Discover Top Posts Tagged with #olivia's subspace

I'm away until Monday 22nd~.

I just need a little break before chugging out article after article again. I hope you all enjoy them when they return!

Generation Maw(?): Do modern gamers differ greatly from those who once played classic games?

When confronted with the issue of taking on another topic for this discussion blog, I was thinking on ideas with friends, two of which work in a gaming store selling used and new games to younger kids, a newer generation of game players as young as their early teens and perhaps even younger still. This generation is growing up with an entirely different basis for games to play, having access to a higher level of technological finesse, having a wider scope of games available to them through obvious and slightly less obvious means. From the computer to the iPhone, games are widely source able and yet, does this mean this generation is encouraged to explore and experience gaming? And are even the previous generations able to cater to that ideology, or are they equally guilty of certain traits that they believe the current generation to possess also?

In many ways, a key difference, as explained by my game store dwelling friends, is the perceived shift of focus in gaming and the age demographic. It is a commonly held belief it seems that the younger generation of games, even as old as primary school kids, seem to be leaning towards playing shooters, football games, pseudo ;realistic' simulator games that seem to be able to place them in a role that while still fantasy, is at least grounded in a somewhat gritter reality in some cases. Examples cited of this include the numerous Fifa games in terms of sports and in terms of shooting games, Call of Duty or Battlefield were other cited examples. If this idea is true, we should explore it and when we do, we find that the answer is a convoluted one. Sales figures don't seem to always register specific age ranges, but in my small search so far, the evidence has been unclear. I have plenty of accounts of younger people, whose ages are unsaid but appear and belong to younger age groups, acquiring more adult games, such as Dead Island Riptide or Call of Duty: Black Op's II, but I hesitate to say with any definition that this is a truly defined statistic. Therefore, I shall focus on the cases that seem to lean towards the statement my game shop friends have attested too and analyse it.

Why do younger kids gravitate at all towards this type of game? Perhaps it leans towards the desire to when you grow up, feel more like an adult. Games simulate often adult scenarios and by playing them, we perhaps stimulate this idea and engage with it in a way that seems both non-threatening, never truly bringing physical harm upon the person engaging with the game, but allowing them to immerse in a fantasy world of already arrived adulthood, something that is not possible within reality at the time. The feeling of illusionary responsibility and direction is probably a great aid to this. Or maybe quite simply, in the case of combat simulators, they stimulate a lesser adrenaline that is somewhat akin to the emotion, but never truly achieving the same prowess as the feeling of actual combat, simply allowing the player to feel an echo of that if truly an engrossing game. These reasons, while they make sense to me, are probably coupled with careful advertising, such as light humour and brazen display of dynamic explosives used within various Black Op's advertisement or other factors, such as a desire for parents to allow time for themselves by giving a game to their child to play and take their time with to allow personal respite from the duties of parenthood. I have seen sometimes cases of parents or older friends trying to and sometimes succeeding in purchasing a game that is an adult experience, such as the aforementioned Dead Island Riptide, twice in a row on that specific day, for a younger then advertised audience. In many ways, while it is the responsibility of the seller to maintain it being sold to the correct audience, it is not exactly unusual for others to seek ways and loopholes around it and ultimately in the current job marker, while it is not always a good idea to sell a game to an audience that might not be suited for it, sales and money are important in a climate where the chances of holding a customer base are tenuous, creating a strange Catch 22 for seller in terms of making money or going against advisement. I don't blame my friends in their store, but I see what's wrong with the situation in both sides and respect the problems that arise from such a scenario.

After having further conversation with my friend, he raised a point he felt was important to make and provided a new thought for me. His point was about the attitude of gamers who restrict themselves to a single product and without a proper view or experience of the other, deem it as 'sad', in other words, using a close minded viewpoint as an excuse for the fact they have chosen not to engage with a certain product. But. I ask a small question of this, the devils advocate. Weren't classic gamers the same in a regard? Oh, perhaps not with a single game, not always. But a commonly remembered example would be the Console War, one of the first, this being between Nintendo and Sega. Many joke about it now but during this time period, it seemed a rivalry was built between the two companies due to their desire to dominate the gaming market and of course, its been said that this 'playful' rivalry bled into school grounds and between those who owned one console and the other. I've heard stories, not just from friends, but referenced in magazines and oft even in Nintendo publication magazines when referring to the now stable partnership of the two in game creation. But back then, it seems now foolish to judge an entire console and its library as 'dumb' without trying it. Sometimes, I feel there is good reason, as with the recent announcement of the Xbox One, certain issues involving privacy, money and greedy policy have called the decisions behind it into question, even with it having been reversed, making me feel aware of my distrust of corporate decisions over gaming decisions. However, with the original Sega and Nintendo conflict, I can see certain issues, yes, such as Third Parties rigid control by Nintendo, or Sega's strangely aggressive advertising campaign, as some might remember 'Sega does what Nintendon't. But ultimately, both as many know and still did know at the time, both Sega's Master System and Mega Drive had a good selection of games, such as Alex Kidd, Castle of Illusion, Sonic the Hedgehog, Gunstar Heroes, etc and so did Nintendo with it's NES/Famicom and SNES/Super Famicom, with Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda, Fire Emblem, F-Zero, etc.

Classic gamers now have a chance with ease and method, to experience both sides of a pointless rivalry if only done due to financial constraints on the part of the consumer. Rationalizing how much you dislike something simply because you can't have access to it, ergo trying to make yourself believe you don't want it, is fine but is still a foolish thought to have as its best to try something before deciding if you don't like it. If any of my friends get an Xbox One, I'd like to try it and enjoy a game or two, or not, to help me decide if I want to try it first for longer periods, then buy it. Modern and Classic gamers seem to, just as any human does, share this trait; there are some things that we don't want to try, therefore we will dislike them before hand. This is not just a trait shared amongst gamers, but amongst humans, such as myself, having never read it, but from learning of it's content, loathing to ever have to read Spider Man: One More Day. But perhaps that is my foolish judgement, not the comic. I know I probably won't like it, but perhaps I should read and try it before hand, before giving a critique that is uninformed. But before I finish, I should say I understand greatly financial constraint. If you can't access something, then that's not your fault more often then not. Judgement is easy to pass, but the context of why we, as game players, both classic and modern, act the way we do, is always going to be a complex affair that is individual to our own. I don't blame the modern gamer, picking up a copy of Black Op's. I don't blame the Classic Gamer, selling them the copy while remembering how much fun playing Contra was. A bridge of understanding is necessary. After all, we're all a little alike, whether we like it... or not. My final words on this shall simply be there are similarities between classic and modern gamers. But I'd welcome modern gamers to experience and indulge in older, classic games. Classic games are our history. They are a visual representation of where video gaming was born, where it came from and where it's going. Play them, have fun with them, question them and perhaps, try to understand them as these games are marvels of their ages as well as in some cases, physical examples of failures to measure up, yet still, efforts. Graphics do not make the game, but they do look interesting in terms of evolution over time and its worth looking at what the history of gaming is, to understand where your own gaming experience will go. And the same but reversed a little to classic gamers. Try what is modern and see the modern gaming world beyond the retro and beyond what may be considered remakes. The world can sometimes surprise you and for every Black Op's II, there's a Spec Op's: The Line. I really want to try that game.