
and I love it.

------
fleitz
These games are the embodiment of a generation raised on the idea that when
the bell rings you change classes and at the end of thew week you get a gold
star if you did all the things you were supposed to.

It puts them right back into a safe world where if the follow the rules they
get rewarded.

------
seagaia
It's kind of gross how that market of games is growing. It's really quite
terrible, but at the same time genius, at least in the metric of making money.

At the same time I don't think there is a need to worry about the gaming
industry being overtaken with that dirt - indie games have really been keeping
my hope up with video games as a creative outlet. Lots of really wonderful
stuff and wonderful people behind the works - here are some nice sites for
finding such games.

<http://indiegames.com/index.html> <http://gamejolt.com/>

------
dimitar
Good thing is that old games are still there, and you don't need expensive
hardware to play them.

Now I play 5 year old games with a GPU integrated into my CPU. And since I'm
pretty casual as a gamer (a few times a month), I'm pretty content.

------
pnathan
I've become pretty harsh on video games in general. I wasted a lot of my life
in WoW, and I've seen a couple other people _waste_ their brilliant minds on
video game playing.

If it doesn't contribute to interpersonal, personal, or societial good, I
don't want to play it. I've gotten my 'video game' fix by playing pen and
paper RPGs and meeting new people.

These days, I read history books for my "long-term amusement" and wouldn't
mind playing video games with long-distance family (they don't play though).

Remember Steve Yegge's talk this summer. Please, do something more uplifting
than incrementing a digital counter.

~~~
bostonvaulter2
You could try playing FoldIt, at least you would be contributing to society.

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110918144955.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110918144955.htm)

------
nhangen
Yes, games like that suck, but I don't find them addicting. Perhaps there is a
certain type of casual gamer that likes them, but to me, they're far too
obvious to be interesting.

However, I do still find games on both my iPhone/iPad combo and on console.
Humble Bundle's games are great too.

Just picked up a copy of Rage last night...good stuff. And though I find WoW
slightly addicting, it's still a great one.

------
alexkcd
Jonathan Blow (creator of Braid) has an interesting rant on social video
games: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqFu5O-oPmU>

The gist being that games like Farmville are A/B tested to maximize
addictiveness and profit, rather than maximizing fun.

------
yason
Then play old games. I still regularly play Doom whenever I need to think
about a solution for something. It's fun and the gameplay is instinctive, so
you can let yourself think about things while playing.

------
ditojim
anyone on this thread looking for a game recommendation, check out
minecraft.net. it has rekindled my interest in video games.

------
JonnieCache
This sums up perfectly why people hate neoliberalism/capitalism so much.

