Yeah, they are the equivalent of an out-of-touch boomer slapping the side of the TV and exclaiming, "play, game!" without realizing it needs to be plugged in.
Their idea of entertainment is vegetating in front of the TV or computer screen and receiving ego-affirming media that requires little to no input. When the device requires them to... you know... engage with their brain or heaven forbid their reflexes, they freak out. "What's wrong with this game? Why can't I see the next cutscene? Why can't I visit the next level? Dark Souls needs a level select."
Then of course it has to become "gamers are entitled man babies" when someone calls them out on their bullshit.
He's posted this on Twitter in the last half hour:
"I write frequently about technology and design. I often take controversial positions that people don't like.
But I reap a very different crop of responses when I write about games. It's curious. These are ideas for you to take or leave, not judgements of your worth."
Hm.
The crux of his article is:
"The problem is, all games are also work".
Also.
"I really enjoyed playing the goose game. But on reflection, I enjoyed the idea of playing the goose game a lot more than playing it. The mechanical demands of this—and maybe any—game always resist its function as diversion. This is a fundamental problem for game design."
"Television is the most powerful popular medium by far. But even books and magazines reach a different, broader audience than games, and they do so more regularly and with greater diversity. Doesn't that stop you in your tracks?"
Does that stop me in my tracks?
Well. No. Not really.
Games have a narrower appeal. If that's because they need to be "played" then that's fine.
You could say the same about almost anything. Spicy food has a narrower appeal. Science Fiction has a narrower appeal. So on.
I don't think that "have the broadest appeal possible" is a good goal to aspire to if a creator is interested in making something specific.
That just brings me back to thinking this is a guy who, apparently despite his best efforts, doesn't really "get" games and, I think, doesn't see WHY they ought to be different to books, TV etc.
I enjoy running. I am always on the lookout for full and half marathons in interesting locations that I can travel to and do a run and get a souvenir (medal) etc. I try to gradually get better times but as I am getting older I just try to keep up. This takes a lot of time and effort and, excluding alleged health benefits, comes with very little real and tangible reward. It's challenging. I get injured. Etc. Etc.
The point is that I enjoy doing it. I could just as easily not do it. I could just lie in bed and think about my early morning long run on a Saturday. I could smile as I imagine the routine of finding a race, taking time off, booking flights and hotels and planning tourist activities and getting the wife involved and then bringing it all together for an awesome city break. Or I could actually do it.
The problem is that EVERYTHING in life has resistance to some degree or another. Even sitting down and watching a movie depends on getting enough money to have a room and a sofa and a TV and maybe even someone to watch the movie with.
That's the daftest thing here. His problem, sorry, "the" problem, is that games are not movies. Basically.
Imagine a videogame, right, where you switch on your TV and then your PS4 and then you put the game disc in and you press "play". Then you just sit back and enjoy it. Brilliant, right? It doesn't "resist" you or ask you to press buttons or input commands. You just sit and you watch the game. Brilliant.
Imagine being so deep in videogame critique that you end up inventing movies.
A fundamental problem for game design is that the game always resists it's function as a diversion?
OK. It seems to me then that the only way to get around that is to make a movie, TV show or book instead.
If we seriously look at it from a "game design" perspective as he suggests then what are the options?
The game needs to not "resist it's function as a diversion".
So it must be entertaining and a diversion BUT you can't ask the player to do anything.
You need to remove the element of "play" entirely because this is inherently a 2 way street and therefore is requiring you to engage.
So take away the controller and allow the player to just watch as events unfold on screen.
Gameplay is a feature of videogames. Not a bug.
There is no "game design" if your game is just a story playing out on screen. That's a movie.
You could argue that some game design takes the movie experience and turns it into a cinematic, interactive, game (Naughty Dog etc) but doing it the other way and you're really just making movies.
Amazing, really, that this guy legitimately gets paid for this bullshite.
"Guys, the fact that you need to play a game is a big problem for game design".
