Not just another "too many games" rant
I was struck by a comment Chris Remo made on the recent Conference Call, to the effect that when he started in the hobby, he was more-or-less blissfully unaware of all the games that were available, but now thanks to the internet constantly feeding him new information, he feels pressured to play (and usually abandon) many more games. When he started, a game like Half Life could easily sit for months in the background of his life.
This reminds me of the theme of Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice" book where he makes the point that the seemingly infinite variety of choices we have actually creates stress and erodes our psychological well-being.
I know that for me, personally, the desire to keep up with what's current has created at least a small amount of stress and guilt over the pile of unfinished games and multiple systems that clutter my space. I suppose this is true of just about any hobby. I also assume that most all of us with a job and enough disposable income fall prey to this syndrome to some degree.
I have two questions: 1) is it just that the internet and other media have made us more aware of the games, or is there actually more product? (I tend to think the latter) 2) would we, as gamers, actually be happier with fewer choices?
Seems pretty obvious to me there's a whole lot of more product than before, and I doubt we'd be happier with fewer choices.
--
Come Play Team Fortress 2 with the cool kids! GWJ's Stan's Lounge Pub: 63.209.34.11:27015
7-8pm central time, every day. It's free! =D
I can tell you from personal experience that less choice is usually a good thing. You tend to appreciate more that which you have and certainly have less stress in choosing your options.
(@)
The growth of the industry means there is more product and more awareness of product.
If games were fewer in number but each game was better in quality, I'd be happy. But the Theodore Sturgeon "90% of everything is crap" rule dictates that situation will never come to pass.
Steam: MacHeath
Just gonna give a shout out to Barry Schwartz, because he is awesome and because he was very nice to me when I was in high school.
Mex, the idea is that if you give people a few things to choose between (say 6) they will make a choice and been fairly happy with it. If you give them more choices (say 20), they will feel uncertain about their choice and be unhappy about it. Some people also just give up and choose randomly because they feel overwhelmed. I'd suggest that many people easily and quickly pair down the "What games do I want to play?" to a handful and make their choices from these. This is what I do. Other people who find a larger number appealing, will feel more stress as you describe. That's my understanding anyway. It's an interesting idea.
without the larger numbers of games there would be less innovation or at least slower innovation. I think it's worth it. You choose what to stress about in life.
It's Mister Wind to you. SteamID: mrwynd Starcraft 2: mrwynd.954 How to record a video game
But there are so many things to stress about. Choosing what to stress about it stressful.
If you have the time to be seriously concerned that there are too many games worth playing, then you lead a charmed life, brother.
Also, the stress of having too much to choose is far superior to the alternative. It just means there is so much out there to cater to so many varying tastes.
Take television, for instance. People who complain about the quality of television are, quite frankly, delusional. I believe I'ld be much happier currently stressing about whether or not to catch up on episodes of The Wire, Scrubs, Battlestar Galactica, Mythbusters, Burn Notice, etc. then I would be back when my options were Full House or COPS and that's about it.
I would think the first rule of PR is to ignore forum people, because they vacillate between crazy and liar. - Elysium
I was just thinking about this the other day, but for different reasons. When I was a kid, I was still pretty aware of the gaming scene. I read gaming magazines, talked about games with my friends, and generally new what big titles were coming out soon. However, I had extremely limited funds available. My only income was a small weekly allowance and the occasional $10 I'd earn from mowing lawns, so I couldn't afford to buy a new game very often. As a result, I had to prioritize games to make sure that whichever one I bought next was the game I wanted the most. Also, I had to milk as much enjoyment out of each game as possible, since it could be months before I saved up enough to buy another one.
Now that I have a job and a steady income I can pretty much afford to buy or rent any game I'm interested in. As a result, I have around 5 unfinished games sitting at home, and yet I'm already thinking about buying more. My past self would be extremely jealous of the selection of games I have available, but I'm starting to think that I enjoyed each individual game a lot more when my access to new games was so limited.
Steam id: muttonchop
I wonder if one's response to this question is related to age. Those of us over (or, like myself, well over) thirty remember a time when choices were limited--either by income or availability--while second (and now, third) generation gamers have never known anything but a plethora of games and systems. Those of us of a certain age had some memorable, revelatory experiences with games that we held onto for weeks or months and I'm willing to bet that many now middle-aged gamers got into the hobby because of it. I wonder if the current generation of gamers (teen and younger) view games has having the same sort of magic or if they are just another choice in the endless stream of technically adroit forms of entertainment. This is where our limited choices may have been a "good" thing.
I think there are alot of upsides to less choice in general. For me, more choice isn't a clear cut win-win.
There is a point at which more choice becomes illusory.
I think I would be just as happy with less choices in games. On the other hand certainly more choice in say football games would make me happier.
Overall though do I care if there are 20 fps games or 10? Not really. I can't play half of them anyway and so I'm sure there would be enough to play.
I think there is a wider variety of choices today in some ways. Back in the day I don't remember $10 downloable games for instance.
But also back in the day they could put out alot more games in a shorter period of time. How many Ultima games were there? How many Super Mario Bros games were there in a short period of time? So in some ways quantity has decreased.
Also certainly when the extra choice merely becomes knockoffs or copycats of the best choices then does more choice help the consumer or just confuse the consumer?
And my own take on the internet and gaming is it does ruin the experience to follow games too closely before they are released. I definitely follow the industry, but I try to stay out of following specific details on specific games ahead of time because that tends to be all hype.
There's really a number of factors in play. To simply take it from a single slice, I believe that consumption of gaming has changed dramatically in a relatively short time (10-15 yrs?). There likely is a larger number of games: there are a larger number of consumers so it makes sense there would be a larger number of products. But there is also a shift in the mindset of gamer. For the "core" it is an expectation that gaming milestones will be met. To keep up with the Joneses, it is expected I will have a score card of recently played games that run complimentary to the mass of gamers around me. While it is good for the industry, I'm not sure this need for feed is optimal for my gaming experiences.
Everything that starts out as a cultural revolution ends up as capitalist routine.
-David Brooks
I think the main thing that people complain about is that for every one of those shows you mentioned (many of which are on more expensive specialty channels), there are ten garbage reality shows that only appeal to the lowest common denominator. I do remember when there was a larger number of high quality content available, when networks like A&E played dramas rather than Family Jewels and TLC played documentaries instead of decorating shows and stuff about tattoos. Or when MuchMusic played...music. There's still great stuff out there but I think the proportion of that stuff has diminished.
Some would argue the same about games though I think it is less the case. There's no doubt that yearly, barely iterative sequels are all the rage now but there are innovative gems that do shine through, even with the increased risk such gems take. With the current means that independent developers have to distribute product, you also have a much greater chance of making something small and cool and having it reach a wide audience whereas you can't make a TV show anyone will care about without a large budget. I definitely think an overabundance of choice is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is great to have tons of stuff out there that appeals to everyone's tastes. On the other hand, massive oversaturation is one of the things that caused the big crash of '84 and having too many voices in the choir at once often means that some of the most talented ones can't be heard through the rest of the noise.
Staats wrote:
Geek Bravado | Twitter | Flickr