As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Genre Aversion, or:
Stupornaut
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A couple weeks back Kotaku put up a comment-solicitation post asking people what their least favorite game genres were. I kind of expected a lot of flaming and back-and-forth sniping, but what I got was a lot more illuminating and, for me, kind of dispiriting: something like 60-%75% of the commenters expressed a severe distaste for either sports or racing sims, if not both, frequently invoking the assertion that "if I wanted to I could do that stuff in real life" argument (something rightfully mocked when someone brings it up re: Guitar Hero/Rock Band).
Maybe it's the predictability of the answers and the fact that I am a huge racing game dork that would rather not have the future of the genre dictated by people who say stuff like "tuning is boring, gimme turtle shells instead lol," but this kinda bothered me for some reason and made me think about the prejudices people have against certain genres. What I'm wondering is: is it better to be a well-rounded gamer who leaves their preconceptions aside and tries things they might not like every so often, or does it make more sense to stick with what you know and have a better chance of ensuring that you'll spend the majority of time in an area of gaming you're a lot more likely to enjoy? And why is it always sports and racing games, anyways -- is it something specifically due to the game mechanics, or is it more of a cultural thing? Hell, I never gave much of a damn about football (especially football "culture"; why should anyone care about offseason trade talk and fantasy football in goddamned June?) but still had fun playing NFL 2K5. And I'm pretty sure nobody's any good the first time they play a sim racer like Gran Turismo, but enough people cared enough to try and improve at the game before outright dismissing the genre and now there's a big geek-out wave of anticipation for Gran Turismo 5 and a really strong Forza Motorsport 2 community. More than enough people have fun with those games, but why is the antipathy towards them so vocal?
tl;dr: kinda wondering how gamers' tastes for/against specific genres develop and evolve and how hard it is to break that hard-wired sense of taste after it sets in.
EDIT: augh I'm stupid; I probably should have finished thinking of a thread title
Maybe it's the predictability of the answers and the fact that I am a huge racing game dork that would rather not have the future of the genre dictated by people who say stuff like "tuning is boring, gimme turtle shells instead lol," but this kinda bothered me for some reason and made me think about the prejudices people have against certain genres. What I'm wondering is: is it better to be a well-rounded gamer who leaves their preconceptions aside and tries things they might not like every so often, or does it make more sense to stick with what you know and have a better chance of ensuring that you'll spend the majority of time in an area of gaming you're a lot more likely to enjoy? And why is it always sports and racing games, anyways -- is it something specifically due to the game mechanics, or is it more of a cultural thing? Hell, I never gave much of a damn about football (especially football "culture"; why should anyone care about offseason trade talk and fantasy football in goddamned June?) but still had fun playing NFL 2K5. And I'm pretty sure nobody's any good the first time they play a sim racer like Gran Turismo, but enough people cared enough to try and improve at the game before outright dismissing the genre and now there's a big geek-out wave of anticipation for Gran Turismo 5 and a really strong Forza Motorsport 2 community. More than enough people have fun with those games, but why is the antipathy towards them so vocal?
tl;dr: kinda wondering how gamers' tastes for/against specific genres develop and evolve and how hard it is to break that hard-wired sense of taste after it sets in.
EDIT: augh I'm stupid; I probably should have finished thinking of a thread title
Stupornaut on
0
Posts
It's partly a question of aesthetics, too- I don't want my games to look like the real world. The real world does that nicely enough for me.
It's an opinion. As far as game development goes, most popular opinion gets the most games. There's still weird simulations out there, like all those Russian submarine simulators.
I also stay away from most RTS games. There's just too much going on for me. I can do turn-based, but I don't have the speed to work all that shit in real time.
[ ] practice a lot
[ ] absorb a lot of new information
[ ] buy an expensive peripheral
to enjoy the full experience. racing sims require all three. I'm way too lazy.
I mean if you like racing sims though, sweet. Have a ball.
Also, it would seem that these are games that have passed the point of refinement. There really isn't any place you can go with sports games except to add realism. The rules are permanently in place, you can't throw the stadium into space or put it underwater or anything. When developing a new sports game, the best way to be different is to improve the graphics and add realism. For the people who enjoy making everything eye-bleedingly realistic, these games do a fantastic job. But for people like me who don't care so much about realism and how many turns they should put on each bolt on the forward-right wheel to maximize tire-to-ground torque or how many sit-ups their self-made sports minions need to lift in order to qualify for certain positions, that level of micro-management seems boring. I watched a couple of my friends playing either Madden '07 or '08 and resolved never to play another sports game after seeing them spend more time in the menus shoving around individual points on players than actually playing the game.
I suspect that there's some bias in that assessment, though. For instance, that post is only going to been seen by people who frequent that particular board. Also, those kinds of posts will typically draw only people who feel very strongly about a subject, and most of those will be those who feel negatively about it. Statistically speaking, people are likely to believe things they read whether it's their opinion or not. They may not be terribly aware of it, but people who just read through several pages of arguments against racing and sports games will often find themselves agreeing. As an example, when the "console wars" escalated and people were arguing between the Xbox, Gamecube, and PS2, there were several people in my school who were very vocal about the PS2 and made up patent lies about the system that they voiced whenever they could. This lead to the misconception amongst my schoolmates that the PS2 had the best graphics of the 3 systems, a belief they grasped to even when shown the same image of a game on each console.
It's especially an issue because it's basically the same thing over and over again, unless you have a "combat" version of something, like the Mario Kart series.
But actual racing? It's basically a fast tour with annoying buzzing noises.
Sports? Man I those guys don't even use hammers on people.
The fact that it and sim racing are the most stagnant genres this side of vertical SHUMPS and 2D fighting games doesn't help either. Besides the two breath of fresh air sports games on the Wii (Madden '07 and PES) I can't really tell much of a difference from the modern day games and those on the Dreamcast or early PS2.
Hell, I even try to watch FPS LPs and they bore the crap out of me.
Nice edit.
comparing racing games to fast pokemon snap is the dumbest thing.
--
SoaL: Yeah, I was mostly associating them based on the level of boring me to death. :P
Same with racing games, not the most exciting thing to me unless it's in the future and has combat or some such. Racing sims are even worse, because they're even less exciting and even more tedious in between races
Basically to me these are niche genres that appeal mostly to people already really into either sports or racing
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
I'm not even sure they understood the question. Maybe they are thinking of sim mode on Gran Turismo 4 or something. I don't even tweak my car in GTR2, just use a downloaded setup for my car, and drive about 30 minutes each in the practice, qualifying, and race for each track in the season. It's loads of fun, very challenging, but doesn't require any "boring" technical tinkering in the slightest.
It doesn't mean that Forza games shouldn't be made, but I'm sure as shit not going to buy them.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
Do you like RPGs?
Other than that, I can play and enjoy just about anything else.
I certainly don't feel a need to be a "well-rounded" gamer. Games are a hobby and a diversion, and if I have to force myself to like a game, it's no longer entertainment. The only people I would expect have a need to actually play outside the box are those who compete (a la Omegathon) or those who want to be involved in the industry, as in game designers, reviewers, etc.
Sports or (true) racing games have neither so I'm not interested. I love fidgeting around with stats etc in RPGs; as long as I feel it'll help me beat the next boss or something so that I can further the storyline.
It's hard to explain the reasons, and you all know why you like what you do
Simulation-type games do work if the setting is interesting though - for example I love strategy games like the Civilization and Total War series.
Casual sports games like Wii Sports is ok when played together with other people (preferably also when drunk) though, but let's face it - lots of things are more fun when you're drunk.
What he said.
Soccer games, for example, are an eleven-man tactical affair. In real life... yeah, not so much. You're one guy, and people rarely do what you want them to do (unless you shout a lot. Which I do. But it rarely helps). In games the difficult parts are almost done for you, in exchange for the bigger picture.
The video game versions are actually a lot closer to televised football than the real thing. Only with the added ability to make the little men do what you want. Which is nice when you are a Cardiff fan.
(The new 'be a player' mode in Fifa is closer to the real thing, I suppose. In that its frustrating and horrible to play online unless you're fond of defensive midfield.)
Maybe american football's different and everyone's a quarterback in real life, but as both a fan and player of the sport, soccer games offer a completely different experience and challenge to the real life equivalent.
Given the choice, yeah I'd probably chose real life every time, but that doesn't mean I don't have time for the Football Managers, and the Fifas, and the Pro Evos of the world.
That's right, Legend of Zelda.
I'm looking at you.
Does it also rule out, say, Pac-Man? Or Tetris?
This. Though I'm ok with new versions. I never really got playing sports games by yourself (maybe Madden, but I never got into that period.) But get 4 people in on those games and you can play for hours.
Yeah, these kinds of casual games bore me very quickly.
This has always struck me as the perfect translation of the classic music preference "I like everything but country and rap." I think it's very much based on cultural preferences, combined with a lack of specific knowledge about the differences within each broad genre. You can find a lot of people who'll pick out the differences between, say, Super Mario Galaxy and Ratchet & Clank: Future, but won't really stop to think about the differences between GT5 and PGR4.
It's kind of a catch-22: In general, people are interested in games that they're good at playing, and they're not interested in games they're not good at playing. But it's only by playing enough games in a genre that you can really differentiate games while still being under that same umbrella. If you don't like the first game or two you try, or you're just not good at them, you'll be more prone to say "I don't like racing games" instead of "I don't like sims, I prefer looser arcadey driving games like Burnout or Outrun."
While I generally dislike sports games because I don't follow many sports, I do harbor a secret obsession with golf games. Tiger Woods is really a very in-depth RPG if you take the career mode: You make a character and start with shitty stats and equipment, and as you play and win games/beat opponents, you earn money and experience to make your character better. The player also gets better at the physical act of playing. You earn your way into tournaments and shoot for winning everything. The last one I played, '06, actually has a nice balance between linear and nonlinear progression, because you can tackle groups of challenges ("quests") in any order you want.
And racing sims are definitely an acquired taste—and I've found their fans tend to be insular in the way that fans of shmups and fighting games are—but I don't know if I could live in a world without EXCITE TRUCK.
I'm more of an arcade racer than a sim one, and like many others here, I simply cannot play sports games.
Puzzle games bore me to tears, and any online competitive shooter I play I find either incredibly shallow or not worth the time investment.
However, I am willing to waste hours scheming world conquest, so it's not a matter of patience.
I find I do get tired very quickly with having to chase scores. I just don't care enough to try and have a bigger number than the next guy, even if the game is great. This is a shame, because Geometry Wars is a great game, I just don't care enough to play it.
Gran Turismo and Forza are about where you get to the playable phase. Learning the tracks, the turns, when to accelerate or when to take the braking zone a little late to grab the inside of a hairpin is exactly the same thing as memorizing patrol patterns in Metal Gear, exactly which animation frame to jump from the knee to the arm on the 3rd Colossus or learning the timing of the god awful moving platforms in any umpteen billion mario/platformer games. Its just a different set of stat memorization to know your Ferrarri can outbrake a Viper than to know your Articuno using Ice Beam will get a massive 6x attack bonus hitting a Dragonite (seriously, who hasn't considered Gran Turismo to be the Pokemon of racing games?)
At that level of playing, when the game becomes a chore, I check out. I can barely race Forza 2 online because, well, I only have so much time to devote to tuning a car. I kick some serious ass at Nurburgring, but I don't stand a chance against the people that tune.
When you get to the Need for Speeds, Project Gothams and Grids...thats when its a game. You can screw up, take turns late, show off and be impressed with your own lack of control. Grid expects you to wreck. Codemasters put one of the coolest damage models together, jus so you could take that chicane at 180, lose control and go bouncing down the wall, ripping your car to shreds and flipping up in the air....then using the racing equivelent to the Sands of Time, go back a little and take the turn a little smarter, survive, and win. Brilliant.
I hate uber sim, I hate sports games, I hate platformers and am starting to develope a dislike for JRPGs. Console FPSs are overrated, RTSs are too frantic. Puzzle games are boring, and adventure games are either exctinct or have jumping puzzles. Basically...I hate everything!
"How pathetic, they must really want to die flying those Z-95 Headhunters"
"Historians exercise great power and some of them know it. They recreate the past, changing it to fit their own interpretations. Thus, they change the future as well." - Leto II
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games