The Wii-U was a commercial flop, with only 13 million units shipped, yet everyone continues to love Nintendo and all of their franchises. With the Nintendo Switch coming out soon this could be Nintendo's last chance at hardware if this console doesn't succeed. If this console fails, will Nintendo become the next Sega and become focused just on software instead of hardware?
An interesting topic. I believe we already have an article exploring what the Nintendo Switch needs to do in order to succeed, but I do think it's at least important to address that. Perhaps one can give examples of Sega's own failures or trace their own history - can any other major comparisons be made between the two? Or will Nintendo simply bounce back from any potential failure of the Switch because they are so well-loved due to their brand or franchises? What would it even mean to become the "next Sega"? – karebear78 years ago
I haven't been into Nintendo products for awhile now, but I was surprised that the Wii-U flopped.The parallels with Sega are a little scary, though I would say Nintendo has much stronger legs to stand on than Sega did, This is a great topic. – MikeySheff8 years ago
Hi! I wrote an article about the Nintendo Switch and what factors might determine its success but I think there is plenty of room to discussion the idea of Nintendo getting out of the console making game in a new article. Maybe focusing on pros and cons of the move from making both software and hardware to just hardware would be a good fit for this topic. What is gained and lost by Nintendo no longer making hardware and focusing just on software. – SeanGadus8 years ago
From a literary perspective, are video games worth studying, or should you put down the controller and pick up a book?
There is certainly something to be said for the level of artistry that games have achieved in recent years. This justifies intellectual criticism of these new developments and, in turn, justifies criticism of previous "less artistic" developments for a better historical understanding and appreciation of the form (e.g. we don't study The Sneeze as a masterpiece of cinema, we study it as landmark event in the history of film; so too will be the case with Pong). However, I think it is high time that Video Games Studies truly becomes a field of its own. Your use of the word "literary" feels inaccurate, which may be a contributing factor as to why many literary scholars are quick to reject Video Games as a form, since they see it as a low-brown infringement on their domain. At the moment, most academic work surrounding Video Games has been contained in Film (as its closest relative with regards to media) and Theatre (as its closest relative with regards to interactivity) Studies, but it strikes us as being too different from either of these to real belong within them. Only with a Department of its own can the form (and its societal appreciation) truly begin to flourish, as was the case when Film Departments began to appear in the 1920s. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I think that a interesting way you could pursue this topic is to discuss the Video Games as an art/art form debate. Because if video games are art, then the argument can be made that they deserve to be studied on the same level as art or film. Additionally, I think that thinking about how much of video games are "intentional" could be an interesting angle to pursue. For example, the creators the video game make a conscious decision on art style, what moves a player can do, how the game plays, and what perspective is the game in (3rd or 1st). These are conscious decisions made by the creators, similar to how authors make conscious decisions about how they construct a narrative such as 1st or 3rd person, what information the reader knows about and what is hidden from the reader. – SeanGadus8 years ago
I agree entirely that Video-Games should be studied as an artistic medium; I personally find them to be a somewhat more interactive medium than conventional art-forms though, which leads to a sort of rift between studying games and, say, film studies.
Nonetheless, they should be examined, if not just for the artistic choices made by their creators but the story choices as well. Most games today have a defined storyline or plot in them (though some don't, which is fine). However, the way a developer can portray that story can vary widely across games: some games, such as the Legend of Zelda franchise, give the player a relatively deep pool of lore to sift through just by playing the game. However, other games, such as Cave Story or Superbrothers Swords and Sworcery have a more subtle way of giving the player the story, and may leave parts up to us as players to interpret. There are also games like FEZ and The BInding of Isaac, which have purposefully cryptic storylines which the players must explore for themselves, giving them a greater sense of accomplishment when something finally "clicks" than if they were merely given a predetermined plot point. – bwmaksym8 years ago
Literary studies cannot remain so rigid. For one, the concept of "literary worth" is rapidly changing as self-publishing options are becoming more and more profitable and accessible. Therefore, what deserves to be published (and therefore read) is subject to change. At the same time, other forms of media have been considered "unworthy of academic study" for generations. At first it was film, then it was pulp and genre fiction, and now it's video games. Video games are not literature, nor are they film and therefore need a specific set of tools to analyse their critical and philosophical significance. Yet, they still provide us with a message, they still use visual and audial aids to immerse us in reality, and they still often follow some sort of narrative structure. To think that video games are undeserving of the title of "art" or too banal for intensive literary study is absurd. – X8 years ago
Video games have come a long way and now the technology is very developed, as we can see how hyper-realistic the graphics are and how incredibly intelligent the AIs are. Putting aside people who develop games and who game for a living, I wonder if video games as a sheer form of entertainment actually provide any important values to a heavy gamer's life–by heavy gamer I mean someone who spend most of their time gaming not for profit or work. Also, in this context, I'm referring to non-educational games, so not the games that is meant to educate kids, but games that is meant to entertain, such as DOTA, Far Cry, Infamous Son, Counter Strike etc. Take Counter-Strike: Global Offensive for example, some kids play it night and day, and all they do is shooting people. One could argue that such time can be spent on reading, an activity that provides not only entertainment, but also important values.
Just for the sake of bouncing off ideas with people, another argument I could think of is that, even though some games might have educational values, they probably don't improve things like literacy as much as reading a book does. I also keep thinking that if a person play violin 24/7, they would become a virtuoso, where as if they play games 24/7, no matter how educational the game is, I doubt they would obtain any actual skills.
Now before you think I'm an anti-gamer, I want to clarify that I'm not. I have played lots of games. I just wanted to occupy one side of argument so that it might be easier for other people to take another (or agree on my side).
This topic sometimes occurs to my mind when I see people just play games 24/7 (again, excluding professional gamers and game developers); they don't care about other things other than their games. It sometimes seems to be like an addictive mind drug. Such things don't really happen to people who enjoy other forms of entertainment (music, movies, sports etc), which is what makes the games a different kinds of entertainment than those, in my opinion.
Take away video games from one's life, I would tend to think it wouldn't do much harm to a person (assuming that they are not addicted already), but if you take away other arts from someone's life, I think that would actually do some sort of damage to them. So how valuable is gaming to one's life? Is gaming just pretty much wasting time? If you were a heavy gamer, how would you justify all your time spent on gaming?
Do you want to focus on extreme gamers (i.e. the 24/7 gamers you described above) or just gamers in general, even the casual ones? I've been playing video games nearly my whole life and have successfully finished many. While I'm not what you might consider addicted (on average I'll play at most 4 hours of a game in a day, but I'll stop gaming for months if I have a heavy school load), I think I'd definitely lose something if they were taken away. I love gaming for the immersion it gives me into a new world, like a book or a movie - I love the escape of it. If you took away my movies or books, I'd be very angry for the same reasons. If you want to think of games as wasting time, then what about books with bad writing/fluffy or meaningless stories, or movies that are just action-packed with zero plot? Every medium has its flaws/problematic culture and I think by just looking at a violent game like Counter-Strike as an example of video games being a waste of time, you lose the games that are actually educational (there are games geared just for children after all), that operate much like books or movies by showing people a brand new world and offering them an escape, or that are just a really fun way to waste time. Wasting time is not, after all, always a bad thing. – karebear78 years ago
Is there a way that you could narrow this topic down? It is really interesting. It just seems like a monuments task, and almost like a research project. I would concur with the above comment on focusing on specific gamers like extreme gamers, or it can be a comparison with casual gamers. – AbeRamirez8 years ago
Get Ready! Nintendo is about to launch its first mobile game on December 15th. This game is Super Mario Run, a platform specifically built with mobile controls in mind. The game will start out free to play, but at some point, you will need to spend $10 to buy the entire game. This is a extremely different business model than games like Candy Crush and Pokémon Go, which have micro transactions built into the game, which you can spend as much or as little on the game as you want to. These micro transactions will shape how fast and effectively you progress in a mobile game. Super Mario Run's business model flies in the face of what is the norm in mobile gaming. My question is this: is a $10 charge too much to pay for a mobile game? And is this one time fee a more fair business model for consumers than the Free to Play, Pay to Win model that has dominated mobile?
This would be a good topic to write about as the game is releasing. It highlights a key component of the game at a time when the game will have the attention of the mobile market.
I like the idea of the game. I would want to have a test trial to be able to decide if I think the game is worth spending $10. Through the free trial period I would make my decision. I do think that is expensive, but I think its reasonable comparing to other options from other mobile games. I'm iffy about it. I guess it'd have to be a really good game, for myself to pay $10. - Nads – Nads438 years ago
I personally think $10 is tooooo much – Haruskie28 years ago
Could explain why you think $10 is too much. It might help however ends up writing about this topic to get a clearer insight into how people perceive this product. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Could you explain why you think $10 is too much. It might help however ends up writing about this topic to get a clearer insight into how people perceive this product. Sorry for the spelling errors in the message above... – SeanGadus8 years ago
With the announcement of The Last of Us: Part 2, there's been a spur of excitement in the gaming world. This topic would explore the differences and similarities between The Last of Us and other survival-horror/zombie games, and what aspects made it become such a household title among gamers. What did it do differently, what didn't it change, and how did the narrative affect audiences and players? In essence, what made The Last of Us so memorable to players, and what new avenues did it open for its genre? (The author who takes this topic may even wait for Part 2 to release and add a comparative section between both games, adding to how Part 2 affected the gaming community as well as its predecessor).
The Last of Us is a game that has touched so many people, and can definitely make the case as to why video games should be considered an art form. You should explore why The Last of Us does that, and explain how the second can improve on the first one. – cbo10948 years ago
TLOU is different from the regular cliched zombie game because it focuses on the characters and their relationship, not on the zombies. The zombies and the setting are merely backdrops to Joel and Ellie. If this were simply a story about Joel and Ellie and their relationship, and the zombies were taken out entirely, I think it still would've been just as good of a game. I could go on and on about why this game is amazing and why Naughty Dog is one of the best developers out there, but I think that's the gist of it. Telltale's "The Walking Dead" (especially season 1) is the same way. I cried like a baby at the end of that one. I couldn't care less about the zombies. I just wanted Lee and Clementine! – Christina7 years ago
Many companies are seizing the opportunities presented by the growth and accessibility of virtual reality technology. The pornography industry is producing immersive experiences and violent games will feel more real than ever before. What are the limits of these technologies, especially for commercial use? Are we disconnecting people from the ethics of their society by immersing them in social constructs designed around amoral decisions?
Another interesting angle the writer could pursue: is there any psychological evidence that links immersive simulations like this with a decrease in sensitivity? I.E., does shooting a person or raping a person in a VR make a person more less psychologically disposed to committing those crimes? Might participating in this kind of play change the way they subconsciously view these crimes in society, or empathize with victims of these crimes. Basically, will we need to be screening for VR hobbies in our jurors in the near future? – ealohr8 years ago
In light of the underwhelming flop that was No Man's Sky, we have to start asking ourselves; "Are we putting too much faith in indie games?". For half a decade we've seen indie games skyrocket in popularity. However many gamers tend to forget that simplicity is always a recipe for a successful game.
I think No Man's Sky was a game with a lot of confusion around not just the game itself, how it was marketed, and how it was presented to consumers. This being said, I don't necessarily think that No Man's Sky's controversy and issues represents a lot of the indie game industry. Also, I'm not sure how your comment about "simplicity" related to indie games. I think many indie games use very smart formulas to succeed, for example, Shovel Knight was designed as a love letter to retro games. So I think your topic needs a little more tweaking or clarifying prior someone writing about it. – SeanGadus8 years ago
You have a good point Sean I think I'm having a little difficulty putting my point into words. What I mean to say is that just because indie games are made with more love doesn't mean they're always good. – JacksonAP8 years ago
That is a great point, look at mighty number 9 that game was supposed to be the next mega man and instead was a huge disaster according to most critics and fans. – SeanGadus8 years ago
On the one hand you have NMS which did use false marketing. On the other, you have Rimworld which has seen massive praise. Just an idea you could make it about how games in general have been plagued by false promises with crowdfunding failing to deliver on developers promises on gamer's expectations. You could analyze how much of the problem is consumer expectation versus failure to deliver by devs. – NickC8 years ago
Does DLC have the power to change the way that a game is perceived ? During my initial play-though of vanilla Dark Souls II, I felt severely underwhelmed by the base game and disappointed with the bosses. However, as the Dark Souls II DLC began to trickle out, my overall perception of the game became more positive due to the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed playing through the newer areas. Now that Dark Souls III is about to release its first DLC in about two weeks, is it possible that it can change the way that the base game is looked at or presented?
Yes, because in today;s society the DLC is something that is a must for all die hard gamers in a video games experience. Many people might not agree to this, but many games such as Call of Duty, Destiny, Minecraft, and GTA 5, would be boring to jump on to every day and play the same thing day in and day out, without the addition to any new content. – dff50888 years ago
