Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

128 Comments

Worth Reading: 08/25/2014

It's a new week. PAX is almost here. Before we get there, some ruminations on the term "gamer," a new take on what's wrong with mobile, and much more.

When I play Diablo III on my PlayStation 4, I can tell it's a good game. It's been beautifully adapted to a controller, as though it was always meant for consoles. But after 70 hours of Divinity, I need a break.

No Caption Provided

I cannot stand to look at loot anymore.

Part of the reason I'm always willing to give new games a shot, even if I don't end up liking them, is avoiding burnout. Though Divinity and Diablo 3 differ in significant ways--one is real-time action, the other is turn-based--both have an emphasis on loot.

To recalibrate, I'm playing other kinds of games. One day, it was Unrest, a conversation-focused adventure about an ancient Indian kingdom dealing with a lengthy drought. Another, it was Eidolon, an exploratory story game giving me some Proteus vibes. (Vinny and Alex looked at it recently.)

You Should Read These

No Caption Provided

There are some really smart criticisms of the mobile market presented in Tadgh Kelly's piece, and they're miles away from the usual conversations we have about smartphones games. It's not about free-to-play. Instead, Kelly points out the inability for developers to successfully build upon a hit video game, preventing many from sticking around. Angry Birds is an exception to the rule. There is no Candy Crush Saga 2, if there was, and few would care. Mobile does not inspire loyal players or customers. Not only that, but Apple and Google have done a poor job at allowing communities to build around mobile games. This was an article where I was nodding my head the whole way through.

"We often say that games are a hit driven business, but the reality is games are a franchise driven business. When physical retailers dominated the landscape, the continued success of the franchise was all about selling boxes, and often still is. A big publisher like EA or Activision spends a lot of cash and effort ensuring that their biggest games are able to be annualized because they know the value that franchises can bring. It’s rare that a game arrives from nowhere and sells 10m copies cold, but over a few releases and building of brand and intellectual property (as well as good games), momentum leads to greater and greater success."

No Caption Provided

"Power to the players," "by gamers, for gamers," and other slogans are designed to make a certain kind of person feel good. I'm one of those people. You're probably one of those people. But Matthew Burns has taken a closer look at the philosophy of "gamer," and I come away feeling pretty gross about the whole affair. In the context of what's happened in the last few days, it feels especially pertinent. Underlying his essay is the importance of having a range of voices to ensure we're getting new perspectives. We can't always trust ourselves. (Note: Try to think of this article in the grand scheme of things--big picture. It's not meant as a personal attack on anyone, but a broader consideration of what the underlying effects of heavily marketing to a specific demographic are.)

"We tend to say the problem lies with 'gamers.' Consider how successful and widespread “gamer” is as an identity despite the fact that it hardly means anything at all. The reason the gamer identity has become so laden with bad connotations--misogyny, Doritos--is because the identity itself doesn’t really matter except for one crucial aspect: the buying of games. As long as “gamer” means someone who spends money, preferably a lot of money, on products that are produced by the game industry, the rest of that identity is left undefined. There’s no incentive for the largest groups that do things around games to attempt to define gaming as, say, something that makes you interesting, or as a noble pursuit. Anything anyone knows about “gamers” is just that they purchase games.

I want to talk about a certain kind of good customer. As a group they are an important source of revenue. Since 'gamer' doesn’t mean anything, I will call them 'consumer-kings' (the gendered term is intentional). Central to the notion of the consumer-king is the purity of his agency to make decisions about what to choose to experience. We could imagine him in front of a table brimming with a stunning variety of exquisite foods, much more than he could possibly eat in one sitting. He looks at each of them, enjoying their shapes and colors, imagining what they will taste like. There are many aspects to consider, so he is surrounded by a group of people whose job it is to talk about the dishes, to tell the stories behind them, and otherwise add new dimensions to his aesthetic reverie. His advisors are educated and opinionated, and he suspects some of them might secretly look down on him. But at the same time, he revels in their attention and in the notion of having his own, equally valid opinion to contrast with theirs. At the end of the discussion– which has taken all day– they always defer to him. After all, his own critical thought is the highest and most important faculty in his choice of repast (even if that process leads him to conclusions that are overwhelmingly similar to everyone around him)."

If You Click It, It Will Play

These Crowdfunding Projects Look Pretty Cool

Tweets That Make You Go "Hmmmmmm"

Oh, And This Other Stuff

Patrick Klepek on Google+