Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Did a search, didn't find this.
Sean Malstrom lays the wisdom down again:
http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2...ck-obsession-of-culture-in-the-game-industry/
SPOILER ALERT:
He concludes that game culture never existed in the first place after firing a full-scale broadside at "hardcore" gamers and game journalists. Also he rambles on for a few pages about how, I think, the word "culture" itself does not really exist or something and free market commerce is the soul of humanity. Or something like that.
He does open this can of worms:
"The purpose of games, just like all entertainment, is to please the customers. This is why games with high sales are the best since it shows these games are pleasing the most people."
Once again, it is this old chestnut. It must be simple and convincing logic from the marketer's point of view where the only concern is to shove Product (TM) out the door* but it seems like a pure dodge at answering the question, "what is quality?" For example, is a poorly made, generic, un-fun game that sells decently because it's a movie tie-in or part of a popular franchise superior to a well-made game that sells poorly because it had bad marketing or was released at a bad time?
Malstrom loves to argue at extreme length about how the "casual gamer" is a myth that hardcore / enthusiast gamers perpetuate to feel better about themselves. That doesn't account for so-called "casual" audiences having the potential to be more guilible and less knowledgeable /even purely as consumers/ when it comes to the game market. I think Malstrom would cite a game like GTA IV as being a classical example of 'diseased' hardcore game mentality, but in every instance I've seen the backbone of GTA's popularity rests on the mass market; not the "core audience". Somehow, I think he would not admit GTA IV was any good, therefore, by his own definitions.
Edit: *yes I realize this bit makes it sound as if I am commerce-phobic and attempting to separate "real" gaming from mere commerce in precisely the way Malstrom waxes long about, but actually, I refer to /bad/, cheap, soulless, or thoughtlessly crafted product here. Game companies have to make money; big whoops, that doesn't bother me.
Sean Malstrom lays the wisdom down again:
http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2...ck-obsession-of-culture-in-the-game-industry/
SPOILER ALERT:
He concludes that game culture never existed in the first place after firing a full-scale broadside at "hardcore" gamers and game journalists. Also he rambles on for a few pages about how, I think, the word "culture" itself does not really exist or something and free market commerce is the soul of humanity. Or something like that.
He does open this can of worms:
"The purpose of games, just like all entertainment, is to please the customers. This is why games with high sales are the best since it shows these games are pleasing the most people."
Once again, it is this old chestnut. It must be simple and convincing logic from the marketer's point of view where the only concern is to shove Product (TM) out the door* but it seems like a pure dodge at answering the question, "what is quality?" For example, is a poorly made, generic, un-fun game that sells decently because it's a movie tie-in or part of a popular franchise superior to a well-made game that sells poorly because it had bad marketing or was released at a bad time?
Malstrom loves to argue at extreme length about how the "casual gamer" is a myth that hardcore / enthusiast gamers perpetuate to feel better about themselves. That doesn't account for so-called "casual" audiences having the potential to be more guilible and less knowledgeable /even purely as consumers/ when it comes to the game market. I think Malstrom would cite a game like GTA IV as being a classical example of 'diseased' hardcore game mentality, but in every instance I've seen the backbone of GTA's popularity rests on the mass market; not the "core audience". Somehow, I think he would not admit GTA IV was any good, therefore, by his own definitions.
Edit: *yes I realize this bit makes it sound as if I am commerce-phobic and attempting to separate "real" gaming from mere commerce in precisely the way Malstrom waxes long about, but actually, I refer to /bad/, cheap, soulless, or thoughtlessly crafted product here. Game companies have to make money; big whoops, that doesn't bother me.
)
