Support NeoGAF

[Nicco]

Donkey Konga, Eye Toy: Play, Animal Crossing, and DDR are all described as niche titles when the truth is that these games appeal to a wider audience than any Halo, The Legend of Zelda, Grand Theft Auto or Gran Turismo. I know I'm defying conventional wisdom so hear me out.

First all when I say "wider audience" I'm not talking about how these so called niche games faired against Halo and the like. I'm talking about appeal; cross-gender appeal, multi-cultural appeal, the "fun for the whole family" type of appeal.

The majority of the games being released this holiday season are not mainstream. They are games that appeal to one specific demographic. Mainstream is not mainstream. Mainstream as you know it is a game that sells well to the specific demographic, namely 15-25 year old males. Don't believe me?, look in the mirror, chance are that you fit that description.

Let it simmer, then let me know how you feel about this theory of mine.

 

[TekunoRobby]

The music genre isn't niche anymore, it's actually a monstrous force within the gaming community.

 

[Nicco]

How many successful music games have launched in the past three years? Five?, ten at most? Hardly monstrous.

 

[TekunoRobby]

Sorry I meant in terms of community. I wouldn't have a clue about the sales of music-based games.

Logic tells us that they would be far more appealing to the average consumer like you've stated.

 

[ArcadeStickMonk]

I absolutely agree with you, when the entire populous is considered for a game's appeal.

The thing is, as avid video game fans, we like to distinguish ourselves from those who take a more casual approach to the same content. This is where the titling of "hardcore" came from.

Because anyone can view a picture, hear a song, watch a movie, and most can read a books these mediums easily fit into your definition of "mainstream." Some are designed for people with specific interests and the rest are meant for everyone.

However, some amount of training and understanding has been a prerequisite for all video games up until this point, simply to perceive and control them properly. This means that a large portion of the populous cannot enjoy them and and are not attracted to the games. This makes your definition of "mainstream" incompatible with this environment since very nearly the entire medium is designed for those who already understand video games.

So when a game comes out that bucks large portions of the understanding that the medium is based around, or simply requires more effort and dilligence than an average player will give it, that game becomes the specified, or hardcore, game and the rest fall into a kind of mainstream within a mainstream.

As intuitive concepts of interaction become more common place within the industry, letting anyone play the game in a matter that seems fitting and logical, even natural, I hope that your definition becomes applicable, because it means that more people are playing and more games are being made. However, getting to this point will take a long time, as simply the need to deliver physical controllers means that almost all games are played with a handful of controller designs, thus perpetuating the gap between players and non-players and isolating the medium to the point where a shorthand version of the concept of mainstream is the most accurate.

 

[Stryder]

Hmm, so your theory is that the hardcore go for the games that are more likely to be popular amongst mainstream consumers, and the mainstream 'gamers' are picking up the niche-like not-so-popular titles amongst the wider population (Halo, etc.)..

Interesting, I think there is some truth in what you're saying.. but I'm going to choose to shrug my shoulders and say 'who cares?, let people play what they want and play what you want..'

 

[Nicco]

As intuitive concepts of interaction become more common place within the industry, letting anyone play the game in a matter that seems fitting and logical, even natural, I hope that your definition becomes applicable, because it means that more people are playing and more games are being made.

But are concepts being implimented by a significant number of publishers?

I'm afraid it is a Catch-22 for a lot of publishers. They are relying on one are two franchises to keep afloat so they can't afford to put out simplified content and risk alienating their fans. They can't put out a dedicated simplified product either because chances are that original games will be ignored because of sequels. Thus, games remain inaccessible to the yet tapped into mainstream.

 

[ArcadeStickMonk]

They can't put out a dedicated simplified product either because chances are that original games will be ignored because of sequels

I don'treally understand this concern, unless it's akin to people wanting to play the latest DDR and not the first.

And while we're on DDR, I do beleive that the series, or genre really, was big step in the right direction. It don't appeal to everyone, not for instance, me, but it does appeal to people whom a game controlled with a joystick would not have.

And while we're on the subject of arcades, they're further along the real mainstream path than any console. Franchises like Dave & Buster's, Jillian's, and even Gameworks stock mainly the arcade games with the inutuitive interfaces (steering wheels, skis, light guns) because the more that they convince to play the more money that they make. Sadly, a lot of these games are crap; and sadly their partial successes have made it all but impossible to find new fighting machines anywhere except the largest cities.

I don't want to lose focus on the issue at hand, essentially arcades have adopted more intuitive forms to stay afloat in the U.S. Nintendo's E3 promises suggest that they will bring more intuitive concepts into the living room, which is fantastic if true, because very few of the mainstream arcade titles could insire people to play on a regular basis past the sheer novelty.

A lot of people have been suggesting that we are headed for another video game crash within the next two generations (a measurement which is part of the issue itself) because the old standard interation of new technonology+gamepad screams of stagnation. I do believe that even though the vast majority of games made today are still aimed at the specific demographic, while profitable, this demographic's interest is in extreme danger of deteriorating. How long can this parade of sequels float? A logical industry move would be to aim for a much larger demographic (more 18-25 girls for example) and to do that the control schemes are going o have to change.

I do believe that we will see some sort of shift industry in the next five years to capture a wider audience and I think that overall more intuitive designs would be the biggest boon to that effort. We'll see the games try to go fully mainstream yet, but the 18-25 demographic feeds both other forms of modern media far too well to ever fully dissappear in the game industry.

 

[Azih]

Mainstream = sales. Simple as that.

Something that sells more, is more mainstream.