We Need a New Term for Video Games
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The "we" here seems to only apply to the author, and people to whom "my own avid video game playing ended in the era of BrickBreaker for the Blackberry". This is not to judge/gatekeep the author, but they're talking about something they don't know.
> Pokémon Go, Fortnite and Among Us are video games, but they are also hangouts for friends, pop culture moments, opportunities for political organizing and more.
So was Call of Duty 10 years ago, MMOs 20 years ago, etc. There's nothing new here, apart from games getting more popular (and thus being considered "pop" culture).
> I know that games aren’t all stimulating paragons of human social connection, but it feels as if something exciting is happening.
I wouldn't agree here. I have fond memories of moments shared with friends on games, it feels a bit like we lived our own adventure, not unlike a trip really. For example, let's take Minecraft. Sure, our minecraft server doesn't "exists" in physical space the way a city exists. But we lived here. Real people spent real time and had real interactions, that left "physical" traces.
The article should be something like "I discovered that my views of video games was really limited and incomplete compared to what's really happening", or something like that. There's no shame in not knowing everything, and sometimes a new way of looking at things from the outside can be precious. But for that, you have to recognize your own limits, instead of pretending to be seeing a new social phenomenon.
> many newer games blur the lines between video games and other types of social activities. Pokémon Go, Fortnite and Among Us...
I agree that video games are reaching a wider audience now, but the big online multiplayer networks have been active for a couple decades now. For years for me, catching up with long distance friends has often been over a video game. It's a low social stress situation when you have something to focus on and talk about, but can also catch up on what's been going on in each others lives.
> "I’m excited for this development, even though my own avid video game playing ended in the era of BrickBreaker for the Blackberry."
So it's likely she has not followed what games were, are or will be through the decades that turned them into major cultural phenomena. I wonder why she felt compelled to write a piece about something that is not part of her universe when there are so many journalists out there with plenty of experience...?
I mean, it's one thing if you decide to write about niche stuff being an outsider; but trying to discuss (and influence) terminology of a field that is, by any metric, completely mainstrean... just seems superfluous
The arcades of 20-30 years ago were a place to meet friends and make new ones, playing games, competing.
Then we'd meet at each other's houses for FIFA/NBA/NHL championships, to play Street Fighter or Mario together, etc.
Then there were the LAN parties, where friends would take their desktops with big CRT monitors so they could share a low-latency LAN for multiplayer gaming, whilst being able to talk to each other.
It's really just that much of this is now online rather than in person, like many other activities.
It would be great for that journalist to do some deeper research on demographics of people playing games and if there are correlations with demographics and what types of games and platforms. I am going to guess there is a large untapped market for socialization capable games that aren't shooter/killer/conqueror types of games.
Streaming and watching streams is incredibly popular among Gen Z (and earlier generations to a lesser extent), and that creates different dynamics. There are more interactions in the vein of a streamer interacting with fans, rather than a bunch of people collectively playing a game together -- though there is still that too. These streaming channels also have communities that build up around them, so people watching are interacting with each other as well.
In some sense, gaming has moved from being solely an "entertainment-by-playing" industry, and added a level of "entertainment-by-watching" as well. I have fond memories of watching my friends play a game (as we passed the controller back and forth between levels/deaths), sitting on the floor in front of the TV with each other. But streaming communities focused around watching others play games feels like a new social phenomenon to me.
Don't think I see any inflection points, but that's just me.
We all know those games sucked (Neopets took a while before they added those Flash minigames and even then, those minigames weren't really ever that great). We stayed for the community and social environment. Even back in the 90s / early 00s, there were lots of "games" which were primarily a social experience rather than a gameplay experience. Maybe Club Penguin and Eve Online also fall into this category...
I never got into MUDs, but some friends of mine described (some) MUDs as glorified IRC chat rooms where you play a bad game with friends. I expect this "social game" has been going on since maybe the 80s.
I played MapleStory around ~2006 USA because the European servers weren't available. Good times, no, really.
Social gamification could be the name. So, name it, and then ban it before all our lives become a rat wheel with micro transactions that trigger micro dosis of endorphins. Facebook likes or Twitter shared are still coarse approaches at what it can become.
> This is the kind of games Las Vegas would be proud of.
IIRC, the reason why Las Vegas slot machines don't do this is that its illegal for slot machines to do this.
In contrast, the Japanese Gachapon were not subject to gameplay rules, and have grown quite elaborate. They're still random-chance slot-machines at heart, but they do a decent job of hiding it.
Similarly, a "Gacha-game" is a game that has a slot-machine at its heart, but does a good job hiding it.
-------
Example Gacha-games are Fate/Go, Fire Emblem Heroes, etc. etc. You get a random hero to join your team (and everyone knows who the best heroes are)... but the hero selection process is fully random. "Encouraging" players to sink money into more and more tries to get the hero they want.
Gachapon are capsule vending machines, which unlike slot machines always spit some kind out of a prize out of them.
Except when you get a 1-star hero in (insert mobile game here), that "prize" is virtually meaningless.
I guess you're right in that there's "always a prize". But that doesn't mean that every prize is worthwhile.