How to get 'casual' players into 'hardcore' games. Or, stop shooting me so much.

One thing that always amazes me is how big time publishers can be so out of the loop.

I often wonder whether game publishers forget that their triple A products are not yet ubiquitous pop culture staples in the minds of the world at large. Sure, games make more money than movies or music, but they're also significantly more expensive at retail. Halo 3 was on the cover of Time magazine, but that's one game: how many movies or TV shows have graced the cover of Time? More than one, that's for sure. You can sell a hell of a lot more copies of Bejeweled or Tetris, or even any given DVD release of a popular movie, than you can Gears of War, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. Publishers need to realize that if they want to reach a wider market than their traditional audience of 'core' gamers, then they need to change how their products are perceived by the world at large. Because, as it stands, many of the ways in which their games are produced and structured are instrumental in keeping triple A games in the province of the hardcore, and the hardcore alone.


What ways? What do I mean? Well, lucky for you that I'm here, huh? Hey publishers, there are a few things you should keep in mind for your next executive brainstorming session, and I'm just grumpy enough to lay it out for you now. So without further delay, Four reasons why your triple A games are selling worse than any given Wii or DS shovelware title. Pay attention.

1) The most common vehicle for player interaction in triple A game releases is violence. This one is easy. Try and imagine your Grandmother playing Counterstrike, Left 4 Dead, Grand Theft Auto 4, or Fallout 3. It isn't going to happen. In fact, I'd bet money that you couldn't get your parents, or even some of your friends to touch those games. Those games, like horror movies and superhero comic books, present themselves as intimidating and visceral experiences, and are therefore a niche product. You don't really interact in a meaningful way with anything, and you don't build a relationship with your character and the world he/she inhabits. Instead, you shoot stuff. Alternately, you might blow it up. Violence has it's place, and I personally think that the games listed above are excellent(except for GTA4, which is the single most overrated game I've ever played), but their presentation automatically narrows the audience they're going to be able to reach. In fact, other than Nintendo first party titles and Little Big Planet, I'm hard pressed to think of a triple A console game that doesn't use violence as the primary vehicle for player interaction. If gaming outside of the Sims, avatar-based social networking clients and puzzle games is ever going to reach the mainstream audience that publishers so desperately want to reach, then they need to find new ways of allowing players to interact with the world they're gaming in.

2) World and character design in most games is juvenile and unsophisticated. I'm sure there are now a legion of people emailing me with screeds about the incredible design of such and such a game, or how totally awesome the guns are in Call of Duty, but I'm speaking broadly. Many games have elements that are cohesive and attractive, but there's usually something in there that reveals a shocking lack of depth.

Take Assassin's Creed for example. The world is incredible: a very faithful recreation of the middle east in the time of the crusades. NPC costumes are very close to period perfect, and the environments are too. Then, you have your character, a secret assassin, and the rest of his secret assassin brotherhood, who are all dressed up in identical secret assassin superhero costumes. Hey Altair, just a heads up: you might want to maybe change into something less conspicuous, although it doesn't really matter. If a guard gets suspicious that a guy dressed like he's been sprung from the pages of Justice League America might be up to something, you can put his suspicions to rest by walking slowly and praying. I guess folks were a lot dumber in the past.

Another relevant example is Gears of War, where everyone looks like they've been popping anabolic steroids and ugly pills instead of daily vitamins. Or we could look at Japanese games with their belts and zippers and ridiculously upsized weaponry. If you like, we could discuss how cliched the designs in Oblivion are. I could go on all day. That isn't to say that everything needs to look 'real' or 'unique', or that fanciful or exaggerated design can't be mainstream. What it does need, though, is to look and sound believable and cohesive.

While we in the hardcore gaming community are able to take that kind of stuff in stride, focusing instead on how good the mechanics might be, casual folks are going to judge a triple A game based on how they've traditionally experienced media they're more familiar with: a unified and believable visual world. People who aren't traditionally gamers are used to interacting with their media visually and aurally. If a developer can nail that aspect, like Infinity Ward did with Call of Duty 4, then getting someone to try the game is that much easier.

3) Competitive multiplayer has an insurmountable barrier to entry. Have you logged on to Halo 3 or Call of Duty 4 lately? Or better yet, Counterstrike? Quake 3? Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix? Burnout? Gears of War? If so, is your sense of self-worth intact? Did you get called 'fag'? How about 'bitch'? I bet that, unless you're a hardcore gamer, you had a terrible time and will never touch the game again. In fact, I'd bet that your entire view of competitive gaming is tarnished. I'd bet that you'd probably stop buying those games and invest in some LCD football devices. Not really conductive to broadening the market for gaming, huh?

This particular point is tricky, because it ties heavily into the point about violence being the primary vehicle of player interaction. Nearly all triple A games that have a primary focus on multiplayer use violence as their benchmark for success, and that attracts a certain kind of player. Specifically, douchebags and adolescent males. Grandma does not want to get 'pwned' by a douchebag or adolescent male. She wants to chat over Uno or Scrabble. I'm just saying.

There's a reason that games without the heavy focus on violence and aggressive multiplayer, like World of Warcraft and online poker, have attracted more people than any given triple A console release: they're non-threatening. World of Warcraft has a particular focus on social interaction and cooperation, while online poker is both readily identifiable and popular outside of games. Experienced players and newbies alike can interact and have fun without constantly being reminded of how comparatively unskilled and bitch-like they are.

Steps have already been taken in this direction: Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, and Resistance 2 have a heavy cooperative element built into them, which has proven to be both popular and a strong factor in sales and reception with gamers of all stripes. Of course, that isn't to say that Halo 3 and COD4 have no place in games of the future: that would be ridiculous and blindingly stupid for me to say. Rather, there needs to be a viable and easy to understand alternative to the deathmatch-style games that currently dominate the market: there's a place for that style of game, and they continue to sell well, but it can't be the only kind of multiplayer. If gaming is to evolve into a genuine force in popular media, publishers should continue to move in the direction of co-op gameplay and place more importance on matching up players of equal skill in their games... And maybe tone down the violence, too.

4.) Interaction with gaming worlds is often too sophisticated for short term enjoyment. Little Big Planet is awesome, and so is Flower. Both of these games allege to be simple, easy games that even your mother can play. They are liars.

Developers forget that 'casual' gamers are not versed in the language of gaming in the third dimension: most developers are hardcore gamers, after all. The more complicated you make your interface and controls, the fewer people will be interested in playing your game. That's a pretty simple equation, but it's one that developers often forget. Little Big Planet appears to be a simple 2D platformer at a glance, but the methods for interacting with it's world are deceptively complicated and taxing. There are separate buttons for each of your arms, the D pad controls your face, and there are three separate 'planes' that your Sackboy can switch in and out of. That's a lot to remember for someone new to gaming, and that's before we get to the insanity that is the level creator. Even most hardcore folks stay the Hell out of there.

Now, I don't think that casual gamers are too dumb to play complicated games. That's a pretty ignorant belief. What they are is intimidated by the world they're being asked to play in. World of Warcraft has done it right: it ramps up the difficulty and complexity of its gameplay at the right level for people unused to playing such a game. It gradually introduces its more complex elements, and allows people to discover them at their own pace. Anyone is capable of understanding complex controls and interfaces, but you have to give them a reason to learn them, and you have to allow players time to do so without feeling threatened or stupid.

Just a few thoughts.

Now... I'm going to go play some Street Fighter. I never said I didn't like competitive unsophisticated violence, after all.