One thing I've noticed about my parents is that even when they play casual stuff, they never seem to achieve the kind of disconnect between physical movement and control of the game that I and I assume everyone else who often plays games can easily achieve. When I'm in the middle of something, I often completely forget that my hands exist at all; as far as I'm concerned I'm directly manipulating the game with my mind. In a way it's already a kind of virtual reality, which people who don't play games can't seem to attain. They're stuck fiddling around with a mouse or controller, instead of directly playing.
The times change, but how totally uncool parents can be never does. Someday you all will be that parent too!
I already am! I grew up with video games, and my house is stocked with some but good. My son's friend's are often taken aback when they suggest playing some video games and my son says, "You have to ask my dad. They're his."
But those collectible card games? I don't even know what that's all about, man. Magic hit just as I turned old enough to drink. Never tried it. The craze passed me by.
And those damn card games are STILL huge, and the kids LOVE them, my son and all his friends play them, and I just don't. Fucking. Get it.
So I might have a Wii and a DS and 80 consoles and a gazillion games and all that crap, but the fact that Yu Gui Yo is Greek to me puts me right on the lame list.
Why didn't the parents of the early teens listen to the radio?
Why didn't parents in the turn of the century go to Nickelodeons?
Why didn't parents in 1939 watch TV?
It's called radical suppression of new technology, and it's an old phenomenon. Basically, the first generation to grow up with a new technology is the one who ushers it in, and the older generation, outside of rare oddities, will simply choose not to participate.
Trust me, every medium goes through it. Get this - Socrates condemned written language back when it was a new technology. He thought it'd dull the mind.
He was right, too - anything that lets us not use our memory is bad for us in that sense.
Both of my parents play games avidly (ages 41 and 37). I suppose they aren't in the generation we're talking about.
I'm going to be blunt about this as usual. The reason most older people don't partake is twofold.
Ignorance
Stupidity
Insecurity
As has been covered in this thread well before I saw it, people either think games are stupid and for children (yeah, fuck you people), or they're completely intimidated by the difficulty and complexity and are afraid of looking bad playing them.
The whole "if i'm not good at it right away i never will be, i quit" attitude that keeps people away from musical instruments and the gym.
My mom (in her fifties) bought a DS and a bunch of games after I showed her Brain Age
It's cool, we play multiplayer
Heh. My mom (just turned 60) wants to buy one specifically for Brain Age. She also likes Bowling on the Wii.
As for why the boomers don't game, I think TSR has nailed it. You stick with the media you grew up with. Past a certain age we're less likely to adopt new forms of media. For example: E-Books. I'd be willing to bet that our kids think paper books are crazy...
I think it's a bit of a chicken-aqnd-the-egg syndrome. When games were young, they lacked the resources (both in terms of what it was possible to do with the hardware and with the funding) to create environments, tell stories, or create gamelike puzzles that were interesting to most adults - so they wrote them off initially and didn't play them.
As a result, most of the cash spent in the industry through its formative years was spent by (or on behlf of) a younger demographic - which tended to skew the reward for producing a game towards making products that catered to the more adoloscent tastes of that demographic. Thus even as was what possible in gaming grew, most parents were already turned off to the medium, and peeking in on their sons ripping someone's spine out in Mortal Kombat in the early 90s didn't help elevate their low opinion of gaming much.
Even today, there's very little material in games that can compare to the quality of writing or intellectual stimulation that people of the boomer generation can get easily from music, movies, cable TV, or even a newspaper crossword - all of which are familiar mediums they grew up with. When the content hasn't been present for two decades, the cost of entry and required time investment are high, and the control barrier of most modern consoles is as high as it has been, it's not hard to see why most people over the age of 35 just don't bother.
Sonicretard brought up an idea that each generation goes through a phobia of new technology. No way man, not me! What could generation X possibly be afraid of when it comes to technology? Robots? Come on, futurists, what am I going to think see as a passing fad?
Wasn't there a PA comic where a senior citizen Gabe can't hook up his mind to a matrix of some kind so he hassled his grandkid for tech help?
Well, it's not really my idea, but it's a theory I prescribe to and historic data supports. I can't find my paper on my desktop, and I don't want to rummage through my laptop, so I'll just sum it up.
Radical Suppression of new Technology isn't a reason WHY parents don't play video games, it's a study that indicates they DON'T play video games. Or listen to radio. Or write. or any new technology. There are many factors which make up the WHY of Radical Suppression, and since no two people are a like, and no two technologies are the same, you can never definitively answer exactly why they don't. But Radical suppression notes that there are common themes with the acceptance (and unacceptance) of new technology. It's growing pains every medium goes through. The birth of a new medium goes like so:
1. New technology begins with innovators and hobbiests.
In the earliest part of any technologies life, it begins with the ultra dorks, sitting in their basement, tinkering with stuff. The first people who had radio? They were enthusists who built them in their basements to play with. Computers? Modern PCs are pretty much descendants of the (now famous) Homebrew Computer Club out of silicon valley where people would tinker with parts of the Altair - Apple computers comes directly from this. Motion pictures? Well, that's an invention of Thomas Edison who invented his Kinetograph inside his basement-like lab and later inside of the Black Maria. Hell, even writing? Scholars tinkered in ancient chinese culture with writing not as a formal system, but as an experimental art form which grew into something useful.
2. Early adoption/release to the mass
it normally doesn't take long before some hobbiest tries to make money from his inventions, and release them to the mass. They're normally released as nothing more than distractions - something interesting to look at for a while but not with much staying power. Edison took film to the masses with his Kintoscope viewer, which he built into parlors called penny arcades. You could go, pay a penny, and watch 15 or so seconds of something useless, like a guy boxing, or a woman dancing. Early writers would accept money to write people's name in chinese culture. Computers? Shit, there's hundreds of examples... the apple I, the altair itself, and hundreds of other forgotten, nameless relics.
3. Reception
After the new technology is released, the public generally receives it in a couple of ways. This would be the part pertinent to the question of "why don't my parents play video games?" Initially, there is a flock of people interested in just taking in the new spectacle. Simply seeing something new, a new distraction, is enough to at least grab most people's attention, young and old. However, very shortly after, the spectacle wears off, and use of the technology tapers off in layers. Usually the older a group is, the faster they get bored of the specticle and walk away. The commonly accepted theory as to why older groups leave the spectacle first is simply because they've had more time in life to gain other hobbies. So, say when television was released... after a while, seeing early programming proves dull, so the generation before returns to their previous passion or interest - radio. Very rapidly, the new medium loses steam, never reaching full out rock bottom, but coming close. At this point in the mediums life, it's not about what it does - it's not an entertainment form. It's still just there, so it's not content that'll keep people around.
4. Decline and new market
Typically, the last generation to remain with a technology is children. Children latch onto new mediums and are slow to let go. So once all the adults are removed, the medium belongs to children. In cinema, this era would be called the Nickelodeon era - a period where kids could scrap up a nickle to go watch a flick. And for a while, that's where the medium remains - a kids play thing. Think about it - with computers you had a wave of advanced computers... only to see them drop off and suddenly we have Commodore 64s or Atari STs - computers which looked more like video game systems. Radio saw the birth of serial dramas like the lone ranger or Ozzy and Harriet. It's kids who get pandered to, and thats where the new market begins. Technology improves, and it becomes a full fledged business, trying to take money from kids. So the medium improves - movies move from 15 seconds to 60 to 10 minutes to 30 minutes to a full hour to 3 and a half hour long epics. And it's mainly done for kids. True, there are still some older people early on who never lose adoption, and they are occasionally pandered to (like with DW Grifith's birth of a Nation) but those are oddities, and they are the exception.
5.New perception and maturation
As the new medium becomes more and more popular with youth, perception from older generations generally declines. "Vulgar" is a word a wealthy socialite used to describe one of the first talking films - the Jazz Singer. In the eyes of the older generation, it isn't a new medium to be taken seriously - it's a crude child's play thing. Radio, for example, was the childrens crude alternative to going to a full on symphony or orchestra. However, as time goes on, a big shift occurs. The kids who adopted and fell in love with the medium back when it was vulgar? They grow up. And before you know it, THEY are the ones who are the adults who say what is or what isn't a medium. For all intent and purposes, modern film began around 1900. Film wasn't taken seriously as an art form until around the 1920's and 30's when films like Griffith's Intolerance, Hitchcocks Blackmail, or Fleming's Gone with the Wind started appearing, giving birth to a new term, "Film art." 20-30 years after it's inception. In other words, film became art when those kids who were tinkering with penny-arcades grew up and became 20 and 30 year olds themselves, and turned their distraction into art. But even then, the older generation still is reluctant to buy in. At this point, it's evolved too far, and they cannot jump in anymore. So to the old generation, the perception that they're just kids toys lingers simply because they can't understand it, and they don't really want to either.
6. Rise of an empire, decline of a generation
As the new medium becomes more and more accepted, it starts to become formalized. What was once something that kids played with as a hobby becomes a multi-billion dollar industry with a lot of clout. Film saw the rise of the Studio system in the 1950's. Radio saw the literal radio empire, when David Sarnoff created his "Empire of the Air" which would later turn into the monolith RCA. Computers... well, do I need to explain that one? And all the while, as these hobbies turn into media machines, the older generation, the one who originally walked away, begins to dwindle. It's simply natural - humans die. They begin to fade out, and become less prominent until, eventually, everyone who opposed the new medium and considered it beneath them, is gone and all that's left are those who took it seriously.
As I said, this isn't a rule, or a law, or anything. Just a very well accepted study of technological acceptance. It's been noted several times through history. And without opening a can of worms, after studying this for a while, I simply sit back and laugh when people tell me games won't be a legitimate art form, or that they're kids stuff. Note that I purposely didn't include any examples of how this is happening in gaming when describing Radical Suppression of new Technology... I'll let you draw the parallels yourself. Really, if you know anything about the history of gaming, it should be quite eye opening how 1:1 gaming has fallen into the Radical Suppression model.
Why didn't the parents of the early teens listen to the radio?
Why didn't parents in the turn of the century go to Nickelodeons?
Why didn't parents in 1939 watch TV?
It's called radical suppression of new technology, and it's an old phenomenon. Basically, the first generation to grow up with a new technology is the one who ushers it in, and the older generation, outside of rare oddities, will simply choose not to participate.
Trust me, every medium goes through it. Get this - Socrates condemned written language back when it was a new technology. He thought it'd dull the mind.
He was right, too - anything that lets us not use our memory is bad for us in that sense.
uh, social studies suggest that he was wrong. People today retain more knowledge than at any point in history. Our mental capacity is the same, but we simply retain more knowledge.
But man, that's a whole 'nother topic that would take pages to talk about. Just forget I said anything.
My parents still think video games are just like they were in the Mega Drive days. They havent been following the industry and thus dont see where they have come.
Im going to go round there nearer to Christmas, Mass effect or Uncharted or something should show them different.
Like, when they saw the Ratchet ad on TV my father shot me an email asking because it said in game footage at the bottom whether or not that meant it was just a movie you put into your PS3 to watch.
He couldnt understand it was a fulyl realised 3d interactive world.
Its not a knock against them, but he still plays civ 4 and isometric flat games like that because they are more like the games he had when he played games (basically pc games circa 1990s)
My parents still think video games are just like they were in the Mega Drive days. They havent been following the industry and thus dont see where they have come.
Im going to go round there nearer to Christmas, Mass effect or Uncharted or something should show them different.
Like, when they saw the Ratchet ad on TV my father shot me an email asking because it said in game footage at the bottom whether or not that meant it was just a movie you put into your PS3 to watch.
He couldnt understand it was a fulyl realised 3d interactive world.
Its not a knock against them, but he still plays civ 4 and isometric flat games like that because they are more like the games he had when he played games (basically pc games circa 1990s)
I've been trying to show my parents how far games have evolved. It's been interesting. My mom and dad actually played the sega master system quite a bit when I was younger. Normally, my player 2 would be my dad. Around the time the saturn came around, my dad stopped playing. My mom stopped earlier than that.
Their reasoning? "There's not enough gameplay!" I sat my mom and dad down in front of bioshock and mass effect this thanksgiving and explained to them stuff I'm learning in school about narration as a whole. My dad got it, I think - I believe he's grown to understand that video games aren't always about simply doing an objective anymore (although some are) but can be vehicles of narration. I explained to him the plot of Metal Gear solid and he said that sounded interesting. I showed him me playing through the first part of bioshock (with the plastic surgeon) and mass effect (up through feros) and he said he thought they had awesome stories, he just doesn't have the dexterity to play them. So they're an untappable source for him.
My mom on the other hand... "Why don't they just make a movie! I wanna play that game with the gun for the sega (she was talking about gangster town)" "Why do you have to sit through stuff if it's a game, I thought you were supposed to be playing something." "Is this a movie?"
Just beyond her, I guess. She's from a completely different world, though. Completely computer illiterate... can't use a mouse.
TheSonicRetard on
0
Options
SirUltimosDon't talk, Rusty. Just paint.Registered Userregular
edited November 2007
My parents played games with me all the time when I was younger. In fact, my siblings and I would have nightly games of Perfect Dark with my dad for a good long while. Not to mention that the only reason I'm into videogames as much as I am is because my grandpa played them all the time, both with and without me.
When I showed bioshock to my parents ages ago, they were onboard with the shooting of things, but couldnt understand why the game had a plot, or characters or all the audio logs and cutscenes. to them it seemed like you said, a case of why not just make a movie.
Actually this is an interesting topic for me. The holidays are fast approaching and I am going to visit family as most of us may be doing.
Most of these people I am going to see are parents themselves who don't play games. I have myself a Wii, PS3 and a 360 and am carrying home the Wii (have a 360 at my parents house as well) to hopefully encourage some family gameplay.
First off I wouldn't mind some advice. My family as far as gaming goes is divided into 3 types. One is the kind that I know best, my cousins and I (big family yea) have been gaming for over 20 years...had lots of fun and have moved up to the COD 4 and HALO games. When I come home for the holidays only 2 games are in the the 360 console, HALO and FIFA. So thats a no brainer there.
The second type are the parents, the uncles and aunts. the uncles love to watch us play FIFA....they really get into it with the game since the visuals for the game have really amped up since the days of FIFA 94 (yea we're hardcore FIFA ppl....yes we play Winning Eleven also). So its nice on the eyes too. So theres the sports type buffs. These people would love to watch but to pick up a 10 button controler for the first time EVER in gaming history is a little daunting.
Type 3 are the aunts and what i call cousin-ettes (girl cousins). They love to watch us play HALO ....for about 10 minutes then get bored because running around the same map doing the same thing isnt appealing. Plus they dont know what is going on. FIFA even less, they couldnt care bout that.
So here I am trying to appeal to all of them....the first one is no problem. We play anything once its good, we dont care which console, which watever...like most gamers, once its good we play it.
The second and 3rd I have to try to kill with one stone. So i started my research on Wii games......especially sports and family based games.
Zelda and Mario are out of the question. GREAT games, but they want the quick pickup and play. Drop you straight into the fun, and i mean STRAIGHT into it. NO story, no build up, they dont care for that.
So i looked at Wii sports, which is always a best bet. Then i started looking at the other sports titles, FIFA and Tiger Woods for the Wii.....okay......no. FIFA is interesting but annoying as hell, some of the controls dont work, it took me 20 minutes to do a lob shot when im always faking the shot....and this is in practice mode. I gave this game an HONEST shot but i can see my family throwing the Wiimote to the ground in frustration saying its too hard.
Tiger Woods, same thing. I like the detail and options for your club swings, but man, its just too much to remember for someone who hasnt played games before like this. So scratch that......
okay what else.....I looked at Warioware.....now WOW...that is fun for them to play. I think they are going to enjoy that. They like this kinda thing. The quick pass around kinda game where you are doing funny things and having a great time. Short game i know, but it isnt longevity i care for, its the fun factory. This one has it.
So i decided on Wii sports and Warioware. Any other titles you wish to let me in on ill be happy to take into consideration.
Im an up and comming game developer....finishing my 3rd degree at ITT in Game Design. It helps with my research as well, seeing who appeals and slants to what and why.
I have ONE shot to interesting them in this type of recreation. Half of my family are lawyers, the others are accountants and doctors......needless to say you cant do the "aww c'mon give it a chance" kinda thing with them...you have one chance to pitch your idea and thats it. I take it as a challenge. Again...any help appreciated.
I wonder what future medium I'll have difficulty adjusting to. But right now I can't imagine anything that would have the same level of sheer difference that interactive entertainment has from static entertainment.
I have ONE shot to interesting them in this type of recreation. Half of my family are lawyers, the others are accountants and doctors......needless to say you cant do the "aww c'mon give it a chance" kinda thing with them...you have one chance to pitch your idea and thats it. I take it as a challenge. Again...any help appreciated.
Oh...new to the forums btw
Welcome to the forums.
And dude, I'm afraid you're hopeless... there isn't a single game made for lawyers...
I wonder what future medium I'll have difficulty adjusting to. But right now I can't imagine anything that would have the same level of sheer difference that interactive entertainment has from static entertainment.
I've tried thinking up mediums that I wouldn't be able to comprehend before. it's a fun activity.
My best guess would be some sort of biological medium. Like, something that's sorta living, but isn't, and has a very loose definition of tactile input or something.
I could see myself just throwing my hands in the air at something like that and saying "fuck it, I'll go back to transistors and metal for my media entertainment!"
This thread is making me look down on alot of people, maybe I should stop reading it.
(FUCKING IDIOTS EVERYWHERE)
maybe you should calm down? Who the hell has said anything that could be even remotely infuriating?
I'm totally calm. Capital letters and all that, I mean, I'm throwing emotions onto the internet in an exaggerated fashion.
I just find it insulting that most people look at my hobby like 'it can't provide the sort of depth I can find in a newspaper crossword'. To quote an earlier post.
Basically, if you watch TV you can't say anything about gaming and it's my role in the world to extend a middle finger to those who do.
I understand I sound intolerant, but it's entirely natural and the feelings between me and the other side are mutual.
I recall the first week we had an NES my father would play Super Mario Bros well into the night much to my annoyance( I never got to play dammnit!). Then he just quit. He never explained why and being like 6 I never really asked.
It does sort of bug me.
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
Oh I've tried. I got him one of those LCD Tetris games( it's in heaven now . . .) I've offered to teach him how to play Wii sports( he tried bowling but nothing else) hell when I was in high school I tried to get him to play Mario 64.
The man just doesn't get into it.
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
My dad is a big golf freak, and 2 of my uncles are big into tennis. The rest im sure would like Boxing...im hoping to really make a dent in them with Wii Sports. Its my only hope!
Mind you, sonicretard, just about all media formats gained popularity and were later adopted by the public thanks to pornography. Erotic writings and paintings for one, black and white photographs of naked women, the kinetiscopes had plenty of peep shows, the burlesque plays made theater big for everyone, 'Boogie Nights' implies the VCR wouldn't exist without the porn industry, and the internet is so chock full of porn that it will never die off.
Porn gets people to buy the junk. There is relatively little porn in videogames. Hmmm.
This thread is making me look down on alot of people, maybe I should stop reading it.
(FUCKING IDIOTS EVERYWHERE)
maybe you should calm down? Who the hell has said anything that could be even remotely infuriating?
I'm totally calm. Capital letters and all that, I mean, I'm throwing emotions onto the internet in an exaggerated fashion.
I just find it insulting that most people look at my hobby like 'it can't provide the sort of depth I can find in a newspaper crossword'. To quote an earlier post.
Basically, if you watch TV you can't say anything about gaming and it's my role in the world to extend a middle finger to those who do.
I understand I sound intolerant, but it's entirely natural and the feelings between me and the other side are mutual.
read my post about radical suppression. long story short, without sounding morbid, those views will change in time and those people who don't get it will die off. Just sit back and laugh about it, and pat yourself on the back everytime you successfully predict what happens next.
My dad is a big golf freak, and 2 of my uncles are big into tennis. The rest im sure would like Boxing...im hoping to really make a dent in them with Wii Sports. Its my only hope!
Good luck. Wii Boxing though I've found is not safe in multiplayer endevaors between brothers.
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
Mind you, sonicretard, just about all media formats gained popularity and were later adopted by the public thanks to pornography. Erotic writings and paintings for one, black and white photographs of naked women, the kinetiscopes had plenty of peep shows, the burlesque plays made theater big for everyone, 'Boogie Nights' implies the VCR wouldn't exist without the porn industry, and the internet is so chock full of porn that it will never die off.
Porn gets people to buy the junk. There is relatively little porn in videogames. Hmmm.
I'm afraid you're incorrect. They might have helped, yes, but porn wasn't really introduced into American cinema until around the 1940's, which brought about the Hayes code. The examples I listed before date back to 1915 with Birth of a Nation. Porn does play a role, yes, but people over state it's importance.
And kinetiscope peep shows should really be nothing more than a footnote in cinema history.
My parents still think video games are just like they were in the Mega Drive days. They havent been following the industry and thus dont see where they have come.
Im going to go round there nearer to Christmas, Mass effect or Uncharted or something should show them different.
Like, when they saw the Ratchet ad on TV my father shot me an email asking because it said in game footage at the bottom whether or not that meant it was just a movie you put into your PS3 to watch.
He couldnt understand it was a fulyl realised 3d interactive world.
Its not a knock against them, but he still plays civ 4 and isometric flat games like that because they are more like the games he had when he played games (basically pc games circa 1990s)
This makes more sense the more I think about it. My Mom cannot tell the difference between a 3D N64 game and a PS3 game. It's like a bumpkin who can't tell a fancy wine from a cheap wine after tasting both - they're all the same to her. Compare Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast to Tekken 6 in the arcades - can your non-gaming relatives tell the difference?
Oh I've tried. I got him one of those LCD Tetris games( it's in heaven now . . .) I've offered to teach him how to play Wii sports( he tried bowling but nothing else) hell when I was in high school I tried to get him to play Mario 64.
The man just doesn't get into it.
Same experience here. When I got an NES for Christmas way back when, my dad played through Mario with me. I had a blast with him. He didn't really touch another game for ages. Then he played Sonic 2 with my friends and me, and then same thing. Now he wont touch a video game. It's weird. If anything he mocks them
My folks are boomers, and have played games on and off since I was a kid. Dad plays flight sims and arcade games. Mom plays Popcap games, video poker, etc. Sometimes she gets so into the games that she e-mails me about her high scores. Back in the day, they played LucasArts adventures, Infocom games, and stuff like that together.
Since they are both very busy people, they have never picked up "hard core" gaming habits (at least the way we tend to define those habits). Plus, Mom hates violent media in general, so she wouldn't like most games out there today. Heck, she picked up a PS2 so she could play Katamari, but I haven't figured out what other PS2 games she might like, just because most of them are too violent or take too much time investment. (I really wish Mom had gotten a Nintendo machine instead, but she loved Katamari soooo much.)
I think the answer to this question is more complex than it'd first seem, but I definitely think that part of the reason we have fewer middle aged gamers is the huge number of games aimed solidly at the teens-twenties market. Hell, I'm a hard core RPG fan and enjoy JPRGs, but now that I'm in my 30s I'm getting less tolerant of RPGs with teenaged casts. I want to play games that are relevant to me, and my parents feel similarly. Unfortunately, there aren't as many games with adult sensibilities out there as there used to be, and the ones that are out there are from a limited number of genres (mostly shooters and RPGs) that might not appeal to all gamers.
So really, are my parents and the many people their age who game like them really "casuals", or are they actually a gaming audience that would love to play games that aren't being made these days?
SwashbucklerXX on
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
My folks are boomers, and have played games on and off since I was a kid. Dad plays flight sims and arcade games. Mom plays Popcap games, video poker, etc. Sometimes she gets so into the games that she e-mails me about her high scores. Back in the day, they played LucasArts adventures, Infocom games, and stuff like that together.
Since they are both very busy people, they have never picked up "hard core" gaming habits (at least the way we tend to define those habits). Plus, Mom hates violent media in general, so she wouldn't like most games out there today. Heck, she picked up a PS2 so she could play Katamari, but I haven't figured out what other PS2 games she might like, just because most of them are too violent or take too much time investment. (I really wish Mom had gotten a Nintendo machine instead, but she loved Katamari soooo much.)
I think the answer to this question is more complex than it'd first seem, but I definitely think that part of the reason we have fewer middle aged gamers is the huge number of games aimed solidly at the teens-twenties market. Hell, I'm a hard core RPG fan and enjoy JPRGs, but now that I'm in my 30s I'm getting less tolerant of RPGs with teenaged casts. I want to play games that are relevant to me, and my parents feel similarly. Unfortunately, there aren't as many games with adult sensibilities out there as there used to be, and the ones that are out there are from a limited number of genres (mostly shooters and RPGs) that might not appeal to all gamers.
So really, are my parents and the many people their age who game like them really "casuals", or are they actually a gaming audience that would love to play games that aren't being made these days?
What about games that have no main characters? Like RTS games where you are an invisible cursor building factories and commanding units? Black and White, Medieval 2: TW, Command and Conquer, etc.
Posts
But those collectible card games? I don't even know what that's all about, man. Magic hit just as I turned old enough to drink. Never tried it. The craze passed me by.
And those damn card games are STILL huge, and the kids LOVE them, my son and all his friends play them, and I just don't. Fucking. Get it.
So I might have a Wii and a DS and 80 consoles and a gazillion games and all that crap, but the fact that Yu Gui Yo is Greek to me puts me right on the lame list.
Being a parent is awesome.
He was right, too - anything that lets us not use our memory is bad for us in that sense.
H^5!
So long as we remember what it was like when we were kids, we'll be OK.
Just...you know...don't sleep with your kid's friends to try and be cool.
I'm going to be blunt about this as usual. The reason most older people don't partake is twofold.
Ignorance
Stupidity
Insecurity
As has been covered in this thread well before I saw it, people either think games are stupid and for children (yeah, fuck you people), or they're completely intimidated by the difficulty and complexity and are afraid of looking bad playing them.
The whole "if i'm not good at it right away i never will be, i quit" attitude that keeps people away from musical instruments and the gym.
Heh. My mom (just turned 60) wants to buy one specifically for Brain Age. She also likes Bowling on the Wii.
As for why the boomers don't game, I think TSR has nailed it. You stick with the media you grew up with. Past a certain age we're less likely to adopt new forms of media. For example: E-Books. I'd be willing to bet that our kids think paper books are crazy...
For your own Steam Signature visit https://alabasterslim.com/steam-signatures/
Guild Wars 2: Kendrik.5984
Am I the only person who feels VERY old when they read quotes like this? Who let these young whippersnappers on this board?
*sigh* I guess I'll go back to walking home through the snow with no shoes uphill both ways, now.
For your own Steam Signature visit https://alabasterslim.com/steam-signatures/
Guild Wars 2: Kendrik.5984
As a result, most of the cash spent in the industry through its formative years was spent by (or on behlf of) a younger demographic - which tended to skew the reward for producing a game towards making products that catered to the more adoloscent tastes of that demographic. Thus even as was what possible in gaming grew, most parents were already turned off to the medium, and peeking in on their sons ripping someone's spine out in Mortal Kombat in the early 90s didn't help elevate their low opinion of gaming much.
Even today, there's very little material in games that can compare to the quality of writing or intellectual stimulation that people of the boomer generation can get easily from music, movies, cable TV, or even a newspaper crossword - all of which are familiar mediums they grew up with. When the content hasn't been present for two decades, the cost of entry and required time investment are high, and the control barrier of most modern consoles is as high as it has been, it's not hard to see why most people over the age of 35 just don't bother.
Well, it's not really my idea, but it's a theory I prescribe to and historic data supports. I can't find my paper on my desktop, and I don't want to rummage through my laptop, so I'll just sum it up.
Radical Suppression of new Technology isn't a reason WHY parents don't play video games, it's a study that indicates they DON'T play video games. Or listen to radio. Or write. or any new technology. There are many factors which make up the WHY of Radical Suppression, and since no two people are a like, and no two technologies are the same, you can never definitively answer exactly why they don't. But Radical suppression notes that there are common themes with the acceptance (and unacceptance) of new technology. It's growing pains every medium goes through. The birth of a new medium goes like so:
1. New technology begins with innovators and hobbiests.
In the earliest part of any technologies life, it begins with the ultra dorks, sitting in their basement, tinkering with stuff. The first people who had radio? They were enthusists who built them in their basements to play with. Computers? Modern PCs are pretty much descendants of the (now famous) Homebrew Computer Club out of silicon valley where people would tinker with parts of the Altair - Apple computers comes directly from this. Motion pictures? Well, that's an invention of Thomas Edison who invented his Kinetograph inside his basement-like lab and later inside of the Black Maria. Hell, even writing? Scholars tinkered in ancient chinese culture with writing not as a formal system, but as an experimental art form which grew into something useful.
2. Early adoption/release to the mass
it normally doesn't take long before some hobbiest tries to make money from his inventions, and release them to the mass. They're normally released as nothing more than distractions - something interesting to look at for a while but not with much staying power. Edison took film to the masses with his Kintoscope viewer, which he built into parlors called penny arcades. You could go, pay a penny, and watch 15 or so seconds of something useless, like a guy boxing, or a woman dancing. Early writers would accept money to write people's name in chinese culture. Computers? Shit, there's hundreds of examples... the apple I, the altair itself, and hundreds of other forgotten, nameless relics.
3. Reception
After the new technology is released, the public generally receives it in a couple of ways. This would be the part pertinent to the question of "why don't my parents play video games?" Initially, there is a flock of people interested in just taking in the new spectacle. Simply seeing something new, a new distraction, is enough to at least grab most people's attention, young and old. However, very shortly after, the spectacle wears off, and use of the technology tapers off in layers. Usually the older a group is, the faster they get bored of the specticle and walk away. The commonly accepted theory as to why older groups leave the spectacle first is simply because they've had more time in life to gain other hobbies. So, say when television was released... after a while, seeing early programming proves dull, so the generation before returns to their previous passion or interest - radio. Very rapidly, the new medium loses steam, never reaching full out rock bottom, but coming close. At this point in the mediums life, it's not about what it does - it's not an entertainment form. It's still just there, so it's not content that'll keep people around.
4. Decline and new market
Typically, the last generation to remain with a technology is children. Children latch onto new mediums and are slow to let go. So once all the adults are removed, the medium belongs to children. In cinema, this era would be called the Nickelodeon era - a period where kids could scrap up a nickle to go watch a flick. And for a while, that's where the medium remains - a kids play thing. Think about it - with computers you had a wave of advanced computers... only to see them drop off and suddenly we have Commodore 64s or Atari STs - computers which looked more like video game systems. Radio saw the birth of serial dramas like the lone ranger or Ozzy and Harriet. It's kids who get pandered to, and thats where the new market begins. Technology improves, and it becomes a full fledged business, trying to take money from kids. So the medium improves - movies move from 15 seconds to 60 to 10 minutes to 30 minutes to a full hour to 3 and a half hour long epics. And it's mainly done for kids. True, there are still some older people early on who never lose adoption, and they are occasionally pandered to (like with DW Grifith's birth of a Nation) but those are oddities, and they are the exception.
5.New perception and maturation
As the new medium becomes more and more popular with youth, perception from older generations generally declines. "Vulgar" is a word a wealthy socialite used to describe one of the first talking films - the Jazz Singer. In the eyes of the older generation, it isn't a new medium to be taken seriously - it's a crude child's play thing. Radio, for example, was the childrens crude alternative to going to a full on symphony or orchestra. However, as time goes on, a big shift occurs. The kids who adopted and fell in love with the medium back when it was vulgar? They grow up. And before you know it, THEY are the ones who are the adults who say what is or what isn't a medium. For all intent and purposes, modern film began around 1900. Film wasn't taken seriously as an art form until around the 1920's and 30's when films like Griffith's Intolerance, Hitchcocks Blackmail, or Fleming's Gone with the Wind started appearing, giving birth to a new term, "Film art." 20-30 years after it's inception. In other words, film became art when those kids who were tinkering with penny-arcades grew up and became 20 and 30 year olds themselves, and turned their distraction into art. But even then, the older generation still is reluctant to buy in. At this point, it's evolved too far, and they cannot jump in anymore. So to the old generation, the perception that they're just kids toys lingers simply because they can't understand it, and they don't really want to either.
6. Rise of an empire, decline of a generation
As the new medium becomes more and more accepted, it starts to become formalized. What was once something that kids played with as a hobby becomes a multi-billion dollar industry with a lot of clout. Film saw the rise of the Studio system in the 1950's. Radio saw the literal radio empire, when David Sarnoff created his "Empire of the Air" which would later turn into the monolith RCA. Computers... well, do I need to explain that one? And all the while, as these hobbies turn into media machines, the older generation, the one who originally walked away, begins to dwindle. It's simply natural - humans die. They begin to fade out, and become less prominent until, eventually, everyone who opposed the new medium and considered it beneath them, is gone and all that's left are those who took it seriously.
As I said, this isn't a rule, or a law, or anything. Just a very well accepted study of technological acceptance. It's been noted several times through history. And without opening a can of worms, after studying this for a while, I simply sit back and laugh when people tell me games won't be a legitimate art form, or that they're kids stuff. Note that I purposely didn't include any examples of how this is happening in gaming when describing Radical Suppression of new Technology... I'll let you draw the parallels yourself. Really, if you know anything about the history of gaming, it should be quite eye opening how 1:1 gaming has fallen into the Radical Suppression model.
uh, social studies suggest that he was wrong. People today retain more knowledge than at any point in history. Our mental capacity is the same, but we simply retain more knowledge.
But man, that's a whole 'nother topic that would take pages to talk about. Just forget I said anything.
I'm 21, my parents were young sluts.
My parents still think video games are just like they were in the Mega Drive days. They havent been following the industry and thus dont see where they have come.
Im going to go round there nearer to Christmas, Mass effect or Uncharted or something should show them different.
Like, when they saw the Ratchet ad on TV my father shot me an email asking because it said in game footage at the bottom whether or not that meant it was just a movie you put into your PS3 to watch.
He couldnt understand it was a fulyl realised 3d interactive world.
Its not a knock against them, but he still plays civ 4 and isometric flat games like that because they are more like the games he had when he played games (basically pc games circa 1990s)
I've been trying to show my parents how far games have evolved. It's been interesting. My mom and dad actually played the sega master system quite a bit when I was younger. Normally, my player 2 would be my dad. Around the time the saturn came around, my dad stopped playing. My mom stopped earlier than that.
Their reasoning? "There's not enough gameplay!" I sat my mom and dad down in front of bioshock and mass effect this thanksgiving and explained to them stuff I'm learning in school about narration as a whole. My dad got it, I think - I believe he's grown to understand that video games aren't always about simply doing an objective anymore (although some are) but can be vehicles of narration. I explained to him the plot of Metal Gear solid and he said that sounded interesting. I showed him me playing through the first part of bioshock (with the plastic surgeon) and mass effect (up through feros) and he said he thought they had awesome stories, he just doesn't have the dexterity to play them. So they're an untappable source for him.
My mom on the other hand... "Why don't they just make a movie! I wanna play that game with the gun for the sega (she was talking about gangster town)" "Why do you have to sit through stuff if it's a game, I thought you were supposed to be playing something." "Is this a movie?"
Just beyond her, I guess. She's from a completely different world, though. Completely computer illiterate... can't use a mouse.
When I showed bioshock to my parents ages ago, they were onboard with the shooting of things, but couldnt understand why the game had a plot, or characters or all the audio logs and cutscenes. to them it seemed like you said, a case of why not just make a movie.
Most of these people I am going to see are parents themselves who don't play games. I have myself a Wii, PS3 and a 360 and am carrying home the Wii (have a 360 at my parents house as well) to hopefully encourage some family gameplay.
First off I wouldn't mind some advice. My family as far as gaming goes is divided into 3 types. One is the kind that I know best, my cousins and I (big family yea) have been gaming for over 20 years...had lots of fun and have moved up to the COD 4 and HALO games. When I come home for the holidays only 2 games are in the the 360 console, HALO and FIFA. So thats a no brainer there.
The second type are the parents, the uncles and aunts. the uncles love to watch us play FIFA....they really get into it with the game since the visuals for the game have really amped up since the days of FIFA 94 (yea we're hardcore FIFA ppl....yes we play Winning Eleven also). So its nice on the eyes too. So theres the sports type buffs. These people would love to watch but to pick up a 10 button controler for the first time EVER in gaming history is a little daunting.
Type 3 are the aunts and what i call cousin-ettes (girl cousins). They love to watch us play HALO ....for about 10 minutes then get bored because running around the same map doing the same thing isnt appealing. Plus they dont know what is going on. FIFA even less, they couldnt care bout that.
So here I am trying to appeal to all of them....the first one is no problem. We play anything once its good, we dont care which console, which watever...like most gamers, once its good we play it.
The second and 3rd I have to try to kill with one stone. So i started my research on Wii games......especially sports and family based games.
Zelda and Mario are out of the question. GREAT games, but they want the quick pickup and play. Drop you straight into the fun, and i mean STRAIGHT into it. NO story, no build up, they dont care for that.
So i looked at Wii sports, which is always a best bet. Then i started looking at the other sports titles, FIFA and Tiger Woods for the Wii.....okay......no. FIFA is interesting but annoying as hell, some of the controls dont work, it took me 20 minutes to do a lob shot when im always faking the shot....and this is in practice mode. I gave this game an HONEST shot but i can see my family throwing the Wiimote to the ground in frustration saying its too hard.
Tiger Woods, same thing. I like the detail and options for your club swings, but man, its just too much to remember for someone who hasnt played games before like this. So scratch that......
okay what else.....I looked at Warioware.....now WOW...that is fun for them to play. I think they are going to enjoy that. They like this kinda thing. The quick pass around kinda game where you are doing funny things and having a great time. Short game i know, but it isnt longevity i care for, its the fun factory. This one has it.
So i decided on Wii sports and Warioware. Any other titles you wish to let me in on ill be happy to take into consideration.
Im an up and comming game developer....finishing my 3rd degree at ITT in Game Design. It helps with my research as well, seeing who appeals and slants to what and why.
I have ONE shot to interesting them in this type of recreation. Half of my family are lawyers, the others are accountants and doctors......needless to say you cant do the "aww c'mon give it a chance" kinda thing with them...you have one chance to pitch your idea and thats it. I take it as a challenge. Again...any help appreciated.
Oh...new to the forums btw
(FUCKING IDIOTS EVERYWHERE)
Okay, that makes me feel a little better. I wonder if my son will say the same thing about me? I was 22 when he was born.
For your own Steam Signature visit https://alabasterslim.com/steam-signatures/
Guild Wars 2: Kendrik.5984
22 is an adult.
16 and 19 is not.
So he probably won't.
Not to mention his vocabulary might not be so casually vicious.
Welcome to the forums.
And dude, I'm afraid you're hopeless... there isn't a single game made for lawyers...
maybe you should calm down? Who the hell has said anything that could be even remotely infuriating?
Thanks Sonic....im looking into that game, as well as Trauma Center. I have a feeling lawyers and doctors may get a kick out of it.
I've tried thinking up mediums that I wouldn't be able to comprehend before. it's a fun activity.
My best guess would be some sort of biological medium. Like, something that's sorta living, but isn't, and has a very loose definition of tactile input or something.
I could see myself just throwing my hands in the air at something like that and saying "fuck it, I'll go back to transistors and metal for my media entertainment!"
I'm totally calm. Capital letters and all that, I mean, I'm throwing emotions onto the internet in an exaggerated fashion.
I just find it insulting that most people look at my hobby like 'it can't provide the sort of depth I can find in a newspaper crossword'. To quote an earlier post.
Basically, if you watch TV you can't say anything about gaming and it's my role in the world to extend a middle finger to those who do.
I understand I sound intolerant, but it's entirely natural and the feelings between me and the other side are mutual.
It does sort of bug me.
Oh I've tried. I got him one of those LCD Tetris games( it's in heaven now . . .) I've offered to teach him how to play Wii sports( he tried bowling but nothing else) hell when I was in high school I tried to get him to play Mario 64.
The man just doesn't get into it.
Porn gets people to buy the junk. There is relatively little porn in videogames. Hmmm.
That is, until we got our first computer. that good ole' Pentium 200MHz with 32MB ram PCI Video card, and Windows 95 was the shit.
read my post about radical suppression. long story short, without sounding morbid, those views will change in time and those people who don't get it will die off. Just sit back and laugh about it, and pat yourself on the back everytime you successfully predict what happens next.
Good luck. Wii Boxing though I've found is not safe in multiplayer endevaors between brothers.
I'm afraid you're incorrect. They might have helped, yes, but porn wasn't really introduced into American cinema until around the 1940's, which brought about the Hayes code. The examples I listed before date back to 1915 with Birth of a Nation. Porn does play a role, yes, but people over state it's importance.
And kinetiscope peep shows should really be nothing more than a footnote in cinema history.
This makes more sense the more I think about it. My Mom cannot tell the difference between a 3D N64 game and a PS3 game. It's like a bumpkin who can't tell a fancy wine from a cheap wine after tasting both - they're all the same to her. Compare Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast to Tekken 6 in the arcades - can your non-gaming relatives tell the difference?
Same experience here. When I got an NES for Christmas way back when, my dad played through Mario with me. I had a blast with him. He didn't really touch another game for ages. Then he played Sonic 2 with my friends and me, and then same thing. Now he wont touch a video game. It's weird. If anything he mocks them
Since they are both very busy people, they have never picked up "hard core" gaming habits (at least the way we tend to define those habits). Plus, Mom hates violent media in general, so she wouldn't like most games out there today. Heck, she picked up a PS2 so she could play Katamari, but I haven't figured out what other PS2 games she might like, just because most of them are too violent or take too much time investment. (I really wish Mom had gotten a Nintendo machine instead, but she loved Katamari soooo much.)
I think the answer to this question is more complex than it'd first seem, but I definitely think that part of the reason we have fewer middle aged gamers is the huge number of games aimed solidly at the teens-twenties market. Hell, I'm a hard core RPG fan and enjoy JPRGs, but now that I'm in my 30s I'm getting less tolerant of RPGs with teenaged casts. I want to play games that are relevant to me, and my parents feel similarly. Unfortunately, there aren't as many games with adult sensibilities out there as there used to be, and the ones that are out there are from a limited number of genres (mostly shooters and RPGs) that might not appeal to all gamers.
So really, are my parents and the many people their age who game like them really "casuals", or are they actually a gaming audience that would love to play games that aren't being made these days?
What about games that have no main characters? Like RTS games where you are an invisible cursor building factories and commanding units? Black and White, Medieval 2: TW, Command and Conquer, etc.