Gamers Against The Industry – Tyler Vs. Social Gaming & Richard Garriott!

Alright before I get started about all of the controversial news from D.I.C.E. there are a few matters to address. First I respect Richard Garriott (a.k.a. Lord British) as much as I respect Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright, and Cliff Blazinski. This is to say that I respect him as one of the reasons I’m currently into gaming. The second thing to mention is that if you don’t know D.I.C.E. it’s a gathering of some of the greatest minds in gaming, and then they talk about… you guessed it gaming. If you haven’t yet seen the interview on G4TV with Richard Garriott or Jesse Schnell (also brilliant) I recommend you go the very bottom of this page immediately and list to what these two brilliant minds have to say.

Now with the formalities out of the way let me get to my third and final point I would like to make. What the hell are these two grown men acting so insane about? I understand social gaming is here, and I also understand it’s not going away anytime soon. Furthermore I would like to agree with Jesse Schnell on the subject that “Social Gaming” will probably creep its way into everyday life. They are essentially running to the land that seems safe currently, which if you’re unaware is social gaming. This social gaming is also known as advertising funded gaming, Facebook, and to a degree iPhone / iPod Touch gaming.

I’m not opposed to social gaming, I personally enjoy gaming on my iPhone and it has recently surpassed my Nintendo DS and PSP as my primary portable gaming platform. Here is the one comment I would like to share about my iPhone gaming habits. They either revolve around traditional games I could play on any console, or the games I play are traditional arcade style games. Social gaming may currently be a lucrative opportunity, but a news flash for everyone in the gaming industry is that most of this “untapped potential” has already been tapped. I would like to use an example of this based on habits of people I know.

Many people currently play Facebook’s social games; the interesting bit of information is that they currently play the few games that they are already addicted to. Does this mean that the market is currently 100% tapped? No, it simply means that the current state of social games is at a saturation point from which it will not expand at a rapid rate. Does this mean Richard Garriott or Jesse Schnell are wrong with their insight into social gaming? No, but it begs a question even to someone like myself. Are these minds being visionaries or are they simply too blind to see the reality? The answer to this is left up to personal opinion and discussion, on top of seeing what the future holds for gaming.

I would like to personally call out Richard Garriott and Jesse Schnell. You may be wondering why I would do this to people I admire. The answer is simple; I believe that they are acting afraid of something they don’t fully understand. Some of you may have a grasp of where I’m going with this, while others may be chanting “blasphemy” for calling out some of the most “brilliant” minds in gaming.

I don’t believe the future of gaming lies in some kind of Holy Grail of social gaming as many people seem to think. Is social gaming here? Yes, is it going to stay? Yes, is it the only future for gaming? Over my dead body. While it is fairly easy to be caught up in a magical sense of wonder by both any speech by an intelligent person, there is simply one thing that proves all of their theories wrong to me.

If you are like myself (a typical “core” gamer) how many social networking games have you played? One, two, or maybe none. Regardless of the actual number there is no way these games have replaced such experiences as Uncharted, Halo, or even games like Castle Crashers and Fat Princess. Further proof of why social gaming is not going to take over has already happened. Does everyone remember when Nintendo released the Wii? Does everyone remember the massive shock that happened when it outsold every current generation console? I’m sure you do, but regardless of these facts the Wii hasn’t had a large impact on how we play games. Most people that bought the Wii play it on occasion and have no interest in playing something like God of War. For these people gaming is like Halloween, fun once in a while but not a lifestyle like it is for us “core” gamers.

Yes you can argue that Microsoft and Sony are releasing motion controls and that is proof enough, but you are wrong. Both companies are releasing these new control systems to achieve two objectives. The first is to capture the audience that Nintendo has already captured with the ease of use of the Wii (good luck Microsoft and Sony). The second less obvious reason is to help push technology forward and create a sense of amazement, and maybe a few new ways for us to interact with out games. Microsoft is doing this through requiring no controller, Sony is doing it through showing a motion controller that could work in traditional games.

I believe the true future of gaming does not lie within social gaming as it is currently displayed today. Some practices may carry over from these methods of distribution, and even things like Project Natal may give us new and interesting ways to play new games (without the internet we wouldn’t have Xbox Live or World of Warcraft). Imagine being able to download a game over Xbox Live or PlayStation Network and being able to play the game before it is fully downloaded because it is streaming to your system. This in no way replaces what makes a good game or replaces any method of distribution other than retail, which is perfectly fine because no one enjoys buying their games at Gamestop and no one enjoys working in a Gamestop. The future of gaming actually lies in looking to the past.

If you look at the last gaming systems most people played (other than the PlayStation 2) it was the Super Nintendo and the Sega Genesis. Oddly enough the same people that played the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis are comfortable with the iPhone and Nintendo DS. This isn’t due to the method of delivery, but rather it is due to the complexity of gameplay and control mechanics. The Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Nintendo DS, and iPhone all have two major components of control and gameplay in common. Simplicity and similarity are the two magical “S’s” of gaming that seem to have been forgotten in the age of 3D and HD.

I don’t remember playing a single game on any of those systems that was successful and had a drastically different control scheme from another game. Every game I remember on the Super Nintendo had “A” as jump, “X” as attack, and some subtle variation on the remaining buttons that were irrelevant because you could beat the game using almost exclusively “A” and “X”. The same thing goes for the Sega Genesis, and Nintendo DS. The iPhone is where some confusion can take place. The iPhone similar to the touch interface with the Nintendo DS is so intuitive because of design choices for the majority of recent games, remember when the Nintendo DS first came out most games were awful.

While I personally could go on for another 5000+ words or in person for another 5 hours on this subject, I will leave you with a few final sentences. As much as I respect the two men previously mentioned and their opinions, I feel they are acting like scared school boys. They are both however correct that we should all pay attention to social gaming and learn how it can help traditional gaming. I will give up on traditional gaming when Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright, Cliff Blazinski, among others jump ship. I 100% believe that the future of gaming is to do what Twisted Pixel, The Behemoth, Hello Games, Klei Entertainment, and many other independent studios are doing. The trick is to make a game that as much as I can enjoy it, my girlfriend who doesn’t play games can sit down and have fun. The magic of gaming isn’t in FarmVille. It’s in Mario.