Fellow gamers

[Michael Robertson]

First post woo! ^_^!

I feel I should share my thoughts a bit more on here and immerse in the lively community. It is also pretty relevant to you guys and gals! What I'm asking is when it comes down to it all, to the very essence and creation. Why do we play games? It amazes me how many people are actually afraid to play games like Silent Hill because they border on the obscene and yet others (myself included) actually enjoy being scared out of their wits time and time again. However on the other side of things why do people tirelessly play wii sports and destroy their households in a barrage of flailing limbs and others shunt it as heretic behaviour and a disservice to gaming? It would seem that there is a sort of mythology and heritage to gaming with belief in specific appeals but why do we place so much of ourselves into games?

Genre to genre, platform to platform, you have: your fanboys, your casuals, The Hardcore, your emos/goths, your kids and ofcourse The Americans and fanatical types. Though not expansive I think it gives us an idea of how gamers are pidgeon holed and shelved into do's and dont's of what games should be made like for them, But how do you ask every single player what they thought of your game and why they play it?

Would it even matter to some companies where the next iteration of their series was in regards to new directions or current pros and cons?

Does a community make a game that much more worthwhile, that more of a great game due to how they address the players needs and meet radical requests? What is Niché?

We as gamers, I think, are living in an age of doubt, cynicism and most of all mass appeal and commerce. There is money to be made in our back pocket and games companies (and ofcourse us when we make it) are wanting as much of it as they can. Projects cost more and risks are heavier blows to take. Yet the public stand still thirsty for more and continously asking for improvement and meeting their needs specifically upon request.

Listen>Learn>Plan>Develop>Repeat

As fans of games it is a great thing to behold when a company that produces games we play alot or like provides amazing service and dedication to our support and needs. However the rise and fall of this relationship between us as gamers and them as developers is a very risky path for any company, large or small, to take on.

So the developers must ask themselves before they ask the market what do they want from their project. Why do they play games? Why do they want to tirelessly make games for their players? Therefore we as budding developers should be asking the same questions, forget the market for five minutes.

Stop. Think, Why?

My choices? I would say emotional attachment to a player character is important, whether it be through the clothes and items I choose to bear or the interactions I'm allowed within the game towards the character. I derive a great enjoyment from customising parts of the game to my tastes and given the tools can get lost for quite sometime in making arrangements.

However I like things sort of simple with shades of complexity that are relevant to the context of the game. Same applies for me in regards to missions and relevance of the tasks set to the settings and environments. Goals and objectives can come in many varieties you might have a direct link in a menu to exactly what you are to do, or you might spend most of the game trying to figure exactly what your objective is.

Both approaches have their place in gaming (amongst many more) and I've enjoyed various games that use these methods but what keeps me playing through the same repetitive pattern of goal>quest>glory in every game is the context they set it in.

I clearly have a contradictory approach to game choice depending on the type of game and context it is set in and the features it offers. Sometimes I'll want a game because its simple and exactly what I'm looking for in that five minutes of boredom or pickup my Fisher Price/Gibson guitar and thrash the living daylight out of it in rock band. Other times I will spend hours frantically murdering/be murdered in online shooters or playing through quests in my ever growing collection of RPG's to get that hero feeling. However I still like an adrenaline filled race now and again with a side order of sport titles on hand for those moments.

It all depends on the mood, the scenery and the bang for my buck, and yet its about the communities/multiplayer, the glory and the revenge.

So in a glorified journey of text I honestly wonder if a simple question such as "why do we play games?" can have a simple answer in this age of gaming. With so much choice and so many options available for players these days is it any wonder that a player such as myself has such a varied opinion on such a simple matter?

Where do your tastes take you?

[Stewart Barnes]

A lot of games are doon to tthe power o' the sub-conscious mind.

How do they get there?
Marketing & Advertising.

One only has to watch Saturday night TV to see whit Andy Warhol was on aboot.

[Michael Robertson]

Doesn't observation precede interpretation as a necessary step for pyschology? I agree with your opinion on how the analysis of the mind and speculation of what to expect can sometimes precede the observations or indeed the observer therefore quantifying them into "numbers".

However as an avid spectator of my fellow man I ask myself alot of questions as to why people do what they do in life, is it genetic, habit, procedural or indeed random acts? What I find from my musings and the subsequent meandering of information seeking is that everything boils down to the mind of us all somewhere. Social trends and human behaviour are all part of the mind and analysis of such events would be to me, classed as part of pyschology.

As for philosophy, I prefer my questions to have founding in something worth asking and preferrably answerable.

Without speculation would we ever move forward? ^_~

[John Sutherland]

The terms anthropology and psychology were both coined in the 16th century, but quite separately. My issue with psychology is that it is an interpretive subject, whereas anthropology is an observational one. Psychology is a subject which issues interpretations of the unknowableness of the internals of the human mind based upon secondary observations. Anthropology is one that seeks to interpret the primary and visible actions of people and societies.

Also, Psychologists have a habit, relatively recently acquired, of attempting to interpret their research using quantitative methods; as if this brings with it the same respectability as natural sciences, mathematics and engineering. I am more comfortable with the approach of anthropology which seeks to accept the data as it appears, without turning it into numbers first. As such I am a qualitative researcher, not a quantitative one.

It appears that the roots of psychology are in philosophy, whereas those of anthropology are in history. Which would also perhaps explain why the former is more a secondary-data science than the latter, as philosophy is a speculative field whereas history is one based on primary documentary evidence.

Is there anything worse than being associated with philosophy ;-)

[Michael Robertson]

@Kalakian hahahaha Aye to that! Doesn't Anthropology stem from Pyschology? I always considered it as a subdivision and a more specific approach to how we as humans are and are always going to be "One". The mind rules all :D.

[Michael Robertson]

It certainly seems that the escapism and immersion in games is what truly seperates us from other creative media industry. Something thats stuck with me for quite some time is that players play games with their mind and not their hands. The immersion comes from the player themselves and how their thoughts interact with the game, the controller bits just act out your thoughts and intents.

One thing that struck me as ironic was how you think we are more human than other media which I agree with whole heartedly. However the "other media" would say quite the opposite bringing up things like violence in video game debates or "x" content is bad as a game but good as a movie/tv show. Also they would say that world is slowly becoming a colony of hermitages (is that a word?! (**apparently its dutch X_x**) sad, alone gamers in cupboards basically) where gamers are branded exiles and treated like lepars.

I guess we can thank Rockstar and Blizzard for alot of the bad press but lets face it they are all just bitter we've got the best industry to work in!

[Kalakian]

You don't believe in psychology? May as well say you don't believe in something like maths or computing ... it's something that exists, not something for you to believe in :P

[John Sutherland]

I don't believe in Psychology, but prefer Anthropology. People is people is people and we too is people (copyright DrJ 2009). There is a seeking after challenge and success that runs right through the genomes. And there are others: like a mother's fanatical death-defying protectiveness over her sprogs. Challenge is life.

But, I like your 'age of gaming' quote. There is something specifically new going on here that the TV and media jonnies just don't get. We have an escapism and immersiveness that has replaced their media. I somehow think we are more human than they are, as our games are more about raw emotions rather manipulating social models of society like wot the BBC wants to do all the time.

Games let people be their own heroes, without having to believe in such as politicians and celebs. I think we are truer to human reality than other media.

*end of sermon*

[Kalakian]

Nice first post :)

I'd recommend looking at psychology rather than philosophy as much of what you are saying does come down to personal tastes, but both have merits.

Why do we play games? Well, why do we engage in any form of entertainment ... to be entertained! We've also got things like escapism to consider as well ... let's face it, the real world sux, games are far more fun :). We get to do things that either just can't be done in real life or we'll never get the opportunity to try out, like flying around in a spaceship. There are also some wierd and wonderful things that just would never happen, but are really enjoyable ... like running around blasting aliens apart.

How about immersion? I enjoy the final fantasy games that usually come with strong storylines and backgrounds for each of the characters. As you said about emotional attachment, you can get deeply involved in games sometimes and feel a weird bond with the characters, or become moved by the storyline.

The social aspect of playing games can be quite good as well. You get to meet (and sometimes kill) people from all over the world that you'd never get a chance to meet. Explore different cultures by talking to online buddies while you're hacking away at some monster, or see if you can make some obsessive American cry when you steal the kill he needs to get the item he's been after for weeks ... fun times :D.

Challenge is another thing. I get bored very easily with games that don't provide any real challenge, unless they make up for it in other ways. At the same time, if a game is too hard because of brute force methods (enemies have far too much health etc.) then it can also be quite dull if you have to repeatedly perform the same brain dead action over and over again just to get past an enemy/situation.

There's just so much in games, I find it difficult to understand why some people don't play them ... yet will involve themselves with the non-interactive game called TV. If you look at my recent forum post (http://wosgamers.ning.com/forum/topics/games-to-play-while-working) you will see that I'm trying to find a game that will help me get some work done ... sounds bizarre I know. I'm trying to get a game that I can play to keep me at the computer doing work, while not completely distracting me from it ... maybe not a common reason for playing games, but I feel it's a valid one.

Anyway, I could go on and on talking about this ... but I can do that in my lectures :). Will be interesting to see what other people post here about their reasons for playing games.

[Alexander Logue]

You should do a philosophy course. =)

I would read all of what you said, but it's 3:30 and I'm knackered.