The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I often argue that as someone who loves, say, Mario or Super Monkey Ball, I'm categorically more mature than those people who reject them as 'kiddie' in favour of 'grown up' sexual or violent games, simply because I can focus on the gameplay and don't get embarrassed about not being 'a real man' or whatever the reasoning is they've got going on in their heads. I think it's obvious that games that are considered unsuitable for kids because they pander explicitly to adolescent straight male fantasies of guns and hot babes are not actually more mature. But is it actually possible to make intrinsically more mature games?
Games basically involve performing physical actions in response to situations on the screen. On a very basic level, throwing a turtle shell at a Goomba as Mario is no different from exploding a zombie's head as Chris Redfield. Scattering explosive mines behind your bike in Extreme G is the same as leaving a banana on the track in Mario Kart or Monkey Racing. Unless there is some enormous paradigm shift in how we interact with games, and we're suddenly able to deal on more than a superficial level with, say, bereavement or child abuse (more than just watching someone cry as a loved one dies in a cutscene, or finding the perpetrator of the abuse and firing a rocket launcher at them), then surely the holy grail of 'mature' games is just a dead end. It's rather like debating whether Chess is more 'mature' than a Rubik's Cube.
As for those bizarre cutie franchise characters and their strange little fantasy worlds, I feel that they're perfectly suited to the essence of videogames - performing activities in worlds which have their own internal coherence but little relation to reality. Imagine trying to recreate Mario's gameplay in a naturalistic environment with photorealistic characters. It just wouldn't work. A realistic Mario would be boring, uninvolving and dull, and it wouldn't be believable. Can you imagine a more realistic character (Snake or even Link) making triple jumps, bouncing and jumping on a rope? It would be ridiculous. The graphic style of a game determines, in part, the type of actions you'll be able to perform in it (without breaking the 'suspension of disbelief'). And the less realistic graphic styles allow far more freedom as far as gameplay is concerned (in theory at least), and help the player to identify with the character. Mario is an empty shell, it's the movements you perform with him that bring him to life. The fabulous 'Understanding Comics' by Scott McCloud, features really interesting thoughts about this issue (reality vs abstraction, etc). A must-read book.
This is the perrenial problem, isn't it. Certain people equate sex, violence and bad language with maturity. Personally I want my mature games to include complex moral dilemmas, in-depth relationships with NPC's and unique and innovative storylines and situations, but may be that makes me boring, and I'd be happier if I just accepted the ninjas and pre-pubescent fantasies of demon lesbians. Lets face it, games are hamstrung, in the eyes of the public, from the very start because they are just that - games! So folks, get scared when they rise above the level of adolescent entertainment. Even if you aren't able to interact on more than a superficial level when such issues are being dealt with, won't the very fact that they are being dealt with will surely make the games more mature? It's just that a lot of the games that are regarded as 'mature' are in fact not mature at all. I hope more games will be dealing with historical, sociological, philosophical, psychological, ethical, political, etc issues in the future, but I hope they will do it in an interactive way, making you think about the consequences of your actions. Black and White, Metal Gear Solid and Deus Ex raised questions of this kind. Look at issues such as murdering demons. I mean, what exactly are these demons doing that deserves them being killed? Maybe more games should give you the option of trying to engage them in conversation or try to work things out some other way than using violence.
A lot of people don't even see the difference between the kind of universe a game portrays and the gameplay. If one game takes place in a very dark and violent world, it will be automatically regarded as a 'mature' game, no matter the gameplay. If one game takes place in a naïve, cartoonish world, it will automatically be regarded as a "kiddy" game, no matter the gameplay. It's utterly stupid : what you do in Resident Evil or Doom isn't more 'mature' than what you do in Zelda Majora's mask or Mario 64. Killing demons with a chainsaw isn't more 'mature' than exploring vast, rich and consistent gameworlds. In my opinion, the word 'mature' should even be banished from the videogame vocabulary. It's a completely meaningless word which is far too frequently used by people who don't understand a thing about videogames. And what's worse, is that some gamers also use it to easily dismiss Nintendo games. They're completely missing the point.
Now, I don't have any experience of text adventures and often dismissed them out of hand as something that died because it didn't actually make use of the unique properties of videogames as a medium. But maybe only inputting text can give you that level of interaction that could take gaming to a deeper level. In fact, with the advances of recent years, maybe a far more complex form of text adventure would be possible. In fact, maybe voice recognition software might have a positive effect in this direction in the future. Listening to Jade crucifying the English Language on Big Brother, I don't see any voice recognition engine coping with those vowels anytime in the near future, though.
Wait, it seems like I'm implying that a greater level of verbal interaction will somehow make games 'deeper' and in effect more deserving of an art form. I have some issues with that. First of all, I don't think that another peripheral is really what we need in order to interact with NPCs in ways other than blowing them up. Second of all, narrative is not about words - it is defined by action (any great film author will tell you this - notice how little dialogue there is in a movie like 2001: A Space Oddysey and make of that what you will). On a realistic note, a return to the text adventure would be no good and it's all too fortunate that most professional game developers realize this - the graphic adventure was the logical successor of the text adventure, which in effect had to make room for what we now call the 'adventure game' (which can be anything from Tomb Raider to Resident Evil). These games certainly feature less in the way of storytelling, but more in the way of action.
For the record I don't think that videogames are shallow - even action games. There's nothing wrong with videogames as they are today - it's a bit stagnated and there's too much recycling happening instead of reinvention, but they're building onto proven concepts that sell and work. Nothing wrong with that. What I don't like are these pretentious titles that try to be something they are not. I think this is very much the anti-art of videogames - a game pretending to be a movie pretending to be an action movie.
The issue, I think, perhaps, is not how games are perceived by gamers, but how they are perceived by outsiders. Sure, a gamer can make the mature/non-mature distinction based on gameplay. point is: if it does have zombies/lesbians /demons whatever, you're not going to let your kid play it just as you won't let him watch a mindless arnie movie (it doesn't make the movie mature either) but it's classed as such - unfortunately it's a moral issue, with a twist in the gaming society because the younger gamer longs for more 'mature' subject matter (just like you wanted to watch Cannibal Holocaust when you were a kid (I know I wanted to).
Thanks for reading,
LF.
Games basically involve performing physical actions in response to situations on the screen. On a very basic level, throwing a turtle shell at a Goomba as Mario is no different from exploding a zombie's head as Chris Redfield. Scattering explosive mines behind your bike in Extreme G is the same as leaving a banana on the track in Mario Kart or Monkey Racing. Unless there is some enormous paradigm shift in how we interact with games, and we're suddenly able to deal on more than a superficial level with, say, bereavement or child abuse (more than just watching someone cry as a loved one dies in a cutscene, or finding the perpetrator of the abuse and firing a rocket launcher at them), then surely the holy grail of 'mature' games is just a dead end. It's rather like debating whether Chess is more 'mature' than a Rubik's Cube.
As for those bizarre cutie franchise characters and their strange little fantasy worlds, I feel that they're perfectly suited to the essence of videogames - performing activities in worlds which have their own internal coherence but little relation to reality. Imagine trying to recreate Mario's gameplay in a naturalistic environment with photorealistic characters. It just wouldn't work. A realistic Mario would be boring, uninvolving and dull, and it wouldn't be believable. Can you imagine a more realistic character (Snake or even Link) making triple jumps, bouncing and jumping on a rope? It would be ridiculous. The graphic style of a game determines, in part, the type of actions you'll be able to perform in it (without breaking the 'suspension of disbelief'). And the less realistic graphic styles allow far more freedom as far as gameplay is concerned (in theory at least), and help the player to identify with the character. Mario is an empty shell, it's the movements you perform with him that bring him to life. The fabulous 'Understanding Comics' by Scott McCloud, features really interesting thoughts about this issue (reality vs abstraction, etc). A must-read book.
This is the perrenial problem, isn't it. Certain people equate sex, violence and bad language with maturity. Personally I want my mature games to include complex moral dilemmas, in-depth relationships with NPC's and unique and innovative storylines and situations, but may be that makes me boring, and I'd be happier if I just accepted the ninjas and pre-pubescent fantasies of demon lesbians. Lets face it, games are hamstrung, in the eyes of the public, from the very start because they are just that - games! So folks, get scared when they rise above the level of adolescent entertainment. Even if you aren't able to interact on more than a superficial level when such issues are being dealt with, won't the very fact that they are being dealt with will surely make the games more mature? It's just that a lot of the games that are regarded as 'mature' are in fact not mature at all. I hope more games will be dealing with historical, sociological, philosophical, psychological, ethical, political, etc issues in the future, but I hope they will do it in an interactive way, making you think about the consequences of your actions. Black and White, Metal Gear Solid and Deus Ex raised questions of this kind. Look at issues such as murdering demons. I mean, what exactly are these demons doing that deserves them being killed? Maybe more games should give you the option of trying to engage them in conversation or try to work things out some other way than using violence.
A lot of people don't even see the difference between the kind of universe a game portrays and the gameplay. If one game takes place in a very dark and violent world, it will be automatically regarded as a 'mature' game, no matter the gameplay. If one game takes place in a naïve, cartoonish world, it will automatically be regarded as a "kiddy" game, no matter the gameplay. It's utterly stupid : what you do in Resident Evil or Doom isn't more 'mature' than what you do in Zelda Majora's mask or Mario 64. Killing demons with a chainsaw isn't more 'mature' than exploring vast, rich and consistent gameworlds. In my opinion, the word 'mature' should even be banished from the videogame vocabulary. It's a completely meaningless word which is far too frequently used by people who don't understand a thing about videogames. And what's worse, is that some gamers also use it to easily dismiss Nintendo games. They're completely missing the point.
Now, I don't have any experience of text adventures and often dismissed them out of hand as something that died because it didn't actually make use of the unique properties of videogames as a medium. But maybe only inputting text can give you that level of interaction that could take gaming to a deeper level. In fact, with the advances of recent years, maybe a far more complex form of text adventure would be possible. In fact, maybe voice recognition software might have a positive effect in this direction in the future. Listening to Jade crucifying the English Language on Big Brother, I don't see any voice recognition engine coping with those vowels anytime in the near future, though.
Wait, it seems like I'm implying that a greater level of verbal interaction will somehow make games 'deeper' and in effect more deserving of an art form. I have some issues with that. First of all, I don't think that another peripheral is really what we need in order to interact with NPCs in ways other than blowing them up. Second of all, narrative is not about words - it is defined by action (any great film author will tell you this - notice how little dialogue there is in a movie like 2001: A Space Oddysey and make of that what you will). On a realistic note, a return to the text adventure would be no good and it's all too fortunate that most professional game developers realize this - the graphic adventure was the logical successor of the text adventure, which in effect had to make room for what we now call the 'adventure game' (which can be anything from Tomb Raider to Resident Evil). These games certainly feature less in the way of storytelling, but more in the way of action.
For the record I don't think that videogames are shallow - even action games. There's nothing wrong with videogames as they are today - it's a bit stagnated and there's too much recycling happening instead of reinvention, but they're building onto proven concepts that sell and work. Nothing wrong with that. What I don't like are these pretentious titles that try to be something they are not. I think this is very much the anti-art of videogames - a game pretending to be a movie pretending to be an action movie.
The issue, I think, perhaps, is not how games are perceived by gamers, but how they are perceived by outsiders. Sure, a gamer can make the mature/non-mature distinction based on gameplay. point is: if it does have zombies/lesbians /demons whatever, you're not going to let your kid play it just as you won't let him watch a mindless arnie movie (it doesn't make the movie mature either) but it's classed as such - unfortunately it's a moral issue, with a twist in the gaming society because the younger gamer longs for more 'mature' subject matter (just like you wanted to watch Cannibal Holocaust when you were a kid (I know I wanted to).
Thanks for reading,
LF.
Page:
Really hit the nail on the head for that subject. Nice topic. I am in the same boat as you. At work I hate people coming in and saying Mario is just too kiddie, I argue with them and say that gaming is about having fun. Which is true.
Fact is, first impressions count a hell of a lot. Its obvious by how gamers talk about games they are coming in to buy etc. Graphics and shading and all that crap. Very important. Spiderman sells because of the name and it looks good. Its a crap game. Sad but true.
Making mature games. Its easy for the developers who just want money. Include death, blood and women with large boobs. ITS SOLD.
Fact is, first impressions count a hell of a lot. Its obvious by how gamers talk about games they are coming in to buy etc. Graphics and shading and all that crap. Very important. Spiderman sells because of the name and it looks good. Its a crap game. Sad but true.
Making mature games. Its easy for the developers who just want money. Include death, blood and women with large boobs. ITS SOLD.
I often argue that as someone who loves, say, Mario or Super Monkey Ball, I'm categorically more mature than those people who reject them as 'kiddie' in favour of 'grown up' sexual or violent games, simply because I can focus on the gameplay and don't get embarrassed about not being 'a real man' or whatever the reasoning is they've got going on in their heads. I think it's obvious that games that are considered unsuitable for kids because they pander explicitly to adolescent straight male fantasies of guns and hot babes are not actually more mature. But is it actually possible to make intrinsically more mature games?
Games basically involve performing physical actions in response to situations on the screen. On a very basic level, throwing a turtle shell at a Goomba as Mario is no different from exploding a zombie's head as Chris Redfield. Scattering explosive mines behind your bike in Extreme G is the same as leaving a banana on the track in Mario Kart or Monkey Racing. Unless there is some enormous paradigm shift in how we interact with games, and we're suddenly able to deal on more than a superficial level with, say, bereavement or child abuse (more than just watching someone cry as a loved one dies in a cutscene, or finding the perpetrator of the abuse and firing a rocket launcher at them), then surely the holy grail of 'mature' games is just a dead end. It's rather like debating whether Chess is more 'mature' than a Rubik's Cube.
As for those bizarre cutie franchise characters and their strange little fantasy worlds, I feel that they're perfectly suited to the essence of videogames - performing activities in worlds which have their own internal coherence but little relation to reality. Imagine trying to recreate Mario's gameplay in a naturalistic environment with photorealistic characters. It just wouldn't work. A realistic Mario would be boring, uninvolving and dull, and it wouldn't be believable. Can you imagine a more realistic character (Snake or even Link) making triple jumps, bouncing and jumping on a rope? It would be ridiculous. The graphic style of a game determines, in part, the type of actions you'll be able to perform in it (without breaking the 'suspension of disbelief'). And the less realistic graphic styles allow far more freedom as far as gameplay is concerned (in theory at least), and help the player to identify with the character. Mario is an empty shell, it's the movements you perform with him that bring him to life. The fabulous 'Understanding Comics' by Scott McCloud, features really interesting thoughts about this issue (reality vs abstraction, etc). A must-read book.
This is the perrenial problem, isn't it. Certain people equate sex, violence and bad language with maturity. Personally I want my mature games to include complex moral dilemmas, in-depth relationships with NPC's and unique and innovative storylines and situations, but may be that makes me boring, and I'd be happier if I just accepted the ninjas and pre-pubescent fantasies of demon lesbians. Lets face it, games are hamstrung, in the eyes of the public, from the very start because they are just that - games! So folks, get scared when they rise above the level of adolescent entertainment. Even if you aren't able to interact on more than a superficial level when such issues are being dealt with, won't the very fact that they are being dealt with will surely make the games more mature? It's just that a lot of the games that are regarded as 'mature' are in fact not mature at all. I hope more games will be dealing with historical, sociological, philosophical, psychological, ethical, political, etc issues in the future, but I hope they will do it in an interactive way, making you think about the consequences of your actions. Black and White, Metal Gear Solid and Deus Ex raised questions of this kind. Look at issues such as murdering demons. I mean, what exactly are these demons doing that deserves them being killed? Maybe more games should give you the option of trying to engage them in conversation or try to work things out some other way than using violence.
A lot of people don't even see the difference between the kind of universe a game portrays and the gameplay. If one game takes place in a very dark and violent world, it will be automatically regarded as a 'mature' game, no matter the gameplay. If one game takes place in a naïve, cartoonish world, it will automatically be regarded as a "kiddy" game, no matter the gameplay. It's utterly stupid : what you do in Resident Evil or Doom isn't more 'mature' than what you do in Zelda Majora's mask or Mario 64. Killing demons with a chainsaw isn't more 'mature' than exploring vast, rich and consistent gameworlds. In my opinion, the word 'mature' should even be banished from the videogame vocabulary. It's a completely meaningless word which is far too frequently used by people who don't understand a thing about videogames. And what's worse, is that some gamers also use it to easily dismiss Nintendo games. They're completely missing the point.
Now, I don't have any experience of text adventures and often dismissed them out of hand as something that died because it didn't actually make use of the unique properties of videogames as a medium. But maybe only inputting text can give you that level of interaction that could take gaming to a deeper level. In fact, with the advances of recent years, maybe a far more complex form of text adventure would be possible. In fact, maybe voice recognition software might have a positive effect in this direction in the future. Listening to Jade crucifying the English Language on Big Brother, I don't see any voice recognition engine coping with those vowels anytime in the near future, though.
Wait, it seems like I'm implying that a greater level of verbal interaction will somehow make games 'deeper' and in effect more deserving of an art form. I have some issues with that. First of all, I don't think that another peripheral is really what we need in order to interact with NPCs in ways other than blowing them up. Second of all, narrative is not about words - it is defined by action (any great film author will tell you this - notice how little dialogue there is in a movie like 2001: A Space Oddysey and make of that what you will). On a realistic note, a return to the text adventure would be no good and it's all too fortunate that most professional game developers realize this - the graphic adventure was the logical successor of the text adventure, which in effect had to make room for what we now call the 'adventure game' (which can be anything from Tomb Raider to Resident Evil). These games certainly feature less in the way of storytelling, but more in the way of action.
For the record I don't think that videogames are shallow - even action games. There's nothing wrong with videogames as they are today - it's a bit stagnated and there's too much recycling happening instead of reinvention, but they're building onto proven concepts that sell and work. Nothing wrong with that. What I don't like are these pretentious titles that try to be something they are not. I think this is very much the anti-art of videogames - a game pretending to be a movie pretending to be an action movie.
The issue, I think, perhaps, is not how games are perceived by gamers, but how they are perceived by outsiders. Sure, a gamer can make the mature/non-mature distinction based on gameplay. point is: if it does have zombies/lesbians /demons whatever, you're not going to let your kid play it just as you won't let him watch a mindless arnie movie (it doesn't make the movie mature either) but it's classed as such - unfortunately it's a moral issue, with a twist in the gaming society because the younger gamer longs for more 'mature' subject matter (just like you wanted to watch Cannibal Holocaust when you were a kid (I know I wanted to).
Thanks for reading,
LF.
Games basically involve performing physical actions in response to situations on the screen. On a very basic level, throwing a turtle shell at a Goomba as Mario is no different from exploding a zombie's head as Chris Redfield. Scattering explosive mines behind your bike in Extreme G is the same as leaving a banana on the track in Mario Kart or Monkey Racing. Unless there is some enormous paradigm shift in how we interact with games, and we're suddenly able to deal on more than a superficial level with, say, bereavement or child abuse (more than just watching someone cry as a loved one dies in a cutscene, or finding the perpetrator of the abuse and firing a rocket launcher at them), then surely the holy grail of 'mature' games is just a dead end. It's rather like debating whether Chess is more 'mature' than a Rubik's Cube.
As for those bizarre cutie franchise characters and their strange little fantasy worlds, I feel that they're perfectly suited to the essence of videogames - performing activities in worlds which have their own internal coherence but little relation to reality. Imagine trying to recreate Mario's gameplay in a naturalistic environment with photorealistic characters. It just wouldn't work. A realistic Mario would be boring, uninvolving and dull, and it wouldn't be believable. Can you imagine a more realistic character (Snake or even Link) making triple jumps, bouncing and jumping on a rope? It would be ridiculous. The graphic style of a game determines, in part, the type of actions you'll be able to perform in it (without breaking the 'suspension of disbelief'). And the less realistic graphic styles allow far more freedom as far as gameplay is concerned (in theory at least), and help the player to identify with the character. Mario is an empty shell, it's the movements you perform with him that bring him to life. The fabulous 'Understanding Comics' by Scott McCloud, features really interesting thoughts about this issue (reality vs abstraction, etc). A must-read book.
This is the perrenial problem, isn't it. Certain people equate sex, violence and bad language with maturity. Personally I want my mature games to include complex moral dilemmas, in-depth relationships with NPC's and unique and innovative storylines and situations, but may be that makes me boring, and I'd be happier if I just accepted the ninjas and pre-pubescent fantasies of demon lesbians. Lets face it, games are hamstrung, in the eyes of the public, from the very start because they are just that - games! So folks, get scared when they rise above the level of adolescent entertainment. Even if you aren't able to interact on more than a superficial level when such issues are being dealt with, won't the very fact that they are being dealt with will surely make the games more mature? It's just that a lot of the games that are regarded as 'mature' are in fact not mature at all. I hope more games will be dealing with historical, sociological, philosophical, psychological, ethical, political, etc issues in the future, but I hope they will do it in an interactive way, making you think about the consequences of your actions. Black and White, Metal Gear Solid and Deus Ex raised questions of this kind. Look at issues such as murdering demons. I mean, what exactly are these demons doing that deserves them being killed? Maybe more games should give you the option of trying to engage them in conversation or try to work things out some other way than using violence.
A lot of people don't even see the difference between the kind of universe a game portrays and the gameplay. If one game takes place in a very dark and violent world, it will be automatically regarded as a 'mature' game, no matter the gameplay. If one game takes place in a naïve, cartoonish world, it will automatically be regarded as a "kiddy" game, no matter the gameplay. It's utterly stupid : what you do in Resident Evil or Doom isn't more 'mature' than what you do in Zelda Majora's mask or Mario 64. Killing demons with a chainsaw isn't more 'mature' than exploring vast, rich and consistent gameworlds. In my opinion, the word 'mature' should even be banished from the videogame vocabulary. It's a completely meaningless word which is far too frequently used by people who don't understand a thing about videogames. And what's worse, is that some gamers also use it to easily dismiss Nintendo games. They're completely missing the point.
Now, I don't have any experience of text adventures and often dismissed them out of hand as something that died because it didn't actually make use of the unique properties of videogames as a medium. But maybe only inputting text can give you that level of interaction that could take gaming to a deeper level. In fact, with the advances of recent years, maybe a far more complex form of text adventure would be possible. In fact, maybe voice recognition software might have a positive effect in this direction in the future. Listening to Jade crucifying the English Language on Big Brother, I don't see any voice recognition engine coping with those vowels anytime in the near future, though.
Wait, it seems like I'm implying that a greater level of verbal interaction will somehow make games 'deeper' and in effect more deserving of an art form. I have some issues with that. First of all, I don't think that another peripheral is really what we need in order to interact with NPCs in ways other than blowing them up. Second of all, narrative is not about words - it is defined by action (any great film author will tell you this - notice how little dialogue there is in a movie like 2001: A Space Oddysey and make of that what you will). On a realistic note, a return to the text adventure would be no good and it's all too fortunate that most professional game developers realize this - the graphic adventure was the logical successor of the text adventure, which in effect had to make room for what we now call the 'adventure game' (which can be anything from Tomb Raider to Resident Evil). These games certainly feature less in the way of storytelling, but more in the way of action.
For the record I don't think that videogames are shallow - even action games. There's nothing wrong with videogames as they are today - it's a bit stagnated and there's too much recycling happening instead of reinvention, but they're building onto proven concepts that sell and work. Nothing wrong with that. What I don't like are these pretentious titles that try to be something they are not. I think this is very much the anti-art of videogames - a game pretending to be a movie pretending to be an action movie.
The issue, I think, perhaps, is not how games are perceived by gamers, but how they are perceived by outsiders. Sure, a gamer can make the mature/non-mature distinction based on gameplay. point is: if it does have zombies/lesbians /demons whatever, you're not going to let your kid play it just as you won't let him watch a mindless arnie movie (it doesn't make the movie mature either) but it's classed as such - unfortunately it's a moral issue, with a twist in the gaming society because the younger gamer longs for more 'mature' subject matter (just like you wanted to watch Cannibal Holocaust when you were a kid (I know I wanted to).
Thanks for reading,
LF.
Page: