Support NeoGAF

[UncleSporky]

We're at a point where, "if you don't like it, stick to indies" isn't a real conversation anymore when we see the traditional structure of AAA development get increasingly expensive while sales continue to dwindle. There gets to be a point where you have to start putting the big games under the microscope instead of handwaving it off and saying, "oh but last year there were a few interesting games that didn't do these traditional male bravado power fantasy driven stories, go play those."

Wait, doesn't that mean it's working?

We don't need to put the big games under the microscope when it's apparent the market isn't buying them anymore. People don't like it, and they stick to indies, and the big guys will either change or go bankrupt.

This is exactly the time to handwave it.

 

[Mesoian]

Wait, doesn't that mean it's working?

We don't need to put the big games under the microscope when it's apparent the market isn't buying them anymore. People don't like it, and they stick to indies, and the big guys will either change or go bankrupt.

This is exactly the time to handwave it.

Only if you're 100% fine with how the market currently is, which as this thread shows, a lot of people are.

If you're not though, a lot of the standards that we've come to know are kind of a muted, "fuck off, you have your indies, leave us alone."

And in a year where we have 6 first person shooters essentially cannibalizing each other in their pursuit of marketing dollars, it's not that unfair to ask, "what if we used the budgets of one of those games to make something markedly different."

It's just super weird that whenever someone rolls around and says "we should shake things up because everything is literally the same, just more expensive", so many people respond with "NO! NEW THINGS ARE TERRIFYING! GEARS OF WAR 5 PLEASE!", as if they weren't already going to get that and two dozen other things like it.

But that's where we are. And that's where we've been for nearly a decade. And IMO, it's likely where we'll remain for another decade, knowing who the market is tailored to.

 

[Lime]

I thought the same thing.

What happened instead was that game makers realised that the expanded audience of women, kids, minorities etc was on mobile phones, and began making the kinds of games people wanted there. That's where a lot of that creative talent went, and that's where the half of the games industry currently is.

If she's talking exclusively about the AAA console industry then that's another thing entirely but she doesn't say that.

'Expanded audience' was/is already present in non-mobile gaming space, I'm not sure on what sources you are basing your impressions on.

Honestly, I think Lime's being extremely misleading with the quotes in the OP, here. This article is another in a fairly long line of articles that Leigh has wrote over the past eighteen months or so whereby she's expressing her frustration that the wider tech industry is not changing despite social justice's efforts (and the fact that a hell of a lot of social justice activity is happening on San Francisco, the tech industry's doorstep). The difference this time is that with the election of Trump, it's become increasingly clear that it's less "not changing" and more "will never, ever change". I would not be surprised if she quits her role as The Guardian's tech columnist before the end of next year.

I appreciate the clarification, although I still think some of the quotes emphasize that same point.

This is not a very good article. It doesn't say much beyond the second to last paragraph, and it doesn't make a compelling argument for that beyond "it should happen."

There are plenty of meaningful statements & paragraphs throughout the article - the promise/potential of playful tech, the marriage between right-winged ideology and the US tech industry, ignoring marginalized groups in deisgn, the warning of fascism symptomized by Gamergate, and the contrast between an oppressive reality for marginalized people and a virtual playful escape from it.

The normative dimension of the argument should be implicitly evident in terms of 1) far-right ideology as inherently terrible and 2) people's oppression should not be ignored or dismissed. Frankly I don't see why you would require a "compelling argument" for what the article espouses.

 

[Hashmal_Bringer_of_Order]

Well, being stubborn and being stubborn with no funding are two different issues to deal with.

You can be the world's greatest opinion writer, but you still gotta eat.



I mean that's also a big one of those points. You literally don't know what you're missing because, for whatever reason, you're complacent with what these annual blockbusters give you, even when they are diminishing in quality year after year though you're paying more, which, again, only compounds how silly the idea that those games are going anywhere, despite a call for change.

You're catered to. Don't worry, you're good. This is more about the people who have done that for the better part of two decades and are looking for something different, but on the same sort of scale.

I don't think every concept needs the scale of a AAA production to be work. It's the same with movies. Many genres work fine and produce incredible works with lower budgets because their concepts don't necessitate them, and budget+marketing is really what makes something AAA, in all honesty.

I also just don't agree that my preferred genres (which are dominant in this case), are suffering from diminishing quality.

 

[Mael]

I guess I'm done with the usual power fantasy the industry peddle,
the only game I'm playing these days are either stuffs like Mario that I'll never stop playing as long as I game or game where I can get an avatar that's not white guy voiced by nolan north.
It's a fucking shore to play uncharted when I feel like I played this already 2 decades ago.
If the game is character based and doesn't allow me extensive custo or provide an interesting character don't be surprised if I'm bored by the time the tutorial is over.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I'll be frank: the most likely scenario is that the Trump administration is going to be rolling back all progress the social justice movement has achieved in the US over the last four years or so. Considering how incredibly US-centric the tech industry is, I do think they will follow suit.

Silicon Valley & all of these games studios are not suddenly going to move from California to Kentucky or anything. Many of the mega companies have diversity as an important component of their current charitable spending & hiring process, that's not going to go away.

At worst it will just remain the same as it is now but it's not going to go backwards.

 

[GeordieMark]

This has got to be driven by the consumer, not the big players in the industry. Gamers and game journalists seem to frequently forget that the goal of the big publishers is to shift as many copies of their games as they can, and make as much money as they can. When the market starts to reject the power fantasies Leigh refers to, that's when the mainstream market will start taking notice. It's not the role of EA, Activision, Sony, MS, or T2 to fight for social justice via their games. They exist for the benefit of their shareholders.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

This has got to be driven by the consumer, not the big players in the industry. Gamers and game journalists seem to frequently forget that the goal of the big publishers is to shift as many copies of their games as they can, and make as much money as they can. When the market starts to reject the power fantasies Leigh refers to, that's when the mainstream market will start taking notice. It's not the role of EA, Activision, Sony, MS, or T2 to fight for social justice via their games. They exist for the benefit of their shareholders.

One of the biggest games of 2016 has what is arguably the most diverse main cast in a video game ever.

The market is there, they just have to pay attention to it.

 

[Mesoian]

I don't think every concept needs the scale of a AAA production to be work. It's the same with movies. Many genres work fine and produce incredible works with lower budgets because their concepts don't necessitate them, and budget+marketing is really what makes something AAA, in all honesty.

I also just don't agree that my preferred genres (which are dominant in this case), are suffering from diminishing quality.

How would we know? It never happens. All we can do is try to compare it to other media that's been around for 50 years longer and has more population penetration than video games will have for the next 50 years and say "well it sort of works that way there so....keep on easin' on down that road." It's like being asked to solely be okay with having big blockbusters because big blockbusters dominate sales year over year to the point where no one else even considers the option of trying to compete with them without using one of their own.

It is the craziest form of tunnel vision.

One of the biggest games of 2016 has what is arguably the most diverse main cast in a video game ever.

The market is there, they just have to pay attention to it.

Yup. Mafia 3 is excellent even if the greatest thing it can possibly do to stand out against the rest of the competition is leading other people who aren't normally catered to to that same bombastic experience that so is usually aimed at a very specific demographic.

 

[UncleSporky]

Only if you're 100% fine with how the market currently is, which as this thread shows, a lot of people are.

If you're not though, a lot of the standards that we've come to know are kind of a muted, "fuck off, you have your indies, leave us alone."

And in a year where we have 6 first person shooters essentially cannibalizing each other in their pursuit of marketing dollars, it's not that unfair to ask, "what if we used the budgets of one of those games to make something markedly different."

It's just super weird that whenever someone rolls around and says "we should shake things up because everything is literally the same, just more expensive", so many people respond with "NO! NEW THINGS ARE TERRIFYING! GEARS OF WAR 5 PLEASE!", as if they weren't already going to get that and two dozen other things like it.

But that's where we are. And that's where we've been for nearly a decade. And IMO, it's likely where we'll remain for another decade, knowing who the market is tailored to.

No, the market will not stay the same, if sales are dropping as you say.

Seriously, you just said 6 first person shooters cannibalized each other this year. We don't need to ask any questions. The companies making those games will ask them on their own, in pursuit of less cannibalism in the future. We don't need to do anything, they will adapt or they will die.

Either the mass market is saying "GEARS OF WAR 5 PLEASE!" or they're not buying them as consistently and sales are falling. If sales remained good and AAA was booming and it was clear the market wasn't changing, then maybe there'd be cause to campaign for change.

 

[Vermillion]

I thought the same thing.

What happened instead was that game makers realised that the expanded audience of women, kids, minorities etc was on mobile phones, and began making the kinds of games people wanted there. That's where a lot of that creative talent went, and that's where the half of the games industry currently is.

If she's talking exclusively about the AAA console industry then that's another thing entirely but she doesn't say that.

I'd like to get a good grip on what constitutes a male power fantasy outside of the obvious examples.

Like, can games be male power fantasies even if the player gets to choose their character or plays as a woman? Is Pokemon ultimately a male power fantasy? Conquest, subjugation, control? Is Mario a male power fantasy?

What are the highest profile successful games that are not male power fantasies on some level? Splatoon?

According to the author it feels that way. My problem is they like to pick and choose and then they ignore games that fit their fantasy which usually do very poorly sales wise. I don't know. It's very frustrating to read some of these articles because the bias is so blatant and usually is just a turn off.

All of these.

Bayonetta!

Does this count?

 

[Delusibeta]

Silicon Valley & all of these games studios are not suddenly going to move from California to Kentucky or anything. Many of the mega companies have diversity as an important component of their current charitable spending & hiring process, that's not going to go away.

At worst it will just remain the same as it is now but it's not going to go backwards.

I disagree, I expect that diversity in hiring and charitable contributions will become seen as unnecessary as a result of Trump's actions, which in turn will result in said policies quite literally going away over the medium to long term.

One of the biggest games of 2016 has what is arguably the most diverse main cast in a video game ever.

The market is there, they just have to pay attention to it.

I'm fairly sure Watch Dogs 2 was a sales disappointment, and Mafia 3 (which, admittedly, did far better than I thought it would) shipped about twice as many copies as they sold.

 

[DocSeuss]

I mean...it should.

But then, Titanfall 2 should have been released in March.

We should make the drinking water in Flynn, Mi potable again.

We should stop macing native americans who are trying to protect their water from an oil pipeline we don't actually need.

We shouldn't stop writing about what should happen just because we don't have a 10 step process of how to get there.

The article's thesis is essentially "blockbusters should do more than be blockbusters." It's like when bad film critics write ignorant thinkpieces criticizing action films for being action films. This is one of the industry's worst writers continuing to write some of the industry's most cliche, boring takes. Say something new for once, why don't you? She's been beating this drum for years, and I can't recall a time she's ever put forth a cogent argument for how to do what she wants. She wants other people to figure it out.

It'd be like if I spent all my time writing articles seriously arguing that all games should be first person shooters without ever justifying those claims or acknowledging the strengths of non first-person games.

Action works because it: is easy to translate, is easy to understand, and is a good ROI in terms of dramatic stakes.

So yeah, people are always gonna go watch bad stuff like Roland Emmerich movies, and they're always gonna spend more money on blockbuster games. Instead of whining about the popularity of blockbusters, more time is better spent literally doing anything else.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to playing the most successful game of 2016, about being a child wandering through Hawaii. After that, I might go back to playing this really cool game about designing roller coasters.

I'm fairly sure Watch Dogs 2 was a sales disappointment, and Mafia 3 (which, admittedly, did far better than I thought it would) shipped about twice as many copies as they sold.

It has nothing to do with race (Overwatch, massive sales success) and everything to do with the fact that Watch Dogs as a brand has little leverage behind it, because the first game was sold largely on the strength of its demos, and then it failed to live up to those demos. The excitement is gone. Game sequels either sell significantly better than their predecessors (because their predecessors were good, and people who played the game through its life want to play the next installment immediately), or significantly worse (because people did not like the first installment, even, in some cases, when they say they did).

Also? ENTERTAINMENT on the whole is down across the board. Sales for most things are really weird in 2016.

 

[Hashmal_Bringer_of_Order]

How would we know? It never happens. All we can do is try to compare it to other media that's been around for 50 years longer and has more population penetration than video games will have for the next 50 years and say "well it sort of works that way there so....keep on easin' on down that road." It's like being asked to solely be okay with having big blockbusters because big blockbusters dominate sales year over year to the point where no one else even considers the option of trying to compete with them without using one of their own.

It is the craziest form of tunnel vision.

I don't think games are so different on the conceptual level that they cannot be compared to other forms of media, especially when movies are so similar at this level. Besides, i don't even think your example is accurate. Nobody is being asked to "be ok with only having big blockbusters", people are being asked to be ok with their experimental concepts not having big blockbuster budgets.

 

[Aters]

And in a year where we have 6 first person shooters essentially cannibalizing each other in their pursuit of marketing dollars, it's not that unfair to ask, "what if we used the budgets of one of those games to make something markedly different."

Because it will sell even less? You think big publishers don't do market research?

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I disagree, I expect that diversity in hiring and charitable contributions will become seen as unnecessary as a result of Trump's actions, which in turn will result in said policies quite literally going away over the medium to long term.

I doubt it.

I'm fairly sure Watch Dogs 2 was a sales disappointment, and Mafia 3 shipped about twice as many copies as they sold.

Overwatch was a huge succes & Mafia 3 outsold 2K's expectations. They overshipped but had good sales results anyway.

 

[Mesoian]

No, the market will not stay the same, if sales are dropping as you say.

Seriously, you just said 6 first person shooters cannibalized each other this year. We don't need to ask any questions. The companies making those games will ask them on their own, in pursuit of less cannibalism in the future. We don't need to do anything, they will adapt or they will die.

Either the mass market is saying "GEARS OF WAR 5 PLEASE!" or they're not buying them as consistently and sales are falling. If sales remained good and AAA was booming and it was clear the market wasn't changing, then maybe there'd be cause to campaign for change.

Considering the FPS debacle of this year and the Toys to Life crash of last year, I totally think we're going to see a shift in the industry, especially if Activision has to rely on another sub par Call of Duty again for Q3 earnings. It'll be real interesting to see how EA reacts to another botched fall season where marketing pushes ended up sales.

Now that being said, do I believe they'll do something interesting like, say, give a game like Vampyr an Assassin's Creed style budget? No, because I don't think the powers that be in any of the big publishers are that imaginative and it will take a real, true crash for them to do anything but follow the status quo. But I also see that refusal to change to be a hindrance to the industry in general and it's going to be the thing that keeps us mired in Hero shooters for the next decade. It's where the whales are, the rest of the consumers be damned.

I agree with Leigh. I would like it to be different. It should be different. It won't be different. And we can't really rely on Japan to be that x-factor that forces us into doing different things every once in a while because that market is dramatically different from what any of us are currently engaged with.

Because it will sell even less? You think big publishers don't do market research?

I've seen that market research. It usually doesn't go far beyond "white man + gun = sales". Most of the truly interesting projects that have slid under my nose that have featured a woman or a person of color never make it to the market research phase.

 

[DocSeuss]

Considering the FPS debacle of this year and the Toys to Life crash of last year, I totally think we're going to see a shift in the industry, especially if Activision has to rely on another sub par Call of Duty again for Q3 earnings. It'll be real interesting to see how EA reacts to another botched fall season where marketing pushes ended up sales.

Now that being said, do I believe they'll do something interesting like, say, give a game like Vampyr an Assassin's Creed style budget? No, because I don't think the powers that be in any of the big publishers are that imaginative and it will take a real, true crash for them to do anything but follow the status quo. But I also see that refusal to change to be a hindrance to the industry in general and it's going to be the thing that keeps us mired in Hero shooters for the next decade. It's where the whales are, the rest of the consumers be damned.

I agree with Leigh. I would like it to be different. It should be different. It won't be different. And we can't really rely on Japan to be that x-factor that forces us into doing different things every once in a while because that market is dramatically different from what any of us are currently engaged with.

What is this "FPS Debacle of this year" you're talking about?

 

[T.Slothrop]

Middlebrow pundit misreads middle America and offers no meaningful answers to what is an intractable problem anyway.

The alt-right will meet their end when their promises fail to pan out and they find themselves lacking any plausible scapegoats, save the ones staring back at them in the mirror.

 

[UncleSporky]

But I also see that refusal to change to be a hindrance to the industry in general and it's going to be the thing that keeps us mired in Hero shooters for the next decade. It's where the whales are, the rest of the consumers be damned.

But you've been saying the exact opposite of that. It's not where the whales are anymore. Sales are falling. They can't afford to keep treading the same ground, and don't need us to point that out for them.

 

[Delusibeta]

Overwatch was a huge succes & Mafia 3 outsold 2K's expectations.

I'll give you Overwatch. Last I heard, all of 2K's expectations was based on how many copies they initially shipped, and all of the sale figures since suggest that they're nowhere near selling through their initial shipment. To be fair, Mafia 3 shipping four million copies is entirely 2k's fault and Hangar 13 is totally innocent, but I do think that mistake is going to hurt both companies in the future.

What is this "FPS Debacle of this year" you're talking about?

Titanfall 2 bombed. Which is a bit like arguing that a diverse cast is a bad idea because Watch Dogs 2 bombed.

 

[StereoVsn]

I agree, I absolutely want more stories told about non-white males, more variety can only be a good thing.

I don't always want it to be an "optional" thing, the games/stories need to be genuine, crafted around main characters that are diverse and interesting, this is often not fulfilled when they are stuck in the game as a sort of "solution" rather than a fully fleshed out main character.

But stories are coming left and right from not-white males now days. Dishonored 2 - one of the MCs is woman, Fifa 2017 - black male, Battlefield 1 - Black Male, Mafia 3 - black male, NBA 2KAnything - black male, and so on. It actually have gotten better a bit from diversity point of you.

Another thing I am not certain is that the author rails against tech firms and the media and those were overwhelmingly pro Clinton and generally are Democrat voters, in the Silicon Valley, NYC, LA, etc...

Edit: Mafia 3 went for like $20 this BF, so yeah, it did not perform to expectations, at least from retailer PoV.

 

[GeordieMark]

Overwatch was a huge succes & Mafia 3 outsold 2K's expectations. They overshipped but had good sales results anyway.

Both of these games are still games I'd consider male power fantasies though. Overwatch might have a diverse cast, but they are still aimed squarely at men. Just look at the outfits and character designs, but also the nature of the game is still about shooting and taking out enemies. Overwatch covers representation, but that's not really what Leigh is advocating

 

[Ordinaryundone]

What is this "FPS Debacle of this year" you're talking about?

I ASSUME what they mean is Battlefield 1, Titanfall 2, and Infinite Warfare releasing so close together. Which isn't really a debacle as B1 and CoD did good numbers as always. Titanfall 2 might underperform but so did the last one, thems the breaks when you want to run up against the wall that is a Battlefield/Call of Duty co-year. It's still a good game and will likely keep it's legs longer than the first.

Otherwise it's been a fantastic year for FPS, probably one of the best in a long time.

 

[firehawk12]

What is this "FPS Debacle of this year" you're talking about?

Three big games releasing in subsequent weeks, destroying each other and Titanfall in particular.

It's strange how games are bullish on technology but really scared about taking chances on the IP. So now we have 4K consoles and VR headsets, but for the most part, we're still shooting people in the head using this new technology.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Yeah I feel like her premise is extremely false in 2016. Go on Steam. Top selling PC games are strategy games that don't even have main characters and games like that Theme Park Manager game. Judging all of gaming by what goes on in AAA consoles - a market that is rapidly dying - is extremely flawed.

 

[Acerac]

There are alternatives. Quite a lot of them too. Her premise is false.

In the AAA scene? Dunno, I think she is pretty spot in.

She is not talking about indie games.

Yeah I feel like her premise is extremely false in 2016. Go on Steam. Top selling PC games are strategy games that don't even have main characters and games like that Theme Park Manager game. Judging all of gaming by what goes on in AAA consoles - a market that is rapidly dying - is extremely flawed.

A market that is dying? Mind elaborating? o_o

 

[Remembrance]

Now that being said, do I believe they'll do something interesting like, say, give a game like Vampyr an Assassin's Creed style budget? No, because I don't think the powers that be in any of the big publishers are that imaginative and it will take a real, true crash for them to do anything but follow the status quo.

Of course it will take a crash.

If the company fails, you're a hero if you manage to fix it and no one blames you if you don't. If you try to fix the problem before everyone else sees it coming, you get less praise if you succeed and all the blame if you don't.

 

[Mesoian]

I ASSUME what they mean is Battlefield 1, Titanfall 2, and Infinite Warfare releasing so close together. Which isn't really a debacle as B1 and CoD did good numbers as always. Titanfall 2 might underperform but so did the last one, thems the breaks when you want to run up against the wall that is a Battlefield/Call of Duty co-year. It's still a good game and will likely keep it's legs longer than the first.

Otherwise it's been a fantastic year for FPS, probably one of the best in a long time.

It's this, and the fact that it was done because those NFL dollars needed to be spent early and quickly and nothing else matters. It's publisher stuff getting in the way what are, otherwise, decent games because of their inability to understand or gauge the market. And this is hot off the heels of EA shoving battlefront out the door in order to quickly cash in on some effortless star wars money which nearly sabotaged that entire project. I hate that so much of the industry hinges on the whims of big publishers (no necessarily all publishers, Bethesda amazingly managed to find a very nice spot for Doom), but it does.

But we're straying. And I think we should demand more from our games. I guess most people just don't really care that much though.

Of course it will take a crash.

If the company fails, you're a hero if you manage to fix it and no one blames you if you don't. If you try to fix the problem before everyone else sees it coming, you get less praise if you succeed and all the blame if you don't.

Script sitting is a weird concept to me. I get it, but it's weird.

 

[SneakersSO]

One of the biggest games of 2016 has what is arguably the most diverse main cast in a video game ever.

The market is there, they just have to pay attention to it.

Except is this game (Overwatch) as big as it is due to its diversity, or is its success driven by both its developer & how great the gameplay is? I am inclined to say thats its the latter, not the former. Games don't do well just because they may have or feature diversity in some big, significant way. Having said that, its great that Overwatch embraced diversity from the get-go, but even still, diversity isn't necessarily uncommon in 'champion' driven games. LoL, Dota 2, Gigantic, Smite all feature a diverse cast of characters as well, and all of these games are fairly successful (with the exception of Gigantic, since it isn't out yet.)

Again, I argue that in all these cases, gameplay is what is driving the success for the games I have listed. There are several notable games that have also done way fewer in terms of sales than their predecessors, and each of these games were games who were lauded for their diversity (Watch_Dogs 2, Dishonored 2, RoTR PS4, Mirror's Edge Catalyst), each struggling in the sales department.

Personally, I don't think the larger gaming audience 'cares' about diversity; they just care about great games that they can play. On my end, developers who tout diversity & identity politics in front of their games as some sort of rallying cry really turn me off, to the point where I tend to just ignore those games entirely.

 

[Antialias]

Can someone give an example of a female fantasy that is not being delivered by games today? A power fantasy or any other kind. Because nothing is offered in the article.

Creators take note: We don’t need to make yet more realms where the power fantasies of these male consumers are everything. We need more means for the rest of us to escape the one they’ve already made for us.

Tell us what you want and we can make a game around it. Or do it yourself.

 

[DocSeuss]

In the AAA scene? Dunno, I think she is pretty spot in.

She is not talking about indie games.


A market that is dying? Mind elaborating? o_o

The AAA scene is the blockbuster scene. It's like being mad that tentpole releases are all Superheroes and Action films, but taking it a step further and just straight-up ignoring all the films that aren't that simply because they don't make as much money.

GTA and COD are gonna make more money than Stardew Valley and Anno 2205. Saying, year after year, over and over again, that games need to change so they stop appealing to brutish neanderthals isn't going to do anything. It's just bitching about what's popular.

It's literally the dumbest premise you can come up with. She's like a music critic who does nothing but complain about Kanye's popularity and is upset that Tibetan Throat Singing isn't more popular.

Tell us what you want and we can make a game around it. Or do it yourself.

Her career is literally built on this kind of empty criticism. Just "we want more/games can do more" without offering any kind of tangibles. Super easy to like and share, completely impossible to take action on, which is why she's so useless as a critic.

 

[dramatis]

Here's a related question - JRPGs (and RPGs in general, but especially JRPGs) tend to have a very even male/female audience split, despite being literal power fantasies (the focus of gameplay is to increase your stats to defeat harder enemies). Why is it that the power fantasy presented in JRPGs appeal to both genders in ways that the power fantasy in other genres do not?

I think the power fantasy presented in JRPGs have been getting worse for females, due to the home market having its troubles and therefore JRPGs being retooled to appeal to otaku males.

If you ask me why JRPGs are more appealing, it has less to do with the story content (which has been terrible in recent years) and more to do with 'pace and style'. The nature of RPGs being 'steady work' translating to 'more skill' within the universe of 'grind levels to become powerful'. It's not aggressive and it's not competitive. You are rewarded no matter what happens—and if you lose it's easy to do over.

Simon Parkin wrote this in a long piece that was sort of about FF7 but also broadly about RPGs:

"I mean, deep down they function how we want the real world to function, right? There's a set of rules and, if I follow them and do the right things in the right order, success is kind of guaranteed. That's true of all videogames, but in JRPGs there's the story too. They have a set trajectory that leads me out of the bastard confusion of adolescence towards an endgame of maturity and identity and, er, status I guess. And all you need to do to experience that is follow the breadcrumb trail and keep turning the cogs..."

"You're mixing your metaphors," she says, smiling. "You definitely play too many of these things. The bad writing's rubbing off on you."

It's my turn to ignore her. "Because, while the battles may be random, the war's outcome is always predestined," I continue. "You're predestined to succeed. Just so long as you keep going. And jeez, that may be escapism or a gross oversimplification of the reality we live in, but isn't that sense of... of justice the yearning of every human being? Are not JRPGs maps of perfect worlds where everything behaves how you expect it to."

The problem if we think about it even more broadly from the perspective of say Leigh Alexander, women, and minorities, even those escapist worlds where "things behave how you expect it to" are tailored to white male power fantasies.

 

[firehawk12]

The AAA scene is the blockbuster scene. It's like being mad that tentpole releases are all Superheroes and Action films, but taking it a step further and just straight-up ignoring all the films that aren't that simply because they don't make as much money.

GTA and COD are gonna make more money than Stardew Valley and Anno 2205. Saying, year after year, over and over again, that games need to change so they stop appealing to brutish neanderthals isn't going to do anything. It's just bitching about what's popular.

It's literally the dumbest premise you can come up with. She's like a music critic who does nothing but complain about Kanye's popularity and is upset that Tibetan Throat Singing isn't more popular.

To be fair, movie studios are more than willing to spend mid-range budgets on romcoms featuring big female celebrities. Hell, whatever you think about the new Ghostbusters, that was a studio taking a risk on a female led comedy. This is something that just doesn't really happen in games, since "AA" mid-budget games don't exist anymore.

 

[DocSeuss]

To be fair, movie studios are more than willing to spend mid-range budgets on romcoms featuring big female celebrities. Hell, whatever you think about the new Ghostbusters, that was a studio taking a risk on a female led comedy. This is something that just doesn't really happen in games, since "AA" mid-budget games don't exist anymore.

This is a more interesting premise than the article already. It's also something we can write actionable things about, instead of just saying "things should change."

But, hey, if we look at demographics, we see that most of the games that women are buying/playing aren't like traditional AAA games at all. These games are doing quite well (point and click adventure games, facebook games, etc). But, like, you're not going to make a GTA game that somehow offers a 'different kind of power fantasy,' right? Like, that's just not going to happen. People, worldwide, like playing those games because they like blowing things up. This assumption that this kind of gameplay is somehow A) bad for some reason, or B) can be changed to appeal to more kinds of people is misguided at best. Going with the dumb Kanye/Tibetan Throat Singing metaphor, it's like going "Kanye's popular, he can do a different kind of music and still be popular, and it would bring more people in." It's a ludicrous proposition.

 

[Tain]

This seems like yet another case of gaming discussion tripping over itself due to how it decided to define and abuse the "AAA" label over all these years.

 

[Hari Seldon]

A market that is dying? Mind elaborating? o_o

How many AAA story driven single player console games come out these days? This market is dead compared to 5 years ago lol. "The Masses" buy consoles for long tail multiplayer games that have nothing to do with power fantasies and everything to do with loot hording (Destiny) and/or multiplayer gameplay (BF, COD).

 

[PSqueak]

There are alternatives. Quite a lot of them too. Her premise is false.

There are alternatives? Yes there are.

Doesn't mean her premise is false, because such alternatives are not what still is sold as the standard videogame experience and instead are seen as the odd alternatives people have to go out of their way to find.

Gaming is still equalized to male power fantasies like Uncharted, gears of war, call of duty, assassin's creed, Souls games (yes these are power fantasies too, the difficulty just strokes the gamer ego tenfold) and so on. AAA games nowadays are power fantasies and nothing more

It became tiresome ages ago, the change of focus is due. This is why i want AAA games to crash.

 

[DocSeuss]

There are alternatives? Yes there are.

Doesn't mean her premise is false, because such alternatives are not what still is sold as the standard videogame experience and instead are seen as the odd alternatives people have to go out of their way to find.

Gaming is still equalized to male power fantasies like Uncharted, gears of war, call of duty, assassin's creed, Souls games (yes these are power fantasies too, the difficulty just strokes the gamer ego tenfold) and so on. AAA games nowadays are power fantasies and nothing more

It became tiresome ages ago, the change of focus is due. This is why i want AAA games to crash.

It's not a marketing thing. You can't go changing the marketing for, say, Cities: Skylines and suddenly it hits GTA numbers. This isn't about normalizing male desires or whatever.

AAA games are unlikely to crash. We're more likely to see the return of AA.

How many AAA story driven single player console games come out these days? This market is dead compared to 5 years ago lol. "The Masses" buy consoles for long tail multiplayer games that have nothing to do with power fantasies and everything to do with loot hording (Destiny) and/or multiplayer gameplay (BF, COD).

It's weird to me to see people acting like the market is dead because there's less of it. The market's thriving--there's more money in it than ever before--but it's being consolidated. Don't confuse consolidation with death.

 

[patapuf]

To be fair, movie studios are more than willing to spend mid-range budgets on romcoms featuring big female celebrities. Hell, whatever you think about the new Ghostbusters, that was a studio taking a risk on a female led comedy. This is something that just doesn't really happen in games, since "AA" mid-budget games don't exist anymore.

Nah, we get them. It just seems that when this type of criticism pops up people completely forget about them.

AA budgets are definetly spent on games that are "different" and not "male power fantasies"

We just got Mirrors Edge this year, for example.

There are alternatives? Yes there are.

Doesn't mean her premise is false, because such alternatives are not what still is sold as the standard videogame experience and instead are seen as the odd alternatives people have to go out of their way to find.

Gaming is still equalized to male power fantasies like Uncharted, gears of war, call of duty, assassin's creed, Souls games (yes these are power fantasies too, the difficulty just strokes the gamer ego tenfold) and so on. AAA games nowadays are power fantasies and nothing more

It became tiresome ages ago, the change of focus is due. This is why i want AAA games to crash.

"power fantasies" or "wish fullfilment" is what drives all mainstream media, regardless of who it's targeted at.

and Mario, Minecraft and Pokemon are just as much the face of gaming as COD and other shooters. If not more so.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

This is not a very good article. It doesn't say much beyond the second to last paragraph, and it doesn't make a compelling argument for that beyond "it should happen."

The thesis statement precedes that:

To pretend there has never been any connection between the tech consumers of two years ago, raging on the internet about too many women and people of color in their expensive toylands, and the great upheaval we face in America right now would just be delusional. These people’s fears, their power fantasies, are now steering the world.

Effectively those who rejected a broadening of possibilities to cover women, people of color and the poor are literally running the United states roughly six weeks from now. True, she does not have a concrete proposal for how to turn the status quo around, where those with an abundance of money and means are not catering to the needs of the marginalized, but that's not a requirement for a piece about how everything got out of control in the first place. Too many hand-waved away as transient or fringe or easily ignored the threat of toxic, hard-right and high volume hatred stemming from entrenched and insular communities that always, always always got their way in the past and now those who can't stand any change have powerful leadership in America to twist things back to the bad old days. The promise that our technological elite have everyone's best interests in mind did not pay off for non-whites and women. The election is the capstone on that idea, and the failure of faith in technology as a progressive force for democratization.

 

[AuthenticM]

thanks for sharing

 

[Bergerac]

'Despite that reasonable belief, the industry model whereby wealthy white men peddle power fantasies that throttle everyone else’s needs out of consideration remains alive and well.'

The constant unironical prejudice and generalisation of statements such as these, is the exact reason why I can't take these arguments seriously.

Targeting sexists and racists? So target sexists and racists.

Attacking 'white men', it's fairly evident you are what you hate.

 

[Hexa]

It's not a marketing thing. You can't go changing the marketing for, say, Cities: Skylines and suddenly it hits GTA numbers. This isn't about normalizing male desires or whatever.

AAA games are unlikely to crash. We're more likely to see the return of AA.

I would also like to add that I don't see how taking games like Cities or Life is Strange and giving them the budget of CoD would make them better games. The standard AAA game designs lend themselves well to improving when given higher budgets, and even those are getting too high some would argue.

 

[phansen]

I'm completely supporting here general cause but i've never understood the whole "power fantasy"-discussion. I've never ever thought or felt about games as power fantasies, find the negative connotation very uncomfortable.

 

[patapuf]

.

 

[AColdDay]

I totally agree with her, but I don't know how you convince the people who write the checks to shift towards something else when the power fantasies sell to the biggest audience.

I'm not saying something couldn't be different and be a big success, but in an industry that is adverse to risk it is a really hard sell. The only way that is going to change (that I can think of) is to have people with diverse viewpoints be in key leadership roles to change it from the inside.

 

[SystemUser]

I mean, even Splatoon is a game about defeating others and conquering opponents via exerting your will through violence. It's just very cute about it. It's hard to seperate video games from adversity or aggressive competition because they form the foundation of the entire concept of "game" for a lot of people. Unless your idea of a perfect game is Tetris or a crossword puzzle or something.

You can do adversity and aggressive competition without violence. I mean look at baseball. Unless you consider hitting a ball with a bat as violence or if you somehow consider an out as a symbolic kill or something like that. Violence is just the go to action type for video games. If you look at sports and older simple board games there are plenty that have adversity and/or aggressive competition.


For a little while Super Mario made platforming a top tier mechanic, but now it is rarely the main mechanic in AAA games. Even in the Super Mario games you usually need to violently defeat enemies. You could even make an FPS that didn't feature violence. You could have a game where it is about capturing territory. Aiming/shooting skill could still be rewarded, but you compete by being better at interacting with the environment than the other team. I can envision a game that is a mixture between Splatoon and Ingress, but with no violent mechanic. You could definitely make a compelling shooter with this setup. It would be like a realtime Tic Tac Toe game where you claim territory by using various tools. The maps could be setup to allow for the tools to be useful for different parts, but open to player to decide which is best.


I am not saying that games should not be violent, but not all games have to revolve around violence. (I know that currently not all games revolve around violence.) Beyond simulations (sports and other) and puzzles there is no proven market for competitive games that are not violence based. That does not mean that there is not the possibility to create a market for competitive action games that are not based on violence. New markets are created/found all the time. There could be players that like abstract action games.

 

[Brashnir]

I would also like to add that I don't see how taking games like Cities or Life is Strange and giving them the budget of CoD would make them better games. The standard AAA game designs lend themselves well to improving when given higher budgets, and even those are getting too high some would argue.

Hell, I might even argue that in a lot of cases a bigger budget would be more likely to make a lot of the games I like worse, rather than better. Primarily due to the lowest-common-denominator type of stuff that needs to be catered to with a massive budget.

 

[firehawk12]

This is a more interesting premise than the article already. It's also something we can write actionable things about, instead of just saying "things should change."

But, hey, if we look at demographics, we see that most of the games that women are buying/playing aren't like traditional AAA games at all. These games are doing quite well (point and click adventure games, facebook games, etc). But, like, you're not going to make a GTA game that somehow offers a 'different kind of power fantasy,' right? Like, that's just not going to happen. People, worldwide, like playing those games because they like blowing things up. This assumption that this kind of gameplay is somehow A) bad for some reason, or B) can be changed to appeal to more kinds of people is misguided at best. Going with the dumb Kanye/Tibetan Throat Singing metaphor, it's like going "Kanye's popular, he can do a different kind of music and still be popular, and it would bring more people in." It's a ludicrous proposition.

For me, this goes to the fundamental problem with AAA games where all developers design interactions based on one simple verb: to kill. And this is reflected in all aspects of games, where controllers basically have gun triggers on them to better simulate the action of shooting a gun. So we're always going to be stuck in this mode of making games because a) it's what we're used to and b) we just assume that no one wants to play games where the primary verb isn't killing.

(The big exception, of course, is sports games but that's clearly fulfilling a different type of male power fantasy)

Once in a while there is someone who tries - lately it's Sony making the most effort, with Until Dawn and David Cage's games, where the interactions are a bit different (whatever you think about Cage, he tries to make interactive love stories which is more than can be said for the awkward bits of a BioWare game where you are just choosing a "waifu") - the burden has been placed on smaller games like Life is Strange or various other VNs/adventure game type experiences like Cybele.

But imagine if someone tried to make a 20 million dollar, 100 person dev team, adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. You play as Elizabeth Bennet and your mission is to try to find a way to end up with Mr. Darcy.

The last big film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice cost 20 million, starred Keira Knightley, and made 120 million at the box office - so clearly the story and the idea is a money maker. But can you actually see game devs trying to tackle the same subject? To take a risk on a mid-budget Jane Austen adaptation that put you in the head of a young English woman dealing with her emotions as she deals with various romantic entanglements around her?

I don't think anyone working at any of the big companies have even considered such an endeavor, let alone are capable of doing it in an interesting way that involves more than crappy dialog choices and QTEs.

How many AAA story driven single player console games come out these days? This market is dead compared to 5 years ago lol. "The Masses" buy consoles for long tail multiplayer games that have nothing to do with power fantasies and everything to do with loot hording (Destiny) and/or multiplayer gameplay (BF, COD).

That said, who would have expected Titanfall 2 to have one of the best FPS campaigns in recent memory?
Funny, on the flip side BF1 included a campaign with a female protagonist but that whole mode felt so ill-conceived that it was quickly written off entirely.

Nah, we get them. It just seems that when this type of criticism pops up people completely forget about them.

AA budgets are definetly spent on games that are "different" and not "male power fantasies"

We just got Mirrors Edge this year, for example.

"power fantasies" or "wish fullfilment" is what drives all mainstream media, regardless of who it's targeted at.

and Mario, Minecraft and Pokemon are just as much the face of gaming as COD and other shooters. If not more so.

Oh god, I forgot that Mirrors Edge came out this year. I still remember how, for whatever reason, they felt the need to include combat in the first game though.