Why video games bore some people.

November 7, 2016 6:17 AM

"my friends want not to be repulsed, to recognize their own tastes, and to find depth." In a reflection/manifesto Brie Code explores non-game-playing audiences and how to design games for them.

"[A]sking my friends what they don't like about video games is half the question. Asking my friends what they don't like about life, and how a video game could help them with that, is the second and more important half."

posted by doctornemo (130 comments total)

I wish they bored me a bit more.
posted by Segundus at 6:34 AM on November 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

It is good to see an article which reflects on the myopic nature of the video game industry. Lines like this, though:

gaming is perhaps the most powerful medium for learning and for growing and changing as a person

tell me that the author is still too hopped up on the Kool-Aid to come to a meaningful, unbiased conclusion.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:34 AM on November 7, 2016 [51 favorites]

This is a very thoughtful piece but it also feels very strange in a way. The writer has been working in AAA, big-budget development and seems to be addressing that almost exclusively, but doesn't speak about the wider world of games. On the PC in particular, this kind of corporate production and the myopic games it produces feels like an increasingly small and less viable part of the overall whole. Smaller and less viable entities tend to cling to their most reliable audiences, as we see in politics, or tend to try to make their products as generic and anodyne as possible, as we see in film. It will take smaller, more agile risk-takers to open people's minds to the possibilities unexplored in games, and that's exactly what's happening right now.

I think in our media saturated world it's also worth saying... if you just don't like this kind of stimulus, then you should be able to say that. My mother is never going to play a video game, and I don't think her life has suffered as a result. Your art is just not going to be what some people want.

Now, on the subject of Lydia... my personal Lydia died in the bottom of a crypt, the victim of a Deathlord that I myself barely escaped. I could have reloaded, but it felt right somehow. And then of course my next playthrough was stealth and who needs clumsy Nords when you are sneaksing, oh yes.. sneaksing.
posted by selfnoise at 6:35 AM on November 7, 2016 [15 favorites]

"Perhaps" does a lot of work in that sentence.

I've always found video games boring, even the fancy ones whose art and storylines I admire. It's not because video games are bad; it's because I really prefer to absorb information and narrative by reading a substantial amount of text fairly fast. I rarely watch video tutorials, news video or television because I find them slow and boring, and even when I read graphic novels, I usually read for text first and then return to the art.

I would like to think that, like, reading novels and writing stuff has enabled me to grow as a person as much as playing video games would have, but the world may never know.
posted by Frowner at 6:40 AM on November 7, 2016 [34 favorites]

it's because I really prefer to absorb information and narrative by reading a substantial amount of text fairly fast.

I enjoy games immensely but I have no use for them as communicators of narrative. I enjoy exploring spaces and I enjoy the feedback of good mechanics, but I really think games are terrible at telling linear stories and I think they should stop trying so hard.

I would say that games have taught me a lot about problem solving and a lot about what I like about the world, but haven't taught me any of the things that books have.
posted by selfnoise at 6:45 AM on November 7, 2016 [14 favorites]

What I was trying to say is not "video games are boring" but "different people prefer to absorb information differently; video games do a lot, but not everything, and that's okay".
posted by Frowner at 6:46 AM on November 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

I don't like games much, other than Tetris and Solitaire and of all things,Pocket Frogs. I really prefer watching animals online, and photographing them. More challenging and fun than any game.
I think many games do have wonderful graphics, but I'm just not interested. I can appreciate the art, but my real life gets busy from time to time and I don't have the interest. Frankly I'd rather sleep.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 6:51 AM on November 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

As for board games and cards, I find them horrifically boring.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 6:52 AM on November 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Man, talk about the gamer agenda....
posted by Samizdata at 6:53 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I suddenly feel much more justified in my sadness at how the Katamari Damacy series petered out.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:53 AM on November 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

There are text-based games that are just... text. It's just they aren't video games except in the sense of being displayed on a computer monitor which probably uses, like, a video card or something. And narrative doesn't have to be linear.

But also, humans only live for so long and only have so many hours in a day; not everyone has to like every medium or genre, regardless of its potential.

In any case the post seems to be mostly a sort of manifesto for the author's own game studio, which is fine, but the title and subtitle are hyperbolic and mistake their own scope.
posted by inconstant at 6:56 AM on November 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

There are text-based games that are just... text. It's just they aren't video games except in the sense of being displayed on a computer monitor which probably uses, like, a video card or something. And narrative doesn't have to be linear.

Interactive Fiction is a genre that goes back to the earliest video games. The idea that Adventure, or Zork, or any of the hundreds of games from that genre aren't video games... well, that's a very modern idea.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:00 AM on November 7, 2016 [27 favorites]

As a fan of IF myself, they're indisputably computer games, but the point is that there is no actual video (except perhaps in the newfangled web-based stuff that uses graphics and sound)
posted by inconstant at 7:02 AM on November 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Honestly, the whole "what's a [video] game, what's not a [video] game" category of controversies is just so tiresome to me because the underlying assumption is that some question of worth is tied up in whether something is or isn't a (video?) game. It's not. Nothing is made more valuable or less valuable by its status as a (video?) game-or-not.

The author of the article, of course, makes the same assumption, though in the guise of "relevance".
posted by inconstant at 7:08 AM on November 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

I love a lot of old computer games and arcade games that are quick to pick up and don't take that long. Long live quarter-eaters. I used to really enjoy old-style adventure games, both text and graphic, and I played a lot of Civ I and II, but I don't have time for them anymore. I find that the learning curve for most modern games is too long and boring, I find 1st person shooters boring, and anything that involves collecting and crafting or grinding to be dull beyond belief.

Zork and other text-only games are video games. They are games displayed on a video screen with a computer. Get off my lawn, whippersnapper.
posted by fimbulvetr at 7:15 AM on November 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

I will clarify - I don't like interactive fiction! I read fiction that I interact with only through thinking about a fixed amount of words on the page! I don't like uncertainty or choices! I don't want there to be a narrative throughline where Little Nell lives, or Bao Yu marries Lin Daiyu instead of Xue Bao-Chai! That's what fanfic is for, you guys.

It's a personality thing, IMO, not an artistic merit thing, which is why I find some of the "what can we do so that everyone understands how great video games are" sort of weird.

Amusingly, one of the best SF stories I have ever read is about a...well, not really a videogame, but something that you interact with in ways that you might a very sophisticated game, and it's a short story that I think is kind of about video games and their potential - Applied Cenotaphics In The Long, Long Latitudes. I also enjoy reading about television.
posted by Frowner at 7:16 AM on November 7, 2016 [14 favorites]

Also, too many damn buttons on modern controllers. I can't figure the things out.

Now, if you don't mind, I have an onion I need to tie on my belt and some clouds to yell at.
posted by fimbulvetr at 7:20 AM on November 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

So, the idea that games are too freakin' complicated just barely touched on a throwaway line

I grew up with Atari 2600 clones, and later, a Mega Drive. The modern control paradigm (two analogue joysticks, four face buttons plus two, two shoulder pads and two triggers) does not scare me, but sometimes, I had/have to play games on easier settings because there's so many different controls to remember (and they might be hidden away in a sub-page in the options instead of printed manual), plenty of them absolutely vital to beat the game at the harder settings. I remember my father being decent (for someone who played once in a while taking turns) on games like Pele's Soccer, Enduro or River Raid. I don't think he ever tried a Mega Drive game, because the controls were more complicated (in reality, two more buttons and a d-pad instead of joystick). Push 20 years ahead, and you have stuff like pressure-sensitive buttons, dual analogue joysticks, triggers, touch pads, motion-sensitive controls and whatever.

There was a reason SimFarm is just a sidenote on Maxis' glorious history, and FarmVille at a time brought millions of users to Facebook.
posted by lmfsilva at 7:20 AM on November 7, 2016

Interactive Fiction is a genre that goes back to the earliest video games. The idea that Adventure, or Zork, or any of the hundreds of games from that genre aren't video games... well, that's a very modern idea.

Goddamn right-- A misapprehension. Don't fuck with my InfoCom. You'll get schooled.
Games suffer the same bloat of OSs and I marvel at the cinematic intersection as much as anyone, but some people forget text is a technology in and of itself. Words are spelled and the etymologies are magic: noble accents/And lucid, inescapable rhythms;

Generally, the web runs cycles of ignoring and discovering its value.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 7:22 AM on November 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

@Frowner: Oh, I loved that short story. If we want to make the connection, you could imagine it was in a sister-universe to Galatea -- that sort of interactive exhibit modeled on a single person.

RE: IF as "video" game: it was one throwaway sentence. "Litigating"?
posted by inconstant at 7:23 AM on November 7, 2016

Meanwhile, our lives have changed radically compared to our parents' lives. As we adapt to new technologies, our lives are becoming increasingly fragmented, multifaceted, interactive. Linear novels and films are less relevant now for reflecting our realities. What forms of art and entertainment are most relevant now? Collage? Memoir? No, it should be video games. Interactive entertainment. Yet, many people don't like video games.

I don't disagree that our lives are becoming, in some ways, more fragmented and multifaceted than they were for previous generations, but I'm not sure why this so often leads game advocates to dismiss novels and film as increasingly irrelevant in the current era. Our parents and their parents and those beyond still led incredibly fragmented, multifaceted, interactive lives. As predictable as it is to pull out Ulysses here, you can read stories from a century ago that communicate the rich, interactive intensity of the average person's reality. Life was pretty complex four generations ago, but novels still told a better story than a pack of cards.

The aim of storytelling has always been to thread coherent narratives out of our chaotic existence. The very reason computer games so rarely achieve the narrative quality of even mediocre films is because it's so hard to hold that narrative thread while letting the audience play with it.
posted by distorte at 7:37 AM on November 7, 2016 [14 favorites]

"The very reason computer games so rarely achieve the narrative quality of even mediocre films is because it's so hard to hold that narrative thread while letting the audience play with it."

That can definitely be the case, but video games can offer a sense of place and embodiment in that place that can be difficult to do in film. This is especially true for virtual reality interactions in a complex, dense environment.

I'm not sure that I agree that video games are the perfect form of art for the current generation just because they're widely available. Was film the perfect form of art for the people who grew up in the 1910s?
posted by demiurge at 7:44 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Many people still seem to like linear novels and film, too - I know very few people who feel that regular old movies fail to speak to them because the movies are, like, linear. They were trotting out all this "non linear film reflects the now" stuff in the sixties and the eighties (see Frederick Jameson's ideas on post-modernity)...and yet people still went for linear film far more than for non-linear experimental film.

I think people have to box a bit clever with all this "we experience life as fragmented, ergo collage is best" line of thinking. We experience life in more venues and can express more identities, yes, that's a real thing. But we still experience our own lives as linear movement through time. I don't experience my various online and real identities as times out of time, or existing simultaneously in time or anything - I'm quite clear that I experience them sequentially. When we say that we have multiple identities "existing simultaneously", we don't mean some kind of SFnal "existing simultaneously in time" , we mean that we think of them as not canceling each other out.
posted by Frowner at 7:46 AM on November 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

That is, I think video games are much more of a "yes, and" than a "now, video games not novels". Video games are a new kind of experience that adds to our artistic and intellectual options rather than replacing things.
posted by Frowner at 7:47 AM on November 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

I'm actually playing a game right now with a very compelling narrative thread- Diaries of a Spaceport Janitor. I picked it up because it seemed like in interesting premise, and the visual look appealed to me. However, it turned out to be a much deeper experience than I expected. Without getting into too much detail, the game could basically be re-titled At-risk Person in a Foreign Country with a Mental Illness Simulator.

It is also very interesting from a visual perspective: old-school looking graphics with big pixels, and a 3-D setting but with very flat-looking characters and details. I'm finding the look to be very appealing in an unexpected way.

That being said, I'm finding it very difficult to play. The mechanics aren't in any way complicated, but it reminds me too much of a time in my own life when things were going pretty rough for me. I think I can appreciate that this is one of the challenging aspects of this game (which I would also call a piece of art), but it is also becoming something I don't exactly want to sit down and play after a stressful day at work.

On the other hand, I wouldn't call the Mass Effect games high art, even if they look amazing and are a lot of fun, but they are great when I just want to chill out and play something on a relatively easy difficulty level. I can't wait for Andromeda.

I'm not sure what my point is, other than games can be different things to different people, and they can be art, but not necessarily so, and a lot of it depends on the perspective of the player.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:58 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't want there to be a narrative throughline where Little Nell lives, or Bao Yu marries Lin Daiyu instead of Xue Bao-Chai! That's what fanfic is for, you guys.

For what it's worth, we are clearly in the middle of a golden age of games that are broadly linear in narrative progress while rewarding exploration and just generally being interesting and frequently beautiful. They're somewhat pejoratively called "walking simulators", but if I may recommend Firewatch, Kentucky Route Zero, The Stanley Parable, Gone Home, Lifeless Planet and Homesick all fit this bill to varying degrees, and I've enjoyed all of them quite a bit.
posted by mhoye at 7:59 AM on November 7, 2016 [19 favorites]

Honest to god, I just can't cram anymore goddamn hobbies/entertainment/tasks into my day, people. I have to sleep and leave the house now and then.

Games of any kind are only something I enjoy in very specific circumstances (right people, right amount of booze) and those only occur a couple of times a year.

And that's ok. Please just leave us nongamers alone. WE'RE FINE.
posted by emjaybee at 8:16 AM on November 7, 2016 [21 favorites]

Without video games, how would I have learned about the astounding number of 14 year olds who have had sex with my mother?
posted by Sangermaine at 8:18 AM on November 7, 2016 [21 favorites]

"all I ever wanted to know is how other people are making it through life."

There are almost no games for which this is the central concern. The Sims, perhaps, but there's very little there there. If you want people, game characters, to surprise and connect to you, the Sims is a pretty shallow experience. Even scripted simulation can't really give a lot of depth to emotional experience yet.

Text games are indeed one way that some moderately deep character studies have been produced, but they tend to be fairly obscure and look really old-fashioned. Besides, as Graham Nelson puts it, interactive fictions tends to be "a narrative at war with a crossword". Adventure games (Myst etc...) and to a lesser extent RPGs are richer visually, but frequently more limited than text games as it's much harder to deal with "combinatorial explosion" in a game that needs art for each asset than a simple text description. So, while similar, text-only games tend to be deeper.

In both cases though, game mechanical parts often dominate the experience rather than the fiction. "Guess the word" or "guess the object" or "where to I go next?" sorts of blocks/puzzles become impediments to a really rich experience by constantly jerking one out of immersion. Ultimately, many abandon IF and "adventure games" out of frustration because the game part is unforgiving or too poorly written to make sense to the audience.

There are some answers, but I don't think anyone really has a great idea about how to make a interactive art (written or visual) that's really satisfying yet, and that doesn't constantly rip one out of the fictional world and rub the player's nose in the fact that they're playing a "game".
posted by bonehead at 8:20 AM on November 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

The reason most video games bore me is because they tend to involve undertaking complicated decisions and actions in an ultimately simple, limited world. I want to make simple and delineated decisions that have complicated effects in a rich and robust world.
posted by zokni at 8:26 AM on November 7, 2016 [18 favorites]

"Without video games, how would I have learned about the astounding number of 14 year olds who have had sex with my mother?"

Wow, which point-and-click adventure games have you been playing? And where can I get some?
posted by I-baLL at 8:31 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Huh, I've been thinking about medium and message this week in reaction to two different works of art in two different mediums. I finally ended up watching Sia's "The Greatest" (you can search for it) and came away with a couple of opinions. First that music and choreography can say things that would likely fall flat if executed as fiction and drama, and second that I really don't want a mainstream dramatic work on the Pulse massacre created by Hollywood for Oscar-bait. That's not true for everyone of course.

Then, I finally got through a playthrough of Dishonored, which I think stands unique for tightly coupling your actions of the player to the moral development of a child. (As opposed to breaking the action once a level to lecture you about justice after wading through rivers of blood.)

Dishonored, though, is still a game that falls squarely into the same-old/same-old genre constraints that AAA games seem stuck in. This essay reminds me of the posters in the background of strip that proposed the Bechdel-Wallace test. Quite a bit of mainstream cinema, especially at the time that strip ran, was about dudes battling dudes, on occasion with some simplified manpain involved. My partner can't connect with superhero movies for just that reason. (I love superhero stories, but the blockbusters have been big dumb spectacles.) Dishonored sticks out, because the moral development of your daughter watching you is just slightly more intimate than the Bioware strategy of having NPCs gracelessly lecture you on social justice. Dishonored does have those graceless moments, and is still save-the-princess+revenge fantasy.

One of the more powerful uses of games as a storytelling medium is a game franchise with minimal developer-driven story. The Sims arguably isn't really a "game" as much as a virtual toybox filled with dolls. But it turns out that some adults love playing with dolls and telling stories with dolls. The AAA industry strikes me as limited to aggressively promoting proven gameplay models with an even stronger narrativist focus. Meanwhile, F2P mobile and "casual" markets are proving that narrativism isn't the only way to market success.

Also, while more diversity in the game industry would be welcome, it's as big as Hollywood, and more people play computer games than read a novel in a year. Many more people play games than engage in contemporary fine art of any medium. Perhaps we should recognize that different media speak to different people for different reasons and dial back the aggressive evangelism of computer games.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:34 AM on November 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

I played Galaga compulsively in Japan in the 80's and Tetris compulsively in America in the 90's. I've never played a video game. Should I? Is there one I would like that I can try on my laptop without buying a video game console? OK, I guess I tried one of these games once or twice, but I had no interest in clicking on "clues" or solving puzzles, so maybe the fact that it's a "game" is a deal-breaker for me. Maybe some people will never like video games, just as some people don't like reading novels. (I like to read books, go to movie theaters and art museums, and take long walks on the beach.)
posted by kozad at 8:35 AM on November 7, 2016

The game industry includes everything from simulators for professional transportation pilots to gamified web sites (such as Fitbit). If it has a CPU, a screen, and an input device, there's likely at least one game made for it. Tetris clones and similar geometry-based puzzle games still exist, and there's been a revival in arcade-like space shooters lately.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:43 AM on November 7, 2016

I loved this article so much. Being involved in the new media / art-tech world, I have a lot of friends who are into games (weird games, AAA games, just games as a medium). My husband also has a degree in making games, though now he creates tools for journalists. My most influential programming teacher wrote a Clojure compiler for Unity. I wrote a meta-analysis on taxonomies of fun in games research. All these wonderful, creative people I know love games and there is such interesting research going on ... but man, do I not like games.

I think I could take up the argument about loving books and text, because I read a ton and thing video tutorials should be banned. I could take up the argument that I have other things to spend time doing. And those are true. But also, games just don't speak to me, usually. But Flower and Monument Valley and Firefly. I liked those. I would play those. So really, if there were games that were for me, would I engage games as a medium more? Probably! But she's right: I don't want to fight things and controls have been made so complicated, so specialized, that even interesting games, like Papa y Yo are unplayable for most randos like me. And I am so bored by standard game art. I don't care about realism and while I understand the complexity of shader math, it does not touch me emotionally.

It makes me happy to see a games person get that. Meanwhile I'll stick with my line that I make art instead of games so it doesn't have to be fun.
posted by dame at 8:48 AM on November 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

And another datapoint in "why can't we have nice things." A VR awareness-raising game for Syrian child refugees was brigaded by negative reviews.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:49 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

The Sims does absolutely have quests and goals to achieve, in addition to the building capabilities, so I don't think it's entirely accurate to call it a "virtual toybox filled with dolls". It's just that most videogames don't let you customize and build your own buildings as a major component of gameplay, and Sims does.

Frankly, the building part is the most complex and interesting part of the game, in my opinion. The gameplayer community has an enormous content-building and -sharing community, and that's where you get to explore the limits of the game's capabilities. Go pick up an architectural magazine and then build a virtual copy of the house, then upload it and share it. People are creating some really amazing content and using it in-game. I can't really think of another game that allows you to do that to the degree that Sims does.
posted by Autumnheart at 8:53 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I absolutely understand the impulse to evangelize about things you care about it. I've certainly done it myself enough times. It's generally pretty well meaning. You just want to share something you care about with people you care about.

But it really is OK for people to like and dislike different things. Someone not liking, or even actively disliking, the things you like doesn't mean they don't like you, it doesn't mean they're stupid or wrong or need to be converted or that you can't be friends. Unless video games are literally your only interest, you can still maintain a friendship with someone who isn't into them. It's a good thing to have friends who are different from you.

I used to play video games a very very long time ago, and the games were pretty different, but the reason I stopped playing them hasn't changed: They're a time suck, and I didn't have the time for them to suck. So apart from some portable puzzle games that I can play in little bite sized chunks, I still don't play them and don't want to.

And I spent quite a bit of time and effort at work pushing back on the idea of looking for employees who were good 'cultural fits,' because in my lines of work (not videogame development), that mostly meant they played video games, which strongly selected for people who had spare time after work that wasn't taken up by domestic responsibilities. And for some reason I cannot begin to fathom, that demographic consisted primarily of young white guys whose wives or moms--some of whom also worked in the industry, but were not good cultural fits--took care of them. So it gets my back up a little bit for that reason too.
posted by ernielundquist at 9:01 AM on November 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

It will take smaller, more agile risk-takers to open people's minds to the possibilities unexplored in games, and that's exactly what's happening right now.

It doesn't help that there's a movement dedicated to crushing those independent risk-takers. A major goal for the "ethics in game journalism" BS was to remove independent criticism and development, leaving only AAA games.

In short, as long as the Gamergate crowd has as much influence as it does, real creativity in games is hoping to be under constant fire. Expect fewer "One Night Stand", and much more of Grand Theft Auto XVI and Mass Effect Super Crimson Dark.

What forms of art and entertainment are most relevant now? Collage? Memoir? No, it should be video games. Interactive entertainment.

Especially relevant to modern life are games with tons of grinding. "Go fetch me 12 elf lattes! Then fetch me 20 dwarf deli sandwiches, remembering only one out of every ten dwarves drops a sandwich..."

As my wife said regarding WoW, "I refuse to do that shit at work. Why am I supposed to find it fun in agsme?"
posted by happyroach at 9:02 AM on November 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Also wanted to add that Legos are an enormously successful toy, too, and "all" you do with those is build things. It shouldn't be terribly surprising that there's a market for a videogame that focuses on virtual building, since there's a market for a game that focuses on physical building. And, for that matter, several major corporations whose primary market is actual building (Lowe's, Home Depot, Menards, etc). People like to build stuff. I guess I don't understand the insistence of some gaming enthusiasts to only define "videogames" as games in which your character travels around and engages in combat.
posted by Autumnheart at 9:02 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

And another datapoint in "why can't we have nice things." A VR awareness-raising game for Syrian child refugees was brigaded by negative reviews.

Just as a small sidenote, the brigading is gross but I know Arabs who also have issues with that game from the other end of the spectrum. So it is complex and sometimes that is because people make video games and VR do not have a fine understanding of people closer to the action.
posted by dame at 9:09 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Has anyone essayed The Witness? I was at a presentation this weekend that presented it as a pinnacle of video game art, which (spoiler) included, among many other things, the complete recording of Brian Moriarty's Psalm 46 presentation. I haven't played, but now must.
The range of video games being made, and the experiences they offer, is vast and once we wrap our heads around how to make compelling game experiences for VR and AR, it's gonna get very interesting I think.
posted by emmet at 9:15 AM on November 7, 2016

The Sims does absolutely have quests and goals to achieve, in addition to the building capabilities, so I don't think it's entirely accurate to call it a "virtual toybox filled with dolls".

In Sims 2 and Sims 3, both lifetime and short-term wants can be rejected or "rerolled" by the player. More importantly, the RNG of sim wants is weighted to repeating player-selected behavior. Make a sim read a book, they'll want to read more books. Make two sims flirt, they'll both spontaneously flirt and roll wants for more romantic interactions.

Failing to meet wants is never a failure condition resulting in the end of the game. In fact, denying wants can be a good strategy for getting sims to "break up" so to speak (or in the case of romance sims, to keep them from cheating, which makes everyone in the household unhappy.)

In fact, there's an entire branch of emergent play based on creatively making sims crazy or dead. And the "asylum challenge" where you fill a house with six sims, inadequate starting furniture, and limit yourself to controlling only one member of the household.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:22 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

the building part is the most complex and interesting part of the [the Sims], in my opinion.

Many people like building games. Minecraft is at least in part as popular as it is because it allows that too, both in a moderate risk ("survival") and no-risk ("creative") environment. But that doesn't lead directly to real insights in character or to deep narratives. There are synchronicities and lucky accidents that happen, but that is the best these games can do: offer a possibility that the player has to do all the work of building a narrative on. The games, the Sims, MC, others in the simulation and building genres, largely don't lead the player much in terms of building an emotionally complex world with characters who have more than a few numerical stats.
posted by bonehead at 9:23 AM on November 7, 2016

Somewhere, there's a saved game where I have tea and no tea. Then that door opened.
posted by Sphinx at 9:24 AM on November 7, 2016

"all I ever wanted to know is how other people are making it through life."

There are almost no games for which this is the central concern.

Stardew Valley, if you care about that aspect of the game?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:30 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

That's a good example, in fact. And SDV is a good example of a game where winning and conflict are deliberately less important to the game experience than your relationships with all the other characters.

The other one that comes to mind is Sunless Sea from Failbetter games. It's scripted, but variable enough that replaythoughs are still interesting. And it has some great writers too.
posted by bonehead at 9:33 AM on November 7, 2016

There are so many different kinds of video games out there. Games like Candy Crush Saga are gigantic, reaching a huge audience, offering bite-size puzzles with no narrative content. On consoles, in addition to the yearly big budget shooting games, the FIFA and Madden series are widely popular and annual best-sellers. You can't please everyone with one game, but there have been so many smaller games on interesting topics coming out in the last five years that I have hope that everyone who wants to try out games can find something they like. I think awareness will come in time. Not everyone will enjoy playing video games just like not everyone enjoys watching movies. But people who don't like big budget action movies don't say "I don't like movies" if they haven't tried any other kinds.
posted by demiurge at 9:33 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Zork and other text-only games are video games.

When I first played Adventure (proto-Zork?) it was on a 300 baud teletype, so I also tend to see them a not being video games. Using the nomenclature "video" implies, to me at least, that graphics technology is required, not merely used.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:35 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm totally uninterested in games (including offline games) that demand prolonged involvement over time (Risk, looking at you), or any kind of emotional investment. I use those reserves for relationships and getting by.

other than Tetris and Solitaire

Yeah, that's the ticket, for me too. Clearly constrained problems to solve that absorb my attention without activating my amygdala, that's the way. Visual / logical puzzles are best (irl, backgammon, poker, etc). I'd probably play a game of virtual charades, though, if that were a thing.
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:43 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I want to make simple and delineated decisions that have complicated effects in a rich and robust world.

Allow me to introduce you to Dragon Age.
posted by corb at 9:47 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

bonehead: Many people like building games. Minecraft is at least in part as popular as it is because it allows that too, both in a moderate risk ("survival") and no-risk ("creative") environment. But that doesn't lead directly to real insights in character or to deep narratives. There are synchronicities and lucky accidents that happen, but that is the best these games can do: offer a possibility that the player has to do all the work of building a narrative on. The games, the Sims, MC, others in the simulation and building genres, largely don't lead the player much in terms of building an emotionally complex world with characters who have more than a few numerical stats.

A part of my perspective is that I come to CRPGs primarily from tabletop RPGs where storytelling is an emergent dialogue among motivated and creative players. The appeal of sandboxes as a platform for constructing player-driven stories is what's primarily interesting to me. A lot of us used the stock characters in Sims 2 as storytelling prompts, and took those characters into our own narrative direction by manipulating (sometimes breaking in the case of "ugly" legacies) game mechanics for the purpose of creating multimedia stories. Similarly, roleplay is, for me, a much more interesting aspect of MMO play than the "licensed" media. (Especially given how most MMOs are "on-rails" and depend on repetitive mechanics.)

A lot of early CRPGs, including the classics of Baldur's Gate, didn't prove much more than breadcrumbs for player-driven interpretation. That's become less the case as AAA publishers try to push fully-rendered and voiced cutscenes for every decision, and I really appreciate the nearly empty slate of the unvoiced protagonist.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:52 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

You guys understand that by listing all your exceptions you are strenuously missing the argument made in the piece, right? That you, as game players, see games that meet the stated goals doesn't counter the point that they are far more similar than you can see and by being so still lose out on people who might otherwise find games compelling. That is the point of the whole Skyrim anecdote section.

You might not care, and that is cool; the author cares because she wants to share her passion though. And no matter how open-minded the already games-interested might think they are being, it is really within tight strictures. Fish, water, etc.
posted by dame at 9:54 AM on November 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

kozad, if you were a compulsive Tetris player in the '90s, give 2048 a shot, also Dots. Both hit that compulsive doing-things-with-shapes thing. (I had Tetris dreams in 1995, I think I've had 2048 dreams recently.) With the phone, they're also sort of a thing to do while waiting for other stuff.

self-link-ish, but I wrote about watching other people (mostly mr. e) play Grand Theft Auto, and being someone who has no interest in playing but who enjoys the observer role. I have limited time for more hobbies and shitty eye-hand coordination, but it's kinda fun for me to hang out with people who are into it.

I do love playing Minecraft, have loved Sims, and basically lost my wrists to Civ III, I think because they hit the building-stuff/playing-dolls sweet spot. But like I keep saying about other things I want to get into (letterpress, wood-carving), I need another time-sink hobby like I need a hole in my head.
posted by epersonae at 9:57 AM on November 7, 2016

Allow me to introduce you to Dragon Age.

Do you want to kill the mages first and get the lecture on the corruption of power, or kill the mages second and get the lecture on the corruption of power?

(That's after the offensively bad prejudice and terrorism text, which was unavoidable.)
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:57 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Has anyone essayed The Witness?

I thought The Witness was initially beautiful but ultimately very, very disappointing. I don't want to derail this thread - my opinions about it are here if you're interested - but I was much happier with Obduction than I was with The Witness.
posted by mhoye at 9:58 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I don't like games because I don't want to spend my free time sitting indoors. I'd rather be outside moving around and doing something. Which is pretty common, and I think that's a hurdle game designers are not going to be able to overcome. Pokeman go was interesting in a way but not enough to get me to play it. I'd rather have "real" achievements than virtual I guess.
posted by fshgrl at 10:08 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'd rather have "real" achievements than virtual I guess.

What is "real"? How do you define "real"?
posted by mhoye at 10:10 AM on November 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Obviously, some people do get worked up over poker, but I've never played seriously high-stakes games, & can walk away from a win or loss - also this has never really been an issue, since I'm neither that great at it nor that sucky - have tended to come out even or a little ahead. It just hits an enjoyable sweet spot of probability- + people-related puzzling. People have different skills and preferences, maybe that's it?

I do wonder if age or just EL capacity x age might have something to do with it. I know I had a long period in which I just didn't care to throw myself into anyone's story, having been burned out on IRL ones. Embargoed everything that wasn't a light comedy under ~45 mins long. If there's a gender split (is there?), maybe that's it?
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:25 AM on November 7, 2016

...my personal Lydia died in the bottom of a crypt, the victim of a Deathlord

Death? Crypt? Deathlord? Why shouldn't shit like that appeal to everyone???? /s

The need to have some level of bloodshed (if not outright slaughter) to get to the end of most games is a complete turn-off for me, yet I can't recall an ad for any game in the past year that didn't center on fighting, killing, plotting to kill, outright warfare, and all other manner of detestable activity. Hell, even the driving games emphasize the crashes. And, if all that's not enough to turn me away from gaming, plop a PS4 or XBox controller in my hands. WTF am I supposed to do with these? The complexity is overwhelming. None. Of. This. Is. Fun.

Luckily, I manage to find an occasional game on my iPad (like the Room series) that are quiet, well-made, mentally challenging, can be played at my own pace, and require not a drop of blood be spilled to accomplish my goal.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:29 AM on November 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

OK, that's weird. When I click the back button on that page it takes me forward in my history. No, that's not some sort of euphemism.
posted by humboldt32 at 10:40 AM on November 7, 2016

The author spends a lot of time talking about her friend Kristina, and for good reason: Kristina makes an excellent test case for thinking about needs that aren't met by current games.

Kristina's intense attachment to Lydia (too bad she didn't meet Anneke Crag-Jumper, who is far nicer about sharing inventory) is a big clue: the feeling of personal attachment outweighed the tedium (for her) of fighting battles. And Skyrim's companions are not that complex. Kristina would probably go for a big open game like Skyrim, with interesting relationships, whose chief mechanic was not fighting.

Gamers will immediately say "Bioware", but Bioware games are oriented around fighting; they are not where you should send your friend who doesn't care for fighting.

Things like Gone Home are a welcome development, but I don't know that exploring is a deep enough mechanic, and you can't affect the story in any way.

Maybe something like Hatoful Boyfriend? I haven't played it, but from reviews it sounds like it might fit the bill. Also I'd love to see what she thinks of 80 Days.

Anyway, I look forward to what Brie Code comes up with!
posted by zompist at 10:50 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I guess I don't understand why there has to be a deep reason behind not enjoying games. There are many hobbies people enjoy that I don't, and I have hobbies that others find horribly boring. This doesn't seem profound or confusing to me. When I have played games, I have largely not found enjoyment or relaxation in it. So I choose to do other things with my time. People are different, and like different things.
posted by primethyme at 10:51 AM on November 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

No one has to like anything, nor will everyone---see fshgrl's response above---but it's an interesting issue to me for the same reason that not all movies should be tentpole superhero smash-em-ups or all books should be technothrillers. If literature is broad enough to have Proust and Clancy (and Austin and Richard Scarey), are games, or interactive arts, able to cover that range as well? Or do the artifices and mechanical limitations of it limit it too much? Is more technical change needed to enable better "games"? By which I mean not just a shoot-em modality or other existing ones, but also conversing with characters, for example.

It's kind of fascinating to be at the birth of an artform. It must be what that late 1700s/early 1800s were like for fictions writers. No one really knew what was possible or where it could all go.
posted by bonehead at 11:00 AM on November 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Um.... I'd rather just go outside and do stuff.
posted by freakazoid at 11:04 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I liked this article. I am pro-games. I play games sometimes. But I rarely really love a game. Even when I do, it's limited. I think I can say I really loved/got immersed in Tetris, Myst, and Portal 2. I actually thought Gridland was the best thing I've played in a long time, in terms of having a 'hook' and also a clever and surprising progression. I've tried out a number of indy Twine games, and liked the concept, but have not loved them as stories or as an immersive experience where I impact the flow if the story. I've played some games recently that I thought were smart, or clever, or cool looking, but haven't fallen in love with anything. I appreciate that there are now feminist games, but again, nothing has really hooked me in. My ideal game:

- Narratively engaging
- No killing
- Easy controllers/controlling

In an ideal world, my game would also be politically or philosophically thoughtful and have something new to say, the way a great novel or art piece can, but I haven't seen that yet.
posted by latkes at 11:09 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

To me, saying that you don't like video games is a bit like saying that you don't like reading or music or tv. Like, really? You dislike an entire form of entertainment, expression and art?
posted by Foci for Analysis at 11:13 AM on November 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

"To me, saying that you don't like video games is a bit like saying that you don't like reading or music or tv."

That's fine, no one has to like reading or music or tv. I certainly wouldn't ridicule someone for that opinion.
posted by demiurge at 11:21 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Eh, I know people who don't like music, and plenty of people who never read anything.

As has been suggested upthread, I think it would be really healthy if people could like or dislike things without there being Discourse.
posted by selfnoise at 11:21 AM on November 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Why? What's so bad about wanting people to enjoy things you enjoy? Seems like making things broader can pick up some folks who fell by the wayside but are *so close*. I love art. I like to get people who think they hate art (like my friends, not random strangers) into a gallery or museum and talk to them about why it is cool. Some people will never be really into it and that's chill, but when I can people who think it isn't for them really engaging? That's the absolute best. And it happens enough that I am still trying.

If you love your medium (and I am going to say making games is an art and not merely a hobby), looking for ways that it can work its way on more people can be a natural impulse. (So can holing up in a garret and being obscure, if this history of modern music I am reading now is anything to go by.)

Anyways, usually when people dislike a whole medium it is because they haven't found their thing. And maybe in games it is because few people have made that thing yet.
posted by dame at 11:29 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

She's really starting out from the right perspective, but I think she's still kind of mired in what she admits is a pretty homogeneous experience, spending all her life in gaming culture.

Meanwhile, our lives have changed radically compared to our parents' lives. As we adapt to new technologies, our lives are becoming increasingly fragmented, multifaceted, interactive.

I am probably somewhere around their parents' ages. Is the underlying assumption that my life has not been fragmented, multifaceted, or for crying out loud, even interactive? I'm pretty sure it was. I'm pretty sure that my parents and grandparents' were, too. Before that, though, I'm sure stuff was super easy. I never met any of those dull old timey people.

There's a fair chance that you're wrong about your parents, but even if you're right, your parents' experiences aren't universal. Maybe expand your frame of reference some before you dismiss others' experiences out of hand. Life didn't just start becoming complicated when you reached adulthood. That's just when you started noticing.

Linear novels and films are less relevant now for reflecting our realities. What forms of art and entertainment are most relevant now? Collage? Memoir? No, it should be video games. Interactive entertainment. Yet, many people don't like video games.

Well, yes. Someone who, in the previous paragraph, said she spent her life devoted to video games would probably think that video games are pretty relevant. However, take a moment to consider that others find value in the media you're writing off as irrelevant. And then consider that maybe that media has value to other people for reasons you don't understand. This is why it's so important to have friends who don't share your interests and your perspective on things. They know about things you don't.

I get that this is her job, creating games that people want to play, but if you want to make something more appealing to a new audience, maybe don't be so dismissive of the things they already find value in.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:33 AM on November 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

What's so bad about wanting people to enjoy things you enjoy?

Nothing, but as someone who would stereotypically fall right into the gamer demographic (white dude in the tech industry), I sometimes feel like I'm treated as a weirdo or like something is wrong with me for not being into games. Maybe that's caused me to be over-sensitive to it, I don't know. But I've had MANY situations over the years where people express absolute shock that I don't play games. And it's often followed with months of them trying to convince me that their favorite game is the one that will turn me around. It sucks to feel like people think something is wrong with you because you don't share their favorite hobby.
posted by primethyme at 11:36 AM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

"To me, saying that you don't like video games is a bit like saying that you don't like reading or music or tv."

I don't like TV, really, and in much the same way that I don't like video games - if someone else is watching a show or playing a game and wants me to join them, I'll do it for the social aspect; the show or the game may catch my fancy in the moment, sometimes for random reasons and sometimes because even I can see that it's really, really good; but I just never get into it enough to pursue it on my own.

I've had ample opportunity as an adult to seek out high quality TV and/or to play video games. Every so often I'll be interested in or enjoy a show, but I am never more interested in something on TV than I am in something similar in a book. So I've always had a thing for WWI cultural history and I find Vera Brittain's Testament of Youth really gripping, as I do Pat Barker's WWI trilogy...but I have no real interest in seeing the TV versions. I mean, I've tried television at this point enough to know that, just as with liquor connoisseurship and jogging, I'm not into it. It's just a thing. Dunno why. But yeah, there's a whole genre of experience that never rates more than a "mildly amusing as a social pass time" from me.
posted by Frowner at 11:37 AM on November 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

In 2014, the tile-matching/monster-collecting hybrid Puzzle & Dragons became the first mobile game to earn more than $1 billion dollars. This was more than any desktop/console MOBA/MMO for the same year Nearly half of Japan's $11 billion video game industry is mobile. The game design theory courses I just helped edit cover a range of complexity from Snake and Ladders (which actually has an interesting history) to Civilization.

So the stereotype that the entire industry is invested in games like Skyrim or complex control systems isn't necessarily true.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:39 AM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

So what's PopCap up to lately? After EA bought them, all I've heard about from PopCap were that inexplicably Xbox One-exclusive Peggle game, the terrible and F2Ptastic Plants Vs Zombies 2, and a couple of PvZ-themed shooters. Do they still do what they spent the first decade+ of their existence doing?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:00 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hell, even the driving games emphasize the crashes.

Well, here's the thing - how the games displayed damage was the biggest development in the last couple generations of racing game development. Being capable of modelling damage is kind of a selling point to a racing game, because there have been decently realistic simulations since the late 90s, such as later Papyrus titles (NASCAR 2003 and Grand Prix Legends).
However, it was occasionally very frustrating having what looked a minor bump suddenly turn on all red warning lights on the dashboard because since the player is not experiencing any g-force, it kind of takes out the actual impact on the car (unless it's spins on either axis, or the traditional wheel comes out of the car right after a strong impact).
With Viper Racing (that even included a completely useless wheelie button - other than see how maimed the car could get) and a few years later with TOCA Race Driver, damage models became part of the gameplay because it could transmit the player the severity of an accident better than a yellow/orange/red light on the dashboard or seeing a wheel blown off.

A bit of the same thing happened with sports games. Animations went on from being scripted to more physics based (with a number of hiccups because there's so much the physics engine can do, as watching FIFA physics fails videos will attest). Featuring the physical aspect of the game is more a way of saying "this is what we can do now with a physics engine instead of canned animations" than VIOLENCE VIOLENCE VIOLENCE.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:08 PM on November 7, 2016

"all I ever wanted to know is how other people are making it through life."

There are almost no games for which this is the central concern.

This War of Mine.

Also The Last of Us, though holy heck it's brutal.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:21 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

really think games are terrible at telling linear stories and I think they should stop trying so hard.

I have an odd relationship with story in game in that I mostly like games with none - the only thing I've really played in the last few years is roguelikes and turn-based strategy - but there are a few story-driven games I've really loved. I've said a number of times that video games should strive to be good games, not movies, but the medium does have a handful of unique tricks for involving players in a narrative. For me I think the key is world-building. If you are allowed to explore and talk to characters and find things out at your own pace it gives you a chance to get invested, even if the actual plot is quite predetermined. Planescape: Torment is a classic example of this. You know when you reach the end of a good book or a TV serial and you go back to the real world feeling kinda empty? A few games did that for me like nothing else. Unfortunately games that do it well tend to be very long and I don't have a lot of time for that these days.
posted by atoxyl at 12:22 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Kristina said to me through her tears that she didn't realize that you could develop an emotional attachment to a character in a video game. She didn't realize that you could create your character and exist as a version of yourself in a world full of characters whom you care about. I had never realized that she didn't know this, because I knew this so deeply.

We stopped fostering cats a year ago, and currently have no cat, for two reasons. One of them is so that we can learn to be emotionally attached to non-cat entities.

The year has been revelatory. We're very much looking forward to getting more cats, maybe a lot of them, but we're much more attentive to each other and are more focused on making things better in our lives.

I don't want to get attached to video game characters.
posted by amtho at 12:22 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

And yeah also I think you can get quite attached to characters simply because you spend a lot of time with them.
posted by atoxyl at 12:25 PM on November 7, 2016

To me, saying that you don't like video games is a bit like saying that you don't like reading or music or tv. Like, really? You dislike an entire form of entertainment, expression and art?

Or dancing. Or sports. Or religion. Or fashion. Or card games. Etc., etc.

And yes, I think plenty of people—many of them gamers—could quite honestly say they don't enjoy any number of these things, in any of their multivarious forms.

Why should video games be an exception?
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:46 PM on November 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

Atom Eyes, a lot of your examples seem reductive or just too dismissive.

Like, I know people who say they "don't like cartoons (or anime)," and it strikes me as casting too wide a net. You can't dismiss a huge swath of movies and TV just because it's drawn rather than live action!

Video games (as games) are a subset of games including board and card games, and sports. Dismissing any game that happens to use technology seems reductive.

Video games (as story-telling devices) are a subset of storytelling, including novels, movies, TV, graphic novels, etc. Unless you really hate interaction, it seems like the right interactive story might catch your eye!

Hating on video games seems much more like a shibboleth like "I like all music except country and rap," and I kind of hate that sort of thing.

As a side note, it is kind of awkward that "video games" encompasses both plotless games like Tetris, and gameplay-less plots like Zork. Makes it really hard to talk about "video games" when there's so much contained in that phrase.
posted by explosion at 1:07 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Also, how addictive are video games? If they're more addictive than, say, reading, then I'm not sure I want to "just try one".
posted by amtho at 1:21 PM on November 7, 2016

I don't think it's problematic that people don't play video games, of course not. Lots of people I know don't play games and are perfectly happy with their lives.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:32 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I spend a lot of time playing video games, ever since the Atari 2600 days. But I don't see it as a problem that not everyone wants to play games (or watch TV, or movies, or read books, or whatever).

I mean, if I was a game developer I guess I'd want a bigger market, so then it would matter to me why other people play or not. But as someone who plays games? I don't think its weird in the slightest for someone to not enjoy video games, even though for me its my favorite medium.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:39 PM on November 7, 2016

I used to play videos games, until I took an arrow to the knee.
posted by Damienmce at 1:40 PM on November 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Video games (as story-telling devices) are a subset of storytelling, including novels, movies, TV, graphic novels, etc. Unless you really hate interaction, it seems like the right interactive story might catch your eye!

At what point do you get to say that you don't like something, though? How much of [thing] do you need to do? Should I be churning through more games for the rest of my life just in case somewhere there's one that turns out to be more fun for me than reading?

This just gets so weird to me - why is it that we can never, ever trust that someone has tried something and just....isn't into it? If someone said to me "I hate cooking", I might say, "wow, that's too bad, I love cooking", but it would be pretty jerky to insist that this person keep cooking and cooking on the theory that they'd like it eventually. BDSM, pottery, poetry, singing, public speaking, ballet- it's okay not to like those things and not to do them, in my book.

This really makes me recall all the times I've told people "no, I don't like doing phonebanking, I've tried it many times and I spend days dreading it when I know it's coming up" and they try to hack the problem and push me to do it anyway. There are a bunch of things I've tried several times and tried to like and still hate, and it's really wearing to have someone insist that I keep doing them. I am forty-two years old - forty-two! that's old! - and I'm old enough to know if I've given something a fair shot and still don't like it.
posted by Frowner at 1:41 PM on November 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

I suddenly feel much more justified in my sadness at how the Katamari Damacy series petered out.

WHY DIDN'T THEY MAKE ONE FOR WII

WHY DON'T THEY JUST REMASTER THE OLD ONES FOR NEW SYSTEMS

WHY IS EVERYTHING SO TERRIBLE

i haven't read the article yet sorry
posted by poffin boffin at 1:44 PM on November 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

I grew up between one grandmother who unpacked the playing cards every night and taught me arithmetic and logic over canasta and contract bridge, and another grandmother who thought that cards lead to gambling which leads to drinking which leads to sex which leads to dancing. So I pick my battles and don't argue when the "non-gamer" relative opens up solitaire after checking her facebook. (We also don't play Scrabble with her, she's a bit of a sore winner.)

I find games a bit like anything else. About once a year, I'll find a book that I gotta binge read until the wee hours in the morning. The same is true of TV. Usually though, an hour or so in the evening is good.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:21 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Video games (as games) are a subset of games including board and card games, and sports

Video games (as generally pushed in these articles) are a subset of solitaire: they're things you do on your own. For someone not to like them -- or to like them less than the other options available to them isn't particularly difficult for me to believe.

I, personally, work very hard not to like video games. I find them addictive rather than enjoyable -- or, rather, there are brief moments of interest surrounded by long periods of tedium. In a vacuum, maybe that's something I'd try to change. But, in a world where there are tons of other things for me to do, why should I bother? I work very hard not to be isolated (I live alone: ironically, were I paired up, I might enjoy more solitary pursuits). Video games are one more way to make it harder for me to fight that tendency.

I listen to music, occasionally. I generally don't enjoy it or find it as interesting as many people seem to. Ditto for art and fashion. I don't see how that's something worth correcting.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 2:25 PM on November 7, 2016

I'm not sure why the person choosing to write this essay thinks the Indie Game scene doesn't exist when they're literally starting an Indie Game Company. It makes it hard to take the essay seriously.
posted by edbles at 2:27 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Video games (as generally pushed in these articles) are a subset of solitaire

I guess articles focused on story/narrative do usually talk about single player games, but multiplayer/social games are a huge part of video games as a whole. (Both "in person" multiplayer and "network" multiplayer). I have several friends where we probably wouldn't stay in touch at all if it weren't for gaming together (on the net, but talking/cooperating the whole time). So in my experience they make me more social, not less (and I am naturally extremely anti-social).
posted by thefoxgod at 2:33 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Also, how addictive are video games?

sometimes i wake up in the middle of the night to go pee and then instead of going back to bed my body decides to sit down on the couch and load up overwatch
posted by poffin boffin at 2:35 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Also, how addictive are video games?

Typically free to play games and MMORPGS are designed to be addictive, while self contained $60 a pop triple AAA games for consoles are like reading a really good book you can't put down they will end and then you will stop, and self contained artier phone games are like reading a magazine article, fun but you could put it down.

In general, less than facebook.
posted by edbles at 2:41 PM on November 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

What I've noticed about playing games for hours vs. reading a book for hours is that games leave me feeling hollow, spent and overstimulated while books leave me feeling fulfilled at best, merely tired at worst.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:46 PM on November 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

I have several friends where we probably wouldn't stay in touch at all if it weren't for gaming together

Who are, by definition, gamers themselves.

The point is, video games aren't everything for everyone. They don't have to be. If there's a demographic which doesn't play them because they don't see their experiences reflected, that's one thing. But if it's a demographic with other things they prefer to do, what's wrong with that?

I push myself socially, and not playing video games is part of that. I also have an addictive personality-- I'm a completist, meaning things like the Kittens Game rapidly eat my life. I know those things. Again, there are people who feel differently, and I can respect that. But when people tell me that I really ought to try this one game -- when enjoying a game is something I know will make my life worse in the long run, what's the point?
posted by steady-state strawberry at 2:51 PM on November 7, 2016

Again, there are people who feel differently, and I can respect that. But when people tell me that I really ought to try this one game -- when enjoying a game is something I know will make my life worse in the long run, what's the point?
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:51 PM on November 7 [+] [!]

If you actually want to know why they go nuts with this it's because video games like TV carry a low art stigma so when folks hear that "oh I don't watch TV/play video games" thing, they feel judged and feel like they have to prove to you that deep intellectual experiences can be had in the medium, whether or not you were actually judging them, Roger Ebert is sitting there in the back of their heads tainting your words.
posted by edbles at 2:57 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

The point is, video games aren't everything for everyone

Of course (as I said in my previous comment). But the idea that video games are "a subset of solitaire: they're things you do on your own" (from your comment) is only true for maybe 50% of games.

I mean, dancing is a good social activity that I don't like. Games are a perfectly fine activity to not like :) But they are by no means a solitary pursuit.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:01 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'll dig into the rest of the article (and this thread) when I'm done with work, but after the opening Skyrim anecdote and the few paragraphs that followed, all I could think about was a conversation I had in my kitchen a few weeks back.

I had just finished Dragon Age 2, the only BioWare game in which I COMPLETELY ADORED every member of my party and genuinely wanted to make every one of them happy, and my complaints with the game boiled down to the fact that I was far far more invested in my interpersonal relationships than in the Larger Plot or the battle mechanics of the game. And I was frustrated with the obvious fact that -- from the perspective of a game studio -- the relationships are the least essential thing to spend your resources on. I wished that instead of the thousands of hours they no-doubt spent with the QA team to make sure that every weapon worked with every applicable character without glitches, they had dedicated that time and money to properly finishing everyone's individual plot arcs, or populating Hawke's mansion with post-game versions of all of the characters whom a player could hang out with and chat up (and kiss, let's be serious) once the main part of the game was over, whenever they wanted to spend a little more time with old friends.

And the more I thought about it, the more I became completely certain that the only reason we aren't already making fully voice-acted and animated ACTUAL BioWare-style dating sims is that the game industry is too fundamentally broken to see how massive the audience for such games would be, or how much money that audience would be willing to spend on a game like DragonAge or Mass Effect that has all the friends and the adventure and the kissing but none of the endless grinding through battles and inventory management. Not just a "narrative" setting on a game that skips the combat, but a game that's built from the ground up not to have any combat at all .

It's just....absolutely INFURIATING, honestly!!!!
posted by Narrative Priorities at 3:16 PM on November 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

Not just a "narrative" setting on a game that skips the combat, but a game that's built from the ground up not to have any combat at all .

I've been exploring games like this recently.

Until Dawn is a great - a cheesy B horror movie that is entire decision based and has almost no combat (but for a couple of quicktime events).

Life is Strange is also great and affecting - an off kilter interactive story about teenage girls, and friendship.

Both of them are pretty much 'Bioware without the constant murderising'.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:23 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sometimes I feel like a lot of the AAA games I've played are about experiencing the parts of a genre adventure story that would get edited out. Live through the days of time that would be a two-minute training montage in a movie! Nobody will be admitted to the theatre during the exciting Weapon Upgrading scene!

And I can sink hours on end into them, especially when I'm depressed and they offer a bunch of low-effort "successes".
posted by egypturnash at 3:27 PM on November 7, 2016

Sometimes I feel like a lot of the AAA games I've played are about experiencing the parts of a genre adventure story that would get edited out.

Yeah, this is what happens to me every time I've tried to get into such a game. I am really impressed by the immersive experience when I start, but by the second or third time I find that I have to walk my character across town/desert/endless chasm to find object/speak to person, I just start feeling bad that I'm sitting on a couch watching my avatar exercise.
posted by skewed at 3:47 PM on November 7, 2016

I found much of this article really compelling. The money quote, for me:

I'm not remotely interested in shockingly good graphics, in murder simulators, in guns and knives and swords. I'm not that interested in adrenaline. My own life is thrilling enough. There is enough fear and hatred in the world to get my heart pounding. My Facebook feed and Twitter feed are enough for that. Walking outside in summer clothing is enough for that. I'm interested in care, in characters, in creation, in finding a path forward inside games that helps me find my path forward in life. I am interested in compassion and understanding. I'm interested in connecting. As Miranda July said, "all I ever wanted to know is how other people are making it through life." I want to make games that help other people understand life.

I'm a lifelong gamer, and an avid indie gamer who often seeks out experiences similar to what she talks about. And I simply don't think there are many games, in the indie world or otherwise, that are doing this in a deep, multi-dimensional way. Think about great literature and cinema that is concerned with richly observing the minutaie of daily life, presenting complex and meaningful characters and relationships, and presenting how people make their way through their lives. Forget Ulysses, has there been a game with the depth of care and observation of Joyce's short story "The Dead"? What about the relationships of Elena Ferrante's Neapolitan Novels? The subtle grace and and personal profundity in the films of Eric Rohmer? Is there anything that shows how flawed people make it through their lives in a way that approaches P.T. Anderson's Magnolia? Why are games not even attempting to communicate these topics, concerns, and ambitions on the same level? None of the games brought up so far satisfy in that regard, and none of my personal shortlist of affecting games do either. Shadow of the Colossus and Ico, Journey, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, Gone Home, The Beginner's Guide - these all have many reasons to recommend them, and I love them unreservedly. But they pale in comparison to what I listed, and they don't meet the requirements that Brie has set out.
posted by naju at 4:06 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

(Kentucky Route Zero comes to mind as one of the more ambitious games in terms of communicating something at the level auteur cinema does. I've only played episode one though and can't speak to it beyond that.)
posted by naju at 4:10 PM on November 7, 2016

I'm very much about linear walking simulators now, in that they're akin to movies where to some degree I can move the pace forward. Plus you don't have to kill anybody.

I still like odd GameMaker RPGs because they are usually done by a single person, and have a substantial amount of character, but mostly I pass because the killing. The RPG Off, which had one of those fakeout moral choices (you can't progress unless you battle, which you're then chastized for) nevertheless had the presumed intended effect on me. I resolved if a game required me to kill something, I'd just stop playing. There are enough other games out there now that I will not be lacking for choices somehow.
posted by solarion at 4:11 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

What is "real"? How do you define "real"?

I'd rather go to a krav maga class and spar than play a combat game, I'd rather go hiking than play that game that you virtually wander through forests (something fantasy??) I'd rather go interact with people on person than talk online. I'd rather play volleyball or hike up a mountain than sit indoors and just move my hands any day. Even in bad weather. I kind of hate being indoors and I like to move.

I do like Grand Theft Auto because it's fun to destroy stuff. I also like flight simulators but I often crash on purpose. So I guess I prefer virtual massive destruction than real which is good, I guess?
posted by fshgrl at 4:14 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I also don't really like The Gilmore Girls so I guess I'm banned now.
posted by fshgrl at 4:47 PM on November 7, 2016

This really resonated with me, especially her description of her friend Kristina's life. I don't really worry about my physical safety often, but I do spend a lot of my workday battling impostor syndrome and possibly-being-actually-bad-at-my-job syndrome, and I don't feel like I need the added frustration that video games tend to bring (for me).

Partly gender-related and partly just my personality, but, since, I don't know, basically forever, I feel like I've spent way, waaay more time making an effort to try out and appreciate my friends' & significant others' interests/media choices than anyone's ever made for mine...and video games were definitely a part of that. I've pushed back hard on doing this as I've gotten older, but still...it's really, really refreshing that someone is making video games for someone like me. I definitely wished she had more details to share but sounds like her studio is in the early stages.
posted by eeek at 5:11 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I thought The Witness was initially beautiful but ultimately very, very disappointing. I don't want to derail this thread - my opinions about it are here if you're interested - but I was much happier with Obduction than I was with The Witness.

Obduction's been sitting on my desktop for some time now, gently chiding me for not having started it yet...
posted by emmet at 5:29 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I don't hate video games at all, and I'm certainly not judging people who enjoy them. But I did enjoy reading the article because the author is trying to think of ways to include people who right now are not being served.

My two main game experiences were 1) a summer of endless hours playing the Sims back around 2004 maybe?, except I never actually played the game, I used the cheat code to give myself all the money and then spent months downloading skins and 3rd party stuff, and I built elaborate theme neighborhoods. Buffyworld, a Hawaiian "island", Farscape/Roswell town. Then one day I woke up, decided I'd wasted enough time, and removed the software from my computer.

More recently, 2) I played Neko Atsume, totally nerded out naming and memorizing all the cats, strategizing to get the rare ones, studies web sites with tips, checked on my cats at least twice a day on my tablet, and then one day, somehow, totally forgot I was playing the game at all until about 2 weeks later at which point I realized I was over it and that was that.

Otherwise, I really enjoy books, more books, and also multitasking by watching TV, movies, and listening to podcasts while I knit, paint, make cards, embroider, cook, and do household chores. Other than reading books, I'm unwilling to devote time to a media interest that doesn't let me multitask with something like knitting or doing the dishes.
posted by Squeak Attack at 8:03 PM on November 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Video games are OK but they're nowhere near as much fun as playing the drums.
posted by flabdablet at 8:12 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Think about great literature and cinema that is concerned with richly observing the minutaie of daily life, presenting complex and meaningful characters and relationships, and presenting how people make their way through their lives.

Demanding that this medium do the exact same thing as that medium strikes me as a non-starter. It took a few decades for photography, about a half-century as a matter of fact, to develop its own expression independent of the other visual arts. The same is true of cinema to fully take advantage of the theory of montage. Narrativists are demanding of games in much the same way that painters demanded allegory from early photography and dramatists demanded stagecraft from cinema. Once photography and cinema got their legs, painting and drama were both liberated to explore different directions as well.

What is the story of Beethoven's 7th Symphony, of Elgar's Cello Concerto, or Part's Fratres? Those are three pieces that can always bring tears to my eyes, but there's no story, just the ebb and flow of contrast with contrast, simple themes that transform and become more complex, or not in the case of Part, the transformation is a slow and gentle deepening and fading of harmony barely sensible above the discomfort of the audience, my adolescent ears straining to comprehend what three members of Kronos quartet up there on the stage were doing, and getting only this soft diamond harmony "speaking" utterances, shaping the stillness of the room, each utterance as expressive as a sob or sigh, but no words, no story.

Do we, in turn, throw out haiku (both traditional and modern) because it, by definition rejects both explicit story and metaphor? What about abstract and conceptual visual art? While little has made me cry, some has made me laugh. What about the Taj Mahal or Notre Dame de Paris?

The question is not whether games can provoke this emotional resonance, they already have. Senet survived for millennia in Egyptian culture, possibly linked to pre-Hellenic devotional practice. Snakes and Ladders was originally a Dharmic morality lesson, before the Victorians erased the Gods, and then the Americans erased the virtues and sins. One of the ways we know when Chess came into European culture was when priests used it as a metaphor for the feudal system, and then again, curiously, modern chess emerged with the high-powered queen from the courts of some of the most powerful women in Europe. Baseball and Football have become profound metaphors and myths of American culture.

Shigeru Miyamoto today is bigger than Walt Disney, and has been for over a decade. Could it be the case that his digital works about the joys of childlike play and exploration are art in the same way that we credit Disney's feature film animation? A lot of people didn't agree that Disney's work was art in any meaningful sense when the movies were first released. Some still don't.

I want games that provide an experience of comprehending and mastering rich systems of interactions. I want the thrill I get from chess when I suddenly discover a decisive tactical move, or the sober realization that my opponent has done so. I want the logical inference that I can probably finesse an extra trick based on what the other team probably is holding. I want systems where teams can come from behind to land improbable championships. I want games where there's always something more I can discover about how the game might be played.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:04 PM on November 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

I don't think digital games should be necessarily in the business of telling stories. I think games should be in the business of creating experiences. Narrative may not be the primary point behind that expression.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:14 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Forget Ulysses, has there been a game with the depth of care and observation of Joyce's short story "The Dead"? What about the relationships of Elena Ferrante's Neapolitan Novels? The subtle grace and and personal profundity in the films of Eric Rohmer? Is there anything that shows how flawed people make it through their lives in a way that approaches P.T. Anderson's Magnolia?

Yep, it's called Cart Life. It ruined videogames for me.
posted by Automocar at 9:32 PM on November 7, 2016

None of that is particularly surprising or compelling for me. I'm already on board with the notion that games can be art, and I'm also on board (no pun intended) with the ludic/experiential nature of games. You misunderstand me when you suggest that I'm talking about highly narrative games. I'm not. I want games - in the particular medium of gaming, the interactive, experiential, non-linear, open-ended sorts of things games excel at - to affect me and speak to my life in the way those texts and films do. I haven't felt that way about even the games I consider beautiful and artistic experiences. I think games are capable of this, though, and we have a long way to go and a lot of changes to the game industry before we see it.
posted by naju at 9:38 PM on November 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Video games are OK but they're nowhere near as much fun as playing the drums.

The arcade version of Taiko no Tatsujin is better than real drumming because you can put costumes on the drums.
posted by betweenthebars at 9:51 PM on November 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'd rather go to a krav maga class and spar than play a combat game, I'd rather go hiking than play that game that you virtually wander through forests (something fantasy??) I'd rather go interact with people on person than talk online. I'd rather play volleyball or hike up a mountain than sit indoors and just move my hands any day.

it's great that you're able to do all these things. i can't bc i have a spinal injury that is literally destroying my life. i don't think my online/ps4 activities are somehow less "real" than yours tho.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:52 PM on November 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

I kinda wish I loved video games. However, I probably have ADD or something because man, I don't want to take up any game that is going to eat my life and I will want to do nothing besides play that game for weeks, months, or years. I don't want to play with other players because of harassment, and GamerGate has made it clear that women aren't wanted In video games, period. I don't want to make myself a target for that shit either.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:50 PM on November 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

I miss Glitch. I loved it because it had charming art, pleasant music, abundant resources, terrific chat channels, and a mod team with the same kind of fierce devotion to stomping out assholism that I find at Metafilter. (When Glitch died, the company turned their in-game and in-house chat programs into a commercial product: Slack.)

I've dabbled at video games since the Atari 2600; I used to play Adventure for hours. I never got into AAA console games... the violent ones were too violent for me (I live in a high-crime high-violence district; I don't need a game to bring me the thrill of the possibility of being mugged or shot), and the nonviolent ones were almost universally either patronizingly cutesy or tediously complex.

The article seems to jump around a number of issues without consciously acknowledging them - she notes that "my friends want not to be repulsed, to recognize their own tastes, and to find depth," and that video games fail at those, but doesn't directly say that mainstream video games have a solid record of misogyny and racism, and perhaps that's a substantial part of why non-gamers remain non-gamers.

"Asking my friends what they don't like about life, and how a video game could help them with that, is the second and more important half. "

Erm, no... those are easy questions. Anyone who considers themselves a sometimes gamer, casual gamer, used-to-be-a-gamer but something something spare time kids etc., can answer those. Sure, the answers are going to be slightly different for each individual, but there are plenty of large enough trends to use to develop games. (She even mentions, "I know that the success of a game about collecting cats is not a mystery. ")

The real question is, why are AAA game companies so devoted to their white-cis-het-male demographic that they're ignoring the millions of potential customers who aren't interested in tanks, bombs, dragon-slaying, land conquest, or rape stories?

Is it that they're owned & run by that demographic and so that's the target audience they resonate with? Or that they've got a successful niche and don't want to do the hard work of finding entirely new patterns for different audiences? Are they afraid of admitting that their current core is not actually "the core of video gaming" but "the core of one particular style of video gaming?"

Video games aren't going to be widely accepted as an art form, as potentially insightful and moving as novels or symphonies or portraits, until the industry leads stop being a medium designed for white geek boys to declare their superiority over everyone else.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 12:20 AM on November 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

If I can't play it on a Commodore it's just not interesting to me.
posted by rfs at 5:56 AM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Video games aren't going to be widely accepted as an art form, as potentially insightful and moving as novels or symphonies or portraits, until the industry leads stop being a medium designed for white geek boys to declare their superiority over everyone else.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:20 AM on November 8 [4 favorites +] [!]

Again the indie game scene is real and vital and writing the entire medium off because of the actions of a bunch of 4 chan trolls denigrates the work folks in the indie game scene are doing.
posted by edbles at 8:23 AM on November 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

The real question is, why are AAA game companies so devoted to their white-cis-het-male demographic that they're ignoring the millions of potential customers who aren't interested in tanks, bombs, dragon-slaying, land conquest, or rape stories?
Because the AAA system is utterly broken and unsustainable, and they have very little margin of error these days. When Shenmue was released and needed the whole Dreamcast userbase to buy the game twice to pay out (or rely on the projected sequels success) it was a bit of an outlier - a game with a production so expensive, it had unreasonable goals for sales from the get-go, and we all know how that gamble turned out for Sega. A lot of AAA titles have break-even points of anything between 2 and 5 millions copies sold. In this situation, a "potential costumer", as far as I can tell, is as good as a Facebook RSVP. Sure, they might actually be interested and come, but more than likely, they'll forget, not feeling like going out, something else came up in the meantime or can't afford going. On the other hand, another me-too title is likely to sell for the same crowd that bought the previous 5 of the genre.

The AAA situation on the whole is terrible, unsustainable, and frankly depressing. The slow death of A and AA gaming with the escalating development costs adds to this shitty situation, because that would be the sweet spot between investment in quality and risk. Since that doesn't happen, you have the indies carrying the torch for change, with all the limitations with it.
posted by lmfsilva at 9:11 AM on November 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

"The real question is, why are AAA game companies so devoted to their white-cis-het-male demographic that they're ignoring the millions of potential customers who aren't interested in tanks, bombs, dragon-slaying, land conquest, or rape stories? "

Uh, are you sure that's the only demographic that plays those games? That seems like a bit of an outdated assumption.
posted by I-baLL at 12:09 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

For example, here's a Nielsen report on diversity in gaming. It says:

"Despite LGBT and Asian-American gamers’ feelings about the depiction of sexual orientation and race in video game characters, these groups as a whole are engaged gamers. In fact, 65% of all LGBT consumers play games of any type, slightly edging out heterosexual players (63%). Asian-Americans are even more likely to game (81%), leading all other races and ethnicities: African-Americans are the next most likely (71%), followed by non-Hispanic whites (61%) and Hispanics (55%). When it comes to gender, more men are gamers (68%) than women (56%)."
posted by I-baLL at 12:12 PM on November 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Not to mention there are plenty of AAA games are made in Japan which are definitely not made by or primarily for white males (although plenty of white males also play them).
posted by thefoxgod at 1:57 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

gameplay-less plots like Zork

Extremely nerdy point of order: Zork is actually pretty gameplay intensive and doesn't have much of a story. Such as it is, the story is that you're an adventurer exploring an underground complex and looking for treasure. It's all about puzzles and timing. Photopia is a better canonical example of a text adventure that's almost entirely story.
posted by zeusianfog at 1:59 PM on November 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

So reading this article and conversation reminds me of how I am currently dating someone who self-identifies as a gamer, but he plays genres that I just never got really exposed to growing up. These are obscure platform titles, or "factory games" like Factorio. Really interesting, intricate games that are absorbing and immersive, kind of like building model figures or ships in a bottle but in game form.

I also started playing Starbound, which is like 2D minecraft in space, and it is so fun and cute especially to play with friends.

Perhaps the comments here reveal a demand for much more intense, nuanced, narrative-style games with interesting mechanics that can help push that story forward. This seems like a fruitful space to try building games in.
posted by yueliang at 2:17 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Uh, are you sure that's the only demographic that plays those games? That seems like a bit of an outdated assumption.

I am sure those are the top marketing demographic - there's no active intention to exclude others (except for the occasional dramafest online), but the biggest US game companies very much have the attitude, "we cannot afford to alienate our 'core audience;' others can enjoy or not as they will." There is no attempt to find out what might draw in more gamers outside the core demographics of choice other than the occasional cringe-inducing marketing plans based on horrible stereotypes. ("Girls like... pink, right? And shopping. Add some of those.")

I understand that the AAA industry is unsustainable and that makes them unwilling to "risk" shifting target demographics, and I am enjoying the indie explosion that's taking advantage of their stagnant approach.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:17 PM on November 8, 2016

One thing I've been thinking about video games: My 14 year old daughter can spend hours on "girl games" (shopping, dressing, makeup-ing). She is a smart, feminist, intellectual kid who has read Moby Dick and can come up with well reasoned arguments about why Kapernick is a great activist, but at the same time, she really on a core level just loves these (dumb, sexist) games. They scratch an itch. Between girl games and bubble shooter, that's all she really enjoys playing.

I've bought her a dozen smart, creative Steam games; several are feminist, visually beautiful, or extremely clever puzzlers. She's like, 'eh' about them. (We're playing Grim Fandango together, but I don't think she'd have the patience to play alone.)

Maybe she'd groove on the Sims or some of the Japanese games I'm hearing about, but I can't find much out there that is simple, low-stress, repetitive, rewarding, and soothing the way these games are for her.
posted by latkes at 3:36 PM on November 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

My 14 year old daughter can spend hours on "girl games" (shopping, dressing, makeup-ing).

Worth keeping in mind I'm a 30-something dude, and over the years I lost considerable time over whatever my RPG/Sandobx character is wearing. On some days I might have lost more time, say, kits in Pro Evolution Soccer for teams I never played with (or against) or designing boots than actually playing the game. Same with cars on GRID or whatever customizable aesthetic option I have at my disposal (it's pretty telling my biggest gripe with UFC 20XX was that it had a lot of Ed Hardy style shirts, but very little options in the shorts department, or that some racing games only have a few templates instead of letting me draw my own helmet - even if seeing it is generally a bad sign).

So, there's something about customization that makes some people tick, and those "girly" games are pretty much that taken to core functions with highly addictive mechanics. Do you have any games lil'latkes would be able to customize to her taste without external tools?
posted by lmfsilva at 1:31 AM on November 9, 2016 [3 favorites]